December 13,1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
543 
Conference in Birmingham in August, and a resolution was unanimously 
passed, “ That in the opinion of this Conference the term ‘ Violetta or 
Miniature ' shall be now used in reference to all flowers of the Violetta 
type, and they must not exceed IJ inch in diameter, and that this 
Conference adopt Mr. Steel’s suggestions as to the recognised properties 
of the Violetta or Miniature section.” These rules as to the “properties” 
of this section will be found in the admirable report of the Conference 
just issued ; but from it I take one item of Mr. Steel’s views, and that 
is as to “ habit,” which should be dwarf and procumbent, the foliage 
small and bright, the leaves close together, the joints short, and the 
habit bushy, with flower stalks of such length as will bring all the 
flowers well together. 
No one deserves greater acknowledgment in the introduction and 
improvement of this pretty type of the popular Viola than Mr. George 
Steel, of Etal, who has for some years devoted great attention to the 
the plant was so small only a little stock at present exists of it. I 
very sincerely hope it may be seen at the next Viola Conference, and on 
that occasion a goodly number of beautiful new varieties with increased 
shades of colour will be forthcoming. 
There are other raisers at work now, and this pretty section finds a 
host of admirers, for in addition to Mr. Steel’s seedlings, fit to be sent 
out, Mr. A. J. Rowberry is at work, and has already gained distinction 
with his charming Olivetta, a bright blue lilac self, and Mr. George 
McLeod sent to the Conference some very charming seedlings, and 
others are also raising seedlings. 
As the originators of this section, the names of Mr. George Steel and 
Dr. Stuart, whose portraits (figs. 85 and 86) are now published, must 
be coupled, and the former is to be credited for having brought the 
Violettas prominently into notice and raising so many new varieties.— 
William Dean, 
Mr.H.W. Robertson, Mr. W.H. Gabb, Mr. W.B. Latbaji, Mr. John Forbes, Mr.GEO. M’Leod, Mr.H. A.Needs, Rev. A.D.Mayou, 
Wokiug. Birmingham. Birmingham. Hawick. Hon. Secy. L.P.S. Hon. Treas. N.A.G.A. Amington. 
Mr. A. J. Rowberry, Prof. Hillhouse, F.L.S., Mr. Wm. Cuthbertson, Mr. William Dean, Mr. William Sydenham, 
Hon. Assist. Secy. N.A.G. A. Birmingham. Rothesay (C7wiiman). Birmingham (Secretari/). Tamworth. 
Fig. 87.—viola conference—BIRMINGHAM, 1894. 
Violetta section. His first variety was raised in 1887 as a chance 
seedling from Countess of Hopetoun, the well-known popular large- 
flowered white, and at that time Mr. Steel had not heard of the original 
Violetta raised by Dr. Stuart, of Chirnside ; but Mr. Steel thought so 
little of this seedling that he was greatly inclined to throw it away, but 
retained it because it was so pure in colour, and comparatively rayless, 
and so fragrant. Seeds were saved from it, and a few plants raised, but 
only two of them produced rayless flowers, and one of these (Mrs. 
Joseph Oliver) was afterwards sent out. 
In 1889 Mr. Steel had heard of Dr. Stuart’s Violetta, and a plant 
or two kindly sent to him by the Doctor proved it to be quite distinct 
from Mr. Steel’s original seedling, having a white ground colour with a 
large distinct yellow blotch or lip from the eye and the lower petal, and 
this is a characteristic in many of the white ground Violettas. The two 
were crossed in 1890, and produced some very charming seedlings, 
flowers of which he sent to me, and by your kindness a report of them 
was published in the Journal of Horticulture, amongst them Maggie 
Steele, Jeannie Turnbull, and Mrs. George Finlay. These were all 
rayless, by which is meant that no blotch or markings of any sort were 
to be found from the eye of the flower. 
In 1891 and 1892 Mr. Steel tried the experiment of crossing his 
Violetta seedlings with pollen of the sweet-scented garden Violet, but in 
only one instance could he trace any parentage of the Violet; but as 
THE TOMATO—FRUIT OR VEGETABLE? 
I WROTE on page 493 that Mr. J. Douglas is said to have referred in 
his lecture that the Tomato may be shown both as a fruit or vegetable. 
This is a matter which deserves the attention of the Royal Horticultural 
Society as to whether the Tomato may be exhibited in a collection of 
fruit without fear of being disqualified. A decision based on its rightful 
inclusion or exclusion as a fruit will do much to solve a present doubt 
in the minds of our foremost exhibitors. 
There are several kinds of Tomatoes catalogued as being suitable for 
dessert, but that does not clear them as regards the import of my note. 
I quote an instance that occurred with me in connection with the above 
at Wolverhampton Horticultural'show three years ago. I was exhibiting 
a collection of “ ten dishes ” fruit, and being short of a presentable dish, 
a friend recommended me to include a dish of Tomatoes, which I 
did. 1 believe the variety was Perfection. I found I was likely to 
secure second honours, and retired self-complacent with that idea 
as probable, but on returning, to my chagrin and surprise, the word 
“ disqualified ” appeared on my exhibit. On confronting the judges 
on the matter I was ridiculed at the idea of submitting the Tomatoes 
as a dish of fruit. I shall therefore feel gratified to have a little 
light on this subject from some of your able coadjutors,— Geo. Dyke, 
Stuhton Hall Gardens. 
