NOVEMBER. 
345 
oflate not having sustained what was expected of them when they were 
seedlings. The winning stands contained 63 kinds, ten of which were 
new; they stood respectively— 
*Jupiter . 
. 5 
Village Bride . 
. 2 
Oliver Twist 
. . 4 
Coun tess of Bective 
. 1 
Mrs. Boshell. 
. 3 
Fa vo urite . 
. 1 
Beauty of Highcross 
. . 2 
Ihg3r 
. 1 
Marc Antony 
. 2 
Papil io 
. 1 
Of old kinds, most times shown 
we may enumerate — 
Lady Paxton . 
. 9 
Souter Johnny 
. 5 
Charles Perry . 
. . 8 
Triomphe de Roubaix 
. 5 
Coronation 
. 7 
Duchess of Kent 
. 4 
Conqueror. 
. . 7 
Enchantress . 
. 4 
Baron Alderson 
. 5 
La Defi 
. 4 
Empress Eugenie 
. . 5 
Gloire de Kain 
. 3 
By far the finest Fancy Dahlia shown was Baron Alderson. 
It is not 
easy to fix on the 
finest in the other class, there being 
so many 
perfect specimens, but perhaps Lady Popham would have the most 
admirers. 
In the new flowers, Village Gem was most conspicuous, and certainly 
carried the palm; in form and delicacy of marking it was most 
beautiful. Miss Pressley, Commander, Mrs. Church, Marion, and King 
were very good. 
Midnight in the older kinds was greatly admired, as it deserved: it 
is by far the best dark shaded variety ; and there were no end of fine 
Cherubs, Lady Pophams, Colonel Windhams, Touchstones, and 
Perfections. 
AURICULA POTS, &c. 
Before entering upon the express object of this paper, allow me to 
correct a few errors in my last, on the Auricula stage, arising probably 
from my indistinct writing, except the first, which *vas a careless 
expression. In the opening sentence, read “ It was my intention to 
offer " instead of “to have offered." At page 282, end of third line, 
instead of “7 5-16ths thick,” read “’and 5-16^/fo thick." At page 
283, line 4, instead of “ box" read “ bar "; and at fifth line from 
bottom, instead of “ strips of deal If X §,” read “ 1| x §.” In 
Fig. 1, the front or lower part of the light is not very correctly drawn, 
but any decent carpenter can correct it. I ought to state that I do not 
give this frame as an original invention of my own, but as an improve¬ 
ment of one I saw in the garden of your correspondent “ Iota,” which 
in its turn was, I believe, an improvement of Dr. Horner’s frame, given in 
the Florist of 1850. With regard to the expense of such a frame, all 
I can say is, that mine cost me about £4 each, complete. The glass, 
26 oz. to the foot, in panes not exceeding 42 X 30, is to be had at 6c/. 
per square foot (I gave only 4 \d. for my first). Its thickness enables 
it to resist a tolerably hard blow, but I advise every one to have a 
couple of squares in hand in case of accident, as such glass cannot be 
* These have been figured by us. 
