382 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
May 17,1894. 
a marked difference in the quality of the blooms in two or more stands 
a detailed system of judging is not so requisite to arrive at a satisfactory 
conclusion ; but where the competition is keen it is absolutely 
necessary to examine every bloom staged to enable an adjudicator to 
arrive at a correct decision. 
I have on several occasions found but one point, aye, and halt a 
point, separate two stands of blooms, not merely at the first examina¬ 
tion, but after most minutely looking for defects as well as points of 
excellence. Where the disparity is so trifling how can a satisfactory 
termination be arrived at without the adoption of a system that embraces 
all the points contained in a flower 1 Points of general quality are of but 
little assail in such close competition, absolute particles must be weighed 
to arrive at a satisfactory issue. As is generally known I am a disciple 
of the plan first formulated and put into print by Mr. J, Wright, and 
also to Mr. G. Gordon, who is a strict adherent of the same plan in cases 
of close competition. As pointed out I am a strong opponent to those 
judges who have a special weakness for any type or variety as opposed to 
others opposite in eharacter. If an exhibitor stages blooms in accord¬ 
ance with the schedule such are entitled to an impartial examination by 
the judges. 
Mr. Shea in his paper, spoke very strongly against making extra 
allowances for “novelties.’’ With this I heartily agree, of course 
assuming that such blooms possess no points of advance as compared 
with older varieties. Because a variety is new and costly, and that is 
the only recommendation it has, then the awarding of extra points is a 
gross act of impartiality, and decidedly not fair treatment to the 
exhibitor whose pocket is not perhaps so well stocked as his more 
wealthy opponent. I am an adherent to the plan of making allowance 
for those kinds that are more difficult of production than others, 
inasmuch as a greater tax upon the skill of the cultivator should 
meet with its due reward. 
Relative to the disqualification of duplicate blooms, I am quite in 
accord with Mr. Shea. No variety should be accepted as distinct until it 
is proved to be so. In the case of sports the only true test is by 
cultivating such suggested kinds in “bush” form, this being the more 
natural production of the correct colour of any variety ; it may not in 
•all cases be the desired colour, however. Some persons have a weakness 
for one shade of colouring, and some for another. 
On the above mentioned occasion I endeavoured to point out, 
and my opinions were largely shared by subsequent speakers, the 
want of time to admit of a minute calculation of all the attributes 
as set down in Mr. Shea’s table would minimise the adoption of such 
a plan. As the author rightly said, the use of such a table of 
details would be the exception rather than the rule. His object was 
■for educational purposes, and to establish a system of canon judging 
'throughout the operations of the National Chrysanthemum Society’s 
.«cope at any rate. 
As Mr. Wright remarked in the issue of the Journal of April 12th, 
giving diameter of bloom the highest consideration might lead to incon¬ 
venience at times. He there gives a table differing but slightly from 
that formulated by Mr. Shea, with a view of simplifying the method. 
While adhering to the principle. I add one more attribute to the list 
given both by Mr. Shea and Mr. Wright—viz., form. This is especially 
noticeable in ineurved blooms. They both, I know, include this in their 
enumeration of the points, but there is no harm in giving it special 
prominence when the subject is thoroughly under discussion. 
In formulating a plan on the same principle and adhering for the 
sake of similarity as to the number of points the attributes shall 
amount to, I propose to group them slightly different, but on the whole 
it is perhaps a greater simplification of details. To diameter, depth, 
and solidity I would apportion four points in this order : To the first 
two I would give 1^ each where the maximum was attained, and to 
solidity 1 point. The grouping of these attributes comes as a conse¬ 
quence in the actual practice of judging. The diameter, depth, and 
solidity are all taken into consideration at the one glance by those 
persons who have made a practice of judging on this principle. The 
form, finish, and freshness would constitute another group to which 
•might be allotted 2 points. These, again, are attributes that seem to go 
together. Lastly, breadth of petal and colour I would give 2 points, 
making the same total as in the two instances cited. It should not be 
understood that I formulate this plan as antagonistic to those named, 
but merely to provide more food as it were for those to be appointed to 
settle the matter finally at a later stage. Under the plan suggested all 
the attributes (eight) possessed by a Chrysanthemum bloom that I am 
cognisant of are given and accounted for. Simplicity with accuracy 
has been my object, and whichever method, or a combination of 
methods named, is adopted will meet my views. My object in taking 
part in this discussion has been to make the judging of Chrysanthemum 
blooms as near perfect as possible.— E. Molyneux. 
GARDEN WALKS AND EDGINGS. 
A rRACTiCAL article on this subject appeared in the Journal of 
jfortieulture for February 1st, and I venture to supplement those 
remarks. The subject is of some importance, and to some extent an 
impressive one. 
I admire the Box edgings, though they shelter the enemy, yet do not 
attempt to minimise nor lightly contemn the lurking powers of evil 
which bide therein, such as slugs and the other insects known to me in the 
Kentish home as “ oddmadods,” afterwardsin Gloucestershire as “ horny- 
dornies.” As remarked the Box edging I admire so much that I feel 
equal to a boxing contest in defence of the lowly evergreen, so cheerful 
at all times, and so beautiful at present in its fresh young growth. 
Evict the enemy by razing his dwelling. I think he is quite capable of 
seeking fresh lodgings. Yet my thoughts on this section of the subject 
are confined exclusively to those gardens in which ornament is of equal 
consideration with utility. Where much heavy work has to be done 
and appearances maintained ; where the latter is not considered then 
I cordially agree with the writer, but in the combination requirement I 
would say find me a substitute. Till then the Box remains, and of course 
the “ varmint.” Now this Box, so much admired, may I describe it ? 
It is 6 inches high, 6 inches wide, square clipped and solid. And about 
the slugs, well, blackbirds and thrushes are hopping along the rows to 
their own music, and helping themselves to that food thus provided. 
But I am off round the winding walks of the shrubbery, and why do 
they wind ? Oh, well, some of them have to avoid that tree, this clump 
of shrubs, and the bed of Rhododendrons. Sensible winders these, with 
beauty in their curves, because it is patent to all there is meaning and 
purpose in it. Those which wind and meander aimlessly with no object 
in existence but to be swept and kept are different. Even the man who 
mows the grass, and ought to know better, takes short cuts and solves 
the problem of the shortest distance between given points. These 
flights of fancy it would, “ better late than never,” be as well to provide 
with an object in life by planting a tree at that bend, a clump at this 
curve, and so on, not forgetting a good prickly Holly or other armoured 
bush at the junction. 
About width ? I would crave room, ample room for all purposes, and 
especially for appearance. A wide walk gives dignity to the garden, to 
which I have cantered back. It may be thought appearance goes a 
long way with me; but we cannot afford to despise it. With our 
employers and their visitors the Indian file fashion of walking is not in 
favour, and when we gardeners meet “ his honour ” escorting friends 
round the garden we feel neither happy nor graceful in having to stick 
one leg into the herbaceous border to allow them to pass. My ideal 
walks are 10 feet wide, and so satisfy the eye that I would neither give 
nor take from them. The half-inch gravel from the seashore lately put 
on looks bright and clean, but will not bind. 
On the question of making ? Make them for all time and genera¬ 
tions to come will bless you. On keeping?—meaning much to gardeners 
—by their walks shall ye know them.—E. K., BuJlin, 
SYRINGING “ MALMAISON ” CARNATIONS. 
This discussion is now becoming interesting, and, I trust, instructive, 
because we are obtaining the opinion and finding out the cultural 
practices of growers in various parts. This, 1 am sure, is what readers 
require, for not a few of them are anxious to obtain additional know¬ 
ledge bearing on the subject, and any information that will help toward 
securing better results among a wider circle of growers will be welcomed 
by none more than myself. It so happens, however, that both your 
correspondents who on page 3G7 are pinning such unbounded faith on 
the non-syringing system, advanced no logical arguments in support of 
it. Mr. Elliott is of opinion that by “placing the plants nearer the 
glass and exposing them to more light and air the disease will soon 
disappear.” What a simp’e remedy ; bnt, alas 1 how many gardeners 
have followed the practice to the letter and yet seen their plants 
gradually dwindle away. 
Mr. Hamilton has in the succeeding paragraph adopted a somewhat 
dogmatic and positive style. He gives as his opinion that the syringing 
system is wrong, and the non-syringing right, just as if the cultnre of 
any plant could only be successfully carried out in one way, no 
matter how varied the conditions might be. This is retrogressive 
teaching. Then again he tries to prove too much when he says, “I 
know some small growers who have their ‘ Malmaisons ’ very fine, but 
never syringe,” others buy clean plants, place them in good houses, but 
fail to keep them free from spot because they syringe.” Surely this 
is a little too sweeping, as there are many plants which are never 
syringed, yet fall a prey to spot ; and on the other hand hundreds of 
fine plants are grown where judicious syringing is practised. For the 
same reason his quotation from a trade grower’s letter does not count, as 
I am also acquainted with one who has grown largely for the trade, and 
during the season that he grew the finest plants, syringing was regularly 
practised. 
It is going beyond all reasonable argument to assume that “ Mal- 
maison” Carnations, or any other plant for that matter, will be hurried 
to a premature death by syringing the foliage. Do not all plants when 
growing under natural conditions receive copious “ syringing ” in the 
form of rain which bring them renewed vigour ? It is only when we have 
incessant rain and an absence of sunshine that plants or crops show any 
ill effect; it is exactly the same with the practice of syringing. Carried 
out with intelligence it is a great cultural aid in securing the best 
results, but when practised without discrimination it may prove almost 
as disastrous as over-watering. It is in the medium between the two 
extremes that the course best suited to the requirements of the majority 
of growers will be found, and those who on the spur of the moment 
donbtless feel as well as state that disaster must attend cultural prac¬ 
tices which are at variance with their own only show that they have 
allowed their prejudice to blind, or their imagination to “ run away ” 
with their reason.—H. Dhnkin. 
