September 12,1SS9. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
219 
Juno, Leila, Rosalind, E. F. Jungker, Vivid, White Aster, and Golden 
Gem (middle row) ; Eccentric, Darkness, Whisper, Mabel, Little 
Duchess, Mikado, Rosalind, and Favourite (front row). Messrs. Keynes. 
M illiams & Co. were a capital second, Messrs. Cheal & Son third, and 
Messrs. Laing & Son fourth, one other competing. 
Messrs. Gilbert & Son won with twelve neat bunches but somewhat 
crowded, and Mr. Humphries was second, the remaining prizes going to 
Messrs. Henshaw and. Burrell, Cambridge. Mr. West was first with six, 
Mr. Glasscock second, Mr. Apthorpe, Cambridge, third, and Mr. 
'S. Cooper fourth, several others competing. 
Messrs. Cheal & Son are famed exhibitors of the lovely single 
flowers, and they achieved a ready and most meritorious victory in the 
class for twenty-four. The varieties were Mrs. Kennett, Albert Victor, 
White Queen, Amos Perry, Jas. Scobie, Queen of Singles, Mrs. Coninck, 
and W. Irving (back row) : Duchess of Westminster, Enchantment, 
Sunningdale, Mrs. Rose, Ida, Cetewayo, W. C. Harvey, and Excelsior 
•(middle row): Duchess of Albany, New Year, Lady Montefiore, Formosa, 
Mrs. Henshaw, Hugo, Victoria, and Miss Ramsbottom (front row). The 
•second, prize was withheld, but Messrs. Gilbert were third. Mr. Seale 
won with twelve, a most charming stand, beautifully set up, Mr. Burrell 
being second with large but coarse and crowded flowers. Mr. Girdle- 
stone won with six, fresh blooms of good size, not too large, and in 
-excellent condition. Mr. Henshaw was a close second, Mr. Glasscock 
•third, and Mr. E. Mawley, Berkhampsted, fourth. 
Messrs. Cannell & Sons, Swanley, had a very extensive and beautiful 
collection of Dahlias, not for competition, comprising all cultivated 
forms. First-class certificates were awarded to Messrs. Keynes, Williams 
-and Co., for Show Dahlias Alice Emily, Duke of Fife, and Majestic; to 
Messrs. Cannell & Sons for Cactus Dahlia Mrs. Douglas ; to Mr. Turner 
for Pompon Dahlia Cleopatra ; to Mr. T. S. Ware for single Dahlia Miss 
Jefferies ; and to Mr. T. W. Girdlestone for single Dahlias Gruppo, 
Xady Helen, and Yellow Perfection. 
DAHLIA CENTENARY CONFERENCE. 
On Friday afternoon, September 6th, the National Dahlia Society 
held a Conference in the Crystal Palace, when several papers were read 
upon the history and culture of the Dahlia. Shirley Ilibberd, Esq., 
took the chair at 3 P.M., and after a few introductory remarks real his 
paper upon the “ History of the Dahlia,” which is given in extensn. 
He was followed by Mr. Harry Turner, Mr. J. West, and Mr. Cheal, 
who gave much information of practical value, as will be gathered 
’from a perusal of their papers. 
HISTORY OF THE DAHLIA. 
f A paper by Mr. Shirley Hibberd, read at the Crystal Palace, September Gth.J 
Although the history of the Dahlia as a garden flower extends over 
-only one hundred years, it is an eventful history, and the historian may 
more easily indulge in profuseness of detail than compress within 
moderate limits the points that are likely to prove at once the most 
useful and interesting to the participators in this Centenary Conference. 
Happily there are not many knotty questions presented by the facts on 
■record ; but these facts have been variously presented, and in glancing 
at the existing histories, so-called, of this flower, I find much confusion 
and contradiction, and often a sad misapprehension on the part of the 
historian of the bearings of the particulars at his command. Thus in the 
Gardeners’ Magazine ” of October 9th, 1880, will be found two short 
histories of the flower, one from Mr. Max Deegen, of Kostritz, the other 
-from Dr. Comstock, whose “ Illustrated Botany,” published at New York 
in 1847, contains much valuable information of special interest to 
florists. Max Deegen begins by saying that the Dahlia was introduced 
•to England in 1787 ; to France in 1802 ; to Germany in 1804. It cannot 
be allowed in an assembly solemnly convened for the glorification of 
•the Dahlia that the promoters are too late by so much as two years. 
No ; if Max Deegen and the “ Horticultural Magazine ” of 1839, which 
appears to be his authority, are in the right, it will be but proper for me, 
-as President, to dissolve this assembly and declare the centenary as a 
■thing silently accomplished two years since, leaving us nothing in that 
way unless, perhaps, we might justify our meeting by making arrange¬ 
ments for the bicentenary in 1987. It will be my duty to abolish Max 
Deegen, and put this celebration on a firm historical foundation. 
We cannot move a step without referring to the books. There ap¬ 
pears to be no earlier description of the Dahlia than that by Francisco 
Hernandez, physician to Philip II. of Spain, in his four books on the 
plants and animals of New Spain, published in Spanish in the year 1615. 
In this work our flower appears under its Mexican name of Acoctli, and 
the notice is particularly interesting, for two species are figured, D. 
variabilis and D. crocata, and both have single flowers. We appear 
"thus to secure somewhat of a triumph for the florists, but, unfortunately, 
in a work founded on that of Hernandez, and published at Rome by 
Vitalis Mascardi in 1651, there occurs a figure of a double flower, but 
whether it was obtained as such direct from the domain of Nature, or 
through the garden from the hands of man, there is no sufficient record, 
and we may not, therefore, say that the florists had commenced opera¬ 
tions at so early a date. We speak of this as a double, but the drawing 
is so bad that it may be single. It is of importance to observe 
that we lose the Dahlia for 130 years, when it turns up again 
zd 1787, not, as in the former case, for the special advantage'of Spaniards, 
but this time for Frenchmen in a most exclusive sort of manner. 
Nicholas Joseph Thierry de Menonville was sent to America to secure 
the cochineal inseet. He was to act on the principle of Iago when he 
said, “put money in thy purse,” for the plant and the insect were both 
to be secured, and they were secured, with a few other things that were 
worthy of the labour. M. Menonville published in 1787 a treatise on 
the culture of the Nopal and the “education” of the cochineal, and 
therein described the Dahlias he had seen in a garden near Guaxaca, 
which, he says, had large Aster-like flowers, stems as tall as a man, and 
leaves like those of the Elder tree. Thus the deceptive date is obtruded 
on the history, but there is no record of the Dahlia being brought into 
England in 1787, but after a lapse of two years we hear of it again as 
actually introduced to this country by a lady whose name should this 
day be remembered with gratitude as a generous contributor to our great 
garden of florists’ flowers. 
In the year 1789, Vincentes Cervantes, director of the Botanic 
Garden at Mexico, forwarded seeds of the Dahlia to the Royal Gardens 
at Madrid, then under the direction of Abbe Cavanilles. The Marquis 
of Bute was at this time Ambassador from England at the Court of 
Spain ; and the Marchioness, who cherished a true sympathy with flori¬ 
culture, obtained some of these seeds, which she cultivated in pots in a 
greenhouse, but failed to keep them beyond two or three years. The 
Marchioness of Bute was in correspondence with the professors at the 
different botanic gardens in Europe, and thus had opportunities for 
acquiring, and perhaps of diffusing, information on such matters, and 
her loss of the plants may therefore be accepted as in some part testify¬ 
ing to the prevalence of misconceptions as to the requirements and 
characteristics of the Dahlia. In 1802 an English nurseryman, John 
Fraser, of Sloane Square, a collector of American plants, obtained from 
Paris some seeds of Dahlia coccinea, which flowered in a greenhouse in 
1803, at his nursery, and supplied a subject for the plate in the 
“ Botanical Magazine,” t. 762, which secured to the plant a proper place 
in the English garden. Thus it happens that in Aiton’s “ Hortus 
Kewensis ” the Dahlia obtained a place, two species and three varieties 
being entered in the second edition, published 1813. 
The Abbfi Cavanilles named the plant in honour of M. Andre Dahl, 
a Swedish botanist, author of a work on the Linnean system, published 
in 1784, and Cavanilles figured it in his “ leones et Descriptions 
Plantarum,” the publication of which was commenced at Madrid in 
1791. Comstock tells us that it was Humboldt who sent the seeds to 
Madrid in 1789, but Humboldt had not at that time set a foot on the 
American continent, for he was pursuing his studies under Heyne and 
Blumenbach from 1787 to 1789, and he did not visit America until 
February, 1800. 
For ten years the Abbe- Cavanilles managed to keep his Dahlias, and 
perhaps I might say that in that time he actually improved them, for 
one of them produced semi-double flowers in October, 1790 ; and in the 
January following was figured in the “leones” as D. pinnata, which was 
the early name of our D. variabilis, and thus we fix the date of the first 
doubling of the Dahlia in Europe as occurring in the first year of its 
flowering at Madrid. The variety named rosea was very soon after¬ 
wards established at Dresden, for in the year 1800 it was sent from 
Dresden to Berlin with the D. pinnata and D. coccinea already cited, 
the entire collection of Dahlias of that date consisting of these three 
only. In 1802 Cavanilles sent them to the Jardin des Plantes at Paris, 
and to M. Decandolle at Montpellier, and thus the flower was fairly 
started on the way to become known throughout Europe. 
In the year 1799 Humboldt and Bonpland left Madrid in the ship 
Pizarro for the American continent, and commenced those explorations 
which have secured for them as scientific travellers immortal renown. 
In descending from the table land of Mexico towards the Pacific coast, 
they found the Dahlia in a prairie between Areo and Patzcuaro at a 
height of 5000 feet above the level of the sea, a fact which at once 
explained the failures of Lady Bute and others to grow it as a plant 
needing much heat and a constantly close atmosphere under glass. Kew 
had obtained the plant, and had lost it as a consequence of stewing or 
roasting it, as moist or dry cookery might happen to be in favour. At 
Paris the same thing had occurred, for M. Andre Thouin, director of 
the Jardin des Plantes, placed his Dahlias in a stove, the tropical idea 
haunting him, as apparently all others had been haunted, so that it was 
in the nature of a miracle that the plant escaped the killing treatment 
to which it was so generally subjected. Many of the most useful plants 
have passed through a similar ordeal, one of the most notable examples 
being the Aucuba japonica, which proved a most troublesome customer, 
always at death’s door while confined to a hot prison, but was found 
capable of taking care of itself when turne'd out and left to contend 
with the elements. In 1S04 M. Thouin published a treatise on the sub¬ 
ject in the “Anuales du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle,” in which he 
presented engravings of this new favourite ; but the best he could say 
for it was that he had persuaded it to live. 
This appears to be the proper place for a brief discourse on the name 
of the plant. We call it colloquially the Day-li-a, but as it is named 
after Dahl the vowel sound should be broad, Bah- li-a ; but custom is 
against its use in that way, and to avoid appearing pedantic most of us 
adhere to the Bay- li-a. It should be understood that this name has 
priority of all others, and we are justified by history no less than by 
custom in using it. The genus of the same name instituted by Thun- 
berg represents a group of Witch Hazels—plants far removed from the 
subject of our present attention. The genus Dalea, named after Dale, 
the friend of Ray, is in the Fabaceous order, and also far removed from 
our noble Mexican flower. A competing name, Georgina, ran Dahlia a 
race for a season, for Professor Wildenow of Berlin, owing to a mis¬ 
apprehension, felt the necessity of suppressing the name adopted by 
Cavanilles, and of substituting Georgina in honour of Professor Georgi 
of St. Petersburgh, which a writer in “ Revue Horticole ” declared, was 
