328 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
January 25, 1890. 
FLOfUCl/l<TlJijS[. 
The Rev. G. Jeans on the Philosophy of 
Florists' Flowers—I. 
[Mr. Horner’s spirited defence, in our issue for 
January 11th, of the late Rev. George Jeans’ famous 
papers, on “The Philosophy of Florists’ Flowers,” has 
brought us so many inquiries as to where they can be 
obtained, that we have thought it desirable to reprint 
them for the benefit of the rising generation of florists. 
This would not be necessary but for the fact that the 
papers, which were written forty years ago, have never 
been published separately, and can ouly be found in the 
volume of The Florist for 1878 (when they were re¬ 
published by the late Mr. Thomas Moore), and which 
is now out of print. The papers are about ten in 
number, and we shall continue them weekly until 
completed.— Ed.] 
“ When you said in your number for November [1818] 
that you had had a smile excited by seeing the worst 
Pelargoniums in your collection the most admired, 
you only spoke the experience of all who have a col¬ 
lection of any florists’ flowers; to whom it is a common 
mortification, when exhibiting the objects of their care 
to casual observers, to have the most perfect kinds 
passed by without notice, even when attention is called 
to them, while the defective are singled out for appro¬ 
bation. This well-known fact is often appealed to as a 
proof of the intrinsic unsoundness of the florists’ 
standards of preference, and of the uselessness of his 
labours ; in fact, that all is mere whim and caprice. 
“ There is also another difference between the culti¬ 
vator and the public, somewhat more specious as a 
matter of reproach against us, and often triumphantly 
adduced as decisive of the advantage possessed by the 
uninitiated over the initiated—that a simple admirer 
of nature will look with pleasure upon a Primrose or a 
Pansy, from which the connoisseur would turn with 
disgust. It is thence argued that our science is worse 
than useless. 
“Nor is this treatment of our pursuit confined to 
those who, being ignorant themselves, would fain plead 
for “ignorance as bliss.” The really scientific and 
kindred botanist (he must excuse us for claiming the 
relationship of a younger brother) misappreciates our 
labours, and holds them in greater abhorrence than the 
most resolute upholder of the “naturalsystem ” of van- 
dyked Pinks and Carnations. He calls our double 
flowers monsters, and our varieties hybrids. Perhaps 
it may be new to some of your readers that the meaning 
of the latter word is, “offspring of violence done to 
nature.” And as we, in the simplicity of our ignorance, 
or the consciousness of our rectitude, have adopted his 
term of reproach as a convenient one to express a factitious 
variety obtained by crossing the seed, it will remain as 
a standing testimony of the opinion botanists had of 
the practice. And it is a fact, that as a class, they 
still despise the whole system of fancy flowers, and even 
carry their prejudices so far as to dislike the beauties 
that have been obtained by art. 
“Here, then, are three formidable classes of opponents, 
to one or other of which I think all the objections I 
have heard raised to the art of the florist may be 
referred. And as my object in these papers is to show 
that they are all and severally untenable, it appears 
better to meet them and join issue at once ; after which 
I will endeavour to demonstrate and apply those fixed 
laws of nature, through which have been developed 
whatever advances have yet been or will hereafter be 
made in the improvement of certain flowering plants. 
“I.—The first objection is that what are counted 
excellencies in the eyes of amateurs are mere matters 
of taste and caprice ; that the standards by which they 
are judged are purely arbitrary and conventional; and 
that no sufficient reason can be given why any other 
standards might not as well be adopted as those in 
use, because taste is so variable and inconsistent. 
“Persons who thus reason should be reminded that 
the general amount of consent among those who have 
engaged in the pursuit, and paid attention to it—and 
those not of one time or of one place, or among those 
only who were influenced by each other’s opinions, but 
of all times and of various countries, and often bearing 
no respect towards one another—-should suggest a doubt 
whatever facts are not against them. The truth is, it 
is a curious matter of inquiry, and one of those which 
led the writer to think upon the subject, how much the 
facts of the case are against them, and tend the other 
way ; how constant it is that frequent and attentive 
examination of many varieties of the same species of 
flower almost in every instance leads the cultivator to 
value certain peculiarities, whether pointed out to him 
or not, which constitute the properties of that species 
of flower. 
“Not that each would prefer the same variety ; that 
would imply that there is no place for taste at all, for 
which I shall show that there is a wide, but not an 
unlimited, field. But that in all the varieties that 
each most esteems, there will be found certain charac¬ 
teristic points of excellence. This suggests what will 
be proved to be a fact, that for such agreement there is 
a reason founded in nature ; a reason we will afterwards 
investigate. In the meantime, the mere intimation it 
gives that these preferences are not arbitrary, is a 
sufficient answer to the objection as it is usually made. 
“ The same appearance of mere arbitrary standards of 
excellence is found in many, perhaps in most other 
objects of pursuit. An ordinary person going among 
the stock of a farmer who breeds high, would in all 
probability make the same mistake that you complained 
of in one ignorant of Pelargoniums, and excite a smile 
of pity or contempt through his unacquaintance with the 
technical value of level backs, flat loins, wide forelegs, 
and straight sides, or by showing so much want of 
discernment as actually to praise a good-looking 
animal with a black nose, a fault as inexcusable in a 
cow, and as surely indicative of defect of breeding, as 
the same appearance would be at the bottom of the cup 
of a Tulip. 
“ Now these marks are not arbitrary ; no one supposes 
them to be so in cattle ; credit is given to the farmer 
who he has a reason founded in nature for the points of 
his beast, though that reason does not lie on the 
surface, to be discerned by every passing beholder. 
They are admitted to be what they really are—an 
index of its qualifications to fulfil its destined functions. 
“The same thing occurs in judging between the 
relative values of different specimens of the same kind 
in all articles, whether natural productions or works 
of art. There are always some technical marks to 
judge by, which serve to indicate in short compass the 
intrinsic qualities of the article. And these marks 
will seem arbitrary to those who do not understand 
them, because their connection with the qualities is 
not seen. The merchant judges of samples by marks 
that are meaningless to others, but which lead him to 
a correct result, because they have a real natural 
connection with the qualities he seeks. The florist 
has an equal reason for the properties of his flower. 
A novice will sometimes bring a seedling Polyanthus 
to an older cultivator, expecting the same admiration 
it has excited in himself. In] size, and shape, and 
colour, and edging, it is perfect ; and he is surprised 
and mortifhd at the coldness of its reception. And 
when told why it must be rejected, he considers the 
floristic canon as arbitrary and unreasonable, which 
condemns an otherwise excellent flower for the trifling 
defect, if defect it is to be called at all, that the stigma 
is visible. Yet condemned it would be, and univer¬ 
sally, by judges ; and they are right, as will be shown 
in its place. A pin-eyed Polyanthus or Auricula has 
no business in a collection, though not out of place in 
a border. 
“There is no caprice in this. And the real agree¬ 
ment that has obtained all along from the first among 
florists in their estimate of fancy flowers is greater 
than is at first discernible ; because they did not set 
out from a known system acknowledged by all, or by 
any, and therefore their differences of taste were greater 
at first, and diminished continually afterwards. No such 
system was then thought of or supposed to exist, but 
each endeavoured to improve his chosen flower in his 
own way. But now, after their labours have in a 
course of years slowly collected various and tangible 
results, we can see that those results have been reached 
by successive steps, all in the same direction. The 
Tulip, which has, perhaps, been cultivated longest as 
a fancy flower, and which, as the gaudiest of them, is 
peculiarly likely to dazzle even the experienced into 
mistakes of its true properties—has undergone several 
apparent revolutions of opinion about its standard 
points. We have now, however, no difficulty in 
following the successive advances it has made, and 
discovering that there was no capriciousness, nor any 
other general alteration of taste than what arose from 
a general onward progress. 
“ It may be true that some old varieties exist in most 
fancy flowers which have seldom been surpassed since ; 
but at the time of their first appearance they were not, 
as they are expected to be now, the types of the whole 
bed. And when it is thence inferred that many have 
been discarded to make room for others no better, or 
perhaps worse, than themselves, it is not indeed denied 
that such mistakes may have happened, but from some 
researches made on the subject, I am inclined to believe 
they have been comparatively rare. And there is one 
reason for novelty not generally known except to 
experienced florists (though popularly acknowledged in 
fruits), that highly cultivated varieties soon wear them¬ 
selves out and degenerate. Pinks rarely retain their 
character through more than from ten to fifteen genera¬ 
tions of cuttings ; and therefore new ones must be 
continually superseding the old, even though little, if 
anything superior, to those they displace. 
“And as for a person unaccustomed to any species of 
flower making a wrong selection for his approval, it 
happens in everything else as well as in flowers, and 
therefore loses its force. Lace, for instance, is made 
for the same purpose that the flower was created—to 
please the eye ; and an unpractised eye would be as 
apt to pass by the rare and costly, and to select the 
valueless in lace, as in a Pelargonium. The fact is 
even found to be that the most showy qualities are not 
the most useful, nor is that which will most permanently 
please that which first catches the unaccustomed eye. 
But that which is sterling, which will attract without 
fatiguing the sight, and gratify without offending the 
judgment, will often be passed over at first without 
notice. And therefore it is no more a reproach to the 
study which investigates these facts, or to the art 
which is founded upon them, that the eye of a novice 
should make a choice which the same eye, when 
tutored by experience, would regret, than it is an 
argument against a more cultivated taste in diet, that 
a child prefers green fruit to ripe, and leaves wholesome 
food for gingerbread.” 
The Philosophy of Florists’ Flowers. 
The Rev. F. D. Horner asks us to correct a couple of 
errors which crept into his communication published in 
our issue for January 11th. In the paragraph on Self 
Carnations the sentence “not unusually reverts,’’ should 
read “not usually reverts;” and with reference to 
single forms of florists’ Roses, the word “ever” is a 
misprint for “even.” 
New Chinese Primulas. 
Her Majesty. —The leaves of this Primula are 
broadly oblong, most deeply divided at the base, and 
although it may be classed amongst the Fern-leaved 
kinds, the foliage seems almost intermediate between 
the normal and the Fern-leaf type. The flowers are 
large, pure white, of great substance, with undulated 
segments, and the large bluntly angled eye is greenish 
orange. 
Eynsford Pink. —The flowers in this case are of a 
warm, deep pink, with many overlapping lobes, crenate 
at the margin. The eye is greenish orange, with five 
distinct blunt lobes. The foliage is vigorous, of the 
ordinary form, and light green. 
Eynsford Red. —Although this variety may be 
described as a warm rich red, there is that amount of 
violet or purple in it which makes such colours difficult 
to describe. The colour fades into a fine violet line 
round the eye, which is greenish yellow, and five-angled, 
not lobed. The leaves are robust, oblong-cordate, 
lobed, and approach the Fern-leaved type slightly. All 
the three are new varieties of this year. They were 
exhibited by Messrs. H. Cannell & Sons, at the Drill 
Hall, on the 14th inst., and received Awards of Merit. 
Carnation Classes. 
In my letter on this subject published last week, a 
clerical error makes me invite new classes for “ eight ” 
and three flowers. Of course I meant six, and three 
flowers, and must have made a mistake.— A. 
-- 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS AT THE 
CENTENARY CONFERENCE AT 
CHISWICK. 
Many of our readers will no doubt have a distinct 
recollection of the Chrysanthemums and their arrange¬ 
ment at the Centenary Conference, held in the large 
vinery at Chiswick, on the 5th and 6th of November 
last. The pot plants occupied the centre of the house, 
while the cut flowers were arranged on the side benches, 
and amongst them were several exhibits representing 
collections of all the groups into which Chrysanthe¬ 
mums are now classified. Our illustration represents 
the splendid collection exhibited by Mr. E. Molyneux, 
gardener to W. H. Myers, Esq., Swanmore Park, 
Bishops Waltham. The superior quality of the exhibit 
more than its extent is to be noted, because it must be 
remembered that the conference was held just when 
gardeners were straining every effort to make up their 
