190 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
February 28,1895. 
they will flower freely at Christmas, when their spathes are much in 
demand and prices high. Another plan of growing Arums which I 
consider preferable to the above, instead of planting them out in the 
spring, is to gradually dry them off in the open. Should the weather be 
showery lay the pots on their sides ; the foliage will then die down. As 
soon as they commence growing, which they usually do in July, they 
are shaken out and potted in good soil; they then grow freely and 
experience no check, as they sometimes do when planted out and left 
too long before being lifted. 
Lily of the Valley may also be extensively grown in Tomato houses 
provided they are heated. These are always saleable, and command a 
good price if well grown with abundance of their own foliage. Bulbs, 
such as Tulips, Narcissus, and white Hyacinths, can be profitably grown. 
Many other things will occur to the close observer ; and last, but not 
least, if there is an ample supply of manure to hand Mushrooms would 
be as much at home in the Tomato house as in the most elaborately built 
Mushroom house. As I have endeavoured to crack the nut your cor¬ 
respondent has so ably brought forward I am inclined to give him one 
in return, to show that by leaving the beaten track an extra profit may 
sometimes be obtained when least expected. 
A frame of eleven sashes in which Tomatoes had been grown for 
several seasons past was planted the last week in May with something 
else as an experiment. The crop was cleared out early in September ; 
its value was £20. One of your staflE saw the crop, and thought he had 
never seen such a show in a frame before. Had the frame been planted 
with Tomatoes the outside value would not have been more than £5. A 
few years ago I tried an experiment, with the result that during the past 
few weeks I have realised upwards of £22 from what would otherwise 
have been a bare wall at the back of one of the houses.— One of the 
Craft. 
[Our correspondent does not disclose his £20 nuts. Is he reserving 
them for the medal ? The conditions are now ready, and will be posted 
during the week to persons who have applied for them, and they will be 
posted to others who may apply within a fortnight of the date of our 
present issue. The subject to be treated is “ The Profitable Employment 
of Glass Structures in Winter.’ If two essays, in which different subjects 
are treated by different persons, are considered equally meritorious a 
medal will be granted for each of the essays.] 
Japanese Chrysanthemum Audit. 
All Chrysanthemum fanciers should feel indebted both to Mr 
Molyneux and the Journal for making an effort to place before the 
public a list of the very best varieties up to date. This year’s audit 
possesses the same weak point as the one of 1894—viz., that many voters 
included varieties of which they have had no experience, and perhaps 
only known by repute, according as the variety hai been “ boomed.” 
Compared with 1894 the late audit for thirty-six shows but little change. 
Louise, Duke of York, Primrose League, Niveus, and Y. Hambledon have 
had a considerable rise, whilst Lord Brooke, J. Shrimpton, and Excelsior 
have fallen. It would be safe to predict that another season will find 
these much lower, together with Avalanche, Waban, G. W. Guilds, Mrs. 
E. W. Clarke, Viscountess Hambledon, and Primrose League will be 
thought less of from this date ; whilst Mons. A. Giourd, Eic'uard Dean, 
Duchess of Wellington, Wilfred Marshall, Madame Ad. Chatin, Cecil Wray, 
Mrs. Dr. Ward will have risen much in public opinion. 
Now a word to show the weak point of the audit. Both in the 
“ thirty-six ” and “ twelve ” classes we find varieties which have never 
been grown in England— e.g., Duchess of York, Philadelphia, and 
Directeur Tisserand. Again, some are untried seedlings, one standing 
the highest being Mrs. C. E. Shea, truly a monster ; but the only bloom 
yet grown is the one produced by the seedling plant. I have no wish 
to disparage these varieties, but without some trial no one is justified in 
recommending them as “ the best.” Duchess of York is a variety no 
good grower can afford to miss, for as shown on October 12th it was 
grand ; but to prove my case I have only to mention Beauty of 
Exmouth. The stand of nine blooms exhibited at the October, 1892, 
meeting of the N.C.S., caused a sensation, and it is beyond doubt no 
other novelty with me ever “ took on ” so well, but after two years’ trial 
what is the result 1 Why from some unaccountable cause this variety 
does not seem to do well. 
Many are of the opinion that the audits should be for thirty-six 
varieties, old and new, and for twelve novelties, all of which the voter 
has grown, and to this I would add a class for twelve, which the voter 
had seen and not grown, but exclude all he had heard about only. Two 
varieties mentioned in the audit are J. Agate and C. H. Curtis, both of 
which have been certificated by the N.C.S. as incurved. The first 
named undoubtedly is a fine addition to the class, but C. H. Curtis, in 
my opinion, will require another season to learn as to which class it 
should be relegated. 
The difference in the number of votes for thirty-six and twelve 
is most peculiar, many voters seeming to have a vague idea as to which 
are novelties, and otherwise. For the twelve new varieties over 150 are 
mentioned, and out of this number Louise stands No. 9 with fourteen 
votes, and No. 16 with fifteen votes in the thirty-six class. Duke of 
York is placed 47 with three votes only in the “ twelves,” and_ No. 17 
with fifty-one votes in the “thirty-sixes,” whilst Chas. Davis is not 
mentioned among the twelve new ones, but is voted for by every one of 
the sixty-nine electors as one of the best thirty-six. Now, as to novelty. 
The latter has the prior claim of the three I quote. Louise was sent 
out by Calvat in 1892, and catalogued by the English trade in 1893, 
whilst Chas. Davis was not sent out until May, 1893, and both were 
certificated at the same meeting of the N.C.S. in that year. Duke of 
York was also sent out the same year, and with C. Davis and Louise 
were mentioned in the audit of last year. By the way, it is worthy of 
remark that Duke of York has not yet been certificated by the N.C.fe., 
and in spite of this fact it obtains fifty-one votes out of a pDSsible sixty- 
nine, and, according to the Year Book of the N.C.S., was found in 
twenty-two stands of the last November exhibition of that Society. I 
annex a table showing the peculiarity of the voting on some varieties. 
Chas. Davis . 
No. of Voles 
“ 36.” 
. 69 
No. of Votes. 
12 new. 
0 
Year Sent 
Out. 
1893 
Louise ... 
••• 
52 
14 
1892 
Duke of York... 
• • • • • « 
51 
... 
3 
1893 
Niveus . 
• • • • ♦ • 
47 
20 
1893 
Miss Maggie Bleukiroa 
••• 
n 
... 
23 
1894 
Cecil Wray . 
• • • • • • 
1 
2 
1894 
H. L. Sunderbruck ... 
... ••• 
13 
... 
14 
1893 
Mons. Panckouche ... 
• • « • • • 
30 
10 
1893 
Wilfred Marshall 
15 
8 
1894 
Duchess of Welling'on 
... ... 
6 
... 
14 
1894 
Commandant Blussot 
... ... 
24 
10 
1893 
Colonel Chase. 
15 
6 
1894 
Violetta . 
. 
4 
10 
1894 
Hairy Wonder 
1 
13 
1894 
Rose Wynne. 
... ... 
22 
13 
1894 
Mrs. W. J. Godfrey ... 
... ... 
0 
... 
11 
1895 
Duchess of York 
14 
30 
1895 
Mrs. C. G. Hill 
... ... 
6 
5 
1894 
Mrs. W. H. Lees 
16 
23 
1894 
Souvenir de Petit Ami 
11 
... 
8 
1892 
Madame Carnot 
. 
13 
... 
21 
1894 
It is curious to note that whilst Madame Carnot only receives 
thirteen votes in the “ thirty-sixes” it has twenty-one as one of the best 
twelve new, whilst Wilfred Marshall has fifteen in the^ “ thirty-sixes, ’ 
and only eight in the “ twelves.” Surely if it has fifteen in the thirty-six 
it should have more a? a novelty, being sent out during 1894? 
W. J. Godfrey, Exmonth. 
The “Chrysanthemum Year Book.” 
I AM of “Fairplay’s” opinion that the illustrations in the N.C.S. 
Year Book are too exclusive. There were plenty of illustrations to 
select from without using the whole of one firm’s blocks. If the selected 
new varieties in the Year Book are to be our guide in the future, what 
price first-class certificates ? I notice many varieties are left out in the 
cold and not considered worthy of mention by the writer of selected 
novelties.— Not Fairplay, 
Mr. C. H. Payne (page 168) seems displeased that I did not 
criticise this publication generally. Time would not allow of it. Some 
of the chapters are good, some fair, others indifferent, but that on 
“ Japanese Novelties of 1895 ” is, in my view, distinctly misleading. It 
is quite probable that within a few years the book in question will be 
referred to as an authority, and it must cause many to believe that the 
varieties mentioned were novelties of 1895, whereas some of them were 
introduced and certificated in 1893. Mr. Harman Payne says, “What 
a novelty is depends on individual opinion.” Surely he does not wish 
the world to believe that, in the opinion of Mr. H. J. Jones, varieties 
sent out in 1893 are novelties of 1895 ? Mr. Harman Payne also says 
that I have analysed the list unfairly, and in attempting to prove this 
charge against me gives a list of the various raisers. These have little 
to do with the question I have brought forward. When a raiser has 
sold a variety to a distributor the pecuniary interest belongs to the 
latter, and out of twenty-seven varieties sent out by English firms 
sixteen were in the interest of the writer of the chapter, whilst the 
remaining eleven varieties were distributed by five others. As to the 
illustrations, the same remark applies. The writer of the chapter is 
mainly interested in the sale of them, and to illustrate the varieties of 
one firm only is unfair to chose trade growers who have done so much 
in raising and distributing many sterling varieties as we now possess.— 
Fairplay. 
NATIONAL CHRYSANTHEMUM SOCIETY. 
The annual general meeting of the above Society was held^ at 
Anderton’s Hotel, Fleet Street, E. C., on Monday evening, February 25th, 
a goodly number of members being in attendance. Mr. Chas. E. Shea 
was unanimously elected to the chair, and called upon the Secretary, 
Mr. R. Dean, to read the annual report of 1895, which, together with 
the balance-sheet of the Society, are appended below : — 
Annual Report. 
“ It is with the liveliest.satisfaction the Committee are able to heartily 
congratulate the members upon another year of growing prosperity. 
