March 24,18S7. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
237 
Hybrid Narcissus. —A communication was received from Mr. John J. 
Smith, and specimen of a supposed hybrid between N. Bulbocodium and 
N. obvallaris, or the Tenby Daffodil. He raised about twenty bulbs. The 
flowers were all of the character of Bulbocodium, but larger in flower, stem, 
foliage, and bulb. The present appearance of tbe plants to ordinary 
observers is that of gigantic Bulbocodinms, but there are many interesting 
charges to be noticed, euch as some leaves assuming an upright growth, a 
partial flattening of others, drc. Some doubt was expressed by Mr. Maw as 
to its being a true hybrid, and further communication was requested from 
the author. 
Roots of Fern with Bulbs. —Dr. M. T. Masters exhibited a specimen of 
Daplasium malaharicum with bulbs on the roots ; a rare occurrence. 
A communicat on was received from Ed. B. Welder, Esq., thanking the 
Committ' e for their expres-ion of condolence on the death of his father. 
The Frost Report. —This report having been presented to the Committee, 
a vote of thanks was given to the Rev. G. Henslow for the preparation of 
the same. 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS AND THEIR CULTURE—A 
CRITIQUE. 
Some explanatory remarks were condensed from my paper which 
would have more clearly shown the position I took up as Mr. Molyneux’s 
critic, but still if he had been at ordinary trouble to calmly read and 
interpreted fairly what I advanced he would have at once recognised 
that the gist of the argument lay in the fact that climatic differences 
were the chief factors in the results of our practice, and a want of appre¬ 
ciation of this fact was the cause of our difference of opinion. Mr. 
Molyneux seems to have fumed a little at the audacity of anyone 
questioning his teachings as expressed in his book, and his reply smacks 
a little of injured innocence, whereas no injury was intended, least of 
all that which would detract from the merits of the book as the best 
publication on the subject. On receiving a request from the Secretary 
of the Leeds Paxton Society to read a paper on the Chrysanthemum 
about the time Mr. Molyneux’s book was published, I came to the con¬ 
clusion that to raise a discussion on the points at issue, so far as the 
area which embraces the Yorkshire Union of Horticulturists was con¬ 
cerned, would be more advantageous to the members than would any 
cultural paper of my own on so hackneyed a subject. Until after the 
meeting 1 had no idea that my critique would be published. As I had 
stated my opinions to the eighty gardeners who were present at the 
meeting, I had no objections to face Mr. Molyneux, hoping that his 
successful experience would help us to solve some of the problems of 
bud formation and their complications, which to us, by the nature of Mr. 
Molyneux’s reply, are of more consequence than he can appreciate. As 
cordially as Mr. Molyneux I reciprocate his sentiments that honest 
criticism and fair argument lead to improvement, but if all the im¬ 
provement possible is to be derived from the discussion of a complex 
question like the one in hand, arguments, if conclusive, must be met 
fairly and acknowledged to be so. I fail to see that mild sneers at York¬ 
shire gardeners and at scientific terms will help us to clear up the 
l ’ unaccountables,” and Mr. Molyneux places a very low estimate on the 
capacity of gardeners when he assumes that they are incapable of under¬ 
standing the simple terms in which I chose to convey my meaning in 
the fewest words. 
Mr. Molyneux all through his reply has perversely altered the sense 
of my arguments. To save repetition let your readers place them 
parallel to each other. In his reference to the third of the sections 
compiled by me I am made to set up certain varieties as “ criterions,” and 
pin my faith to them as models of the highest class flowers, where I 
simply included them in the argument in a class of a representative 
collection for a definite and distinctly different purpose, the varieties 
alluded to having no bearing in the sense put by Mr. Molyneux on the 
argument. I know very well that the James Salter string upon which 
Mr. Molyneux harps will not do to play on in good company, but how 
long since did Mr. Molyneux discover that the other varieties named 
were unfit for good society ? Surely if Henri Jacotot is good enough to 
merit a place in a select list requiring special treatment, and Mr. Bunn, 
which surely is one of the Beverley type, and was good enough material 
to be placed in Mr. Molyneux’s very exclusive list of twenty-four in¬ 
curved varieties to be grown for a stand of that number for exhibition, 
if I erred in quoting these varieties I at least erred in good company. 
Again note Mr. Molyneux’s reply to what I stated in reference to his 
little Peter the Great. After deliberately altering the sense of my 
argument he labours hard and travels a long way backwards, only to 
prove that my “ theories ” which I advanced in respect to this plant 
were correct, but I never, as he puts it, absurdly compared such plants 
in their relation to height and quality of bloom with those grown for 
another purpose. At the beginning of the paragraph in which I referred 
to this plant I distinctly brought it forward as an example that quality 
■of bloom, be it good or bad, is in some measure due to the complication 
of bud formation in the earlier stages of the plant from which the cut- 
1 ing was taken. These complications were never mentioned in Mr. 
Molyneux’s book, yet he coolly informs us that my argument is in his 
favour, and then inconsistently goes on to tell us that it is unnecessary 
for beginners to understand those complications. Why ? This is tanta¬ 
mount to saying that the Journal and the other gardening periodicals 
may at once subside, that we may at once dissolve our gardeners’ 
mutual improvement societies, and that the benighted Yorkshire 
gardeners must remain content to shine by the dim light of their own 
experience and just that amount of information added which Mr. 
Molyneux chooses to eke out to us. 
_ Mr. Molyneux is equally unfortunate in his reply on the question of 
topping plants indiscriminately at 8 inches high. I never inferred that 
he was in favour of that practice, nor yet again inferred that he said 
that the dwarf plants, which produced the unaccountably fine flowers, 
are dwarf owing to their being topped or broken. If he had followed 
the sequence of my paper, taking the second part of it t o better illustrate 
my meaning, the fact could not have escaped him that I was reasoning 
with a definite object in view, and used certain illustrations to show or 
prove what I meant, and the paper taken in its entirety can in no 
way be treated fairly as he has treated it by picking out here and there, 
from which in each case to found an orthodox homily on, simply to show 
how ignorantly heterodox his critic must be. 
In the-paragraph referring to the question of dwarf plants producing 
good flower’s, and tall plants producing poor flowers, Mr. Molyneux fully 
admits what I stated to be correct, and then attempts to stultify both 
himself and me by saying that his experience is the reverse of mine in 
this matter. The only other construction which can be placed upon 
his statement is the one that he is assuming, that I had stated that 
dwarf plants generally produce better flowers than tall plants. In no 
sense can I be charged with making such a statement. 
In alluding to the style of my treatment of the crown bud formation, 
how deftly Mr. Molyneux transfers the responsibility of teaching 
beginners from his own shoulders to mine. He says I am very full but 
not sufficiently clear, because I chose two or three technical terms, which 
he grandiloquently magnifies into “ scientific terms,” to indicate that 
certain consequences would accrue if the plants were not in a condition 
which every gardener is supposed to be able to decide upon by ordinary 
observation, whether it be a Chrysanthemum or any other plant. Really, 
Mr. Molyneux, this is simply begging the question ; and to again answer 
his query, What are the well known causes ? would be running the risk 
of being put out of court by the Editor for attempting to monopolise 
space, by reiteration of previous arguments which have been already 
fully brought forward. 
In answering a query which I put in reference to modification of 
height as affecting influence on the flower, Mr. Molyneux has enume¬ 
rated a variety of causes to account for it; but as affecting growers in 
the north, the most important, and those underlaying the whole con¬ 
troversy, as advanced in my “ critique,” he never admits into his 
calculations ; on the contrary, we are told that it is not necessary for 
us to understand them. These causes are the earlier complicating ones, 
which affect the setting at the proper time of that bud which is retained 
to develope into the flower. If Mr. Molyneux can afford, owing to his 
climatic conditions, to ignore these causes, we who are situated where 
the autumn begins considerably sooner, and very often accompanied by 
sunless skies—denying to us the necessary ripening influences to act on 
plants already behind in this respect, owing to our smoky atmosphere 
—cannot afford to ignore those complications, because if the buds are 
not secured within a very narrow margin, on account of the above 
causes, they never develope into good flowers, no matter whether topped 
or grown otherwise. On the other hand, when secured at the proper 
time, they are at least good enough to do us credit, if not exactly good 
enough to bring us into the front rank of exhibitors. Although the 
exhibition table may be the primary object with some growers, there arc 
quite as many who grow representative collections for the pleasure of 
having them in as high a state of perfection as is possible toatta : n 
under the conditions under which they are placed ; and my contention 
all the way through my paper was that having healthy vigorous plants 
for our foundation, if they were topped at the time which experience 
had proven to us as the most suitable for them, to make one instalment 
of growth free from bud complications, which this topping would free 
us from, as in the case of Eve and Mabel Ward, this growth made ar.d 
ripened will produce us better flowers than that wood which I described 
in my “ paper,” which is the result of chance complications, and which 
would throw us too far into the autumn for us to secure the best remits. 
In reference to Mabel Ward and Eve, it is no proof that the other 
varieties are not amenable to the topping system, because the previous 
sorts have proved more obstinate in producing good flowers when allowed 
to break naturally, but the reverse if we are to reason from analogy ; 
and practical experience, much as it may help us in clearing up this 
matter, is no proof without all collateral causes affecting the result are 
taken in consideration, many of which probably have had more influence 
in the result than the simple process of topping or leaving: untopped. 
Gladly I withdraw the statement that Mr. Molyneux “ made guesses 
as to his dates for the guidance of growers in other districts,” but 
second-hand information of that sort requires to be carefully considered, 
because scarcely two practitioners can work in exact parallel lines in 
their practice. In conclusion, I may add that I should have been glr.d 
to have kept my own personality in the background, but Mr. Molyneux 
infers that I am only a small grower, and I suppose he thinks that what 
1 may advance on the subject is more theoretical than practical; but 
although personally unknown to “ Mr. Molyneux and to fame,” I cau 
assure him that I have grown and made a study of the Chrysanthemum 
for more than eleven years.— T. Gaknett. 
VIOLET LADY ESLINGTON. 
Enclosed I send you a few blooms of a new Violet, Lady Eslington. 
It is not the value of the variety, but the way it has originated that has 
induced me to send them. It is a sport from Marie Louise. You will 
see the colour closely approaches the old beautiful Neapolitan. The 
form is rather broader than that variety. The plant is dwarfer in habit 
and the leaves considerably longer. 
