THE FLORIST AND POMOLOGIST. 
[ September, 
134 
scarlet Geranium, the Gentianella, the Lobelia 
carilinalis or coerulea , the Ncmophila , and 
others ; but that is because variety is produced 
by their being seen as a whole, and contrasted 
with surrounding objects. Separate a single 
blossom from the plant, and examine it atten¬ 
tively, and you will find it flag in its interest 
sooner than one in which relief is given to the 
eye by variety. Its properties are perceived at 
a glance, and the eye has done its office ; and 
our copybooks will be found to enunciate a 
philosophical truth, when they impress upon 
the child what the child knows better than any 
philosopher, that it is variety that is charming. 
“ I. It is produced by form. No class of 
plants approach the Orchids in illustrations of 
this. Very few of their blossoms have simple 
forms ; and when there is a leading feature, as 
in the Papilio, in some of which a butterfly is 
represented as faithfully as a bee in a Larkspur, 
the whole blossom nevertheless is complex. 
Indeed, it is probably as much from the endless 
variety in every department of that quality 
that is found in these flowers, as for any indi¬ 
vidual superiority they possess, though this too 
must be accorded to them, that they owe their 
unrivalled popularity. But as these are be¬ 
yond the reach of ordinary growers, I prefer 
drawing my illustrations from more familiar 
objects. 
“ A very good instance is the Fuchsia. At 
present, and until F. spectabilis has revolu¬ 
tionised the tribe, its pendulous character, its 
want of petalous expansion, and its glossy 
texture of skin unbroken for the greater part 
of its length, seem to remove it in appearance 
from the class of flowers, and liken it to a fruit. 
It is, however, and will probably always con¬ 
tinue, very popular, and it has several points of 
high excellence, of which I have here only to 
remark upon those which depend on the variety 
of its outline. 
“ Flowers of this class differ from those of a 
more uniform surface, in a manner somewhat 
analogous to the difference between sculpture 
and paintings, and are hardly more fit to ex¬ 
hibit delicate markings of colour than a statue 
would be. Contrasts, brilliance, or an attrac¬ 
tive colour as a whole, are the points in this 
respect in which their excellence is to be 
sought. But the very unevenness of form which 
prevents the finer uses of colouring, is itself 
the parent of many advantages. The general 
outline is ever varying, and never the same 
from any two points of view. The ordinary 
position of the blossom of the Fuchsia on the 
plant is full of variety. The long and grace¬ 
fully arched footstalk, the seedpod, the tube, 
itself rarely cylindrical, the calyx, the corolla, 
the anthers, and pistil, form a constantly 
varying and pleasing outline. But in this 
position the petals are, for the most part, and 
sometimes entirely, hidden, and if you examine 
them, the tube is out of sight. It is owing 
chiefly to this that the notched, starry appear¬ 
ance of the open sepals in most varieties, so 
disagreeable in other flowers, is no dissight in 
this—indeed, it has a positive advantage in 
opening to sight the contrasted colours of the 
corolla within. 
“ Nor does it signify -whether the variety of 
form be in the substance or in the markings of 
flowers. The Carnation owes much, though 
not all, of its superiority to the Picotee or the 
Pink (excuse me, ladies), to the fact that, 
without violence to its general unity, it has no 
two petals, and no two stripes on the same 
petal, alike in the form of their colours. A 
Calceolaria that has its spots or its stripes all 
of the same size and shape, is tame compared 
with one that is more varied in its markings. 
“The Pelargonium and the Pansy have many 
points common to both, and each flower has 
its respective admirers ; but general estimation 
assigns the palm to the former, and it may be 
interesting, and not uninstructive, to trace to 
the quality now under consideration some of 
the superiority of the one over the other. The 
number of petals, their form, the order of their 
disposition, and their relative importance, are 
the same in both flowers. The general outline 
is, in the main, alike, and the required pro¬ 
perties, as far as they can be compared, not 
very different; yet the ideas excited by them 
are exceedingly dissimilar, the reasons of which 
I will now investigate. 
“ 1. The Pelargonium has a throat, the 
Pansy terminates at the eye ; and therefore the 
former has a whole class of properties of which 
the latter is deprived ; and these, though not 
numerous, have a very influential bearing upon 
the general appearance of the flower, and are 
becoming of more importance to its estimation 
every year. Here is an advantage in respect 
of variety. 
“ 2. Again, an immediate result from its 
closed throat is, that the Pansy cannot be too 
flat; whereas a flat-centred Pelargonium, like 
Meleager, proves that the brightest colour loses 
something of its brightness, and becomes flat- 
coloured from the deadness of its surface. The 
form of the Pelargonium has the advantage 
again in variety, which gives greater effect to 
its colours. 
“ 3. A corresponding difference is observable 
also at the limb or outer extremity. Owing 
partly to its flat centre and partly to its flimsy 
substance, the edge of the Pansy must be flat 
likewise. In fact, it never curves inwards but 
when withering, or outwards but from inability 
to support its own weight. The stouter texture 
of the Pelargonium admits of its being slightly 
either inflected or reflected, and thus another 
source of graceful variety is obtained, the one 
making an approach in form to the reversed 
ogee, or Hogarth’s line of beauty, the other to 
