534 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
April 24 , 1886. 
A remarkable display of liardy wild Primroses also 
came from the Hon. and Rev. J. T. Boscawen, 
Lamoran, Cornwall, which included white, yellow, and 
and pink coloured flowers, besides several shades of rose ; 
an exceedingly fine lot. Mr. G. F. Wilson showed some 
seedlings from his hardy blue Primrose, “Scott Wilson,” 
and some plants of Primula denticulata with enormous 
trusses of flowers, grown in the open air. Dr. Hogg 
showed the Bardfield and common Oxlips; Messrs. 
Paul & Son and Mr. T. S. Ware also contributed good 
representative collections of the best known kinds; the 
Dowager Lady Howard de Walden, The Mote Park, 
Maidstone, sent boxes of cut blooms of Auriculas, 
Primroses, and Gold-laced Polyanthuses; and Miss 
Jekyll, Munstead, Godaiming, contributed a display of 
white and yellow Polyanthuses, naturally grouped on 
a raised bank of moss. Double Chinese Primulas were 
represented by four grandly grown plants, 2 ft. over, 
with fine robust foliage, and well flowered, from Mr. 
W. Elphinstone, Shipley Hall Gardens, Derby. 
For visitors not wholly interested in Primulas, there 
was much to admire of a more miscellaneous character. 
Perhaps the most fascinating was a very fine group of 
Roses in pots from Messrs. Paul & Son, Cheshunt. 
Mr. B. S. Williams contributed an extensive bank of 
stove and greenhouse flowering and fine-foliaged plants ; 
Mr. T. S. Ware had a most interesting group of hardy 
herbaceous and Alpine plants ; Messrs. Barr & Son 
an extensive assortment of Daffodils ; and Messrs. J, 
Cheal & Sons, C raw ley> staged an exceedingly fine 
collection of sixty dishes of Apples. 
On Wednesday the conference took place in the Albert 
Hall, under the presidency of J. T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., 
when four papers were read, viz., 1 ‘ The Origin and 
History of the Florists’ Auricula,” by Mr. Shirley 
Hibberd ; “The Improvement of the Genus Primula,” 
by the Rev. F. D. Horner; “The Nomenclature of 
Alpine Auriculas,” by Mr. J. G. Baker, F. R.S. ; and 
“The Culture of Hardy Primulas,” by Dr. Masters, 
F.R.S. We have been favoured by the Conference 
Committee with copies of all the papers, but are unable 
to give more than the two first in our present issue. 
-- 
ORIGIN AND HISTORY OP THE 
FLORISTS’ AURICULA. 
By Mr. Shielf.y Hibbf.ed. 
In treating the origin and history of the florists’ 
Auricula, in the interest of the Primula Congress, it is 
a matter of plain propriety to remark that I discoursed 
on the same subject in this place on the 25th of April, 
1882, and the text of my thesis was published in the 
horticultural papers. With the present important task 
before me, I have again reviewed the history of the 
flower that takes highest floral rank amongst the 
Primulas, and shall endeavour to submit to your con¬ 
sideration matters that are possibly of importance, and 
that, I hope, will at least prove interesting. It will be 
convenient to dispose of established truths in the first 
instance, in order to obtain a proper basis for specu¬ 
lations on things unknown. The origin of the Auricula 
we will, for the present, assume to be unknown, but we 
have at command much of a trustworthy character in 
relation to its history during the past 800 years, and it 
will be a safe, even if a dull procedure, to rummage the 
books and set forth a few of the more promising facts 
and figures before tackling the portentous question of 
the origin of the flower. 
A direct hint as to what to avoid as well as what to 
attempt may be derived from the reference to the 
Auricula in Beckmann's History of Inventions. He 
quotes from Weismantel’s Des Blumisten to the effect 
that Ovid, Pliny, and Columella knew the flower. Well, 
those writers were also acquainted with Garlic, Barley, 
and Figs ; but we pay no attention to them until they 
offer some special information illustrative of the arts 
customs, or necessities of the times in which they lived. 
It is somewhat to the purpose, perhaps, that Pluche, 
in Spectacle de la Nature (ii. 49), states that the 
Auricula was carried from Switzerland to Brussels by 
Walloon merchants. The second volume of this work 
was published in 1733, and it gives no clue to the date 
of the carrying. But the statement is of importance in 
connection with the general belief that the Auricula 
was cultivated in the Netherlands long before it was 
introduced into this country ; and that the garden 
varieties of the flower were introduced by refugees from 
the low countries about the year 1570. We find mention 
of the flower in the works of Fuchsius, Mattiola, Clusius, 
Turner, and Dodoens. But the sixteenth century 
botanists were but little better informed on the subject 
than the writers of the later Roman period ; and it 
would be waste of time to attempt to formulate their 
scraps of information. Mattiola figures the true 
Auricula admirably at page 706 of De Plantis Epitome 
(1586). In the superb edition of Dodoens printed at 
Antwerp by Plantin, it is very badly figured at page 
148. By both it is described as Auricula ursi, and by 
this name of Bear’s ears it was generally known 
amongst the sixteenth-century botanists and gardeners. 
In the year 1570 many artisans driven out from the 
Netherlands, settled in this country, and they brought 
their favourite flowers with them, including the best 
of their Auriculas. We begin business at the old shop, 
for Gerade, who published his Herbal in 1597, described 
and figured half-a-dozen varieties. On page 640 the 
contrast between the yellow and the purple Bear’s ears, 
although shown in drawings that are truly execrable, 
is full of instruction in respect of the question before us. 
The other figures are of little consequence, but the two 
that lead the way speak emphatically of the distinction 
between the true Auricula and the flower known to us 
as the Alpine Auricula. In plain truth they were as 
distinct then as they are now, and John Gerarde’s bad 
drawings hit the truth admirably. It is important also 
to note the remark of Johnson in his edition of Gerardc, 
published in 1633, to the effect that there are divers 
varieties, differing in the leaves, which are green or 
hoary, and in the flowers, which are white, yellow, red, 
and purple ; the gardens of Mr. Tradescant and Mr. 
Tuggie being well furnished with such. 
What Paekinson says. 
These things prepare us for what the immortal John 
Parkinson has to say. In his Theater of Plants (1640) 
he copies the bad figure from the Antwerp Dodoens, 
and describes twenty-six kinds of Auriculas. It is of 
the highest interest to note that amongst them occur a 
“stript purple,” which he describes as singularly 
changeable ; also a parti-coloured red and white ‘ ‘heard 
of but not seen.” The Collie, that he describes as 
“somewhat sad but very lively,” and the “Purplish 
Blew,” appear both to have been of the class known to 
us as seifs, while “Heavens Blew,” “Paler Blew,” 
and “Bright Crimson,” were of the class now known 
as Alpines. Of yellows he says there were many, but 
so mixed “ I cannot expresse them.” This is just what 
might be expected, and it may be fair to add that, as 
a matter of course, they were the least valued, because 
not far enough removed from the wild flower of the 
mountains, for the opinion appears to have prevailed 
that there was only one kind of wild Auricula. 
In the Paradisus there are twenty varieties described, 
a few of which are admirably figured. Of these, nine 
had green leaves without meal, and the remainder were 
more or less mealy. The flowers are presented as vary¬ 
ing in colour, and some have a centre of the kind we call 
“ paste,” while others are without it. The colours are 
just such as we find in border Auriculas of the present 
day, comprising shades of red, purple, violet, marone, 
yellow, and white. We are certainly in the midst of 
Auriculas, not only of the mountain, but also of the 
garden. It appears that we have in the Paradisus — 
inexhaustible treasure as it is—the fountain of diversity 
as revealed to the penetrating eye of “ Thine in what 
he may,” the author of what he himself in his dedication 
designates “this speaking Garden.” 
This paper should be something like a catalogue of 
evidences, and I invite your attention to the description 
of “the great straw-coloured Beares eare,” at p. 238 
of the book last mentioned. “ This hath almost as 
mealy leaves as the last, but nothing so large ; the 
flowers are of a faire strawe colour, with a white circle 
at the bottom of them. ” These three last (that is the 
great yellow, greater yellow, and great straw) “liaue 
no shew or shadow of any other colour in any part of 
the edge, as some others that follow haue.” 
The “blush Beares eare,” the “Haire-coloured Beares 
eare,” and the “ yellow variable Beares eare ” are des¬ 
cribed as edged flowers. For example, “the blush has 
a ground colour of a dark or dunne-yellow, shadowed 
ouer a little with a shew of light purple, which, there¬ 
fore, we call a blush colour, the edges of the flower 
being tipt with a little shew of that purple colour, the 
bottome of the flower abiding wholly yellow, without 
any circle, and is of very great beauty.” The Hair 
coloured is of a brownish yellow, edged with a show or 
shadow of a light purple colour. The Yellow variable 
is of a fair yellow, “ dasht about the edges onely with 
purple, being more yellow in the bottome of the flower 
then in any other part.” I seem to hear our friends 
the florists say that these were flowers with shaded 
edges, of which we have many at the present dav. 
Yes, the history of the flower is before us, and the 
Paradisus appears to provide us with the very first 
record of that kind of edging. Parkinson reserved a 
bonne bouche for a wind up of his feast of Auriculas. It 
is tli e “ Yariable green Beares eare. ” “ This hath green 
leaves snipt about the edges; the flowers are yellowish 
green, having purple edges ; 'these have no circles at all 
in them. ” This variable green with a purple edge might, 
for present purposes, be assigned the position of a pole 
star in the floral firmament ; at all events, I, for one, 
feel attracted to it, and expect it to afford assistance in 
tracing out the order of the stars in the two con¬ 
stellations of L T rsa major and Ursa minor that “in 
earth’s firmament do shine ;”’for these stars seem to be 
now coming home to us. 
COLOfE AND VAEIATION OF LEAFAGE. 
There is no special interest for the present occasion 
in the progress of the Auricula in what appears to have 
been its early conditions as regards range of colour and 
variation of leafage. It is only when it assumes what, 
for convenience sake, may be termed its exhibition 
character, that it "beconies more than" o'rdinarily at¬ 
tractive, not only for the delight of the eye, but as a 
subject for scientific, study. Let us then consider the 
position of the edged flowers in the history. The one 
presented us by Parkinson is very different to the 
florists’ Auricula of the present day ; but it is probably 
a true Auricula, for the leaves “do turne and fold 
themselves a little backwards,” the flowers are less 
expanded than some others, but alas ! they have no 
circles in them, and the variety is not figured. This, 
we will say, is the most remarkable of all cultivated 
flowers, a small wonder, but a true one ; a great 
achievement of art or a most extravagant freak of 
nature. "When did the first properly-edged flowers 
appear ? That question is now forced upon us, and is 
full of significance, even if judged by this first record 
of a green flower with a purple edge. A very trifling 
change would give us a purple flower with a green edge, 
and changes of that kind are common enough. 
Strange to say, edged flowers were not received with 
open arms by the faculty. They had to win their way 
slowly to the favour of the florists, and on the principle 
that the world knows not its greatest men, the garden¬ 
ing world in general was for a long time ignorant of 
this unique production ; this most precious of all the 
jewels in the diadem of Queen Flora. The proof of 
this will furnish matter for a paragraph. 
In Millers Dictionary, first published 1731, the 
edged flowers obtained no recognition, but Miller pro¬ 
vided a good code of judging Auriculas, minus, of 
course, certain points that are of a peculiar importance 
now. The fact proves that the flower had acquired 
extensive popularity, and inspired some kind of 
corporation that for present purposes may be designated 
the Auricula Fancy. Even in 1676, fifty years after 
Parkinson had so nearly witnessed the making of the 
Florists’ Auricula, John Rea, in his Florilcge, described 
striped flowers, and advised the selection of flowers 
“ with white eyes that will not wash." 
The subject obtains scientific treatment in Hill’s 
British Herbal (1756), and the author, John Hill, 
M.D., boldly declares that many of the so-called 
species of authors “ are no other than varieties of this 
plant rising from culture. ” At p. 98 he speaks of the 
yellow Auricula as standing alone, and apart from those 
that produce red and purple flowers. Of these last he 
says there are three species not directly related to the 
yellow Auricula, and these he describes as narrow¬ 
leaved, round-leaved, and long-leaved. To one of the 
descriptions he adds the remark that “there is no 
judging by what one sees in gardens, where the 
accidents occasioning varieties are endless ; but in 
those collected wild there is no error.” 
In Hill’s Eden, by the same John Hill, published 
1757, Auriculas are fairly treated of, but edged flowers 
are not mentioned. Hanbury’s Body of Gardciiing. 
1770, gives a hint in the way of our search in speaking 
of variegated Auriculas. It is a question of some im¬ 
portance whether the variegated flower of Hanbury was 
the striped flower of Parkinson, or a modification of 
that edged flower that had been noted as a curiosity 
150 years before. There is clear evidence in the Florist 
