394 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ May 19. 1887. 
the first representative of a new and glorious race of floral beauties. It 
is a matter of the highest importance in this connection, that while we 
have in the old books figures of Auriculas, there is no suggestion either 
in figures or words of an edged Auricula until, in the “ Flower Garden 
Displayed,” by Sir Thomas Moore, we have the characters of Honour 
and Glory plainly set before us, fixing the date of its origin as certainly 
not later than 1734. In Parkinson’s “ Paradisus,” page, 237, are figures 
of Auriculas in which stripes are suggested ; but the draughtsmanship is 
of so rough an order that it would be unsafe to found a critical opinion 
on any of them. While, however, we may lament that the literary 
florists of the olden time were not careful of our interests in their floral 
portraiture, we are not without the aid of the facile pencil in respect of 
evidence of the kind of flower that gave birth to the edged Auricula. 
There were men who understood flowers in days when edged Auriculas 
were unknown, and when, possibly, the striped Auriculas had not long 
been invented. It is generally understood that for the Auriculas of the 
garden we are indebted to the Dutch florists, who made the first 
beginning in the domestication of the savage of the Alps. And our 
debt to the Dutch painters is not less great for representations of the 
flowers as the Dutch had improved them, and these representations 
testify to the pure love of nature by which the Dutchmen of old time 
were animated both in their horticultural and pictorial arts. 
The artists of the real Dutch school have never been equalled at any 
time before or since in the directness of their interpretation of Nature, 
and the reason of their pre-eminence is seen when we compare contem¬ 
porary works of other nations, say of the French for example, for the 
French did follow, as they thought, the wonderful contribution of the 
Netherlands to the joy of the world. The fact is the Dutch painters of 
t le cl len time loved Nature and lived as near to her as circumstances 
would allow, but their French disciples, in common with disciples of 
other nations, loved themselves and lived from Nature, and so failed of 
true interpretation. The one painted the thing as it was ; the other as, 
in his vain fancy, it ought to be. First in the throng of the Dutchmen 
who have left on record the characters of the flowers of 200 years since. 
I will name David de Heem, Abraham Mignon, and Jan Van Huysum, 
These, in their splendid groups of flowers, show us the Auriculas of the 
days of Gerard and Parkinson, and there was a golden opportunity for 
London florists in the last exhibition of Old Masters at the Royal 
Academy for observing in a picture, by Van Huysum, the characters of 
the florists’ Auricula of his day. I have placed before you a rough sketch 
of a bunch of flowers as they appear in the centre of that picture. The 
selfsame flowers, or say flowers of the same type, occur commonly in 
the groups of Jan Van Huysum ; they are usually in trusses of ten or 
twelve ; the pips are of the size and form of show Auriculas of the 
present day, with bold yellow eyes, a clear paste, a bold broad margin 
marked with stripes of colour radiating from the centre. You will 
observe in the diagram that Van Iluysum's Auriculas had distinct 
geometrical properties; the edge is wanting, and the body colour is 
broken into rays, but the proportions are precisely such as modern 
canons would require were such striped flowers now in demand. 
It will be observed, then, as the result of a comparison, that in the 
progress of time the rays have become consolidated into a belt by the 
withdrawal of the colour inwards, thus leaving a margin of the green 
colour, which, as we have agreed in supposing, was the sole colour of the 
Auricula in the first instance before it became a yellow flower on the 
Alps. I do not insist on this view, for I am content to deal with facts, 
and the facts appear to demonstrate that the formation of the edge is a 
late process, and the facte do emphatically suggest that the edge is 
formed in accordance with a large plan of Nature much more than by 
any fancy or foible of man. To put the case another way, I would say 
that the edged Auricula adds a chapter to the history of evolution much 
more directly than to the history of fashion in floriculture. We have 
apparently four colours in a show Auricula, but the paste is but an ex¬ 
tension and intensification of the meal, and white and grey edges are of 
the selfsame constitution. The ground colour of the paste is yellow, and 
the ground colour of the edge is green, and the body colour may be 
likened to the dark zone on the leaf of a zonate Pelargonium. Van 
Huysum’s flowers show an extension of the yellow to the margin with 
heavy rays of red overlaid ; there is no green traceable ; that in the 
Auricula is a late development, and it has a meaning of some sort apart 
altogether from our tastes and aspirations as florists. 
For a moment let me direct your attention to a few collateral facts. 
In the old books there are no figures or descriptions of edged Carnations. 
Those of the times of Van Huysum and Gerard were flaked and spotted, 
and the spotted flowers were called Picotees. The origin of the term 
has been much debated, but the end of the story is that it came from 
France and was applied to a flower distinguished by spots and blotches. 
The edged l’icotee is a late growth, and offers an analogy to the Auricula. 
The colour has undergone a process of concentration and of segregation, 
taking an isolated position on the very edge of the petals, but always 
showing a tendency to run inward as a kind of reversion to its original 
state. The lateness of the origin of the florist Picotee is a matter, as it 
appears to me, of peculiar biological interest. Again, we have edged 
and tipped Dahlias of later origin than edged Carnations, and, like 
them, fitful in behaviour, the edge tending ever to thrust its colour 
downward on the face of the florets, and so spoil the flower for the 
florist’s purpose. The lateness of the edged Dahlias accounts for their 
scarcity and inconstancy ; for in truth the Picotee edge is in process of 
formation, for in these matters Nature does not hurry herself ; if man 
is impatient she is not, having more time at command than her biped 
moth that flutters in the flame of its small passions for an hour and then 
is seen no more. 
It appears that flowers do not begin business with edges, but we 
cannot say they end with them, because we know not what the end may 
be. It is of great significance that the edge of the Auricula is green; 
it would perhaps comfort us were it yellow, for then we might consider 
the colour as an extension from the centre, but the green suggests that 
the flower is about to change into a leaf, and pass away. We see in¬ 
cipient edges in Pelargoniums, Azaleas, Amaryllis, and other flowers, 
suggesting that definite edges will be formed in time, but our best 
examples of flowers that have made up their minds on the matter are 
the Auriculas, Picotees, and Dahlias. These are late developments, and 
they suggest that the formation of the edge is the result of cultivation, 
and a proper end to aim at in the selection of seedlings and the framing 
of exhibition schedules. 
One of the most interesting discussions amongst the many that have 
characterised the meetings of the Horticultural Club followed the 
reading of Mr. Hibberd’s paper. 
Mr. T. F. Rivers objected to Mr. Hibberd’s estimate of the accuracy 
and excellence of the Dutch painters of flowers, contending that the 
French artists alone were capable of painting flowers with truth and 
taste, and had carried the art so far as to accomplish a brilliant success 
in painting white Roses on a white ground. The contrast between the 
two schools, he said, need not invalidate the argument founded on the 
pictures, for it was at least fair to believe that the Dutch painters put 
upon their canvas the flowers they saw, for their imagination was not 
equal to the creation of flowers for the purpose. As regards the range 
of variation of plants of pure descent, he would mention the many new 
fruits raised by his father, Mr. Thomas Rivers, to which he had himself 
added in continuation of his father’s labours. Take the Peaches for ex¬ 
ample ; they were of pure descent, the Peach had never been hybridised. 
Certainly there was no known record or evidence of such an occurrence, 
therefore all Peaches were Peaches pvr et simple. Yet how various in 
character, and not only differing in size, season, colour, and flavour, 
but in the smoothness or otherwise of the skin, for Nectarines were true 
Peaches derived from the Peach stone, and he had seen both fruits in 
perfection on the same tree, and even on the same branch. Therefore 
observation of fruits tended to strengthen Mr. Hibberd’s contention 
that the show Auricula is of pure descent from the Auricula of the 
Alps, for its range of variations is in no way exceptional. 
The Chairman, Mr. John Lee, remarked that he had seen white and 
black Grapes- on the same Vine, and on one or two occasions in the same 
bunch. The diversity of characters in Auriculas, therefore, does not 
present so great a difficulty as appeared to many who were unfamiliar 
with the variations of plants under cultivation. 
The Rev. H. H. D’Ombrain remarked that variation in the Auricula 
was not a property of seedling plants alone, for established varieties, 
and those the most constant in their several classes, would vary at times. 
For example, autumnal flowers were often untrue, and a spring truss 
that rose from the centre of the plant was also liable to play false, so 
that even if stripes should appear they would not prove variation from 
the seed ; and, consequently, were not necessarily evidences of hybridi¬ 
sation. Mr. Hibberd had placed on the table a pen-and-ink drawing of 
Holley’s Lord Nelson Auricula, in which the paste was cracked, and that 
was a common occurrence, and was, t erliaps, from the biological aspects 
of the subject, a variation rather than an accident, more especially as 
the cracks were in radiating lines, showing how the corolla would separate 
into five petals were it to be cut down to the tube. 
Mr. James Douglas said he had raised an immense number of seedling 
Auriculas, and had not seen a striped flower amongst them. Mr. Hibberd 
had probably not taken sufficient note of the difference amongst 
Auriculas in respect of the amount of meal on the leaves, for while 
some were loaded others were entirely destitute of meal. This appeared 
to weaken the argument for pure descent. The variety named Abbe 
Liszt, which was certificated at the Exhibition of the National Auricula 
.Society, April 26th, was the only first-rate variety out of a batch of a 
thousand seedlings raised from seed carefully fertilised from the finest 
named varieties. But in that thousand there was found the greatest 
diversity of character, and although only one was worth naming, all 
were beautiful, and many had strong features of colour and form. As 
regards the raising of varieties having special character, he would remark 
that to obtain first-class green-edge flowers was the most difficult of all, 
but how that would tell in the theory of pedigree he would not jonjec- 
ture. But he could, perhaps, throw a ray of light on the question of 
descent, for to raise show Auriculas the seed must be derived from show 
Auriculas, and to raise Alpine Auriculas the seed must be derived from 
Alpine Auriculas. In the whole batch of a thousand plants he had 
referred to as including the beautiful Abbe Liszt, although their charac¬ 
ters varied in all imaginable degrees, there was not a single Alpine ; for 
it should be remembered that in an Alpine there is no proper paste, for 
the natural yellow of the zone surrounding the eye appeared, whereas 
in a show flower that yellow zone was covered with the white powder 
that constituted the paste. Another fact bearing on pedigree is that to 
raise good show seifs we must breed from seifs. [The Rev. H. H. D’Ombrain 
remarked that seedlings of show varieties often flowered as seifs, 
to which Mr. Douglas replied that] The seifs raised from edged flowers 
were invariably bad, having no fixity of character and no quality as 
show flowers. And yet again, he had been raising varieties for many 
years from thrum-eyed flowers, and new he had so few pin-eyed flowers 
amongst his seedlings, that it appeared he had bred out the pin-eyed 
character from his strain of show flowers. The florists were justified in 
their preference for thrum eyes, not only on the score of beauty, but in 
the fact that thrum-eyed flowers were more vigorous than pin-eyed, 
showing that the short stigma was best for the plant. Thus his own 
