266 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
March 28,1895. 
was issued. Of the four on the table which were distributed 
in 1890, Duke of Fife has lost two places, but nevertheless 
still occupies a very good position at No. 17 ; John Hickling 
rises from No. 22 to No. 19, Majestic from No. 34 to No. 26, and 
Alice Emily from No. 50 to No. 47. The year 1891 is altogether 
unrepresented ; but four sorts bear the date of 1892, three of 
which were much better shown at the last exhibition than at the 
previous one. The first of these is that grand new white variety, 
John Walker, which has risen from No. 7 to the second position 
on the list, and last year appeared in nearly as many stands as the 
leading fiower—Mrs, Gladstone. Next comes Arthur Ocock, 
which rises from No. 21 to No. 11. Then Arthur Rawlings, 
which now stands at No. 15, thus gaining seven places, and lastly 
William Powell, which has fallen from No. 15 to No, 24. No 
1893 variety is to be found as yet on the table. Duchess of 
York, however, although only sent out last year, just manages to 
secure a footing at the bottom of it, having been staged six times. 
Of the fifty Show Dahlias tabulated in this analysis four 
were introduced previous to 1875—viz., James Cocker (No. 10), 
Henry Walton (No. 13), Mrs. Harris (No, 35), and John Standish 
(No. 37), and are consequently twenty or more years old. Four 
came out during the next five years, seventeen during the next 
five, sixteen between 1885 and 1890, while the remaining nine 
varieties are less than five years old. 
The question arises. How do the flowers sent out in recent 
years compare, in regard to quality, with those previously dis¬ 
tributed, as gauged by this analysis? If we divide the last 
twenty-four years into two equal parts, the average position the 
varieties raised during the first twelve years of this period would 
be entitled to occupy would be at No. 27, while those of the 
last twelve years would stand at No. 25. When the first thirty- 
six sorts are alone taken into consideration the results come out 
still more favourable to the “ Shows” sent out during the last twelve 
years. These results are very encouraging, and in the interests 
of the numerous florists for whom the marvellous regularity of 
form to be found in the Show Dahlia has a peculiar fascination, 
it is to be hoped that the present rage for the more generally 
popular Cactus varieties may not cause our Dahlia experts to 
relax their efforts to produce new sorts worthy of being placed side 
by side with their predecessors. 
SHOW DAHLIAS. 
Position in Present I 
Analysis. i 
Average Number of 1 
Times Shown, 
No. of Times Shown 
in 1894 in True Re¬ 
lative Proportion to 
the Average. 
Name. 
Date of 
Introduction. 
Raiser’s 
or 
Introducer’s 
Name. 
Colour. 
1 
40 2 
32 
Mrs. Gladstone. 
1884 
Hurst. 
Pale blush 
2 
29 0* 
29 
John Walker. 
1892 
Walker . 
White 
3 
26 0 
24 
Harry Keith. 
1886 
Keynes . 
Rosy purple 
3 
26 0 
22 
William Rawlings . 
1881 
Rawlings . 
Crimson purple 
6 
25-6 
20 
Mrs. Langtry. 
1885 
Keynes . 
Cream and crimson 
6 
2.5-3 
24 
R. T. Rawlings. 
1886 
Rawlings . 
Clear yellow 
7 
22-7 
26 
Colonist. 
1887 
Keynes . 
Chocolate and fawn 
8 
192 
18 
J. T. West. 
1887 
Rawlings . 
Yellow and purple 
9 
18 4 
14 
Willie Garratt . 
1887 
Garratt . 
Bright cardinal 
10 
18 0 
24 
James Cocker . 
1871 
Keynes . 
Purple 
11 
17-0* 
17 
Arthur Ocock . 
1892 
Rawlings .. 
Reddish mange 
11 
170 
23 
Ethel Britton . 
1880 
Keynes . 
White and purple 
13 
16 9 
15 
Henry Walton . 
1873 
Keynes . 
Pale yellow and scarlet 
14 
16 6 
15 
Maud Fellowes. 
1889 
Fellowes. 
Pale pink, shaded purple 
16 
16 0* 
16 
Arthur Rawlings . 
1892 
West . 
Deep crimson 
16 
15-8 
15 
Mrs. W. Slack . 
1886 
Keynes . 
Blush white and purple 
17 
14 5 
14 
Duke of Fife. 
1890 
Keynes . 
Rich cardinal 
17 
14 5 
11 
Prince of Denmark. 
1881 
Fellowes. 
Dark maroon 
19 
14 0 
16 
John Hickling . 
1890 
Keynes . 
Clear bright yellow 
20 
13 9 
13 
Shirley Hibberd . 
1881 
Rawlings . 
Dark crimson 
2 /1 
13-8 
5 
T. J. Saltmarsh. 
1885 
Rawlings . 
Yellow and chestnut 
22 
13-6 
13 
Harrison Weir . 
1883 
Rawlings . 
Yellow 
23 
11 3 
14 
Miss Cannell. 
1881 
Eckford . 
Cream and crimson 
24 
11 0* 
11 
William Powell. 
1892 
West . 
Primrose yellow 
25 
10 6 
4 
Goldfinder. 
1881 
Fellowes . 
Yellow and red 
26 
10 5 
6 
Hon. Mrs. P. Wyndham. 
1881 
Keynes . 
Pale yellow and rose 
26 
10-5 
12 
Majestic. 
1890 
Keynes . 
White, edged purple 
28 
lO'l 
6 
George Rawlings . 
1882 
Rawlings . 
Dark maroon 
29 
10-0 
9 
Glow-worm . 
1889 
Turner . 
Bright orange scarlet 
oO 
9-7 
8 
Prince Bismarck . 
1879 
Fellowes. 
Puce 
31 
94 
12 
Burgundy . 
1877 
Turner . 
Dark puce 
32 
9 3 
4 
Joseph Ashby . 
1879 
Turnpr . 
Shaded orange 
33 
90 
3 
Clara . 
1879 
RnRy ppfi.ph 
33 
9-0 
7 
Mrs. D, Saunders. 
1888 
Rawlings . 
Pale, edged rose 
o5 
8 8 
8 
Mrs. Harris . 
1873 
Whitp arifl lilRn. 
36 
8 2 
2 
Crimson King . 
1887 
Keynes . 
Deep crimson scarlet 
37 
8 0 
5 
John Standish . 
1872 
Turner . 
Crimson 
38 
7 6 
5 
Hope . 
1883 
Keynes . 
Light rosy lilac 
39 
7 4 
7 
W)Uiam Keith . 
1888 
West . 
Dark plum 
40 
72 
2 
John Henshaw. 
1883 
Rfihy r.rimsrjn 
41 
7'1 
8 
Earl of Ravensworth . 
1883 
Harkness . 
Lilac 
41 
71 
6 
James Vick . 
1881 
pnrpliflVi rnfVTOOn 
43 
70 
2 
Mr. Harris. 
1881 
44 
0-6 
3 
Mr. Glasscock . 
1886 
44 
66 
9 
Queen of the Belgiani. 
1887 
PiGATYi arifl pin^ 
46 
6 4 
3 
Imperial. 
1883 
Keynes . 
Purple, shaded lilac 
6 3 
8 
Alice Emily . 
1890 
Keynes . 
Buff yellow 
G 2 
4 
Nellie Cramond . 
1888 
Keynes . 
Purple, shaded cerise 
48 
6 2 
0 
Sunbeam . 
1881 
Fellowes. 
Buff 
50 
6 0* 
6 
Duchess of York . 
1894 
Keynes . 
Lemon, edged salmon pink 
* New varieties, the positions of which are dependent on their records at the 1894 show only. 
