December 14, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
529 
O, crispum is fond of light and air, and, therefore, does not 
grow in the dense woods, but on the edges of openings, where it 
can receive sunlight and enjoy the breezes. This is why it seems 
to follow the little streams and gullies in the mountains which 
apparently split the forests open. Jt grows on the thick limbs and 
crotches of large trees, such as the Chinonas and Melastomas, and 
the trees upon which these Orchids are found are cut down 
without mercy, and the plants are torn off and shipped away. 
Cattleya citrina. 
Relative to the remarks upon Cattleya citrina, by “ C.” 
(page 505), I would like to state what has been my experience with 
that fastidious Orchid. I once had charge of some plants of it 
fresh from the nursery, evidently only newly placed in small pans. 
The pseudo-bulbs were perfectly upright, but as the plants com¬ 
menced to grow, the growth described a half-circle, and when 
about 1.^ inch long were something like a half-moon. The 
following year they resumed their old habit of growing downward. 
—F. Tugwood. 
Ix reply to your correspondent “ C.’s ” inquiry (page 505), with 
regard to the downward position of Cattleya citrina, my 
experience is that it grows much stronger when placed in shallow 
pans, and consequently produces finer flowers and more freely. 
Although placed in pans in the upright position, the next growth 
made will assume its natural position downwards. When so 
cultivated, the growing point should be placed close to the 
edge of the pan, the growth is then unimpeded, and its pretty 
sweet-scented flowers are seen to the best advantage.—W. H. 
Stephens. 
Your correspondent “C.” (page 505) asks about growing 
Cattleya citrina. It grows naturally downwards ; if it be placed in 
a basket with the pseudo-bulbs upright, it soon grows over the side. 
I have more than a hundred, all in perfect health and vigour, 
some of which I have had more than twenty years. They are 
growing on a great variety of materials, all nearly equally healthy, 
whether on cork, several kinds of bark. Oak root. Teak baskets, 
stages made of split pieces of Oak or Laburnum, Acacia, bundles 
of Yew branches tied together, or others also. I think perhaps I 
like the Yew branches better than anything. Of course, I generally 
tie them on with the pseudo-bulbs pointing downwards. I never 
tried them in a pot with peat and sphagnum; but I should think 
there hardly could be a worse way of growing them. Like most 
Mexican Orchids, they thrive in an airy greenhouse or vinery, but 
not in an Orchid house.—0. W. Strickland. 
JUDGES JUDGED. 
As you say your pages are open to any explanation regarding this 
matter (page 503), I shall like to give my opinion. I do not say the 
Judges were correct or not in their awards, but as to the charge you 
make against the Committee not appointing competent Judges is not 
correct. I know for a fact that the Judge appointed for this particular 
class is one of the best in the south. But what of that ? He telegraphed 
to the Secretary the night before the Exhibition, stating his inability to 
act. I think you and your correspondent ought to have known the 
whole truth about this matter before giving your verdict of guilty 
against the Committee.— Berks. 
[We certainly did not pronounce the Judges guilty of incompetence. 
We carefully refrained from doing anything of the kind. The Com¬ 
mittee are wholly and solely responsible for that verdict. The only way 
of ascertaining the “ whole truth ” was by inviting information, and we 
are obliged by the quota supplied by “ Berks.” Perhaps he could 
supply more.] _ 
The article respecting this in last week’s Journal is very instructive, 
and shows very plainly that committees cannot be too careful in 
selecting judges, that, of course, is taking it for granted that one 
“ expert” is more than equal to the three judges in question. A similar 
case came under my notice during November. The exhibition was not 
a small one, as may be seen when I mention over £30 were awarded in 
one class for cut blooms. Two sets of judges were appointed, one pair 
to adjudicate on the cut blooms, the other the miscellaneous plants, as 
well as the groups of Chrysanthemums. Of these latter there were nine, 
and these were classed “ for effect ” and “ quality of blooms.” The 
judges who awarded the prizes to the groups, considering their work 
finished, left the exhibition. It was then discovered that the certificate 
of the N.C.S. should have been awarded to the best group in the show. 
The judges (one of whom was an expert) who officiated on the cut 
blooms were asked to make the award, and they proceeded to do so. 
The certificate fell to a second prize group, much to the discomfiture of 
the secretaries and committee. This plainly showed some persons had 
erred in judgment. To get out of the difficulty, the certificate was 
ultimately awarded to a non-competitive group of well grown plants. 
The mistake apparently was in having really good “ all round ” and 
practical gardeners who were not Chrysanthemum experts as judges 
for the groups. I would like to add the committee were apprentice 
hands, this being the society’s second year of existence.— Visitor. 
Unless committees of flower shows are always prepared to submit 
disputed awards of judges to some court of appeal it is most obvious 
that the old formula, “ the judges’ decisions are final,” must be adhered 
to both in spirit and in letter. A graver violation of their own law 
could hardly have been conducted than was that act referred to in your 
leader of last week. That a committee should first deliberately 
select certain persons to act as judges at their show, men whom 
it would have been a complete condemnation of the competence 
of the committee, if incompetent themselves, and then to practically 
admit that they were incompetent by employing “ an expert ” to re¬ 
point the flowers in the disputed class, was one of the most inconceiv¬ 
able insults ever inflicted on judges, that is to say if it were done 
as alleged by your correspondent. I do not know who the judges 
were. 
But who was the “ expert,” and what special qualifications did he 
possess that were not possessed by the Judges? Is it a case where a 
Committee obtains the assistance of local men on the cheap, 
and finds that such help is dear in the long run ? or is it a case of 
securing the best man obtainable at reasonable charges ? This should 
be made known, although neither between the former would justify 
the Committee for one moment in withdrawing confidence from their 
Judges after the awards had been made, and in inflicting upon them the 
grossest of insults. 
It is, it must be held, imperative in every case—except where 
Committees thoughtlessly admit of appeals to some other authority than 
the regular Judges—that the decision ol these officials must be final, 
and without appeal, except, of course, in some proved case of fraud, 
which is of a very different nature. To open the door to indiscriminate 
appealing would be to evoke all the wildest and fiercest passions of 
human nature, and to convert flower shows into pandemoniums. 
But, after all, the “ expert’s ” pointing proves nothing. It simply 
shows, if anything, that it is utterly impossible to establish any code 
of pointing that shall in all cases be infallible, for the simple reason 
that the code has to be in all these cases determined by diverse people, 
I will wager that if a dozen “ experts” had followed the Judges in this 
particular instance that no two would have pointed alike. If anyone 
doubts let them test a case next season, and note the result. It is so 
easy to see, did we admit the process of “ judging the judges,” that we 
should be landed in chaos, whilst in theory I see no reason whatever 
why the points awarded to each flower might not be made known to the 
exhibitors, and specially the full number of points awarded to each 
exhibit. I fully understand that in practice it might lead to an intoler¬ 
able nuisance. It is a degradation of exhibiting that some dissatisfied 
exhibitors should hang about their exhibits and wrangle and complain, 
and exhibit so much of the worst aspects of human nature. This sort of 
thing it is feared the publication of individual pointing would largely 
increase. So much yet has to be learned from Dean Hole’s Kose book’s 
adjuration „ 
Be eacli, pray God, a geatleman.” 
—D. 
Your leading article (page 503) deals so fully with the matter of 
exhibitors’ protests, that little else is left to be said. Year after year I 
am the more convinced that judging by points where the stands of 
blooms are close in merit is the only just method of awarding the 
prizes. 
At an important show where I was engaged during the last month 
valuable prizes were offered for twenty-four Japanese blooms. At 
least five of the competing stands were close in point of merit. After 
the public were admitted a well known Chrysant’nemum judge remarked 
to me after well examining the exhibits in this particular class, “ I am 
sure the blooms here are close to-day, would you mind telling me what 
difference separated the first and second stands ?” “ Certainly,” I 
answered, and turning to my notes replied, “ 3J points.” The question 
and answer occupied less than one minute. How could the difference 
be noted so quickly by any other method ? Some judges favour what I 
term the comparison method. Instances have occurred this year where 
exponents of this method have officii.ted, and upon being appealed to 
civilly to state the difference between certain stands, replied curtly, 
“ That’s my business.” 
It cannot be said that the blooms placed first by the “ expert ” 
(page 503) were of high excellence, or else this individual pointed them 
low. Forty-eight Japanese blooms of good quality should give at least 
195 points, and when extra good in all respects twenty points more 
would not be out of the way high pointing. My opinion of awards 
made is that the adjudicators should be in a position to give a 
reason for their decision, and when this can be clearly done seldom are 
the judges at fault. It is those persons who can give no tangible 
reason why one stand of blooms is supsrior to those in another that make 
errors.— E. Molyneux. 
Possibly those who are always “judges ” will be those who trouble 
themselves the least about your leader. Yet, as a rule, judges are, I 
believe, strictly honourable men ; but though honourable men, they are 
men, and therefore fallible. Those who, like myself, occasionally act in 
that diflflcult and by no means to be desired capacity will perhaps think 
more about the incident therein mentioned. 
