1880 . ] 
auricula horner’s heroine. 
177 
AURICULA HORNER’S HEROINE. 
[Plate 
f OR tlie opportunity of figuring tliis 
charming novelty, we are indebted to 
the kindness of the Rev. F. D. Horner, 
by whom it was exhibited at the National 
Auricula Society’s show at South Kensington 
in 1880, when it won by acclamation not only 
a First-class Certificate, but also the first prize 
as a seedling Self. The ground-colour is 
remarkably rich and velvety, a deep umber- 
brown, and the contrast of this with the pure 
white paste is remarkably striking and effective. 
Besides all this, the flower is of the highest 
quality as to its properties, being smooth on 
the surface, even at the edge, and well propor¬ 
tioned in the several parts of tube, paste, and 
ground-colour. The portrait was taken on 
the show day by Mr. Macfarlane, with very 
marked success, but the rich velvety lustre of 
the surface of the flower has overtaxed the 
powers of the lithographic press, for “ who can 
paint like Nature?” We are pleased to be 
able to add in this place Mr. Horner’s remarks 
on the origin and properties of his appropriately 
named novelty.—T. M. 
“ Heroine ” is a seedling from a plant of 
Campbell's Pizarro , that in 1877 bore four or 
five pods, some crossed with Turner s Chas. 
Perry , and others with Kaye's Topsy. These 
three were selected for parents because of their 
perfect outline as florist flowers, in which form 
is the first consideration. Colours can always 
be worked up to, but no colour shows to its 
best upon defective form. The Auriculas in 
question all possess the “ rose-leaf ” petal that 
is an essential property in a perfect “ Self ; ” 
and though Perry’s tube is pale, and Topsy’s 
pips frequently uneven in their size, yet I 
trusted to the rich tube of Pizarro, its su¬ 
premely broad, round paste, and its bold, equal 
pips, to correct the weak points of the other 
two, whose part it was to give variety in colour. 
I therefore confided to Pizarro the maternity of 
the seed, and was not disappointed. 
“ Heroine,” of course, was not the only child, 
neither is she the only beauty. “ Ringdove ” 
and “ Beatrice ” are deep violet and blue from 
the influence of “ Topsy ” and “ Chas. Perry ; ” 
while “ Heroine,” “ Dido,” “ Atlantis,” “ Brown 
Bess,” and others are variations on the rich 
brown ground-colour of “ Pizarro,” and each 
of them, moreover, is rose-leaved. 
No. 86. imperial series. 
527.] 
I may here say that “ Heroine’s ’’ maiden 
bloom of 1879 was distinctly darker than 
the flower exhibited in London in 1880, and I 
had marked her as an exceedingly rich dark 
Self. Since, however, in 1879 all my Pizarros 
were out of colour, so that, in fact, I could 
not show them, I think “ Heroine ” may have 
not yet been seen in her true complexion. 
Referring to the plate, the plant is to the 
very life in size, style, carriage, and colour of 
foliage, and habit of bloom, and her twelve 
large even pips stand exactly as they were. The 
winter foliage is very distinct from this, consist¬ 
ing of a few plain-edged, short broad leathery 
leaves of greyish-green ; and it might be in¬ 
teresting in a portrait of the Auricula, if a 
side-sketch of this distinctive feature could be 
given also ; as sometimes in figuring a ripe 
fruit, a spur of the blossom and young leaves 
is added to further identify the variety. 
With “ Heroine’ every property, in most 
perfect roundness, flatness, and smoothness of 
petal; density, breadth, and circularity of 
paste; substance, colour, and form of tube, 
and proportion of the ground-colour to the 
paste, I have little hope of raising a better 
Self. It is a bonny face, full of life and 
sweet expression, and other seedlings of her 
class will be only other colours arrayed on 
“ Heroine’s ” form. Her progeny as yet is 
small, and the youngest could be covered with 
a split-pea. 
Still, the picture needs a word to paint it, 
where the reflection from the lithographic 
stones cannot mirror every feature back. This 
I write in confidence that neither the accuracy 
of The Florist will be impeached, nor the re¬ 
putation of its artists suffer, by what is meant 
only in helpful explanation, and not in carping 
criticism. 
One touch will suffice. Nature’s velvet tex¬ 
tures are beyond the power of the pencil to 
reproduce in all their living depth and softness ; 
and for this reason, the colour of the flower 
in the plate looks thin. There is the ground¬ 
work of it, but not the silky velvet that makes 
the living flower so soft and rich. The artist’s 
original picture comes more near to Nature, 
but I do not think a better likeness could be 
given by the process that must be employed in 
publication.— Francis D. Horner, Kirkby 
Malzeard , Ripon . 
N 
