1884.] 
AMATETJE, OR WHAT ? 
23 
that in most cases seriously impair their beauty. 
Hence it is that I recommend their culture in 
pots, and what can be more acceptable than a 
potful of lovely Crocuses brightening up a 
sitting-room at that cbeary season of the year 
—the middle of January ? —R. Dean. 
AMATEUR, OR WHAT ? 
N most societies formed for the purpose of 
exhibiting flowers, or plants, or fruits, 
there are classes for amateurs and 
dealers and professional gardeners. In 
many the definitions of the amateur are 
strangely diverse, not to say fantastic. One 
society lays down the law that an amateur 
(say a seedling raiser) may dispose of his 
productions in the lump without losing caste, 
but if he separates them into several parcels 
he becomes, ipso facto, a dealer; in other 
words, that the xcholesale or retail nature of 
the transaction determines the status of the 
seller. Another promulgates the doctrine 
that the selling of roots does not constitute a 
dealer, but that no one can dispose of plants 
raised from such roots without coming under 
the denomination. A third society says the 
mere act of selling, whether wholesale or retail, 
in dry roots or green plants has nothing to do 
with the matter : that it is not the act of 
selling, but the giving publicity, by advertise¬ 
ments or the issuing of priced lists, of the 
desire and intention to sell, which alone con¬ 
stitutes the dealer. 
The absurdity of these several distinctions 
requires no comment. To regard them as 
possessing validity must inevitably lead to 
two things. First, that dealers alone could 
raise new flowers; and secondly, that that 
class should have the further monopoly of 
selling. Can any sane person suppose that 
such a state of things could be advantageous 
to the floral community, or to the dealers 
themselves ? And yet as it appears to me, 
this is what the conclusions of some executive 
bodies in connection with floriculture would 
inevitably lead to, if their definitions were 
worthy of acceptance. 
In the report of the Committee of the 
National Rose Society for 1882, I find the 
following, viz. ; “In the course of the year a 
question of a somewhat difficult nature was 
brought before the Committee, viz., as to the 
meaning of the term ‘Amateur,’ as used in 
the Society’s schedules. After careful con¬ 
sideration the conclusion was come to, that, 
as it would be almost impossible to draw up 
any precise definition, which would equitably 
meet every case that might arise, it would 
therefore be better for the Committee to 
decide on each case that might come before 
it, upon its own merits. For the guidance of 
exhibitors they wish it, hoivever, to he clearly 
understood that in their opinion no person who 
trafjics in either plants or foivers ought to he 
considered an arnateu ,.” 
But for the portion I have placed in italics, 
I should regard the conclusion of the Com¬ 
mittee as very wise, but the rider attached to 
the decision re-imports the whole difficulty, 
and if to be interpreted stringently, as all 
laws of penalty are, in my opinion, is abso¬ 
lutely fatal to the status of an amateur every¬ 
where. 
Every person having a knowledge of the 
leading growers or raisers of special stocks, 
whether flowers, fruit, vegetables, plants, 
horses, kine, sheep, pigs, poultry, or other 
subjects of utility, taste, or fancy, will be 
aware that the raisers of such stocks have 
constant applications for the produce of their 
skill or attention. And they will be further 
aware that, as in very exalted instances, 
annual public sales are held for the disposal 
of such stocks. Amongst raisers of plants or 
flowers the results are rarely of such dimen¬ 
sions or importance as to warrant annual 
public sales, nevertheless they are interesting 
to many, and if the act of selling destroys the 
status of an amateur, we are driven inevitably 
upon the other horn of the dilemma, viz., 
that only dealers can raise or sell plants or 
flowers, and the superstructure of floriculture 
crumbles into ruin. Such an absurdity can¬ 
not possibly be maintained. It falls to pieces 
by its inherent weakness. But not to deal in 
generalities, let us come to particular cases. 
The Rose Society at present scarcely offers to 
us a complete example, inasmuch as yet there 
are no amateur raisers of seedlings within 
its borders, or none who have offered their 
seedlings, though none the less if that opinion 
of the Committee as to trafficing is to prevail, 
I venture to say nine in ten of Rose growers, 
now classed as amateurs, would lose caste. 
Rose-buds are in great demand, and it has 
been whispered to me that some two thousand 
