December 31, 1887. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
283 
very large size.— B. S. Williams, Victoria and Para¬ 
dise Nurseries, Upper Holloway. 
Sweet Pea, Boreatton (Eckford).—A very fine 
dark Pea, with bold stout flowers, the standard being a 
rich shining bronzy crimson, the wings of a beautiful 
crimson-purple, shaded with rose. — William Bull, 
King’s Boad, Chelsea; Watkins <£ Simpson, Exeter 
Street, Strand, W. C. 
Sweet Pea, Invincible Blue.—The most striking 
and distinct colour yet obtained in Sweet Peas, having 
both standard and wings of a fine light violet-blue 
colour. — Thomas Laxton, Bedford; Hooper cfc Co., 
Covent Barden. 
Tridax bicolor rosea.—This quite new and very 
pretty annual composite forms a compact bush about 
1 ft. high, commencing to flower when about half that 
size. The flower-heads are borne well above the 
foliage and are about 1J ins. across, of a pleasing rose 
colour, the disc being yellow. In the bud the flowers 
are of a deep crimson. — Watkins & Simpson, Exeter 
Street, Strand, W.C.; Hooper <£■ Co., Covent Barden. 
Zea gigantea fol. variegata (Parrot Maize, or 
Indian Corn). A beautiful novelty ; foliage large 
and drooping, with splendid variegated leaves of silver, 
white, and green ; very ornamental for grouping ; 6 ft. 
to 9 ft. high.— Hooper <k Co., Covent Barden. 
Zmnia linearis.—An interesting and very pretty 
species from Mexico, which forms neat, erect, and 
dense bushes of about 12 ins. in height, covered with 
flowers 1J ins. to 2 ins. across ; colour bright golden 
yellow with light orange margin. The flowers retain 
their colour beautifully when dried. — Watkins & 
Simpson, Exeter Street, Strand, W. C. 
-- -»*«*■ - 
COCO NUT, NOT COCOA-NUT. 
lx a former number of your valuable paper (April 11th, 
1885) I gave some particulars about the Coco-nut, in 
which I used this mode of spelling, and it is pleasing 
to find it considered the correct one. The great 
difficulty in convincing other people that it was right 
lay in the contrary evidence of the rendering Cocoa-nut 
by so many botanical writers of eminence, including 
Loudon, Lindley and Sir W. J. Hooker. It is, therefore, 
gratifying to see reference made to this subject in the 
new periodical called the Annals of Botany by the 
editor, Professor Bavley Balfour, who recommends all 
botanists who wish to write correctly to range them¬ 
selves amongst careful writers, and to use “Coco-nut” 
in future, as he intends to do. Will you allow me 
through the medium of your valuable columns to say 
the same to horticulturists, and give a short epitome 
of my reasons why they should do so, by selecting a 
few examples from writers on this subject. 
All the earliest writers wrote Coco-nut or Coker-nut, 
and it was only after the change of the name of the 
Cacao product from chocolate to cocoa that the 
diversity began. Most of your readers must have 
noticed at various times the produce of Cocos nucifera 
(the Cocoa-nut Palm), Theobroma Cacao (the Chocolate 
or Cocoa Tree), and even Erythroxylon Coca (the Coca 
shrub), designated Cocoa with the addition of nut, fruit, 
or leaf. The mention of the Cocoa-leaf of Upper Peru 
in an article on “Economic Botany” in Household 
Words for 1856, first called my attention to the 
necessity for a more careful spelling, and Cocoa-nut oil 
and Cocoa-nuts in Bennie's Pharmacopoeia, published in 
1833, pp. 686 and 687, are mentioned some dozen times 
as the products of Theobroma Cacao (Linn.). Some of 
the many other instances could be adduced were these 
not sufficient—proofs of the exigence, as well as the 
urgency, of using a proper English nomenclature even 
independently of the correct etymological reasons, to 
show which products we are alluding to. 
An excellent article from the pen of Dr. Trimen, 
director of the Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, Ceylon, is 
worth reproducing, entitled “Cacao and Cocoa.” He 
says “ In my use of these words I have been 
generally guided by an impression that they refer re¬ 
spectively to the tree and its commercial product. The 
aboriginal name in Guiana is ‘Cacao,’ but how this 
may be pronounced I do not know. The native name 
was adopted (as in so many other cases) as the botanical 
one, and the spelling retained, and this must always 
remain, for no one is at liberty to alter what has once 
been published as a scientific name. It is to be re¬ 
gretted that the tree has not been generally called 
Chocolate Tree. But the product is another thing. It 
is always and by everybody called ‘Cocoa,’ and it 
would be fruitless to attempt to alter this ; therefore 
it is, perhaps, a little pedantic to spell it ‘ Cacao.’ As 
for the Coco-nut Palm, I think this way of spelling it 
is practically useful.” Ray, in 1687, in his Historic. 
Plantarum, p. 1670, has Cacao, the Caco Tree ; and in 
the Anglo-Latinus Index, the Cacao or Chocolate Tree, 
Cacao ; and at p. 1356, Palma indica nucifera, (J.B.), 
the Coco or Coker-nut Tree. 
Bailey, in the thirteenth edition of his Dictionary, 
A.d. 1749, has “Cacao, an Indian tree, like to an 
Orange tree, bearing nuts of which chocolate is made; 
Coco Nut, see Cacao ; Coco-tree, an Indian tree much 
like the Date tree, &c., &c. In the twenty-second 
edition, a.d. 1777, the name is spelled “Cacao (as 
above), Cocao Nut, see Cocoa ; Cocoa tree, an Indian 
tree, &c.” (same as the definition to Coco tree in the 
former edition). Here we find a decided mixture of 
the two trees formerly so clearly distinct. 
Philip Miller, in the eighth edition of his Bardeners' 
Dictionary, a.d. 1768, has “Cocos, the Cocoa-nut; 
Gacao, the Chocolate-nut.” Iam notable to refer to 
any other edition of Miller or Bailey, but, perhaps, 
some of your correspondents could give any different 
version they might find in some of the other editions, 
and they could be referred to editions of other dic¬ 
tionaries, when the real culprit could be identified. 
Dr. Murray points to Johnson’s Dictionary, published 
in 1755, whether Bailey, who has the demerit, could 
easily be proved by those who have earlier editions of 
these two otherwise valuable dictionaries.— (Edipus. 
-—> 2 <—- 
CHRYSANTHEMUM CLASSIFI¬ 
CATION. 
I am exceedingly obliged to Mr. Molyneux for so 
kindly and promptly responding to my suggestions 
with regard to the re-classification of Chrysanthemums 
for exhibition purposes. I cheerfully endorse the dis¬ 
senting nature of his criticisms, for the excellent reason 
that he has so well performed the labour invited from 
him. I think very many readers also are obliged to 
Mr. Molyneux, and I advise them to specially care for 
the lists as prepared by him, because they will form a 
valuable basis for the classification of Chrysanthemums 
on the lines suggested by me. Sooner or later, such a 
change is sure to come. The growth of varieties will 
not only compel it, but public opinion will demand.it. 
I can very well understand the objections entertained by 
an old and successful exhibitor like Mr. Molyneux, who 
has done so well on the old lines that he has no reason 
to w'ish for change. Still further, men of strong con¬ 
servative ideas find it hard to accommodate themselves 
to those changes which time and necessity presently 
render inevitable. 
Mr. Shirley Hibberd, speaking with his customary 
eloquence upon the possible future of the Chrysanthe¬ 
mum, at Kingston last month, expressed his belief that 
the only limit to the popularity of the plant would be 
found in the cessation of novelty in varieties. Judging 
by the recent progress, it would seem as if that 
cessation would hardly be realised for a few centuries 
yet ; indeed, it is utterly impossible for anyone to 
prognosticate the future of the Chrysanthemum. Its 
development into so many diverse forms during jthe 
past twenty years has been marvellous, and observing 
persons, whose minds can look beyond the stereotyped 
growers’ and exhibitors’ narrow range of vision, see 
in that wonderful expansion evidence of the even yet 
more remarkable development in store. Still, the 
continuance of the existing popularity of the Chrysan¬ 
themum, with what may be called the general public, 
will be largely determined by the handling the plant 
receives from the growers of present and future years. 
I wish to promote at our shows a broader and more 
liberal handling, and I am sure that breadth will come 
in time. That Mr. Molyneux was able to so readily 
classify both incurved and Japanese kinds as I suggested, 
shows at once that it is but a matter of determination 
on the part of committees in arranging their schedules. 
With respect to the Japanese, these lists ten years 
hence would require rearrangement or, at least, need 
enormous additions, and the longer the attempted 
classification is ignored the more difficult will become 
competitions in the respective classes. I would very 
cordially invite other exhibitors and growers to criticise 
the suggestions made as well as Mr. Molyneux’s lists, 
and let us have the matter thoroughly threshed out; 
even in the publication of the lists and in the criticisms 
so far, so much is admitted in my favour that I may 
look,Tor the general result of a discussion with com¬ 
placency.— D. 
“D.’s” attack upon the forty-eight cut bloom class 
I have much relished. I agree with him so far 
that forty-eight is too many, but would not abolish 
them as he suggests. In my estimate, thirty-six are 
quite sufficient; two stands could then be made up in 
three rows of six blooms each, composed of as many 
distinct varieties without that unnecessary sameness 
which causes the visitors, in passing, to soon become 
satiated with so many duplicates, and to lose that 
interest which distinct varieties would stimulate. I 
believe that by reducing the number to thirty-six, or 
thirty, the generality of shows would be better repre¬ 
sented by our best growers ; for Chrysanthemum shows 
are becoming so numerous, whilst such growers remain 
nearly stationary, that we must be prepared to meet 
other dangers likely to occur. I concur with Mr. 
Horsefield when he says that big classes are the chief 
public attraction ; but they do not come in sufficient 
numbers. These forty-eight classes entail a deal of 
labour, and if they are beyond the ability of average 
growers or even experts, it is time we cast about for a 
remedy. Either the number of blooms will have to be 
lowered, or the prizes raised in value ; for our largest 
growers will go to where the biggest prizes are offered. 
On this principle it seems absurd for a society in offer¬ 
ing a £10 prize, to advocate a class for forty-eight cut 
blooms if there is to be little or no competition. 
Observation and comparison are weighty, and the few 
entries in these open classes, noticed at some ex¬ 
hibitions, will cause exhibitors, and especially com¬ 
mittees, to reflect, and carry with them the conviction 
that these forty-eight bloom classes are undesirable. 
Two entries staged in thirty-six or even thirty cut 
blooms are equally as good or even better than one 
entry of forty-eight with duplicates. If the excellence 
of all our shows is to be maintained, I predict that 
good results will follow if the classes are made smaller. 
Moreover, it is desirable on other grounds to check 
what, if true, has been already asserted, namely, that 
there is a sort of mutual understanding between many 
growers to work the exhibitions to each other’s 
advantage. If this be so, thin average entries will be 
rife. It is evident to all that the arrangement of our 
schedules is of vast importance for the unity and 
solidification of all interests concerned. We must 
anticipate difficulties, and be prepared to overcome 
obstacles by conforming to new ideas and systems, 
adopting the best ways and means to secure the best 
results. Many old ways are simply of routine ; but 
so popular are these shows becoming that weak places 
will be more detected and made strong. In the other 
sections, as suggested by “D.,” separate classes might 
be made ; but most of the small blooms he mentions 
serve a far better purpose at home for the decoration of 
the conservatory, the vase, the sideboard, or for 
presentation to friends ; as even amongst cultivators of 
the larger and coarser sorts, they have their admirers, 
and will not soon be lost. — A Northern Committeeman. 
-- 
SOME NEWER HARDY 
RHODODENDRONS. 
By these I do not mean any new varieties of the 
present season that are announced at high prices, but 
such as have stood the test of a few years’ culture, and 
may be purchased from 3s. 6 d. to 7s. 6d. each. Even new 
varieties of hardy Rhododendrons are sometimes disap¬ 
pointing, but those now about to be passed in review 
are such as deserve a place in the most select collections. 
The list consists of Baron Schroder, plum colour, with 
yellow centres, of fine form and large bold trusses ; 
Frederick Waterer, fiery crimson, large fully-formed 
flowers, bold trusses and an excellent habit of growth ; 
Helen Waterer, white centre, edged with crimson, 
fine trusses of bloom ; J. Marshall Brooks, rich scarlet, 
with bronzy spots, very fine and distinct; John 
Walter, rich crimson, large bold trusses, fine form 
and good habit ; Kate Waterer, clear rosy crimson, 
large yellow blotches, very fine and distinct ; Lady 
Ilchester, pale centre, edged with scarlet, bright and 
effective ; Marchioness of Lansdowne, pale rose, with 
an intense black spotting, a very distinct and telling 
variety ; Mrs. Harry Ingersoll, bright pink, with 
primrose centre ; Mrs. Sam Mendel, pink, each petal 
edged with white, yellow round the throat, a distinct 
and beautiful variety ; Roseum pictum, lake shaded 
with white, and greenish brown spots, very pleasing; 
Sappho, white and much spotted with brownish 
maroon ; Sigismund Rucker, magenta and richly 
spotted, a most beautiful and distinct variety ; Silvio, 
rich purple, yellow centre, very distinct; Sir H. de 
Trafford, bright rose with yellow centre ; The Bride, 
pure white, upper petals delicately spotted with green ; 
The Strategist, delicately clear rose, very pleasing; and 
Vivian Grey, bright rosy pink, and beautifully spotted. 
One can quite understand the great Loudon’s 
admiration of the hardy Rhododendron. He wrote of 
them as “ the pride of European gardens,” as they are 
