October 9, 1886. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
91 
so they would not bo competent. It is human nature 
to err, and no human judge, or set of judges, is in¬ 
fallible. 
The only general principle that can be admitted in 
making awards is, that the aggregate of the flowers in 
one stand sliall^ be better of their kind than the 
aggregate of the flowers in the opposing stand are of 
their kind, and the fact that one stand contains all 
large varieties, and the other stand nothing but what 
“A Gardener” calls “fancy” varieties ought not to 
affect the issue. Admitting that as a general principle, 
there are rules that must be adhered to in carrying out' 
that principle ; for example, it is required that an 
incurved flower shall have broad and flat petals, each 
petal pointed inwards towards the centre, and the 
flower to be as near a sphere in form as possible, and 
the horizontal outline as exactly circular as possible. 
Now there are two varieties very commonly grown, and 
for that reason I mention them, which occasionally are 
placed one or the other in an otherwise excellent stand; 
and both of the varieties nearly always lack one or 
more of the foregoing requirements of a perfect incurved 
flower. The kinds I refer to are Lady Talfourd and 
Guernsey Nugget. Lady Talfourd, when well grown, is 
most symmetrical in form and outline, but its petals 
are always quilled. Guernsey Nugget is scarcely ever 
good in outline or form, is very rough, and very fre¬ 
quently comes quilled, with a few broad petals dispersed 
here and there. Amongst the thousands of first-class 
exhibition flowers I have seen in various parts of the 
country, I have seen only one fairly perfect incurved 
flower of Guernsey Nugget. 
Besides symmetry, a good incurved flower should 
possess solidity of flower, substance of petal, brilliancy, 
colour and purity. It is quite true that Empress of 
India, Queen of England, John Salter, Golden Empress, 
Golden Queen of England, Prince Alfred, Princess of 
"Wales, Jean d’Arc, &c., will produce larger flowers 
than will Lady Slade, George Glenny, Mrs. Dixon, 
Mrs. Bundle, Aurea multiflora, Barbara, Cherub, and 
Mrs. Halliburton under similar cultural conditions ; 
but all the latter varieties, and similar kinds, are 
capable of being cultivated so that they are fit to be 
placed on a stand with all or any of the larger kinds 
that ever were exhibited, and no competent judge wmuld 
think of giving the perfect flowers less than their full 
number of points. When it occurs that two competing 
stands “lie” in every particular but that of general 
regularity of stand, then, of course, the more regular 
must be placed before the less regular ; but how often 
do stands of Chrysanthemums “lie ” in every particular 
of symmetry, freshness, colour, arrangement of petals, 
breadth of petals, and general arrangement in stands ? 
Barely, indeed ! I think there can be no doubt that 
fresh, symmetrical flowers of Mrs. Bundle, George 
Glenny, Mrs. Dixon, Eve, Mr. Gladstone, Aurea multi¬ 
flora, Angelina, Barbara, Abbe Passaglia, &e., measuring 
8-9 ins. across, are equal in value, in exhibition stands, 
to Empress of India, Queen of England, Golden Em¬ 
press, Lord Alcester, Alfred Salter, &c., that measure 
10-12 ins. across ; and medium-sized varieties, such as 
Befulgeus,. Prince of Wales, Nil Desperandum, Mr. 
Bunn, Beverley, Venus, Hero of Stoke Newington, 
Novelty, and Prince Alfred, averaging 10 ins. across, 
are equal in value to either, all other qualities being 
equal. Certainly, there is no credit due to anyone for 
growing large ugly blooms, but it does not follow that 
because they are large they should also be ugly. 
Chrysanthemums are grown only to please the eye, 
and if 100 large, symmetrical, and bright flowers 
produce a better effect—as they generally do—than 
500 small and imperfect flowers, which look mere weeds 
in comparison, then it naturally follows that large 
flowers must be better than small flowers. Let me not 
be misunderstood. Essentially I do not value large 
flowers more than small ones, as I have shown before ; 
size has its relative value, and I am willing only to 
give it that value. I yield to none in admiration of 
the symmetry, form, beauty, and general utility of the 
kinds which “A Gardener” would class as “fancy” 
varieties ; but it would be unreasonable to expect a 
medium-sized Mrs. Rundle to be placed on equal terms, 
in a competitive stand, with a fully developed and 
equally symmetrical Empress of India. Mrs. Rundle, 
Mrs. Shipman, George Glenny, Mrs. Dixon, Nil Des¬ 
perandum, Beverley, Golden Beverley, Mr. Bunn, Eve, 
Mrs. Halliburton, Lady Harding, and one or two 
others of the smaller section, will form complete spheres 
in form under good cultivation. Let bright, fresh 
flowers of that quality be exhibited with the larger 
kinds, and no judge fit for his work would even dream 
of under-rating them ; indeed, it would be a'difficult 
matter to find a first prize stand that does not contain 
several of the above-mentioned varieties, which is suf¬ 
ficient proof that they are not so much under-rated as 
“A Gardener” appears to think. 
Now a word as to “ dressing ” Chrysanthemums. In 
some quarters a great outcry has been raised against 
this practice ; but generally they are unsuccessful ex¬ 
hibitors who start the outcry. If the practice could be 
abolished to morrow the best flowers would still win the 
prizes. The best flowers require, and obtain, the least 
“dressing,” for with the exception of several petals in 
the centre of the flower requiring removal on account of 
insufficient space for development, or the arrangement 
of one or two petals that have become disarranged in re¬ 
moval, a really good flower requires no further dressing ; 
and it would be as reasonable to attempt to stop the 
practice of removing stoneless berries from a bunch of 
Grapes, and no more absurd. It is absurd to make a 
law which cannot be carried into effect; and if a rule 
were made prohibiting dressing, who is to see that 
rule carried out? “Dressing” may commence from 
the time the flowers commence to expand, the extraction 
of a deformed petal at one time, the removal of a few 
pistils at another ; and who has a right to interfere ? 
and yet this is “dressing.” 
An expert “ dresser ” has an advantage over one less 
expert, and when the latter with superior blooms is 
beaten by the former with actually inferior blooms, the 
circumstance is to be deplored, but it rarely happens 
that “ dressing” alone turns the scale ; rough unfinished 
flowers are generally “set up” in a manner equally as 
rough, and judges have to award the prizes to flowers 
as they are presented to them, and not as they might 
be presented. If an exhibitor has learnt how to grow 
the best blooms, he should also loam how to present 
them to the eye to the best advantage; a premium ought 
not to be given to slovenliness, nor will a sensible pains¬ 
taking man desire it. Occasionally an exhibitor spoils 
an otherwise excellent stand by putting in a variety 
decidedly bad in colour ; this is a pity, and ought to be 
avoided where possible ; for pure, decided and har¬ 
monious colours well arranged, are a most important 
factor when it comes to a close competition. This 
weakness is most conspicuous amongst the Japanese 
section, which is so bright as a whole ; but there arc 
several kinds that are not to be commended for “colour 
effect,” and would be better left out of an exhibition 
stand. 
Now a word as to judges, for on the judicious 
selection of these much depends. It is not enough for 
a man to know most of the varieties when he sees 
them, but he should also be acquainted with the 
cultural peculiarities of most of those varieties that are 
likely to come under his censorship, and have a good 
knowledge of the highest perfection to which the 
individual varieties can be made to attain. At 
exhibitions of Roses, Dahlias, Carnations, Picotees and 
Auriculas, committees and exhibitors take care to have 
as judges, none but whom they know to be first-class 
cultivators of such specialities ; it is rarely that a non- 
cultivator officiates, and who can blame them ? 
A judge should possess, besides all other qualifications 
essential to all manner of judges, good eyesight. I 
suppose this will startle some of your readers when 
they first read my statement, but on reflection 
few will be anxious to dispute it. It is well known 
that a considerable per centage of people in this country 
are “colour-blind,” that is, they are unable to dis¬ 
tinguish certain shades and colours, and their inability 
to do this varies as the degrees of light. How many 
exhibitors are there, that have been disqualified 
through this defect of vision ?Who will dare to say 
that none have ? There are also people who are what 
are commonly called “short sighted,” that is, they 
have to bring anything they wish to read, to within a 
very short distance of their eyes, or else they are unable 
to read it. Men suffering from such afflictions, if they 
know it, ought not to consent to adjudicate at flower 
shows. Some time ago, an acquaintance, a first-class 
grower and successful exhibitor, and one who is well 
acquainted with the varieties of Chrysanthemums, 
was disqualified at an important exhibition on the 
ground that he had duplicates in his stand ; he con¬ 
tended that he had not, but all to no purpose. The 
explanation was, he had adopted the usual method for 
retarding a bloom of a pink variety, by keeping it in a 
dark and cool place for a few days, and he supposed 
that it had slightly deteriorated in colour, because two 
out of three judges maintained that it was identical 
with another variety, which naturally is only slightly 
suffused with pink ; but this varies according to the 
nature of the soil. I did not see the blooms, and give 
the facts as they were related to me ; but he resolved 
to prove whether he had the true variety or not ; and 
to place the matter beyond dispute, so far as his own 
satisfaction went, he obtained cuttings, at the 
proper season, of the true variety he represented on his 
stand, from me and various other reliable sources, and 
when the flowering season again came round, he 
informed me that his original stock of the variety in 
question was identical with that obtained from other 
sources, and he tvas satisfied the error was not on his 
side. 
I have known a man to officiate as censor at a Chry¬ 
santhemum show whom I have seen at other shows to 
actually place his nose almost in contact with the 
flowers before he could distinguish them to his satis¬ 
faction, or read the names at the front of them, and 
either of which peojde of ordinary vision could see 
easily without straining from the usual attitude of 
casual inspection ; and I have known the same man 
to dispute that two Chrysanthemums, one of which 
was white and the other pink, were not dissimilar and 
distinct !—the variation being permanent, and other 
distinguishing features. In the case previously, quoted 
there was no necessity for mistake, even if the blooms 
were identical in colouring, for the two varieties are 
distinct in form of petals and differ somewhat in their 
general arrangement; therefore, I add one more quali¬ 
fication necessary in a judge of Chrysanthemums—viz., 
the faculty for distinguishing “form.”— J. Uclale, 
Elford, Tamworth. 
- — - 
CUCUMBER CULTURE.* 
The Cucumber requires for its successful cultivation 
a very rich light soil. I use myself one-half of good 
turfy loam, and the other half of leaf-soil well mixed 
and left in a heap for a week or more before I want to 
use it. I never use much soil at first, two or three 
garden-basketsful being quite sufficient to plant them 
in; subsequently, I add a little top-dressing occasionally 
as the roots coine to the surface. In forming the bed, 
I use stable manure in nice working condition with just 
the longest straw taken out, filling up the bed so as 
to allow only room enough for the soil to plant in. The 
same rule applies to boxes or tubs which I use in one 
house, and find them to answer very well. The Myton 
Hall variety is a very shy seeder, and I find that I can 
seed it much better in a box or tub than when it is 
grown in a border. 
The Myton Hall Cucumber was raised by Mr. 
Cameron at Myton Hall, in Yorkshire, some twenty- 
two years ago, and as I have grown it for twenty years 
myself, I think that says much in its favour. It has 
a very strong constitution, forces well, and continues 
bearing till late in the season. I do not grow mine in a 
very high temperature, from 65° to 70° I think the 
best, as it continues in a good bearing condition much 
longer and stronger than it does in a higher tempera¬ 
ture. It delights in plenty of moisture at the roots, 
and a good moist atmosphere in the house or frame in 
which it is grown. The Myton Hall, being a strong 
grower, likes plenty of room. I very rarely stop it 
until it has got as far as space will allow, as I find it 
fruits much stronger than when stopped too often. I 
like to bring up new shoots from as near the collar as 
I can, and take the old ones out ; by this means I keep 
them in bearing much longer. 
I like to sow seeds in the first week of the new year, 
using small pots with three seeds in each. These are 
plunged in a large box filled with fresh horse-manure, 
and covered with soil. I put a large piece of glass over 
the box, and place it as near the light as possible. 
When the plants are up, remove the glass by degrees, 
and when large enough, pot the plants singly, change 
the manure in the box, and plunge them again. The 
plants will be ready to plant out by the end of February, 
when the house should be cleaned and made ready for 
them. When fairly started into growth, I take the 
first cuttings I can get, and use these for the second 
and third plantings, as they fruit much sooner than 
seedlings, and do not make so much wood. I Tike 
cuttings much better then seedlings for general use. — 
J. Slack. 
•A paper read by Mr. J. Slack, gardener to T. R. Gainsford, 
Esq., Whitely Wood Hall, at a meeting of the Sheffield and Hal- 
lamshire Gardeners’ Society. 
