April 12, 1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
277 
Victoria, and Damsou Plums have all set their fruit. Most of the Pears 
are in full bloom, and Apples are commencing to expand their blossoms. 
Should the weather continue good as it has been for some time longer, 
we shall have no cause to complain of the fruit crop, for I think it 
will eclipse 1893 .—Wm. Egberts, Peniarth, Toioyn, Merioneth, 
petal, a crucial point to decide is this, Can a simple form of words 
represent what is needed, and that will be clearly understood, as apply¬ 
ing to both the Incurved and Japanese sections ? This has never yet 
been accomplished, if indeed seriously attempted. Is it practicable? 
Take the element of firmness or “ solidity.” This is unquestionably 
a most important factor in an Incurved bloom, but can it have the same 
status in a Japanese? In Mr. Sht-a’s proposition, evidently suggested as 
a basis for consideration, we find that out of eight points, diameter of 
blooms is the leading feature. The following are his propositions 
1, Diameter up to .. 
2, Depth „ 
3, Solidity „ 
4, Colour „ 
5, Finish „ 
6, Breadth of petal 
2 points 
H )> 
U „ 
1 
List of Dwarf Chrysanthemums Wanted, 
Would some of your numerous readers who are Chrysanthemum 
growers kindly name a few of the best dwarf kinds that do not grow 
more than 2} feet high, chiefly white, for cutting, not Pompons? We 
have had lists of sorts that produce large blooms, and now we want the 
names of varieties which produce an abundance of flowers for 
cutting for market.—B. J. 
Chrysanthemum Mrs, Alpheus Hardy, 
I WAS much more successful with this variety last season than in 
previous years, owing I think to two reasons, (1) I noticed a hint in the 
Journal of Horticulture at the commencement of the year that it liked 
peat, and accordingly added an equal portion of peat to our usual 
Chrysanthemum soil for this variety ; (2) The greater amount of heat 
and light seemed to suit it, as the plant grew much more healthy j 
previously it had curled its leaves very much, and looked quite sickly. 
Being a weak grower I find 9-inch pots are quite large enough for 
the strongest plants. It is also beneficial to keep the plants under 
glass longer than the other varieties if the weather is in any way 
changeable in the spring. As regards the beauty of the flowers a noted 
horticulturist in other branches (who is not a Chrysanthemum grower, 
and in fact does not care for them) on seeing my collection in flower at 
Ketton last autumn at once singled out the above variety as the best of 
all, and begged some cuttings. I quite agree with his taste. With me 
it was late in showing its buds last season. My best flower was taken 
August 22ad, others taken about three weeks later were not fit for 
exhibition but useful for decorative purposes,—W. H. DiVERB, Belvoir 
Castle Gardens, Grantham, 
Canons of Chrysanthemum Judging, 
Mr. Charles Pearson’s excellent paper on “ Improving Chrys¬ 
anthemum Shows,” as published in the Report of the National Chrys¬ 
anthemum Society, was referred to last week (page 266). It was stated 
that this paper would do much good. It has done good already, and is 
bound to influence many shows and exhibitors of groups of plants in the 
right direction. Mr. Shea’s analytical remarks on methods of judging 
cut blooms are not less worthy of attentive perusal by all who are 
interested in the important subject that he treats so well. The annual 
reports of the N.C.S. have, as they deserve, many readers, but there are 
of necessity many more into whose hands the publications do not 
naturally fall, but we do not see any notification that the present 
report is sold to non-subscribers. It would interest numbers of them, 
and perhaps draw some, at least, closer than hitherto to the greatest 
organisation in the Chrysanthemum world. 
Able and honourable as are recognised judges of Chrysanthemums as 
a body, and just, as a rule, are their awards, yet there is a general sense 
of something wanting on the question of uniformity of ideals and 
of methods. It would seem to be tacitly understood that judge A is a 
“quality man,” while B places “size” before all things, and C is a 
stern “ colourist.” This may not be so, and is not in the sense that is 
somewhat generally understood ; but if the facts are not in accordance 
with popular opinion, so much the worse for the facts—or rather for 
some exhibitors who fail to recognise them, for is it not a fact that at 
shows where it is the custom to have “fresh judges” yearly that con¬ 
tentions are the most frequent as to the accuracy of the awards ? 
Is not this the result mainly of exhibitors staging to meet what they 
conceive to be the fancy or peculiar idiosyncracy of some particular 
leading judge, and being several points wide of the mark in their 
imaginings ? 
It is true that judges may differ somewhat in their conceptions of the 
relative merits of blooms, or of the different features they possess, 
and it is not surprising that these differences should be exaggerated. It 
is more than enough that they exwt, and it would be altogether more 
satisfactory if they did not. Mr, Shea is quite right, “the science of 
judging should be as exact a science as that of cultivation,” and now 
that this gentleman has brought the matter forward in a paper which 
met with warm acceptance, there is hope that the object in view will be 
achieved. 
The undertaking is no light one. First to be defined are, what 
Mr, Shea happily describes, the “attributes” of a typical show bloom, 
and the relative weight they should bear to each other. Starting from 
or with the commonly admitted qualities of "diameter, depth, solidity, 
finish, freshness and colour, adding for the incurved section, breadth of 
In the discussion that will ensue it is hoped the question of sim¬ 
plicity will be kept well in view in contradistinction to complexity. In 
reference to incurved blooms not a few cultivators and juuges will be 
unable to agree with Mr. Harman Payne that “diameter certainly ought 
to claim the highest position.” If this had been so at the Crystal Palace 
last year it would have led to a revolt. Not only there, but at many 
other shows there were broad flat blooms last year (as there are every 
year), which, because of being so, were passed by others a trifle less in 
diameter but altogether deeper and firmer—more developed, heavier if 
placed in the scales, displaying greater art in cultivation and finish at 
the time of adjudication. Judges have to act on the condition of the 
blooms before them, not what they were a few days ago nor what they 
would be a few days hence if they had not been cut. If this principle 
is departed from the work must be loose, fanciful, and unscieuiific. 
Why, in the interest of simplicity, without a sacrifice of accuracy, 
cannot there be a condensation of attributes ? say, for incurved blooms— 
Depth and solidity ... 
Diameter . 
Colour and finish 
Breadth of floret 
A bloom if deep and solid is better than one that is broader, if flat 
through being young and undeveloped, or loose through over-age. As to 
“ freshness,” a bloom cannot very well be other than fresh if well 
coloured and finished, and if it is not it will lose marks. The smaller 
the number of definitions the more quickly can the properties be 
grasped. It is a question if there would be anything lost if “diameter 
of bloom and breadth of petal ” were grouped, as the two properties 
usually go together, one being to a marked degree the outcome of the 
other. The leading factors in deteimination would then stand thus— 
Depth and solidity up to. 
Diameter and breadth of floret ... 
Colour and finish . 
Are there any judges of experience who could not to their own satis¬ 
faction quickly gauge the merits of blooms on this basis ? If they could 
not, then must a greater number of definiiions be adopted. Having in 
view the time at disposal, in most cases though not all, unduly limited 
through lateness in staging, the triune objective has to be kept in view— 
accuracy, simplicity, and reasonable celerity. 
Whatever the number of definitions and maximum points of a 
typically perfect bloom, would it not further simplify matters if the 
judging were done on the same number of points? or, in other words, 
instead of adhering to the present 6-point system work on the 7-point or 
8-point standard, as the case might be? The greater the simplicity, 
consistent with accuracy, the greater the chance of uniformity in 
judging at shows all over the kingdom. 
In the propositions advanced, solely for purposes of consideration and 
discussion, it will be observed that high cultural condition of incurved 
blooms, as represented by depth and solidity, is not overbalanced by 
mere “ diameter” which is often accompanied by other defects ; and if 
not defective the blooms cannot lose, but will be bound to gain points, 
while colour and finish are not lightly regarded, though not so highly 
estimated as to unduly prejudice culture as represented by size and 
“ build.” 
The question now arites. Are any of the proposed apportionments of 
properties applicable to Japanese blooms? For instance, is the term 
“solidity” appropriate, or would “fulness,” signifying a well filled 
bloom, be better ? Then, is not c ilour, whether represented by brilliancy, 
clearness, or punty, almost of more imp nance in this t’nan the incurved 
section ? The prominent characteristic of the latter is combined in 
build and contour. Given a grandly built incurved bloom, is a little 
loss of colour quite as much felt as it is in the Japanese in which 
glistening colouration is so great a charm ? 
If only for the purpose of making a start, and being upset by growers 
and judges, a venture is made to sugeest an equality of attributes—• 
namely, diameter, depth, fulness and colour, each two points, for a 
3 points 
2 
2 
!) 
!) 
3 points 
2 „ 
2 „ 
1 .. 
8 
