January 10, 1891. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
299 
most widely distributed. The berries are of an agree¬ 
able flavour and make excellent tarts ; but this use is 
little known and less practised in this country. The 
plant itself has been used to some extent in plantations 
in the north of England and in Scotland, as cover for 
game which also feeds on the berries. Almost every 
establishment where the shrubberies are of any extent, 
have found G. Shallon a useful evergreen subject for 
planting in the front lines. When once established it 
would soon cover a considerable amount of space if 
allowed to extend by means of its underground stems. 
Most species of this family delight in a peaty soil, and 
many refuse to thrive without it in certain localities ; 
but the species under notice will thrive in almost any 
loose open soil, and even under the shade of trees where 
hardly anything else will grow. 
-^ 3 ?*-- 
FORM IN FLOWERS. 
Colour, form, size, habit, and fragrance—these are 
the characteristics which, varying from flower to flower, 
produce in their different combinations the myriad 
types that delight us. Fragrance, however, may be 
set aside just now as not appealing to the sense of 
sight; for it is this sense which judges of beauty, and 
it is of the beauty of flowers that we intend to speak, 
and especially of beauty as shown in cultivated plants 
and modified by the hand of man. 
The fact has been noted in ithese pages that the 
average eye is more impressed and attracted by beauty 
of colour than beauty of form. To combine colours 
well needs, it is true, the most highly cultivated taste ; 
but the appreciation of single tints or of gradations of 
one or two plainly harmonious tones is a not unusual 
gift. Form, on the other hand, is seldom thoroughly 
appreciated except by trained eyes. In consequence, 
although the judgment of florists and their patrons is 
sometimes at fault in matters of colour, it is in matters 
of form that it oftenest goes astray. 
One of the facts which prove this statement is the 
constant confounding of mere size with beauty. In 
everything which appeals to the eye—from trees to 
churches, from jewels to mountains, from pictures to 
rosebuds—size is a potent element in arousing interest 
and admiration, its appeal to the sense of wonder being 
constantly confounded with an appeal to the sense of 
beauty. There are many cases, of course, where it is a 
true aesthetic factor, rightly augmenting delight. 
Other things being equal, an immense church 
interior or a huge diamond is more beautiful than a 
small one. All occidental men would doubtless give a 
similar verdict with regard to trees. Yet are not the 
Japanese now acknowledged to be a people of finer 
artistic sense than our own ? And a Japanese art critic 
in America has replied, when the small size of certain 
new England trees was excused, that to care for the 
bigness of trees was “ barbaric ’’—their form was the 
primary, their size but a secondary consideration. 
But however it may be with trees, it is certainly 
barbaric to lay too much stress on size in flowers. 
When Nature herself makes them large she adapts 
shape and details to size. She draws their outlines 
with a bold hand, usually builds them of solid sub¬ 
stance, gives them a massive array of pistils and 
stamens, and sets them on plants with sturdy stems 
and broad, firm leaves. Look at the Magnolia, the 
Night-Blooming Cereus, and the Artichoke if you 
would see big flowers as Nature loves to design them. 
There are exceptions to the rule, and Nature occa¬ 
sionally sets a big blossom on a small plant, but we 
instantly recognise the fact, and are more impressed by 
the oddity of such plants than by anything else about 
them. The best guide for man’s efforts at improve¬ 
ment is always to follow the rule of Nature, not to 
imitate her exceptions. She can be graceful even when 
working with emphatic contrasts ; but it is easier for 
him to succeed when he keeps to obvious harmonies. 
There is a class of plants, just now very popular, 
which illustrates how gardeners may go astray in their 
improvements. These are the tuberous Begonias. 
Differing much in the size of their leaves, these plants 
are naturally of low habit, with such weak flower-stalks 
that the blossoms droop, and with small flowers of 
somewhat irregular outline—that is, the type, as Nature 
designed it, was a small, drooping, irregular flower. 
The aim of the gardener, however, is to make it large, 
regular and erect. There are countless splendid im¬ 
proved Begonias in cultivation now, but the more one 
looks at them the more one feels that—apart from the 
variety of beautiful colours they show, to which all 
admiration is due—their cultivators have wasted their 
time. The increased size of the blossoms makes them 
look too large for the plants ; their irregularity of out¬ 
line and want of symmetry, so charming in smaller 
flowers, are displeasing on a larger scale, giving almost 
the effect of malformed flowers, rather than of such as 
Nature had intended to be unsymmetrical, while the 
greater erectness of the blossom has destroyed its grace 
without giving it real dignity. But we are told that the 
ultimate aim of the cultivator—true erectness and 
perfect symmetry—will soon be achieved. And if 
so, what will be gained ? A commonplace-looking 
flower, with characteristics similar to those of a dozen 
others, in place of an individual, peculiar type that will 
have been improved out of existence. Big regular 
blossoms, holding their faces well up, will un¬ 
doubtedly be more striking, but they will no longer be 
Begonias for anyone who, beneath a name, cares to find 
a distinct floral type. 
Of course, too, these Begonias are being doubled, 
and with their doubling the last traces of their identity 
will disappear. But it is almost hopeless to protest 
against this, the most common sin of cultivators. 
Who that cares for types as expressions of Nature’s 
creative power, and who that has an eye for beauty of 
form, can look with patience on the fashion which 
converts the exquisite cup of the Daffodil into a ragged 
lump of yellow, which mars the curve and fills the 
hollow of the Tulip’s bowl with crowded petals, which 
“ improves ” the bell of the Hyacinth until it is no 
longer a bell, and the four-pointed star of the Bouvardia 
till it is no star ? How, one wonders, has the Lily-of- 
the-Valley so long escaped, and when will Nature’s 
beautiful half doubling of the Water Lily be carried 
further, until the last of the golden stamens disappears ? 
And may not a “full double” Iris be the next high- 
priced novelty? Nothing, indeed, seems too dreadful 
to anticipate, now that Narcissi are advertised for their 
close resemblance to double Camellias, and the ruined 
form of a Tiger Lily, dubbed Jlore pleno, decorates the 
pages of the latest plant catalogues. Double Azaleas 
we have long had with us, and double Snowdrops. 
And if the shape and habit of the Begonia are to be 
utterly changed, will not some make the Cyclamen 
hold up its head and spread out its petals in an 
unorthodox way ? 
We do not wish to imply that there are no flowers 
which may well be doubled, that increase of size should 
never be aimed at, or that habit of growth can never be 
improved. It is only to protest against excess and 
misdirection. Form should be a prime consideration 
always. It should not be confounded with symmetry ; 
and yet the truth should be remembered, that certain 
sorts of irregularity, charming on a small scale, are 
ugly when increased size makes them conspicuous. A 
weak habit is often a defect to be remedied, yet at times 
it constitutes the whole character, grace, and beauty of 
the plant. The multiplication of petals may often 
produce an effect so different from that of the natural 
flower as to constitute a new type, and one of much 
beauty. The type of the Dahlia has not been ruined 
by doubling—it has been replaced by another type with 
a certain forml beauty of its own. But such doubling 
often does no more than spoil the first type by turning 
it into [a shapeless mass like that of many double 
Narcissi.— Garden and Forest. 
-=■»*<«-- 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL 
SOCIETY’S COMMITTEES, 1891. 
Fruit and Vegetable Committee. — Chairman, 
Philip Crowley, Waddon House, by Croydon. Vice- 
Chairmen, T. Francis Rivers, Sawbridgeworth ; John 
Lee, 78, Warwick Gardens, Kensington ; R. D. Black- 
more, Teddington. Secretary, Archibald F. Barron, 
Chiswick,’ W. 
Balderson, H., Corner Hall, Hemel Hempstead 
Bates, W., Poulett Lodge Gardens Twickenham 
Bennett, W., Rangemore Pk. Gardens, Burton-on-Trent 
Bunyard, George, The Nurseries, Maidstone 
Cheal, J., Crawley, Sussex 
Cliffe, G., Shoreham Place Gardens, Sevenoaks 
Coleman, W., Eastnor Castle Gardens, Ledbury 
Cummins, G. W., The Grange Gardens, Wallington 
Dean, A., Bedfont, Feltham 
Denning, W., Heathfield Nursery, Hampton 
Dunn, Malcolm, The Palace Gardens, Dalkeith, N.B. 
Fairgrieve, P. W., The Palace Gardens, Dunkeld, N.B. 
Hogg, Dr. LL.D., F.L.S., 99, St. George’sRd., Pimlico 
Haycock, C., Goldings, Hertford 
Hudson, J., Gunnersbury House, Acton 
Lane, Fred. Q., Berkhamsted 
Mclndoe, James, Hutton Hall Gardens, Guisborough 
Miles, G. T.. Wycombe Abbey, High Wycombe 
Moss, A., 39, London Bridge, E.C. 
Norman, G., Hatfield House Gardens, Hatfield 
Pearson, A. H., The Nurseries, Chilwell, Notts. 
Penny, C., Belle Vue, Saltliill, Slough 
Reynolds, G., The Gardens, Gunnersbury Park, Acton 
Ross, Charles, The Gardens, Welford Park, Newbury 
Saltmarsh, T. J., The Nurseries, Chelmsford 
Smith, J., The Gardens, Mentmore, Leighton Buzzard 
Sutton, A. W., F.L.S., Reading 
Veitch, J. H., Royal Exotic Nursery 7 , Chelsea 
Veitch, P. C. M., The Royal Nurseries, Exeter 
Watkins, A., Exeter Street, Strand 
Warren, W., Worton Gardens, Isleworth 
Weir, Harrison, Sevenoaks 
Willard, Jesse, Holly Lodge Gardens, Higligate, N. 
Woodward, G., Barham Court, Teston, Maidstone 
Wright, John, 171, Fleet Street 
Wythes, G., Syon House Gardens, Brentford. 
Floral Committee. — Chairman, William Marshall, 
Auchinraith, Bexley. Vice-Chairmen, Maxwell T. 
Masters, M.D., F.R.S., Mount Avenue, Ealing, W. ; 
John Fraser, Lea Bridge Road, Leytonstone, E. ; 
George Paul, The Old Nurseries, Cheshunt. Secretary, 
Archibald F. Barron, Chiswick, W. 
Bain, W., The Gardens, Burford Lodge, Dorking 
Baines, Thomas, Fern Cottage, Palmer’s Green, N. 
Bennett-Poe, J. T., 29, Ashley Place, S.W. 
Burbidge,F. W., Trinity College Botanic Garden, Dublin 
Brycesson, Geo., Flora Villa, Plumstead 
Cannell, H., Swanley, Kent 
Castle, L., Hotham House, Merton 
Dean, R., Ranelagh Road, Ealing, W. 
D’OmbraiD, Rev. H. H., Westwell Vicarage, Ashford, 
Kent. 
Druery, C. T., F.L.S., 25, Windsor Road, Forest Gate 
Furze, W., Roselands, Broom Road, Teddington 
Girdlestone, T. W., Sunningdale, Berks 
Gordon, G., 1, Stile Villas, Gunnersbury 
Goldring, W., 52, Gloucester Road, Kew 
Herbst, H., Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey 
Ingram, W., Bel voir Castle Gardens, Grantham 
Jefferies, C., Boston House Gardens, Brentford 
Kelway, W., Langport, Somerset 
Laing, J., Forest Hill, S.E. 
Leach, W. C., Aldbury Park Gardens, Guildford 
Lindsay, R., Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh 
Lowe, R. D,, Ashbridge Gardens, Berkhamsted 
May, H. B., Dyson’s Lane, Upper Edmonton 
Mawley, E., Rosebank, Berkhamsted 
Molyneux, E., Swanmore Park Gardens, Bishops 
Waltham 
Nicholson, G., Royal Gardens, Kew 
Noble, C., Sunningdale Nursery, Bagshot 
Pearson, C. E,, Chilwell, Nottingham 
Phippen, G., Victoria Nursery, Reading 
Ross, F,, Pendell Court Gardens, Bletehingley 
Thomas Owen, Chatsworth Gardens, Chesterfield 
Turner, H., Royal Nurseries, Slough 
Walker, J., Ham Common, Surrey 
Watson, W., Royal Gardens, Kew 
Williams, W. H. (Keynes & Co.), Salisbury 
Wynne, B., 17, Catherine Street, Strand, W.C. 
Orchid Committee. — Chairman, H. J. Veitch, 
F.L.S., Royal Exotic Nursery, Chelsea, S.W. Vice- 
Chairmen, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., M.P., 57, 
Princes Gate, S.W.; J. Douglas, Great Gearies, Ilford ; 
Maxwell T. Masters, M.D., F.R.S., Mount Avenue, 
Ealing, W. Secretary, James O’Brien, West Street, 
Harrow-on-the Hill. 
Baines, Thomas, Fern Cottage, Palmer’s Green, N. 
Ballantine, H., The Dell Gardens, Staines 
Castle, Lewis, Hotham House, Merton 
Crawshay, De Barri, Rosefield, Sevenoaks 
Cookson, Norman C., Oakwood, Wylam-on-Tyne 
Courtauld, Sydney, Booking Place, Braintree 
Dominy, John, 11, Tadema Road, Chelsea, S.W. 
Haywood, T. B., Woodhatch Lodge, Reigate 
Hill, E., Tring Park Gardens, TriDg 
Kinleside, Rev. R. V. C., Sunbury House, Tunbridge 
Wells 
Latham, W. B., Botanic Gardens, Birmingham 
Le Dout, G. R., Langton House, East Moulsey 
Lindsay, R., Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh 
Moon, E., Cassiobridge, Watford 
Moore, F., Blendon Hall Gardens, Bexley 
Philbrick, F. A., Q.C., Oldfield, Bickley Park 
Pilcher, Charles, 84, Ringford Road, Wandsworth 
Pollett, H. M., Fernside, Bickley, Kent 
Sander, F., St. Albans. 
Schroder, Baron Henry, The Dell, Staines 
Smee, A. H. Wallington, Surrey 
Tautz, F. G., Dibdin House, Hanger Hill, Ealing 
Williams, H., Victoria Nurseries, Holloway, N. 
—-- 
THE SPECIES OF PIERIS. 
There are something like ten or eleven distinct species 
of Pieris, better known in gardens and nurseries under 
the name of Andromeda. The latter originally con¬ 
tained many species, more or less numerously cultivated 
in this country, but it has now been split up into' 
several genera—of which Pieris includes some of the 
most ornamental and useful species for shrubbery 
borders and greenhouse culture. Most of them are 
evergreen shrubs, with leathery, sometimes shining, 
and ornamental foliage. Some of them are very neat 
in habit; most of them have white flowers in axillary 
or terminal racemes or panicles, sometimes produced in 
