March 32, 1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
227 
which I am one of the lesser lights, had the following class inserted 
in the schedule, “ A collection of twelve varieties of cut flowers, 
dissimilar.” 
There were four competitors, three of them conforming literally to 
the generally understood wording of the schedule by staging only one 
variety in each bunch, whether an Orchid or any other species or 
variety. The stand to which the first prize was awarded contained in 
one bunch two varieties of Roses, another bunch two varieties of 
Cyclamen persicum, another three or four at least varieties of Car¬ 
nations. This led to a protest from the other three exhibitors, who took 
up the ground that by twelve distinct (or dissimilar) varieties, it was 
always understood that only flowers of one species or variety should be 
in each bunch. 
At an informal meeHng of some of the committee to consider the 
protest, different opinions were expressed as to the literal meaning of 
the words, and chaos reigned. The only immediate solution of the 
difficulty which materially brightened up the saddened countenances of 
the bewildered ones wag to adopt the concluding words of one of the 
rules, that ” The decision of the judges to be final.” 
You have known me, Mr. Editor, for a long number of years, and 
that I have had a little to do with judging, and with me it has always 
been a practice to accept the words “ dissimilar varieties ” as meaning 
blooms only of one species or variety ; and I am beginning to doubt 
whether I have been blundering all along after hearing some of the 
arguments of some of my colleagues, who believe that even two or more 
species of Phalaenopsis could be shown in one bunch as a “ dissimilar ” 
variety. I argued. No ; but I was over-ruled. 
I ;am of opinion that the wording of this particular class in our 
schedule was fairly intelligible as schedules go; but it is another 
instance of the necessity of having schedules very clear and definite in 
the wording to avoid contretemps of this character. I look to you as our 
monitor and guide to give a solution to this enigma. Are we right or 
wrong in the wording, and what is the real definition of dissimilar 
varieties according to words used in the schedule as I have already 
given 1 — Enqtjieer. 
[A very easy “nut to crack” and “enigma to solve.” There is 
hardly a shell to the nut and the “enigma” is scarcely discernible. 
Twelve dissimilar varieties means twelve varieties and no more. This 
definition applies to all exhibits. If the stipulation refers to twelve 
dishes of fruit, or twelve dishes of vegetables, any person who stages 
thirteen dishes is disqualified. On the same intelligible, and we must 
add reasonable, principle, if “ twelve varieties of cut flowers, dissimilar,” 
are asked for, exhibitors of thirteen or more varieties in the class are 
obviously not within, but outside the stipulations, and, therefore, clearly 
open to disqualification. The protestors in the case in question were 
perfectly justified in their action. Committees who shelter themselves 
under the rule alluded to should have the courage of their convictions, 
and complete the wording as follows : “ The decision of the Judges to be 
final, even if they are wrong.” Will they do so ?1 
IRIS SINDJARENSIS. 
This charming early flowering Iris, where grown in pots, is now at 
its best, and some specimens of it were noticeable in the collection of 
hardy flowers shown by Messrs. Barr & Sons at the last meeting of the 
Royal Horticultural Society. The flowers are of moderate size, and 
though less showy than the favourite early Iris reticulata, the delicate 
lavender blue tint is very pleasing. A most distinct character is 
afforded by the leaves, which are broad, closely set on the stem, recurv¬ 
ing, and of a glaucous tint. The moderate size of the plant adapts it 
for culture in pots, and out of doors it would need a somewhat warm 
and sheltered situation to ensure its success. Fig 38 represents it. 
SAXIFRAGA LUTEO-PURPUREA AND SAXIFRAGA 
MALYI. 
Evebtone will admit that it is a matter for regret when a plant 
becomes common in gardens by its wrong name, owing to defective 
labelline: at Kew, but it is only those who know something of the inner 
life of Kew who are aware of the laborious pains that are taken there, 
and of the difficulties which botanists in the Royal Gardens find in 
describing all the living plants correctly. It must be remembered that 
many of the living hardy plants are sent there by nurserymen and 
amateurs without correct information being given of their source. 
In many cases these plants are of garden origin, and belong to the 
typical form of no species, and all that can be done in such cases is to 
retain the name under which the plant is sent, unless it is very obvious 
that it is wrong. I may illustrate this by the adventures of a plant 
about which a good deal has been written in gardening papers this 
winter, as it has been in flower in the alpine house at Kew in plenty 
since early in January. It has been labelled for the last three years 
Saxifragajluteo-purpurea, and has abundance of pale yellow flowers. This 
plant was exhibited by Mr. George Paul from Broxbourne Nursery at 
the March meeting of the R H.S. in 1888 under the name of Saxifraga 
Frederici Augusti. It received a certificate by that name, but when sent 
by Mr. Paul to Kew the name was changed to S. luteo-purpurea 
(Lapeyrouss). This spring it was considered by the botanists there to 
be S. luteo-viridis (Schott & Kotschy), and a few days ago I was told 
that the name had again been changed to S. scardica (Grisebach). 
As for Saxifraga Malyi, this too was exhibited by Mr. George Paul 
before the R.H.S. in March, 1889, and had a certificate awarded to it by 
that name. It seems, however, to differ from the other only in flowering 
a little later, and I believe when sent to Kew had the name S. luteo- 
purpurea assigned to it, and has since followed the fortunes of its 
earlier flowering sister. Now it is not unlikely that both these 
Saxifragas may turn out to be garden hybrids, perhaps between S. sancta, 
which they much resemble, and some kindred yellow flowered species. 
I know that in my own garden it is very difficult to get some species of 
Saxifraga at all true from seed, owing to the freedom with which they 
form spontaneous hybrids.—C. Wolley Dod, Edye Hall, Malpas. 
CRYSTAL PALACE SPRING SHOW. 
Mabcii 17th. 
The annual Show of spring-blooming plants, held on the above date, 
was one of the best that has been seen for many years. The exhibits 
were numerous and the quality exceptional, the prizes in several of the 
classes being keenly contested for. Hyacinths and Tulips were very 
fine, as also were Lily of the Valley and Cyclamens. Miscellaneous 
exhibits were numerous and much diversified. The change in the 
arrangement of the tabling was an excellent one, for instead of the 
long rows which, however good the exhibits, are liable to become mono¬ 
tonous, the tables, large enough for only three or four exhibits 
each, were placed here and there down the centre of the transept. 
It is a change which should be followed, for it undoubtedly much 
enhanced the good effect and beauty of the Show. The greatest credit 
is due to the managers of the Exhibition for the admirable manner in 
which the arrangements were carried out. We append a list of the 
priiewinners in the principal classes. 
