1878.] 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF FLORISTS’ FLOWERS—III. 
81 
NEW ZONAL PELARGONIUMS. 
[Plate 4G8.] 
OpuN the accompanying plate we give illustra- 
L p tions of two of tlie most advanced Pelar- 
goniums of the Zonal race of which we 
have any knowledge. 
Fig. 1 represents Lady Eva Campbell, 
one of Mr. Pearson’s flowers, and a variety of 
great beauty, considered by connoisseurs to be 
the best in its particular colour yet obtained. 
Mr. Cannell describes it as “ the deepest of 
any in its class; splendid shaped pip, very 
large and grand.” It is in all respects a most 
charming flower, especially adapted for pot- 
culture. 
Fig. 2 represents Dr. John Denny, a most 
distinct and startling novelty, raised by M. 
Jean Sisley, of Lyons, who has obligingly sent 
us the following particulars of its origin :— 
“ I am very glad to learn that my Zonal 
Pelargonium Dr. John Denny has been judged 
worthy of being illustrated in the Florist, 
the more so that I am not over-partial to my 
own offspring. Not being a botanist, it is 
difficult for me to give you a faithful description 
of it. It is, as far as I know, the most purple- 
tinted and nearest to blue of any Zonal in 
existence. The flowers are largo and of good 
form, the trusses are rather large, and it appears 
to be a free bloomer. Its origin is rather 
strange. It is a seedling from a double-flowered 
Zonal of my seedlings, the flowers of which 
are dark red, a dwarf plant, and abundant 
bloomer, which I artificially fecundated with 
the pollen of Pelargonium,peltatum lilacinum, 
single, with lilac flowers. It was sown in 1875, 
and bloomed in 1876. I was struck with the 
colour of it, but at the time did not think 
much of it, until Alegatiere, one of our most 
intelligent horticulturists, came to see me. I 
gave it him, and he sent a plant of it to Mr. 
H. Cannell, who exhibited it last year at a 
meeting of the Pelargonium Society, where, 
it seems, it was appreciated. Although fecun¬ 
dated by a Peltatum, it has no signs of it, ex¬ 
cept the colour. But I have had many instances 
of the same. Having fecundated many Pel- 
tatums by Zonals, they always resemble the 
mother, and generally also the Zonals fecun¬ 
dated by Peltatum ; nevertheless, I have two 
Hybrids, partaking of both. I will send one 
to the next exhibition of the Pelargonium 
Society.” 
This flower is not only remarkable for the 
purplish hue of its petals, but also for the dash 
of bright orange-scarlet at the base of the 
upper petals. We have to thank Mr. Cannell 
for the materials from which both figures have 
been prepared.—T. Moore. 
THE REV. G. JEANS ON TIIE PHILOSOPHY OF FLORISTS’ FLOWERS. 
No. III. 
“ GwO HOPE you are a botanist. I know some 
[o eminent florists who are so, and more 
than one really good botanist who duly 
appreciates floriculture. But as the agricul¬ 
turist is proverbially a despiser of his garden, 
because of the larger results ho is accustomed 
to deal with in his farm, so is it oftentimes 
with the botanist, and therefore \ must have a 
word with him. 
“ HI. His objection is not likely to become 
general, because it involves some labour to be 
bestowed on the subject, before its force will be 
perceived. But yet I have heard it oftener 
than might be expected, probably because the 
outlines of every science are now so generally 
known. It is to the effect that floriculture (I 
mean that of fancy flowers) is, as a study, a 
descent from nature, and a degradation to it; 
and as an art, is essentially unscientific, and fit 
only for children. Our whole system, he says, 
No. 6. IMPERIAL SERIES.-1. 
is conversant about varieties ,—things of small 
account, in any case ; while such as we covet 
ought not to exist at all, departures as they 
are, he says, from nature, and interferences 
with the habits of the plants. 
“ That these charges should be made in good- 
faith by those who only see floriculture from 
their supercilious distance is not surprising, 
since there is an appearance of truth in them ; 
but that they will not stand examination will 
be admitted by those who maintain that there 
is a foundation for the preceding remarks. 
However, they require, and they deserve, a 
more particular notice appropriated to them¬ 
selves. 
“ It is not contended that the labours of the 
florist ought to be placed in the same rank 
with those of the botanist. We do not pretend 
that our pursuit is not of an inferior order to 
his ; indeed, it arises out of and is dependent 
on it. But we cannot allow that it is either 
unnatural or unscientific; nor even that its 
own peculiar science, in the smaller area to 
which it is confined, is not to the full as perfect 
a 
