THE FLORIST. 
7 
6. Thickness of petal, 
7. Quality of petal. 
8. Clearness of the eye. 
9. Tightness in the eye, which prevents the flower becoming loose. 
These 1 suggest as a few of the points of excellence of which it 
is desirable to settle the relative value. Much may be said on some 
of them, particularly colour ; and I shall esteem the remarks of your¬ 
self and of your correspondents on the subject. 
G. W. Hoyle. 
[It appears to us very desirable that some general understanding 
upon the points above alluded to by our able correspondent should 
be arrived as if possible. We are open to any suggestions; and if 
raisers and amateurs would favour us with their opinions on the sub¬ 
ject, it would, to say the least, be interesting to see how far there is 
agreement or the contrary amongst them. We shall, in a subsequent 
number, add our own views ; and endeavour to make them clearly 
understood by the aid of some woodcuts. Before us lie the follow¬ 
ing remarks from two parties, whose opinions are highly esteemed 
from their experience in floriculture. 
The first, an eminent raiser, says : “ We all know what is wanted 
to make a first-rate flower; such as colour, shape, size, clearness of 
petals, substance, rose-edged, with spot running into bottom of top 
petals. Scarcely two men will be found to agree as to the value of 
each of these points.” He adds, “ I have certainly felt that the 
judges at the horticultural shows have not valued colour sufficiently; 
and that shape and clearness, which have been already obtained, are 
estimated at more than their worth, considering the object to be 
attained, which I conceive to be, to bring the Pelargonium on an 
equality in brilliancy with other new varieties of plants, without 
which it must lose some of its favour with the public.” 
The second, one of the first men in “the trade,” says : “ What 
we want is some public test of new flowers. We want to see, for 
instance, Foster’s, Lyne’s, Hoyle’s, Beck’s, Garth’s, Topping’s, Thur- 
tell’s, Gaines’, Catleugh’s, and other seedling-raisers’ productions 
brought face to face in public competition, and independent judges 
to award the prizes; which I say should not be for certain arbitrary 
properties only, but in a great measure for distinctness, novelty, and 
general aptitude for display. The same should be the case with 
seedlings of all other kinds.”] 
“A place for every thing, and every thing in its place,” is a maxim 
too much neglected in gardens. It is too often to be observed that, 
like the midshipman’s chest, it is “ every thing uppermost, and no¬ 
thing at hand.” The time consumed in looking for things that have 
no settled place, in the course of a year or two, costs more than the 
providing suitable arrangements for finding them at once. 
