December 8, 1892. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
497 
SHOWING AND JUDGING 
HARDY FLOWERS. 
-x- : 
M OST opportunely came the notes on the above subject (page 433), 
and whilst thanking the contributors I should like to mention 
a grievance that concerns me more, and is of deeper importance 
than whether we shall “ bunch ” or show single flowers ; or, as to 
whether we shall show distinct species or only distinct varieties. 
Before alluding to. my grievance I may perhaps be permitted to 
suggest a way out of the first difficulty— i.e., whether we shall 
show in bunches or singly. Delphiniums, Pteonies, Phloxes, 
Eryngiums, and other large kinds might be effectively shown 
singly ; but what is to become of Aquilegia glandulosa, Geums 
montanum and coccineum, Coreopsis lanceolata, Papaver nudicaule 
and its varieties, and a host of other beautiful flowers, dear alike 
to exhibitor and non-exhibitor ? Might we not adopt a tube of 
one size—say, 1 inch or 1| inch in diameter, for amateur classes, 
and a tube not exceeding 2 incher for trade growers ? This 
would check the system of crowding a huge mass of flowers 
together ; it would also secure a uniformity in the size of the 
bunches, and place each exhibitor on an equal footing. 
Now as to whether species or varieties shall be shown. In my 
opinion the latter might with advantage be adopted, and in reply 
to “ Devon,” on the page alluded to above, I should certainly not 
be inclined to withhold points from a stand containing two Phloxes, 
two Delphiniums, or two Lilies, providing they were dissimilar in 
colour. We have some lovely shades of light blue amongst the 
Delphiniums, and also some glorious deep purples. Can we afford 
to “ Boycott ” either the one or the other ? The Phloxes, too, 
embrace a wide range of colour, the crimson scarlets forming a 
great and pleasing contrast to the pure whites, and white with 
rose or crimson centres. Would not two varieties of Phloxes, or 
Delphiniums of different colours, be better than too many yellow 
composites ? 
The subject I ask your help upon is this, What terms shall we 
agree to use in the schedules to indicate what we require to be 
shown ? Are we to stick to the term herbaceous, or shall we allow 
the term “ hardy perennial ” to appear, and thereby allow the few 
hardy flowers which are not truly herbaceous to be shown on the 
same stands ? Carnations—and of border Carnations there are now 
some gems—Antirrhinums, Dianthus, and Pinks would then enrich 
our collections, and we should run no risk of disqualification. I 
have often been asked for a definition of the word “ herbaceous,” 
the proper definition of which, I believe, is “ a perennial root that 
produces an annual stem.” Nothing has led to so much jarring as 
that mystic word herbaceous. At one large and old established 
exhibition Liliums are excluded, at another all bulbous plants of 
every description, whilst at a third Phloxes are not allowed to 
appear in the collections, all because of that term* herbaceous. 
During the present year a friend of mine wrote to the Secretary of 
a floral society, asking what amongst hardy flowers would not be 
regarded as herbaceous at their show, and he received in reply that 
Phloxes, Gladioli, and Liliums would disqualify. A large prize 
was offered at one of the most fashionable floral exhibitions of 
this year for a collection of herbaceous flowers. The first prize 
collection embraced a shrub (Santolina), the second prize collection 
contained over two dozen bunches of Carnations and Picotees, also 
several bunches of Pentstemons and Antirrhinums. 
What shall we do to remedy all this ? Will the Editor appeal 
No. 650 .—Vol. XXV.. Third Series. 
to the secretaries of the various floral exhibitions and beg of them 
to carefully consider the wording of their schedules ? For my 
part I should be glad to see the word “ herbaceous ” expunged 
from every schedule and the word “ perennial ” substituted, then 
all could meet on equal terms without fear of being disqualified. 
I had no intention of writing to this length, but, whilst I am on 
the subject, may I ask if hardy perennials, grown indoors, should 
be allowed to take first honours over those grown out of doors ? 
If we grow them inside, and produce flowers in June that would 
not naturally be in bloom outside until July or August, do we not 
defeat one of the main objects of our exhibition, which is, to 
educate the public taste, and to prove what may be done in an 
ordinary and natural way ?—E. R. Shanks. 
[We give prominence to the above communication, because it 
relates to a subject of great and growing importance—the 
exhibition of garden flowers, and the confusion that exists in their 
classification as set forth in the terms of prize schedules. Having 
regard to the divergent views, not of exhibitors only, but of the 
officials of societies in respect to the meaning of the term 
“herbaceous,” and also of the want of discrimination between 
species and varieties, it is quite time that the directors of shows and 
the framers of schedules should make a serious attempt to reduce 
order from chaos in setting forth as precisely as possible the kinds 
of flowers which they desire to invite and which to exclude. When 
we find such as Liliums, Phloxes, and Gladioli are not admissible in 
stands of “ herbaceous ” plants, all of which flowers are eligible, 
and at the same time see, as we have seen, Antirrhinums, Carnations, 
Pinks, Pentstemons, Santolinas, and .even shrubby Spiraeas and 
Tea Roses, admitted, and the stands containing them honoured 
with prizes, there is no wonder that exhibitors who comply strictly 
with the schedules are dissatisfied, and it is certain the public 
cannot be instructed by such vagaries. 
The time for a reform has come, and we appeal very earnestly 
to committees of floral societies who wisely offer good prizes for 
hardy garden flowers to first endeavour to gain a clear conception 
of the significance of the terms “herbaceous” and “perennial,” 
and then employ either one or the other—that is, if either of them 
embodies what they wish to have represented in their exhibitions, 
and if they do not to adopt a broader term familiar and expressive 
—namely, “ hardy border flowers.” 
If prizes are offered for “ hardy herbaceous plants ” then all 
kinds that produce their growths and flowers in summer, die down 
in the autumn, and spring up again the following year are admis¬ 
sible, including bulbous plants ; or, as our correspondent cites, “ A 
plant with a perennial root that produces an annual stem ” is 
herbaceous. It is not the nature of Antirrhinums, Carnations, 
Picotees, Pinks and other Dianthuses, Pentstemons, and others 
that could be named to die down in the autumn and grow from the 
roots in spring. They are either evergreen or semi-deciduous, and 
therefore not strictly eligible for the herbaceous class. Still, many 
persons will be of opinion tbat it would be hard, not to say un¬ 
reasonable, to exclude them from collections of garden flowers staged 
in competition for prizes, seeing that they play such an important 
part in the adornment of gardens. They would be admissible in a 
class designated “ hardy perennials.” This is a much broader term 
than “ herbaceous ” is, and we agree with Mr. Shanks in his preference 
for it. But we have to remember that, without any qualification, 
Roses, Clematises, and various flowering shrubs would be admis¬ 
sible, while biennials—Canterbury Bells, for instance—would be 
excluded. We suspect there are many persons who grow hardy 
flowers admirably, and could show them well, would not quite 
know what to include and what to exclude from a “ perennial ” 
class. 
We know there are persons who would not exclude any hardy 
flowers that render gardens beautiful from collections at shows, 
and there are others who would desire certain limitations. We 
find no fault with either view ; but we do wish to see the con- 
No. 2306.— Vol. LXXXVII., Old Series. 
