536 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
April 26, 1890. 
FLOfUdi/RTUf^. 
- ^ - 
Revision and Classification of Picotee Classes. 
Correspondence between the Rev. F. D. Horner and Mr. 
E. S. Dodwell. 
I.— Mr. Horner to Mr. Dodwell. 
Many thanks for your leaflet of March 3rd on the 
Revision and Re-division of the Picotee Classes in Single 
Blooms. At present there is, to the medium edge, no 
locus standi, except among the heavies, where it is 
practically a weaker vessel—-a light heavy, so to say— 
and therefore of short weight. As things are, we 
cannot give this style of Picotee its fair expression, and 
so I think the main divisions in single blooms might 
well and happily be heavy, medium, and light; but I 
would certainly, by no means whatever, run all the 
edge colours together. It would, I think, be too much 
centralisation ; and single blooms, classed only by 
depth of edge, would be unwieldy, perplexing masses, 
incapable of sufficient gradation and recognition in 
awards, except by some such inordinate length of class 
prizes that all attempts at comprehending the mag¬ 
nitude of the prizes at planetary distances from the first 
would be vain. The colours of the edges are great 
natural divisions, forming very easy bases of distinction 
on the whole. Some tints, indeed, so verge and merge 
that two descriptive names are better than one— e.g., 
“rose or salmon edge”—but this, I think, would be 
less confusing than mixing up one type of marginal 
breadth in a “compote” of all the colours that edges 
come. 
I think that your resting “division upon the 
breadth of the marginal colour ” would rather give 
scope for, than put restriction upon, “the preference 
of individuals for particular shades of colour.” In a 
mixture of all the colours in a class constituted alone 
by depth of edge, there would simply be the fullest 
opportunity for a judge to side with his favourite edge 
colour; whereas, with each type of colour separate in 
its own type of depth in edge, there is none but the 
safe choice of “ Hobson ” possible, so far as colour goes. 
If we get a new colour—say, blue (!)—let us have 
heavy, medium, and light-edged blues, if they arise. 
I do not take you for one to be frightened by the 
“ ’arf-a-brick ” charges of exclusivism heaved at us as 
florists. Never mind what the outer critics say. 
What they call exclusive we term distinctive. I think 
decided edge colours in Picotees are more satisfying 
than nameless blends, just as in the Auricula we dis¬ 
favour the “undecided edge,” and in the Tulip the 
“rosy byblcemen,” as being variably between two 
classes, and weak flowers in either. The Ranunculus, 
I know, is hardly ever wrong in colours ; but she has 
peculiar class colours in her “roans” and “olives,” 
capable of wide classification. (I don’t know how 
“ roan-edged” Picotee would sound or look !) Far am 
I behind you in familiarity with varieties of the 
Picotee—past and present, new and old. But I fancy 
there are not many that could not be classed UDder the 
existing types of colour ; and that, if these were given 
a triple expression by depth of edge, as heavy, medium, 
and light-edged flowers, in purple, red, and rose edges, 
we could adequately classify the Picotee as we have it. 
As for myself, I grow only more and more “hard 
and fast ” in many florist ways. I would, and do seek 
new developments, and none would more warmly appre¬ 
ciate some new type of beauty, “on well understood 
intrinsic merits.” Only I cannot away with un-florist 
forms of florist flowers, as ranking with and among florist 
flowers. That is the point. They are right and pretty 
among themselves ; and in “ a flower show,” as generally 
understood, they would be a legitimate feature. But 
in special shows of a special society, for the development 
of a flower in special lines of its beauty, it seems to me 
to be idling with our time and space to introduce 
flowers that are beside the mark, or simply represent 
the shortcomings in our efforts. In this light they 
irritate my eyes as would an ill-spelt word, or a piece of 
execrable grammar ! I fear and feel I don’t quite ‘ ‘pan” 
with you and Brother Barlow on this point. 'Well, 
never mind me ! I will go and be “ hard and fast.” It 
may be sterner work, but the opposite would be more 
melancholy to me, even from the impression I have 
never forgotten of seeing an old florist so enamoured and 
lost amid the bewilderment of keeping nearly everything 
he raised, for the sake of some point of beauty, that he 
did not know at last when he had a bad one, and saw 
nothing better in the best flowers at the National Show 
than he had in many a hundred truly weak sorts. But 
here is a long yarn—let me wind it up! 
March 6th, 1890. F. D. Horner. 
II.— Mr. Dodwell to Mr. Horner. 
I am greatly obliged by your most interesting letter of 
the 6th, especially for the permission you gave me of 
using it in the interests of our common brotherhood ; 
and as 1 think none of your words should be lost, I 
propose to ask the editors to give them to the public, 
with the few remarks I hope may follow. I am gratified 
to note your acceptance of the proposed recasting of the 
Picotee section by marginal breadth, and I humbly 
trust I may truthfully aver I hold with you in its 
entirety the same floricultural faith. "We stand one 
and indivisible on the same immutable law, so ably 
expounded by Mr. Jeans, and, happily, no longer a 
virtually-buried book. You do me only justice in 
assuming I have no fear of the clap-trap of our critics. 
I would bend neither to the raging “of the heathen,” 
nor to the sometime vain imaginings of our own 
“people.” We differ, I proudly believe, upon no car¬ 
dinal point. If we seem to diverge it is not upon 
principle, but upon questions of expedient practice, 
and even upon these questions I believe wherever we 
could bring them to practical test we should be found in 
substantial agreement. 
Fifty years ago, before the growers of the north and 
of the south had a practical knowledge of each other, 
there was endless controversy upon the asserted differ¬ 
ence of the flowers and the estimates of florists in the 
respective districts. Well, the trial exhibitions of 1850 
dissipated the illusion. Come, then, to our next 
meeting of August 5th, and I think the difficulties you 
anticipate in a “compote” of colours would be found 
to be of small relative account—less by far, at least, 
than those existing in the present system, and which 
threaten indefinite extension. What justification can 
be found for laws which shut out from class showing a 
bizarre-edged Picotee ? Form a class, possibly you may 
say ; but this cannot be relied upon to remedy the 
evil. It extends a system already practically un¬ 
manageable for the effective presentation of an exhibition 
to the outside public ; of only initial value to the florist 
himself, and very unequal in its incidence of compe¬ 
tition. Let me not be thought to undervalue the single 
bloom. All floral knowledge and floral enjoyment must 
begin with it, and my estimate of its importance may 
be inferred when I say that at the earliest time I could 
make occasion—the exhibitions of the Midland Horti¬ 
cultural Society at Derby in the forties—1 gave a prize 
for the best Carnation, and similarly for the best 
Picotee, selected from the whole exhibition, and it was 
at my instance the prizes for the premier Carnation and 
the premier Picotee became part of the schedule of the 
National. 
But in the multiplication of the classes I have noted 
great evil. Of the seeming difference in our views of 
the self and fancy classes I need scarcely speak. Of 
course, we recognise the fact that both self and fancy 
occupy relatively a lower place than the bizarre, and 
flake, and Picotee. But I feel sure we shall equally 
agree that the life of the Carnation cannot be fully 
illustrated without their recognition. And though, 
for all the higher enjoyment of the florist, the self and 
the fancy stand on the lower level, yet, for some 
purposes, mainly those of import to the outside public, 
they have a very definite and important use. And 
this brings me to consider the question, What should 
be our attitude to the general public ? Of course, we 
give no regard to the caprices or excesses of mere 
fashion. They come and go, and are not. But I think 
with our good friend Hibberd, as expressed at our 
luncheon table, “Florists have an important duty to 
see that the public have the best in their several 
classes,” therefore we lose no dignity if, for the nonce, 
we step down from our higher level to consider these 
lesser things, and as we are firm believers in the 
importance of comparison, these lesser things fitly 
occupj'' a place upon our exhibition tables. I have no 
thought of restricting the “legitimate” preferences of 
taste. Let the judge, if he thinks well, prefer his 
purple, his pink, his rose, or his red ; well-defined and 
well understood intrinsic merits being equal, his choice 
may well come in. But I do not anticipate practical 
difficulty in this. We find no difficulty in determining 
the premier flower from the whole exhibition, whether 
red, or rose, or purple, and I should be surprised to find 
any difficulty in deciding the merit respectively of a 
broad-edged purple, or rose, or red. 
On the other hand, an extension of the classes is, in 
the case of the “Union” at least, impossible. We 
haven’t space. But if we had, I should be as stiffly 
opposed to such a solution of the difficulty. We now 
have eight divisions of hues or tints of colours. Last 
year we had six only. But it is said in the rose, or 
salmon, or scarlet edge, Mrs. Sharp is distinct from 
Mrs. Payne, from Edith d’Ombrain or Royal Visit, so 
a separate class is set up. The distinctiveness is un¬ 
questionable, but if distinctiveness of hue is to govern, 
what reason can prevent the separating into classes of 
the imperial purple of Amy Robsart, and the soft lilac- 
purple of Mrs. Chancellor ? And so for the marone-reds 
and the cherry-reds ? Where would it end ? And if 
three sub-divisions be sufficient respectively for bizarres 
and flakes, why should not a similar number suffice for 
the Picotee ? This is no new subject to me. It has 
filled many an hour of thought in many a year of my 
life, and I embodied, generally speaking, its outcome in 
the note attached to the yellow ground special prizes— 
“ The judges are instructed to award these prizes to the 
best and most effective flowers.” That instruction was 
the best I knew how to give. What could call more 
alike upon exhibitors and judges to make a wise and 
intelligent selection ? And I desire, above all things, at 
all times to stimulate and be stimulated to the exercise 
of intelligence. I know no better way whereby I can 
adequately express my sense of the great favour and 
sympathy which has been given me in these my later 
days. Hoping, dear Mr. Horner, that you will be 
with us at our next meeting, and that there may be no 
gap in our circle of friends, with every kindly wish, I 
am, faithfully yours, 
E. S. Dodwell. 
P.S.—There is yet one other point—the question of 
£ s. d. Extension of classes means, of course, exten¬ 
sion of prizes. Who shall provide the means 1 This is 
a subject which ought to be borne in mind, and, above 
all, we should be careful that the strong should not be 
given an advantage over the weak. I do not think 
yon have given full weight to this point, nor to the 
point that florists are bound to present their exhibitions 
effectively to the public. Again and again in my ex¬ 
perience we have been overwhelmed with the number 
of single blooms, and the litter and confusion incident 
to their production. To put exhibitors upon an equality, 
it should be one man one flower, in each class. As 
regards means, I think we have gone to the utmost 
limit of necessity, and if, instead of very narrow, I 
had unlimited means, I should not willingly offer 
more. Proposing to send our correspondence to the 
gardening papers, I return herewith your own note,'so 
that if you desire to add thereto you may have the 
means. When read, will you kindly return to me with 
my letter also, for I am really unable to copy it. 
E. S. D. 
The Pink. 
What are the prospects of the Pink Society, and of a 
show at the Royal Aquarium during the summer ? 
Others are asking the question, and if Mr. Ranger 
Johnson can give us any information, I and others will 
be very glad to have it. I received a letter from Mr. 
James Thurstan, of Cardiff, a few days ago, and I was 
led to infer that he thinks'the attempt to form a prize 
fund and a show has proved a failure. [Oh, no.—E d.] 
He will have received a schedule of the exhibitions of 
the Royal Aquarium, and find that prizes are offered. 
Let ns hope there will be some competition, so that 
the Pink may be brought under the notice of the public 
once more. 
Thanks to Mr. Thurstan and Mr. Joseph Lakin, I 
am growing a collection of Pinks in pots. The plants 
were a little long when received, but they were potted 
up into small pots, and as soon as large enough trans¬ 
ferred to 5-in. pots. They are now growing finely, 
but whether they will be bloomed in a manner that 
will justify me in placing the plants on the exhibition 
table remains to be seen. I am giving them every 
attention, but I am told that Pinks in pots are rarely 
satisfactory ; one thing is quite certain, that, in my 
locality and soil, Pinks must be wintered in pots, for 
if planted out in the open they will surely come to 
grief during the winter. Happy are they who have the 
convenience for growing them in a bed in the open. 
Pinks in beds are also becoming active ; a few seed¬ 
lings have survived the winter in the open in my 
garden, but they had a trying time of it. In well- 
prepared beds a movement has commenced, and the 
grower should now see to stirring the surface soil, and 
adding some top-dressing ; the best is some thoroughly 
decomposed manure from a spent Cucumber or Mush¬ 
room bed, something that will crumble to pieces in the 
hands, and be laid on the surface like rough mould. 
There is one feature about Pinks—as soon as they do 
begin to grow they make rapid headway, and therefore 
need all the attention they can have. Snails, slugs, and 
caterpillars must be ruthlessly exterminated.— R. D. 
