306 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ April 22, 1816. 
lie bad listened to the discussion with much pleasure, and 
expressed high approval of the Conferences on special subjects, 
which afforded the botanists and horticulturists admirable 
opportunities of assisting each other. Dr. M. T. Masters and 
Mr. J. G. Baker each gave an outline of their respective 
papers, and after some further discussion the meeting was 
concluded with hearty votes of thanks to the Chairman and 
all who had contributed to the interest of the occasion. 
ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE FLORISTS’ AURICULA. 
By Shirley Hibberd. Prepared for the Primula Conference, April 21st, 1886. 
In treating the origin and history of the florists’ Auricula, in the 
interest of the Primula Congress, it is a matter of plain propriety to 
remark that I discoursed on the same subject in this place on the 25th 
of April, 1882, and the text of my thesis was published in the horticultural 
papers. With the present important task before me, I have again reviewed 
the history of the flower that takes highest floral rank amongst the Primulas, 
and shall endeavour to submit to your consideration matters that are 
possibly of importance, and that, I hope, will at least prove interesting. 
It will be convenient to dispose of established truths in the first instance, 
in order to obtain a proper basis for speculations on things unknown. The 
origin of the Auricula we will, for the present, assume to bj unknown, 
but we have at command much of a trustworthy character in relation to 
its history during the past 300 years, and it will be a safe, even if a dull 
procedure, to rummage the books and set forth a few of the more pro¬ 
mising facts and figures before tackling the portentous question of the 
origin of the flower. 
EARLY HISTORY. 
A direct hint as to what to avoid as well as what to attempt may be 
derived from the reference to the Auricula in Beckmann’s “ History of 
Inventions." . He quotes from Weismantel’s “Das Blumisten” to the effect 
that Ovid, Pliny, and Columella knew the flower. Well, those writers were 
also acquainted with Garlic, Barley, and Figs; but we pay no attention 
to them until they offer some special information illustrative of the arts, 
customs, or necessities of the times in which they lived. It is Bomewhat to 
the purpose, perhaps, that Pluche, in “Spectacle de la Nature” (ii. 49), 
states that the Auricula was carried from Switzerland to Brussels by 
Walloon merchants. The second volume of this work was published in 
1733, and it gives no clue to the date of the carrying. But the statement is 
of importance in connection with the general belief that the Auricula was 
cultivated in the Netherlands long before it was introduced into this 
country ; and that the garden varieties of the flower were introduced by 
refugees from the low countries about the year 1570. We find mention of 
the flower in the works of Fuchsius, Matthiola, Clusius, T urner, and Dodoens. 
But the sixteenth century botanists were but little better informed on the 
subject than the writers of the later Roman period; and it would be waste 
of time to attempt to formulate their scraps of information. Mattiola figures 
the true Auricula admirably at page 706 of “ De Plantis Epitome” (1586). 
In the superb edition of Dodoens, printed at Antwerp by Plantin, it is very 
badly figured at page 148. By both it is described as Auricula ursi, and by this 
name of Bear’s Ears it was generally known amongst the sixteenth-century 
botanists and gardeners. 
In the year 1570 many artisans, driven from the Netherlands, settled in 
this country, and they brought their favourite flowers with them, including 
the best of their Auriculas. We begin business at the old shop, for Gerard, 
who published his “ Herbal ” in 1597, described and figured half a dozen 
varieties. On page 610 the contrast between the yellow and the purple 
Bear’s Ears, although shown in drawings that are truly execrable, is full of 
instruction in respect of the question before us. The other figures are of 
little consequence, but the two that lead the way speak emphatically of the 
distinction between the true Auricula and the flower known to us as the 
Alpine Auricula. In plain truth they were as distinct then as they are now, 
and John Gerard’s bad drawings hit the truth admirably. It is important 
also to note the remark of Johnson, in his edition of Gerard, published 1633, 
to the effect that there are divers varieties, differing in the leaves, which are 
green or hoary, and in the flowers, which are, white, yellow, red, and purple ; 
the gardens of Mr. Tradescant and Mr. Tuggie being well furnished with such. 
These things prepare us for what the immortal John Parkinson has to 
say, In his “ Theater of Plants ” (1640) he copies the bad figure from the 
Antwerp Dodoens, and describes twenty-six kinds of Auriculas. It is of 
the highest interest to note that amongst them occur a “ stript purple,” 
which he describes as singularly changeable ; also a parti-coloured red and 
white “ heard of but not seen.” The Collie, that he describes as “ somewhat 
sad but very lively,” and the “ Purplish Blew,” appear both to have been 
of the classknown to us as seifs, while “ Heavens Blew,” “ Paler Blew,” and 
“ Bright Crimson,” were of the class now known as Alpines. Of yellows he 
says there were many, but so mixed “ I cannot expresse them.” This is 
just what might be expected, and it may be fair to add that, as a matter 
of course, they were the least valued, because not far enough removed from 
the wild flower of the mountains, for the opinion appears to have prevailed 
that there was only one kind of wild Auricula. 
In the “ Paradisus” there are twenty varieties described, a few of which 
are admirably figured. Of these nine had green leaves without meal, and the 
remainder were more or less mealy. The flowers are presented as varying 
in colour, and some have a centre of the kind we call “ paste,” while others 
are without it. The colours are just such as we find in border Auriculas of 
the present day, comprising shades of red, purple, violet, marone, yellow, 
and white. \Ve are certainly in the midst of Auriculas, not only of the 
mountain, but also of the garden. It appears that we have in the “ Paradisus ” 
—inexhaustible treasure as it is—the fountain of diversity as revealed to 
the penetrating eye of “ Thine in what he may,” the author of what he 
himself in his dedication designates “ this speaking Garden.” 
This paper should be something like a catalogue of evidences, and 
I invite your attention to the description of “ the great straw-coloured 
Beares eare,” at page 238 of the book last mentioned. “ This hath almost 
as mealy leaves as the last, but nothing so large ; the flowers are of a faire 
strawe colour, with a white circle at the bottom of them.” These three 
last (that is the great yellow, greater yellow, and great straw) “ haue no 
shew or shadow of any other colour in any part of the edge, as some others 
that follow haue.” 
The “blush Beares eare,” the “ Haire-coloural Beares eare,” and the 
“yellow variable Beares eare,” are described as edged flowers. For ex¬ 
ample, the “ Blush has a ground colour of a dark or dunne-yellow, shadowed 
ouer a little with a shew of light purple, which, therefore, we call a blush 
colour, the edges of the flower being tipt with a little deeper shew of that 
purple colour, the bottome of the flower abiding wholly yellow, without any 
circle, and is of very great beauty.” The Hair-coloured is of a brownish 
yellow, edged with a show or shadow of a light purple colour. The Yellow 
variable is of a fair yellow, “ dasht about the edges onely with purple, being 
more yellow in the bottome of the flower than in any other part.” I seem 
to hear our friends the florists say that these were flowers with shaded 
edges, of which we have many at the present day. Yes, the history of the 
flower is before us, and the “ Paradisus ” appears to provide us with the very 
first record of that kind of edging. Parkinson reserved a bonne bouche for a 
wind-up of his feast of Auriculas. It is the “Variable green Beares eare.” 
This hath green leaves smpt about the edges ; the flowers are yellowish 
green, having purple edges ; these have no circles at all in them. This 
variable green with a purple edge might, for present purposes, be assigned 
the position of a pole star in the floral firmament; at all events, I, for one, 
feel attracted to it, and expect it to afford assistance in tracing out the order 
of the stars in the two constellations of Ursa major and Ursa minor that 
“in earth’s firmament do shine; ” for these stars seem to be now coming 
borne to us. 
THE EDGED AURICULA. 
There is no special interest for the present occasion in the progress of 
the Auricula in what appears to have been its early conditions as regards 
range of colour and variation of leafage. It is only when it assumes what, 
for convenience sake, may be termed its exhibition character, that it becomes 
more than ordinarily attractive, not only for the d-light of the eye, but as a 
subject for scientific study. Let us then consider the position of the edged 
flowers in the history. The one presented us by Parkinson is very different 
to the florists’ Auricula of the present day; but it is probably a true Auricula, 
for the leaves “ do tume and fold themselves a little backwards,” the flowers 
are less expanded than some others, but alas 1 they have no circles in them, 
and the variety is not figured. This, we will say, is the most remarkable of 
all cultivated flowers, a small wonder, but a true one; a great achievement 
of art or a most extravagant freak of Nature. When did the first properly 
edged flowers appear ? That question is now forced upon us, and is full of 
significance, even if judged by this first record of a green flower with a 
purple edge. A very trifling change would give us a purple flower with a 
green edge, and changes of that kind are common enough. 
Strange to say, edged flowers were not received with open arms by the 
faculty. They had to win their way slowly to the favour of the florists, and 
on the principle that the wor’d knows not its greatest men, the gardening 
world in general was for a long time ignorant of this unique production ; 
this most precious of all the jewels in the diadem of Queen Flora. The 
proof of this will furnish matter for a paragraph. 
In Miller’s Dictionary, first published 1731, the edged flowers obtained 
no recognition, but Miller provided a good code of judging Auriculas, minus, 
of course, certain points that are of peculiar importance now. _ The fact 
proves that the flower had acquired extensive popularity, and inspired some 
kind of corporation that for present purposes maybe designated the Auricula 
Fancy. Even in 1676, fifty years after Parkinson had so nearly witnessed 
the making of the florists’ Auricula, John Rea, in his “Florilege,” described 
striped flowers, and advised the selection of flowers “ with white eyes that 
will not wash.” 
The subject obtains scientific treatment in Hdl’s “ British Herbal,” 
1756, and the author, John Hill, M.D., boldly declares that many of the 
so-called species of authors “ are no other than varieties of this plant rising 
from culture.” At page 98 he speaks of the yellow Auricula as standing 
alone, and apart from those that produce red and purple flowers. Of these 
last he says there are three species not directly related to the yellow Auricula, 
and these he describes as narrow-leaved, round-leaved, and long-leaved. To 
one of the descriptions he adds the remark that “ there is no judging by 
what one sees iu gardens, where the accidents occasioning varieties are 
endless ; but in those collected wild there is no error.” 
In Hill’s “Eden,” by the same John Hill, published 1757, Auriculas are 
fairly treated of, but edged flowers are not mentioned. Hanbury’s “ Body 
of Gardening,” 1770, gives a hint in the way of our search in speaking of 
variegated Auriculas. It is a question of some importance whether the 
variegated flowa - of Hanbury was the striped flower of Parkinson, or a 
modification of that edged flower that had been noted as a curiosity 150 
years before. There is clear evidence in the “Florist” of 1849 that in the 
year 1732 the edged flowers were not generally recognised ; but in a code of 
rules for judging Auriculas, “flakes” and “stripes” are mentioned as im¬ 
portant adornments of the flowers that were in favour in 1732. Mr. Slater, 
in his “ Amat.ur Florists’ Guide,” gives a list of proper edged flowers that 
were in cultivation in 1776, and in my paper, read here in 1882,1 assumed— 
I still think properly—that some of these were in existence in 1750, or 
earlier. The varieties known as Potts’s Eclipse, Rule Arbiter, and Hortaine 
were in cultivation in 1757. About 1785 the edged varieties were plentiful, 
and amongst them were Grime’s Privateer, Popplewell’s Conqueror, 
Gorton’s Champion, and Wrigley’s Northern Hero, which are still in culti¬ 
vation, not as archaeological curiosities, but because they are good and 
have retained their initial vigour as cultivated plants for upwards of 100 years 
In fixing a date for the earliest record of an undoubted edged flower, I. 
am indebted for valuable aid to my friend Mr. Harrison Weir, who, in a 
communication to the Gardeners’ Chronicle of May 6th, 1882, refers to Sir 
Thomas Moore’s “ Flower Garden Displayed,” published 1734. In this work 
many Auriculas are described, some of them introduced from Holland, and 
others raised in this country. It is important to note that the Dutch and 
the English varieties appear to differ as Alpines and true Auriculas, both 
classes finding favour here, but the English raisers having an especial affec¬ 
tion for Auriculas proper, as apart from the Alpine Bection. Now, it is of 
the highest importance to observe that amongst many flowers of a class 
known as “ Painted Ladies,” because delicately improved, as ladies of that 
