THE FLOBIST AND POMOLOGIST. 
[May, 
66 
size, and good quality. First bloomed in 
1879 ; sent out in 1880. 
[ John Bayley {Dodwell). —A very fine variety 
in its day, but now rapidly passing to the de¬ 
crepitude of age. John Bayley has, however, 
been the parent of some fine varieties, and 
though no longer of the same service to the 
exhibitor as formerly, it is worth growing 
from its free habit of seeding. It is a seedling 
from Curzon, and was first bloomed in 1855 ; 
sent out in 1857. 
Mr, Carter (Dodwell). —A seedling from 
Dreadnought, s.b., first bloomed in 1882 ; sent 
out last autumn. A large, well-formed flower ; 
petals very broad, stout, smooth, and broadly 
marked with a rich scarlet on a pure white 
ground. A good grower. 
Richard Gorton (Dodwell). —A seedling 
from J. D, Hextall, c.b., first bloomed in 1879, 
sent out in 1880. A very distinct variety, fine 
in form and substance, smooth, and very dis¬ 
tinctly marked with dense scarlet on a pure 
white ground. 
• Samuel Brown (Dodwell). —A sport from 
Admiral' Curzon, s.b. Like Sportsman, of a 
similar origin, it is bright and fine in a high 
degree. Unfortunately the sport has not 
added stamina to the growth, so that the 
plants, as with Curzon and Sportsman, should 
be rested from bloom every second or third 
year. 
Scarlet Keet (Dodwell). —A seedling from 
John Keet, r.p., which it follows closely in 
habit, shape, and constancy, the colour only 
varying. A prolific seed-bearer, and promising 
from this ^Doint alone to be one of the most 
valuable of the later introductions amongst 
Carnations. First bloomed in 1879 ; sent out 
in 1882. 
Sportsman (Hedderley). — A sport from 
Admiral Curzon, s.b,, originated in 1855 in the 
collection of Mr. John Hedderley of Sneinton, 
Notts ; like its parent it went at one bound to 
the head of the class, taking the whole of the 
prizes in its class at the exhibition of the 
National Carnation and Picotee Society the 
following year at Birmingham, and the lion’s 
share during the same season at other exhibi¬ 
tions of note. Differing from its parent only 
that it is without bizarre, it should have the 
same treatment both for its growth and in its 
blooming, and wflierever this is intelligently 
given, the result will leave little to be desired. 
Though getting well into years, it is yet hale 
and robust, and with the treatment suggested 
for Curzon and Samuel Brown—the sparing 
the weaker plants from bloom—may be ex¬ 
pected to be continued to us for years yet to 
come. 
Thomas Tomes [Dodwell). —A seedling from 
the above—though quite distinct—very rich 
in character, and fully maintaining the fine 
properties of the parent. But it is late in 
bloom, and hence is not likely to be shown so 
frequently as the parent. A good grower, 
though somewhat shy to root. First bloomed 
in 1879 ; sent out in 1881. 
William Laing (Dodwell). — A seedling 
from Curzon ; of medium size and good habit; 
scarlet dense, white pure, smooth, and boldly 
marked. One of the 1879 batch ; sent out 
in 1881. 
William Mellor (Dodwell). —A seedling 
from John Bayley, s.f., richly marked with 
deep scarlet, large and finely formed. A good 
grower. First bloomed in 1879; sent out 
in 1880. 
Two other varieties in this class, Figaro 
and Matador, both raised by Dr. Abercrombie, 
late of Cheltenham, have been shown in fine 
condition by Mr. Turner during the past two 
seasons, and are apparently very desirable 
additions, but as they are only now in course 
of distribution I cannot speak more minutely 
of their habit and growth. Dr. Abercrombie 
informs me he never succeeded, to his know¬ 
ledge, in fertilising the seed ; nor has he kept 
any account of the varieties from which seed 
has been taken.—E. S. Dodwell, Stanley 
Road, Oxford. 
The following letter from Mr. Adams sup¬ 
plies very interesting information respecting 
Mr. Edmund Wood’s fine c.b.’s and p.p.b., 
and in fixing the parentage and age of the 
varieties, as to which I previously had no 
definite information, furnishes the seedling 
raiser with a guide to further success. Re¬ 
cently I saw in a paper forwarded to me for 
another purpose an exception taken to the 
use of the term “pedigree” as applied to 
some new flowers. Without intending any 
criticism on the critic, I can only say whoever 
proposes to raise fine new flowers will find 
pedigree and parentage to be of the very- first 
importance ; and therefore even supposing we 
can give only the immediate parent, we are 
at least determining a first step in a right 
road, and enabling those who come after us, 
to add more :— 
“ To Mr. Dodwell. Dear Sir,—I see by 
the account you give of Wood’s c.b.’s that 
you don’t know their parentage. I am glad 
to say I can inform you, as I had the pleasure 
of seeing them in Mr. Wood’s garden the first 
year of their blooming in pots, in 1868, when 
he told me they were from Falconbridge by 
Jenny Lind, and I may say I liked them so 
well that I tried the same cross ; the result 
being John Harland, William Murray, and 
others quite as good, or better, but some 
cows got into my garden and eat them up. 
0 dear ! it makes me ill to think of it, such 
good things they swallowed up.—Yours truly, 
E. Adams, Swalwell, Gateshead-on-Tyne, 
2Iarch 5, 1884.” 
