90 
THE FLOEIST AND POMOLOGIST, 
[June, 
DESCEIPTIVE LIST OF NAECISSI. 
HE following descriptive list we owe to 
the diligence and persevering efforts of 
Mr. Barr, the catalogue itself being 
preceded by some introductory re¬ 
marks by Mr. Burbidge :— 
A descriptive catalogue, or list of all known 
Daffodils grown in our gardens to-day, cannot 
but be a great boon to all who are interested 
in hardy bulb cultm'e. That such a list is to 
be given in these pages is as I take it a good 
and pleasant augury, and all cultivators of 
Narcissi will hail it as a great gain. Whether 
the new popular names bestowed upon our 
favourite flower be generally accepted or not, 
a good descriptive list, with raisers’ names of 
all the new seedlings and garden forms, will 
aid much towards that end. But let us hope 
that the thin end of a powerful wedge has at 
last been firmly driven in, and that these uew 
names be accepted as they ought to be. Our 
“Narcissus Conference” will then become a 
sort of magna charta, and both Lords and 
Commons will thereby gain their just rights 
—in a word, the wild species and sub-species 
will be named in Latin, but all known forms 
of garden origin, whether hybrids, seedlings, 
or bud sports, wilt have suitable English or 
popular names (not Latin) bestowed upon 
them. No one but the gardener and the 
botanist can appreciate the loss of time and 
trouble unauthenticated garden names have 
caused in their time. As Mr. Baker has told 
us, the botanist looks on these waifs and strays 
in botanical nomenclature just as a “ cat looks 
at a mouse, or as a shopkeeper logks upon a 
bad half-crown,” and he is perfectly right in 
his wittily expressed opinion. The haphazard 
application of Latin or Latinised names has 
led up to a crisis. We now find this array of 
names a great trouble to us, a host of “ string¬ 
less heads,” ah! a “ snake in the grass,” which 
will be avoided whenever possible by all con¬ 
cerned. But the question now before us is 
this. Why should we leave the monster there 
to annoy the early footsteps of all botanists 
and gardeners to come ? Why not scotch 
“this monster of such hideous mein that to 
be hated is but to be seen.” We may not be 
able, perhaps, to repair all past wrong in this 
way, but at least let us “ sin no more.” This 
is one reason why the following list of Narcissi 
is necessary. We not only propose new 
popular names, but we wish to give such 
descriptions as may enable those interested to 
satisfy themselves as to the varieties to which 
those new names are applied. 
So much for the Narcissus ; but, as we have 
before said, the principle of this re-naming is 
not confined to the Daffodils alone. All 
questions of botanical or horticultural nomen¬ 
clature must be general and applicable all 
round. Seedling Orchids and hybrids of all 
other genera must for the future be known 
under popular names only! This much 
effected will be an enormous gain ; and if it 
can be effected as an outcome of the “ Daffodil 
Conference,” that meeting will stand out far 
as a landmark, a Kunnymede, indeed, for all 
future time. And that this much can be 
effected goes without the saying, and we look 
to the Koyal Horticultural Society’s Com¬ 
mittees, and especially to the Gardening Press, 
to enforce this principle in the future. Thanks 
to the Editor, the Gardener's Chronicle has 
for years done us good and true service in this 
direction, by affixing a x as a distinguishing 
badge to the names of all known hybrids re¬ 
ferred to in its pages, and it is a matter of 
regret that such a good practice has not been 
general. Our policy, however, is to welcome all 
good aid without repining, and to do all we 
can in the present to remedy the errors of the 
past, and make easier the labours of the garden- 
botanist of the future.— F. W. Burbidge. 
In this List of Daffodils we propose to give 
short descriptions of modern garden varieties, 
with the raiser’s name. When no name is 
given it may be assumed the variety was 
originallyintroduced into gardens or is a natural 
hybrid. The diligent researches now being 
prosecuted on the Pyrenees will probably 
reveal the origin of such hybrids as Sabini, 
Macleayi, Montanus, &c. The list embraces 
names of some Daffodils in Haworth’s Mono¬ 
graph which are not at present supposed to be in 
cultivation, but it may reasonably be expected 
that their reintroduction is not far distant, 
and by inserting them in this list we may 
possibly prevent the manufacture of new 
names, as it is well before giving a name to a 
modern introduction to see if Haworth or 
Parkinson have not previously known them; 
and the more readily to distinguish such they 
