1878.] 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF FLORISTS’ FLOWERS-1. 
53 
pact habit; the trusses of blossoms are large, 
close, and even on the surface ; and the indi¬ 
vidual heads of flowers stand together so that 
the edges of the florets just touch each other; 
whilst each separate flower (more strictly each 
flower-head) is of great size, and forms a com¬ 
plete circle, the florets (often called petals), 
being broad and stiff, and of the most beautiful 
and varied colours. 
The ‘ double ’ Cineraria , from which so much 
was expected, has so far disappointed most 
growers. The seed that has been sold as that 
of the ‘ double ’ has generally produced utterly 
worthless varieties. From a 7s. Cd. packet 
purchased last season I had not one double 
flower. Some few good double flowers have, 
however, been seen, so that we may hope ere 
long to meet with some advance in this class of 
varieties, for they would be most valuable 
plants for decorative purposes. — Edward 
Bennett, Rabley Nursery , Shenley. [Messrs. 
Dickson and Co. have some good doubles.] 
THE REV. G. JEANS ON THE 
PHILOSOPHY OF FLORISTS’ FLOWERS—I. 
Gj]pN one of the earlier volumes of the first 
6] [6 series of the Florist (1849) was pub- 
lished a most valuable series of papers 
on the “ Philosophy of Florists’ Flowers,” by 
the Bev. G. Jeans, writing under the nom de 
plume of “ Iota.” No such clear definition of 
the principles which should guide the true 
florist in his attempts to mould any particular 
flower to his requirements, has been penned 
either before or since. As the early numbers 
which contain this series of papers are out of 
print, we have been requested to republish 
them, for the benefit of the florists and lovers 
of flowers of a new generation. This we have 
consented to do, in the hope of clearing away 
some of the misconceptions which exist as to 
the aim and objects of those who engage in 
the cultivation and improvement of what are 
called “ florists’ flowers ”—a gradually widening 
circle, extended by the acquisition from time to 
time of some new popular favourite, but to 
which the same principles, mutatis mutandis , will 
always apply. The papers consist of a series of 
letters addressed to the Superintendent of the 
Florist, and rve commence with that published 
in May, 1849. To quote the words with which 
they were then introduced to the public, we 
may also hope that “ many will be furnished in 
these essays with replies to such objections 
as Addison raised in his day—that he looked 
upon it as a piece of happiness that he had 
never fallen into any of these fantastical tastes 
—objections which are largely partaken of by 
others in our own times, who eating with the 
greatest satisfaction fruits improved in size and 
flavour by the skill of the fruitist, would try 
to cast ridicule upon florists, for attempting to 
develope those beautiful forms and colours in 
flowers which administer to as refined a taste 
as that of the palate.” Mr. Jeans writes:— 
“ When you said, in your number for 
November, that you had had a smile excited 
by seeing the worst Pelargoniums in your 
collection the most admired, you only spoke 
the experience of all who have a collection of 
any florists’ flowers; to whom it is a common 
mortification, when exhibiting the objects of 
their care to casual observers, to have the 
most perfect kinds passed by without notice, 
even when attention is called to them, while 
the defective are singled out for approbation. 
This well-known fact is often appealed to as a 
proof of the intrinsic unsoundness of the 
florist’s standards of preference, and of the 
uselessness of his labours ; in fact, that all is 
mere whim and caprice. 
“ There is also another difference between 
the cultivator and the public, somewhat more 
specious as a matter of reproach against us, 
and often triumphantly adduced as decisive 
of the advantage possessed by the uninitiated 
over the initiated,—that a simple admirer of 
nature will look with pleasure upon a Primrose 
or a Pansy, from which the connoisseur would 
turn with disgust. It is thence argued that our 
science is worse than useless. 
“ Nor is this treatment of our pursuit con¬ 
fined to those who, being ignorant themselves, 
would fain plead for ‘ ignorance as bliss.’ The 
really scientific and kindred botanist (he must 
excuse us for claiming the relationship of a 
younger brother) misappreciates our labours, 
and holds them in greater abhorrence than the 
most resolute upholder of the ‘ natural system ’ 
of vandyked Pinks and Carnations. He calls 
our double flowers monsters , and our varieties 
hybrids. Perhaps it may be new to some of 
your readers that the meaning of that latter 
word is, ‘offspring of violence done to nature.’ 
And as we, in the simplicity of our ignorance, 
or the consciousness of our rectitude, have 
adopted his term of reproach as a convenient 
one to express a factitious variety obtained by 
crossing the seed, it will remain as a standing 
testimony of the opinion botanists had of the 
