1880. J 
MODEL FORM FOR A TULIP. 
183 
be cut, and the lever drawn down ; and in this 
way, wood 1 in. in diameter may be easily cut, 
without crushing or splintering. It is also 
claimed for it that it may be usefully adopted 
for pruning wall or standard Pear and other 
fruit trees, without the use of ladders or steps ; 
and where the trees are planted a short dis¬ 
tance from the path, the pruning can be 
done without requiring the operator to step 
upon the border. It may also be used 
for lopping off low-growing or superfluous 
branches along carriage-drives and avenues, 
the serious damage and inconvenience resulting 
to valuable trees from the use of ladders being 
entirely obviated. The smaller sizes may be 
used for pruning Raspberry, Gooseberry, and 
Rose bushes, the thorns of which are annoying, 
as well as for trimming Holly Bushes, Laurels, 
and other ornamental trees. It will be seen 
that the cutting portion of the blade is that 
which works within the curve of the hook, 
this part being brought upwards by pulling 
down the lever. We can add, from personal 
experience, that the implement does its work 
in a thoroughly efficient manner. —T. Moore. 
MODEL FORM FOR A TULIP. 
HETHER from defective memory or 
imperfect acquaintance with the 
literature and history of the Tulip, 
I know not, but Mr. Hepworth, in his paper on 
this subject (see p. 171), so strangely perverts 
the facts, that in the interests of the present 
generation of florists, I crave your permission 
to correct his errors. Stated in brief, Mr. 
Hepworth tells us that thirty years ago, the 
form of the Tulip was a subject of warm but 
friendly dispute. Mr. Butler, Mr. Glenny, Mr. 
Slater, and finally, Dr. Hardy, took part in the 
battle of words, the conclusion being that 
Glenny’s model was “ considered to be the 
best,” Glenny having declared “ that the correct 
shape of cup for a good Tulip, when sufficiently 
in bloom for the exhibition stage, was just one- 
lialf of a hollow ball, and no more.” 
On this I have to remark that this is not 
Mr. Glenny’s standard at all. Mr. Glenny’s 
standard—set out by him in the Gardener's 
Gazette in 1841, and subsequently reproduced 
in the Gardener and Practical Florist for 
1843—was this :—“The cup [of the Tulip] 
should form, when quite expanded, one-third 
of a hollow balland he reasoned for this 
form at length, and with considerable force, in 
the paper of 1843. True, at a later date, in 
the Gardeners Almanack for 1847, Mr. 
Glenny, instead of condemning the half of a 
hollow globe, as he had done in 1841 and 
1843, contended “that one-third to one-hal 
of a hollow ball is alike good all through.’ 
But even if a standard, admitting such a lati¬ 
tude of judgment, were not utterly objection¬ 
able, Mr. Glenny had propounded another con¬ 
dition, which made it impossible, and entirely 
at variance with the harmony of Nature. He 
required that the petals should be level on the 
margin , and his diagrams represented a 
“ straight-margined cup.” 
Dr. Hardy demonstrated with a power and 
lucidity of reasoning beyond all question, that 
this requirement was in opposition to the laws 
