December 6, 1894, 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
523 
24 inches long and 18 inches wide.” but this is what I did not do. The 
point raised by Mr. Wells was “ What is the metropolitan plan ? ” and 
in my reply I said if Mr. Wells had read the whole of regulation 8 he 
would have known, as the regulation definitely stated what that plan 
was, and I quoted the regulation. For my part I think most exhibitors 
would construe the committee’s request to be a command in the same 
way that a gardener would not refuse to do anything if requested to 
do so by his employer because that employer did not command him to 
do it. I think Mr. Wells was rightly disqualified in that he infringed 
the regulationa. 
The regulation 8 of the Battersea Society in respect to the boards is 
very definite, the regulation reading “ Every exhibit must be correctly 
named (groups excepted) ; stands for twelve blooms must be 24 inches 
long and 18 inches wide ; for six blooms 12 inches long and 18 inches 
wide ; the holes must be 6 inches apart from centre to centre, and 
each board must be 6 inches high at back and 3 inches in front, and 
painted green ; two ‘ six ’ boards may be used for exhibiting twelve 
blooms, and two ‘ twelve ’ boards for twenty-four blooms. No cup 
or wire support shall exceed 3 inches in diameter.” 
I may state for “ Lex’s ” benefit that affiliated societies are not 
bound to accept the National Chrysanthemum Society’s regulation as 
to discretion in the size of boards for Japanese blooms, the National 
Society very wisely, as I think, allowing societies to make their own 
regulations. I quite agree with “Lex’s” last paragraph. 
With respect to Mr. H. Orman’s suggestion (page 500), of inserting 
a clause in schedules giving exhibitors the option of showing Japanese 
blooms or larger blooms, I think it a very good one and well worth 
the attention of committees of societies when framing their schedules 
for the season of 1895.—R. Filkins, Oakhanh, Cliislehurst. 
The Teignmouth Disqualification. 
We note in last week’s issue of the Jotornal of Horticulture 
(page 498) Mr. Herrin’s remarks re Beauty of Teignmouth and Duke 
of York Chrysanthemums. He says that the slight difference in the 
colour of the two blooms was due to the fact that Beauty of Teignmouth 
was a younger bloom. So far from such being the case, we know that 
the bloom shown at Exeter of Beauty of Teignmouth was shown at 
Teignmouth eight days before, and was in fine condition a week 
previous, whereas Duke of York was only cut the day before the Exeter 
show. Notwithstanding this, the variety we introduced was much 
firmer and brighter in colour. Anyone seeing the two varieties growing 
together would at once acknowledge them to be distinct. When one 
notes the slight difference in many of the existing varieties, we fail to 
see what right the Judges had to disqualify Mr. Foster on the ground of 
having two blooms of the same variety in his box. As Mr. Herrin’s 
remarks have been published, we hope you will, in fairness to Mr. 
Foster and ourselves, make room for this.—W. Hannapord & Son. 
Mr. Herrin of Dropmore, in your issue of the 29th (page 498) 
states the bloom exhibited at Exeter show as Beauty of Teignmouth 
was a young bloom of Duke of York. This very much intensifies the 
mystery already connected with this award, for the bloom of Beauty of 
Teignmouth exhibited at Exeter had already been exhibited at Teign¬ 
mouth show, having been cut a week, while that of Duke of York 
required several days longer to perfect, as although placed in warmer 
house for several days before Exeter show it still showed green petals in 
centre when staged. Where are we getting to, if two varieties alto¬ 
gether different in habit, floret, and colour, and one a month earlier than 
the other, are to be pronounced identical ? 
Beauty of Teignmouth on the mown is of a purplish-maroon with 
reddish-cream reverse, spoon-shaped tips, crown 4 feet 6 inches, terminal 
6 feet, foliage sharp ; Duke of York clear deep rose, silvery rose reverse, 
rather pointed tips, crown 6 feet, terminal 7 feet to 7 feet 6 inches, 
foliage oblate. Beauty of Teignmouth on the terminal is more purple 
than the crown, and has a sharper petal, but the difference is at the 
same time clearly discernible. I saw both these plants and blooms 
before the latter were cut and after staging, and feel sure either the 
hurry or the light must have misled so competent a judge as Mr. 
Molyneux, as neither the plants, blooms, nor grower were at fault.— 
George Crabbe. 
[We have already said on page 468 that the plants sent to us were 
dissimilar both in colour and foliage, but they were “ late struck ” plants, 
and not those which afforded the blooms exhibited. Had they been sent 
without names we should have regarded the one named Beauty of Teign¬ 
mouth as Duke of York, from the colour being similar to all the blooms 
of the latter we have seen exhibited. We have not observed any so pale 
as those on the plant named Duke of York, but the blooms were not 
a quarter developed. We are informed that when typical blooms of 
both varieties were placed before the Floral Committee of the National 
Chrysanthemum Society they were considered “ too-much-alike,” and it 
is said that Mr. Hannaford has practically acquiesced in that opinion, 
while claiming distinctness in other respects, such as habit of plant and 
persistence of bloom in Beauty of Teignmouth. Undoubtedly, for the 
purpose of exhibiting in stands, it is a question of the blooms staged 
being distinct, and as such clearly recognisable, apart from the habit of 
plants and foliage, which are not before the Judges. Are the blooms 
alone of the two varieties sufficiently dissimilar to be regarded as “dis¬ 
tinct” for exhibition stands? The N.C.S. experts, judging from the 
specimens before them, appear to have thought not, and further expe¬ 
rience seems necessary for settling the point at issue. The Judges who 
officiated at Teignmouth are competent and cautious men, and differences 
which they failed to see could scarcely be very glaring. Moreover, both 
are strong enough to admit a mistake if another season’s experience 
satisfies them or the Committee of the N.C.S. that the varieties are not 
too much alike for exhibiting in cut bloom classes.1 
Reports of Chrysanthemum Shows. 
As one who takes an interest in exhibiting, permit me to congratu¬ 
late you on the many reports of Chrysanthemum shows which have been 
published in your pages during the la.st four or five weeks. In the four 
issues of November I have counted as many as seventy-four reports, and 
these cannot fail to have interested numerous readers. No doubt there 
are many persons who would prefer other matter to a report of a show, 
which must necessarily be more or less of a stereotyped character, but 
most exhibitors like to see a reference made in the public Press to their 
productions. In connection with this, too, I should like to say that 
secretaries of Chrysanthemum and other horticultural societies which 
provide open classes obviously find it an advantage to announce the 
terms and dates of their respective exhibitions through the advertise¬ 
ment pages of a well-known gardening paper, such as the Journal of 
Horticulture, of which I am an old reader.— Chrysanthemum. 
No doubt readers of the Journal of Horticulture will feel some 
relief on finding that the season of Chrysanthemum show reports is close 
at hand. To the conductors of gardening papers reports are matters of 
almost cruel necessity, as everyone concerned in a show likes to have 
it reported, and there is often very much taking of offence if such reports 
be not published. Of course the report may interest only a very few 
persons, but then so many reports interest so many persons ; hence 
perhaps the chief excuse for their publication. All the same, so much 
alike are the schedules and the shows that a report of one reads, less 
the names of the competitors, like to a report of twenty others. 
After all it is a trial which ordinary readers can manage to endure as 
it is of short duration, whilst so many persons are gratified. But it is 
not so much the pleasure or pain to readers that the multiplication of 
show reports in the Journal may give as is the evidence they afford of 
the wonderfully widespread range of shows, and the remarkable hold 
the Chrysanthemum has upon the public at large. Is it possible to 
obtain a complete record of the Chrysanthemum shows held in Great 
Britain and Ireland now in each autumn ? I think it is very likely to 
be found they will number 200 at least. I counted in one list no less 
than sixty-six held in one week alone, and that may have been for that 
one week a very incomplete return. 
It would also be very interesting could we learn how many new 
shows come into existence each year, and how many die out. Perhaps 
the Executive of the National Chrysanthemum Society might be able to 
give this information. Certainly it would present a table quite as 
interesting as is found in a flower analysis, and much other information 
relating to the Chrysanthemum, that is from time to time published. 
We might even go farther and obtain some return as to the total amount 
offered as prize money at Chrysanthemum shows, and still farther, the 
total annual expenditure. It is very probable that such a return would 
show some remarkable figures. 
It is sometimes asked whether it is the dog that wags the tail or the 
tail moves the dog. In the same sense it may well be asked whether the 
exceeding fondness for the Chrysanthemum in a locality led to the 
formation of a local society and show, or whether the show was the 
chief instrument in creating the popular taste for Chrysanthemum 
culture. No doubt both acts and reacts, and it is very probable that 
shows have sprung from both causes. One result which may flow from 
a carefully compiled return of the number of shows annually held 
would be that we should have an excellent guide in following the 
fortunes of the flower, whether it ebbed or flowed, waxed or waned. 
The next satisfactory feature about the existence of so many shows 
is that they seem to have come into existence very gradually. Practi¬ 
cally they have been the growth of half a century, as the first real 
Chrysanthemum show is reported to have been held in Norwich so 
long ago as 1830. Although we do know that growth has been gradual, 
still we know very little as to its rate, and that is certainly worth 
knowing. Changes and variations, too, are worth reporting in classes 
and features. 
No doubt the chief change, perhaps the greatest likely ever to be 
made, resulted from the introduction of the wonderful Japanese 
varieties, and very happily so, as it seems so doubtful whether the 
popularity which now attends upon Chrysanthemums could have long 
endured had it only formal, stiff, and uninteresting incurves, reflexed, 
and Pompons to subsist upon. 
Aoart from the fully recognised fact that the Japanese on the show 
boards have been the saving graces to exhibitions, the new'er ideas 
respecting their adaptability for decor.ative effect seems likely to spread 
widely, and perhaps in time effect changes in our Chrysanthemum 
exhibitions that cannot be lightly estimated. It does seem most 
improbable, let these shows be ever so popular, that the old formal or 
stereotyped methods of showing blooms can go on for ever. Even of the 
most beautiful of sights the appreciative public tire in time, unless 
some new attractions he furnished. The most popular and long-lived of 
shows will very likely be those whose promoters realise so much and act 
accordingly. Whatever may be the ultimate product, at least the 
Chrysanthemum remains as the only flower that ever has created such 
profound interest and such a legion of exhibitions.—A. D. 
