34 
THE FLORIST. 
EXHIBITIONS ENCOURAGE HORTICULTURE AS 
THEY OUGHT?” 
Under this heading there is an article in last month’s Florist, in which 
reference is made to some Fancy Pelargoniums exhibited by me at the 
last June show of the Royal Botanic Society in the Regent’s Park. 
The nature of this reference has induced me to ask for a space in your 
pages to say a few words concerning it, in conjunction with the report 
given in the July number of the Florist. 1 was urged by many to 
notice the report in question immediately it appeared, as being inac¬ 
curate and unfair ; but I did not do so, and certainly should never have 
troubled myself about it. It then appeared to me a matter of very 
little importance—so far as I was concerflfed—what the inaccuracy or 
unfairness of the report was, until the reference in last month’s Florist 
called my attention to the matter afresh, and has induced me to 
trouble you with a few remarks. 
Let us notice first the report of last July:—It is observable, first of 
all, that the “ variety ” of Pelargonium is pointed to as being by no 
means “ attractive ”—an opinion I am not now going to call in 
question. The same variety was, however, in the collection of Messrs. 
Frazer, of Lea-bridge, which took the second prize at the Crystal 
Palace last May, where only a Turner could be first. It was in 
Mr. Bousie’s collection on the same day, and—if anything is to be 
inferred from the use of italics—in the opinion of the Florist, Mr. B. 
deserved the first instead of the second prize. This was decidedly my 
own opinion, as well as that of many others ; and if my memory 
serves me right, this same variety was staged by Mr. Turner in the 
Regent’s Park in 1855 (it might be in 1854; and if I am in error 
I shall be glad to be set right). None of these gentlemen are novices 
in the selection of sorts with which to do battle at these great shows. 
Certainly this variety has lost some of its attraction by comparison 
with newer sorts. 
It is stated that the plants shown by me did not “ form what is 
termed a head of bloom but the fact that must be patent to all who 
looked at them, that there were masses of bloom-buds not expanded is 
—shall I say—forgotten by the reporter of the Florist. The plants 
were grown for a special purpose, and, had 1 been able to have exhi¬ 
bited them the following month, it would have been seen that they not 
only formed a head, but a back, a front, and two sides of bloom (a thing 
which is not always visible), and that, too, without the aid of a single 
stake. Three weeks after they were exhibited they were seen—by 
scores of people—to be literally flower and nothing else in appear¬ 
ance. It is sufficiently current that they were little more than half 
blown on the day of exhibition. 
The report goes on to state that, “ considering the large pots in 
which they were grown, their size was not very wonderful,” yet, it 
is expressed with the preceding breath, “from their immense size, they 
