January 12, 1888. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
31 
Morntroux Pmr.i. —Rev. G. Henslow exhibited several varieties, which 
together seemed to show that a Pear consists partly of swollen axis 
below the core, and partly of hypertrophied bases of sepals surrounding 
the core. 
- JEcidiuDi on Silwr Fir. —-Mr. Plowright sent specimens and a com¬ 
munication on parasitic fungi on the Fir. 
Plantx Exhlhitcd. —Mr. Lynch showed several interesting specimens 
from the Botanical Gardens, Cambridge. 
Hybrid llhododeytdronx. —Mr. Veitch forwarded five interesting 
hybrids of the Borneo type. 
N.B.—A full report will appear in our next issue. 
CHRYSANTHEMUM AMY FURZE. 
Unfortunately there is frequently unpleasantness generated, and 
keen disappointment experienced, through the hasty and imperfect 
classifying of new varieties—or so-called new varieties—of Chrysanthe¬ 
mums. Amy Furze is an example of the evil of cla-sifyinga new variety 
before possessing adequate knowledge of its true characteristics, and the 
instance at Liverpool cited by “ T. H.,” on page 14, is an example of the 
annoyance that may be expei'ienced by exhibitors of such doubtful 
varieties. I am not acquainted with the names of the other Judges who 
have been writing upon the above subject, and I assume “ T. H.” to be 
a disinterested person in regard to the exhibit passed over at Liverpool. 
I, ther<‘fore, feel free to reply to him, but I should thinlr it a mistake for 
any judge or judges to enter into a controversy with a disappointed 
exhibitor. 
The examples of Amy Furze at Liverpool showed their Japanese 
origin unmistakeably, and inasmuch as it is undoubtedly a Jap.ancse 
when in its true character—as shown at Liverpool—thejudges officiating 
there had no hesitation in giving the prizes to those stands that contained 
the best examples and stipulated number of true reflexed fiowers. It is 
quite possible the stand referred to by “ T. 11.” was “ the best in the 
Show,” but if that stand contained a Japanese variety—-and “ T. H.” 
says it contained an Amy Furze, and he .says in his opinion Amy Furze 
is a Japanese variety—the Judges did right in withholding the prize 
from that stand, and “ T. H.” himself has given them his support in their 
action by his own arguments. If “ T. H.” asks why we did not dis¬ 
qualify that stand, I may reply that the matter was mentioned by one 
Judge to the other, and he replied, “ Oh, it is not necessary, the Liver¬ 
pool men are shrewd enough +o see why it has been passed over.” 
No such blooms of Amy Furze have been seen in the south, and every¬ 
one competent of judging must have known that those at Liverpool were 
either Japanese or nothing. If compilers of catalogues make a mistake 
in classifying Chrysanthemums, that is no reason why exhibitors should 
make a mistake also, and judges follow their example ; and if exhibitors 
would only follow the dictates of their own common sense instead of 
relying upon the infallibility of the compilers, who, in most cases, are 
quite as fallible as themselves, they would not so easily make the mis¬ 
takes they afterwards so bitterly regret.—A Liverpool Judge. 
CHALLENGE TROPHIES. 
Mr. BARDNEY in his article on this subject (see page 522) refers to 
Liverpool as one of the shows at which challenge vases used to bo com¬ 
peted for. Will Mr. Bardney kindly explain the date or dates on which 
these competitions took place ? If he can succeed in this, he certainly 
has the advantage in memory of—A Liverpudlian. 
A GOLDEN MRS. HEA.LE. 
Can anyone inform me whether this valuable acquisition is yet in 
commerce, and if so where it can be obtained 1 That such a sport is in 
existence I have good authority for stating. I also hear it was certifi¬ 
cated at Bath, although it originated, I believe, in Yorkshire. Surely a 
yellow sport from the beautiful Mrs. Heale is too precious to be lost 
sight of.— An Exhibitor. 
PLANT NAMES. 
[A paper read at a meeting of the “Chlswlok Gardeners’ Mutual Improvement Asso¬ 
ciation.” on December 2 Ut. 1887. iiv F. W. Hurhidge, F.L.‘^..:\I.U.I.A, Curator Trin. 
Coi. Botanical Gardens, Dublin; formerly of the K.Li.S* Gardens, Chiswick; and 
also of the Royal Gardens, Kew.] 
( Continued from page 16.') 
Op course, I know that “ English names ” when misapplied cause 
great inconvenience, or, as an American humourist once said, “ When¬ 
ever you see the nurserymen advertising ‘ Bachelor’s Buttons ’ keep right 
on sending your money, for no two men’s ‘ Bachelors’ Buttons ’ arealike, 
so that you are sure of a different [fiant every time.” But this simply 
comes from a loose application of proper names, and even Latin and 
Greek nomenclature, and their synonomy when likewise misused result 
in precisely the same confusion and inconvenience. 
The pomologists also have been somewhat afflicted by constantly 
recurring synonyms. Thus we find Mr. A. J. Downing, in his “ Fruit 
and Fruit Trees of America ” (second edition, 1801)), writing as follows : 
“ Towards settling this chaos in (fruit) nomencl.ature the exertions of the 
Horticultural Society of London have been steadily directed for the last 
twenty years. That greatest of experimental gardens contains, or has 
contained, nearly all the varieties of fruit from all (temperate) parts of 
the world possessing the least celebrity. The vast confusion of names, 
dozens sometimes me.aning the same variety, has been, by careful com¬ 
parison, reduced to something like order. The relative merits of the 
kinds have been proved and published. In short, the horticultural world 
owes this society a heavy debt of gratitude for these labours, and to the 
science and accuracy of Mr. Robert Thompson, the (then) head of its 
fruit department, horticulturists here will gladly join me in adding the 
fullest testimony.” 
But, as I have said, scientific nomenclature now labours under a 
heavy income-taxation of synonyms also, and there is an ill-directed 
tendency to add tertial varietal names in Latin, which should at once be 
disclaimed. For example, if you write to a nurseryman to-day for a 
dozen Odontoglossum Alexandra?, or Cattleya Triana;, or even seeds of 
Helianthus annuus, you will get them, but no two plants resulting will 
be quite the same ; some varieties will be worthless, others more or less 
beautiful, but as in the case of “ Bachelor’s Buttons,” no two plants will 
be alike. Of course, very few cultivated Orchids of note nowadays have 
less than three names, and if you order Odontoglossum Pescatorei, 
“ Veitch’s variety,” or Cattleya Trianas, “ Dodgson’s variety,” then you 
you may be sure of what you are getting ; and, believe me, you will open 
your eyes when the invoice advises you of the price you will have 
to pay. 
The question of botanical and of popular names then stands thus. 
The botanist says and writes Viola odorata, and we claim a right to 
speak of the same plant as the “ Sweet Violet.” Beilis perennis is our 
“ Daisy,” or “ Day’s Eye,” so called from the time of Chaucer, say nearly 
five hundred years ago. Galanthus nivalis is the Snow Flower of Evelyn 
(born 1620, died 1706), and the Snowdrop of every English child to-day, 
and the Orchis mascula of the Warwickshire meadows are no doubt the 
“ Long Purples ” of Shakespeare. Speaking of Orchids reminds me that 
their names are ridiculously confusing, but for the future much trouble 
will be saved by referring for the genera to the “ Genera Plantarum,” 
and for the species Veitch’s work now in progress is by far the clearest 
and best hitherto attempted, and when complete will be that used by all 
amateurs and gardeners. 
I, of course, acknowledge that as at present used loosely, and as re¬ 
gistered more or less badly in all dictionaries—the two best ones not 
always agreeing with each other—there are many popular plant names 
that do lead to confusion. For example, if I wrote to a nurseryman for 
plants of (1) the “ Crape Myrtle,” (2) the “ Hedge Lily,” (3) the 
“ Tiger Iris,” (4) the “ Foam Flower,’’ (5) the “ Sweet Nancy,” or (6) 
the “ Fire llush,” 1 should not be quite sure of obtaining them simply 
because there is no full and general registry of such and similar names 
to which a nurseryman may refer to see what plants I really mean. 
But if I wrote for (1) L.agerstroemia indica, (2) Convolvulus sepium, (3) 
Tigridia pavonia, (4) Tiarella cordifolia, (5) Narcissus biflorus, or (6) 
Embothrium coccineum, I am certain of getting exactly what I desire. 
This points to the fact that at present botanical names—bad and mis¬ 
leading as some of them are generally acknowledged to be—are never¬ 
theless much better arranged and registered and indexed in books than 
are the pi’etty popular names we plead for and admire. Hence it follows 
that before the dual system of naming I recommend can become a 
practical reality we must have a second Linn.TBus, or staunch co-workers 
like Hooker and Bentham, who will devote time and labour to the 
drawing up of a complete dictionary of popular names. I see no 
legitimate reason why we should not originate and organise an “ English 
plant name society,” and work out our object under its auspices and 
regulations. Until this work is done we c.an never trust to popular 
names alone ; but, as 1 said before, we must for the time being have 
Latin or Greek names first, for expediency, and employ popular names 
so far as we can aftervvards, to avoid the pedantic jargon caused by in¬ 
terlarding our ordinary English conversation with long names not alto¬ 
gether “ understanded of the people.” Of course it is now fully under¬ 
stood that Latin names are to be restricted to wild genera and species, and 
all mere v.arieties and garden forms are to be distinguished by English 
names only, as agreed to generally at the “ Narcissus Conference ” held 
on April 1st, 1884. 
In conclusion, I shall ask you once more to remember that plants 
and most other natural objects or crops in the garden are after all 
more important than their names, and I am sure I need not remind 
you of the poet’s dictum that “ names make haste to follow things.”' 
It does not so very much matter whether you call a Grape “ Black 
Hamburgh ” or “ Frankenthaler,” but it doex matter to you as gardeners 
whether your Grapes are well grown and give pleasure to your employer 
and to yourself ! If your Orchids are unhealthy, and your stove plants 
disfigured by red spider or thrips, it will not be much to your creilit, or 
to your employer’s satisfaction, to know their names and natural orders. 
Or if your employer happens to be of a practical turn of mind, your 
love of botany and its nomenclature will be of but slight help, especially 
if her majesty the cook has told him what he already knows too well— 
viz., that your Celery is green and stringy, your Potatoes wet and 
soapy, and your Aspanagus or Peas smaller in size and worse in flavour 
than those he gets with his friends or at his club. 
Foreign competition and the quality and cheapness of imported 
