1881 . ] 
ON PERFECTION OF FORM IN THE TULIP. 
83 
that the judgment of florists, on this point at 
least, had long been regulated by rules founded 
on principles the correctness of which was 
universally admitted. But strange to say, if 
we inquire, 4 What constitutes perfection of 
form in the Tulip ?’ we find the greatest 
diversity of opinion prevailing, even amongst 
the most experienced cultivators. In proof 
of this, it is not needful to adduce the 
various notions we hear expressed during 
our intercourse with amateurs and dealers. 
We have merely to examine the writings 
of those who are generally regarded as our 
best modern authorities on all subjects 
relating to this flower, to be fully convinced 
that great want of unanimity exists in refer¬ 
ence to this point; and that the principles 
which ought to guide us are either not under¬ 
stood, or only very imperfectly developed. 
Thus, for instance, Mr. Groom, of Walworth, 
considers a semi-oblate spheroid the best form ; 
Mr. Glenny, of the Gardeners Gazette , has 
long been the advocate of one-tliird of a hollow 
ball; Mr. Slater, of Manchester, tells us he 
differs from both the preceding, and says that 
the half and the sixteenth part of a circle is 
the most perfect form ; whilst Mr. Wood, of 
Nottingham, prefers the half of a hollow globe. 
These are the only modern authorities whose 
writings appear to me worthy of notice, in con¬ 
nection with the subject under consideration; 
and amidst the conflicting opinions thus pre¬ 
sented, we shall perhaps understand their 
merits better, and arrive more surely at the 
truth, if we examine them more minutely in 
detail. 
“In the Florist's Journal (1840, p. 56), Mr. 
Groom states that he 4 considers the shape of 
the cup of the greatest importance,’ and saj's, 
‘ when fully expanded, it should be a semi- 
oblate spheroid by which he means, in plain 
English, a form about one-fifteenth part less 
than the half of a sphere, or hollow globe. 
He, however, assigns no reason why this form 
should be preferred to any other ; and, singu¬ 
larly enough, annexes other conditions which 
entirely destroy the beauty of the outline he 
recommends. 4 The pole ’ of this ‘ semi- 
oblate spheroid,’ he says, ‘ should be a little 
depressed ;’ and there should be 4 a little swell 
outwards towards the lower part of the petal, 
which will give the flower a good shoulder.’ 
This he considers 4 the best form to retain the 
beauty of the flower during all its stages.’ 
Tulips having this character may doubtless be 
lound, but they are very unlike semi-oblate 
spheroids. Take, for example, Princess Sophia. 
Here we find 4 a good shoulder,’ as it is 
termed ; but, as in almost every other specimen 
of this kind, the projection outwards being 
greatest in the three outer petals, the shape 
assumed is consequently somewhat triangular. 
Were the projection equal in every petal, the 
outline might be an irregular hexagon, but 
could not be circular. In both cases, the 
cavities thus formed in the interior of the 
flower invariably produce a number of shadows, 
which give false tints to its colours. These 
are serious defects, and it is not probable that 
many florists will be inclined to accept Mr. 
Groom’s irregularly shaped standard as that 
which presents to us the most beautiful outline 
for a tulip. I rather imagine, that if our 
attention were directed to a rainbow, and we 
were seriously told that the grandeur of its 
form would be increased by a depression in the 
centre of its arc, and a bulging-out of its sides, 
after the manner of a man’s shoulders, we 
should not have much respect for the taste 
thus manifested. Yet such is the deformity 
Mr. Groom would have us to regard as 
perfection in a tulip. 
44 Mr. Slater’s opinions may be ascertained by 
referring to Harrison’s Floricultural Cabinet 
(1842, p. 14G), where he says:— 44 In form, I 
must beg leave to differ from Mr. Groom and 
Mr. Glenny, as not one tulip in two hundred 
comes up to their standard, even in the new 
varieties raised. If a circle were drawn, and 
divided into eight parts, taking full five-eighths 
of the diameter for the cup will give the 
most perfect form. In support of this opinion, 
I have scaled several drawings, as well as 
tulips, which appear to me to be the most 
unique in their proportions, and I find the 
greater part exceed six-eighths of the diameter. 
Mr. Groom’s Prince Albert , bizarre, is six- 
eighths ; his bybloemen, Victoria Regina , and 
Pohjphenius also, are six-eighths. This appears 
to be the true standard ; for it is allowed by all 
that Polifphemus cannot be excelled as respects 
form.’ So that, because Polgpliemus 4 cannot 
be excelled ’ in form, and it measures in depth 
six-eighths of its diameter, this is the 4 true 
standard;’ but that, nevertheless, that which 
is 4 true ’ must be regarded as not true, for the 
most perfect form, he assures us, is 4 full five- 
eighths.’ This is certainly an odd mode of 
reasoning. But Mr. Slater is capricious, for in 
his Descriptive Catalogue (1843, p. 12), he 
describes his standard as consisting of 4 one- 
half and the sixteenth part’ of a circle, or 
hollow globe ; his 4 most perfect form ’ having- 
been found in the meantime, I suppose, quite 
imperfect. Opinions thus hastily adopted, and 
as hastily relinquished, are scarcely worthy of 
notice, and I would merely observe, in reference 
to them, that the more we add to the half¬ 
circle, the more imperfect does the form 
become ; for if the additional portion preserve 
the true circular figure, the interior of the 
flower is obscured to a proportionate extent; 
or if it either reflex outwards, or rise at right 
angles with the horizon, the regularity of the 
outline is as certainly destroyed. Still, the 
quantity last added by Mr. Slater is so small, 
g 2 
