168 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
February 21, 1895. 
oi health meana loss of situation to the man in the seed trade, and 
there is no chance of more work for six months at the least. Take 
the war into your own country if you like, and speculate on the 
possibility of having to wait two or three weeks after despatching the 
order ere the package comes to hand. What does this mean? 
Is it not equivalent to lost, and might I add wasted time ? — 
Tbrbitm: ,«at Sapienti. 
Havant Chrysanthemum Society. 
The annual show of this Society will be held on Tuesday and 
"Wednesday, October 29th and 30th. 
National Chrysanthemum Society. 
A meeting of the General Committee of this Society was held on 
Monday evening last at Anderton’s Hotel, when Mr. R. Ballantine pre¬ 
sided. After the usual preliminary business of minutes and correspon¬ 
dence had been disposed of, the Secretary announced that all the 
judges nominated for the Society’s three shows in October, November, 
and December next, had consented to act. 
The report of the schedule sub-committee was then presented and 
passed. The draft report detailing the work of the Society, which will 
be more fully alluded to in our report of the annual meeting, was also 
submitted for approval, as well as the draft financial statement for the 
past year. Although the latter can scarcely be regarded as finally com¬ 
plete it is interesting to record that the total of the income for 1894 
closely approaches the sum of 26900, of which £246 Is. 9d. is members’ 
subscriptions. Prize money paid to exhibitors, including the value of 
medals, was £413 6s. 6d. 
Referring to the proposed alteration to rules as set forth in a circular 
distributed to the members, Mr. H. Briscoe-Ironside called attention 
to the suggested alteration in rule 3, line 6, which practically made 
the Vice-Presidents members of the Floral Committee. This was thought 
to be undesirable, as it might possibly have the effect of swamping the 
votes of the ordinary members who were experts, and after some 
discussion the meeting decided to withdraw the recommendation. 
Some correspondence from New Zealand was read, showing the 
interest that is being taken in the Chrysanthemum there, and the 
opinion of the Committee was taken on the wording of one of the 
colonial schedules, in which the ambiguous term large - flowering 
varieties had caused some difficulty. 
There were several new members elected, and the Windsor and Eton 
Society was admitted in affiliation. 
The annual general meeting of the members of the above Society 
will take place at Anderton’s Hotel, Fleet Street, E.C., on Monday, 
February 26 th next, at 7 o’clock. 
Fertilisation of the Chrysanthemum. 
Mr. H. Briscoe-Ironside (page 79) tells us that the “ point ” of 
his communication to the Scientific Committee of the R.H.S. was not 
the question whether the Chrysinthemum is proterandrous or not, but 
“whether the Chrysanthemum is by nature self-fertilised or cross- 
fertilised.” But surely there can exist no doubt whatever that the 
Chrysanthemum is, in nature, both self-fertilised and cross-fertilised, 
the comparative frequency of the two processes depending largely on 
the character of the insect life in the particular locality. It scarcely 
required the confirmation of a scientific committee to assure us of that. 
I note that Mr. Ironside does not apparently contest the assertion 
that the Chrysanthemum is proterandrous, although the paragraph of 
the report which I quoted, and again append, seemed certainly to 
suggest a doubt on the subject. Page 78, “It had been thought by 
some writers, following Darwin a little too implicitly perhaps, that 
‘ the anthers of the Chrysanthemum . . . as of all members of the 
Compositse . . . are proterandrous . . . and naturally adapted 
for cross-fertilisation ’—(Burbidge).” I think that those who aim at a 
scientific cross - fertilisation of the Chrysanthemum cannot follow 
Darwin and Burbidge too “ implicitly ” on the point referred to.— 
Charles E. Shea. 
Nomenclature at Chrysanthemum Shows. 
I wonder what "An Old Judge” would think (who wrote on 
nomenclature at shows some time ago) of the Chrysanthemum show of 
a leading society, where, in the matter of labelling cut blooms no 
system whatever prevails, and exhibitors finding themselves fancy free, 
make use and choice of material, from tiny slips hidden amongst the 
blooms to large square envelopes displayed at the front or back of their 
stands ? About two seasons since I was honoured by an invitation to 
make any suggestions tending to improve the framing of this Society’s 
schedule. Being duly affected by the incongruities presented by this 
heterogeneous labelling, I ventured, amongst other things, to call their 
attention to this point, suggesting that they (the Society) might provide 
an adhesive label of a uniform pattern, supplying each intending 
exhibitor according to his requirements. The cost would be but trifling 
compared to the all-round benefit it would confer. 
If such a label was neatly outlined, and the space ruled for text, but 
little margin for absurdities in this part of the question could exist, 
provided a society insisted on their use. Affixing on the front of the 
stands is doubtless the simplest way, but not practicable in all cases. For 
elevating on supports at the back pieces of cardboard, or, better still, 
zinc cut to the pattern of the label for adhering to it, would give equal 
facility, and the same pattern labels thus used should meet all the 
requirements of plants and fruits, as well as cut blooms. 
I think those exhibitors who take pride in their stands are loth to 
place the names amongst the blooms, for it cannot escape their notice 
how much such stands suffer at the hands of*an interested public in 
their endeavour to arrive at particulars they are anxious to know, and 
whose right it is to thus ferret out their information at the exhibitor’s 
cost when he compels them to do so. Give the public the advantage 
of legibly written, conspicuously placed labels, then, and not till then, 
can societies and exhibitors join in the cry, “ Hands off, visitors.” 
The want of a system also tends to confusion with the uninitiated 
taking notes amongst the florists’ flowers, nor could it be otherwise with 
the diverse methods employed by exhibitors. I may add that my idea is 
an elastic one, and capable of stretching either way, provided that the 
necessity of a general system, protected by a rule in the schedule, is 
not lost sight of.—E. K. 
Anemone-flowered Chrysanthemums. 
I WAS pleased to hear the remarks in defence of this beautiful section 
of Chrysanthemums by H. Harris (page 120). Why they should be 
looked on with so little favour has always been a puzzle to me, for we 
have certainly nothing amongst the whole range of Chrysanthemums 
' calculated to stir up more admiration than well-grown flowers of 
I Anemone varieties. What can be more charming than the chaste Fleur 
' de Marie, the light rose ray florets and sulphur-tipped disc of Enterprise, 
the primrose guard petals with deep yellow disc of John 
Bunyan, or the salmon-blush guard petals and eolden rose-coloured disc 
ofW. W. Astor? 
: As a grower and ardent admirer of them I feel certain that we 
must ere long see them figuring prominently in every schedule in the 
kingdom, as being equal to hold their own against Incurved, Japanese, 
or Reflexed, and I venture to say that with just as much—if not more— 
delight to those who visit our exhibitions. Damp seems to affect them 
to a slight degree, whilst for decorative purposes, associated with foliage 
or Maidenhair Fern, they form a pleasing break, not by their striking 
contrast alone, but by lasting qualities. 
The present being a good time to order varieties, I can thoroughly 
recommend the following in addition to the above mentioned -Ada 
Strickland, a rich chestnut-red colour with broad ray petals ; Duchess 
of Westminster, silvery-blush guard petals with rosy bronze disc ; 
Jeanne Marty, a large flower, blush-coloured petals with deeper disc ; 
La Deuil, crimson-purple; Madame Charles Lebocqz, citron-yellow 
with carmine tint; Madame Robert Owen, pure white ; Mons. Panc- 
koucke, orange-red, very handsome; Mrs. Judge Benedict, white, 
changing to blush guard petals with high lemon centre ; and Nelson, 
deep rosy violet. Judge Hoitt, Sir W. Raleigh, Queen Elizabeth, and 
several others of last year’s introduction will have to be tried again 
before an opinion as to their merits can be expressed. The new varieties 
which are being sent out in the spring are Caledonia, Owen’s Perfection, 
Junon, and Descartes, the three former being fully described in the 
Journal of November 8th, page 428.—R. P. R. 
The “Chrysanthemum Year Book.” 
As the Editor of this new venture on the part of the N.C.S. may I 
be permitted to point out to your correspondent, “ Fairplay ” (p. 120), that 
the pseudonym under which he attempts to hide his identity is singularly 
inappropriate ? The heading of his complaint and the first two lines 
seem to suggest a criticism of the book as a whole, but further acquaint¬ 
ance with his effusion very plainly shows that the object of “ Fairplay ” 
is to attack one contributor only. 
It may be useful to point out to such of your readers as have not 
seen the “ Year Book ” that it contains twenty-four artic 'es in all. Some of 
them necessarily refer to the work of the N.C.S. during the past season, 
others to the work of kindred societies that are doing good service in 
Chrysanthemum matters, while another class of contribution deals with 
the aspects of the flower in America, in Italy, and in Japan, This, I 
venture to assert, is a broader programme that has ever been adopted in 
any similar publication, and is a sufficient guarantee that the book, the 
joint work of fifteen or sixteen writers of acknowledged authority, has 
not been written by those who seek to advance trade interests. 
In another class of article, which may be referred to as descriptive, 
is one by Mr. Jones of Lewisham, and it is this which “ Fairplay ” 
seems to have analysed so keenly, and as I shall show so unfairly. What 
a novelty is depends on individual opinion, but in the paper by Mr. 
Jones he mentions and describes fifty-four varieties of Japanese of 
recent introduction. These are the product of twenty-two different 
raisers, English, French, and American, and the following is the result: 
—Mons. Calvat, twelve varieties; Messrs. Pitcher & Manda, eight; 
Messrs. C. E. Shea and R. Owen, four ; Messrs. Walz and Lacroix, 
three ; Messrs. Spaulding, E. G. Hill & Son, Kelly, and H. J. Jones, two ; 
and Messrs. Carruthers, Sautel, W. Wells, D^laux, Atkinson, Godfrey, 
Cox, Smith & Son, H. Briscoe-Ironside, Crozy, Graham, and unknown, 
' one. 
