568 
THE GARDENING WORLD 
May 10, 1890. 
—— 
Revision and Classification of Picotee Classes. 
Correspondence between the Rev. F. D. Horner and Mr. 
E. S. Dodwell. 
III.— Me. Hoenee to Mr. Dodwell. 
Many thanks for the generous advantage of seeing your 
reply to my letter [see p. 536] before publishing it. I 
do not know that I have much fresh to say, except that 
wherein we may differ, it will not be in any unkindly 
way. You have had but one lifelong floral attachment, 
and I have many ; and I do not, therefore, seek to pit 
my acquaintance with the Picotee against your mature 
and concentrated intimacy with it. I quite agree with 
you in your desire to cheer up the smaller grower, 
though I would hardly put it “ as against the larger.” 
We should encourage the one, and not discourage the 
other. It would be a pity that the small grower should 
be educated and scheduled to look upon the big grower 
as his natural enemy ; or that the big grower should be 
ruled down and outclassed into feeling that he has no 
friends, and may be stamped on. The large grower, 
who, with a large collection, has also a largeness of 
care, anxiety, and expense, naturally looks to reaping 
as he has sown, in a larger recognition and reward 
than the small grower can reasonably expect with his 
lesser outlay of time and labour. In collections, or 
“pan” showing, the small grower is abundantly forti¬ 
fied. He may sally into the big man’s lines by showing 
upwards into any class above his mark for which he 
can produce the flowers ; while the big man may not 
show down by crossing the small man’s frontier. But 
in single bloom classes, perfectly open ground, both 
small and great men meet together, generally without 
fear, certainly without favour. I do not see how you 
can handicap the large grower here without being 
unfair to him. Handicap both, and let neither show, 
in any class for single blooms, more than his best two 
flowers. That would do away with the merciless 
imposition on the judges, and the great absorption of 
space that must come of exhibitors pushing all their 
spare flowers into the singles because “ they may win a 
shilling.” But however you put it, the large grower 
must have more power of choice, and in any arrange¬ 
ment this will tell, and I submit, ought to. 
If you have, in single blooms of Picotees, the flowers 
classed solely by depth of edge, one huge mixed class 
of heavies, the same of mediums, and the like of lights, 
here will the large grower come down strongly, with no 
restriction as to edge colour, so long as the depth of 
edge is there. If, however, you maintain, in heavy, 
light and medium edges, the well established colour 
divisions, it may be that the big man shall here and 
there find himself spent or weak, and the small man 
bowl him over. I think that the general effect of the 
single bloom classes, as now displayed, is very beautiful 
in the play of purple, red and rose shades in these 
respective classes, while the powers of variation are seen 
at a glance in close comparison, which could hardly 
be in a motley crowd of all edges. Judging mixed 
edges in collections or divisions by depth of edge, and 
selecting the winners, is scarcely, I think, analogous to 
the task of finding the premier flower of a whole 
exhibition. The premier lies within narrow bounds. 
It cannot decently be outside the winning stands, nor 
below the first prize flower in single-bloom classes. It 
is not likely to shine—the sole jewel in some rejected 
stand. Not alike easy, it seems to me, will be the 
filling of a long graduated prize list by assortment from 
materials mingled in all their mixed multitudes of edge 
colours. “There is no trust like trial” ; but so far as 
I dare prophesy before I know, I think it would be 
more workable to keep the established classes by colour 
of edge, with sections in each for heavy, light and 
medium, than to merge all colours upon chance of a 
new one breaking out, or because in the rose-edged 
some are rose-scarlet and some salmon-rose. 
I think our attitude towards the general public (as 
florists, in the peculiar sense in which we are peculiar !) 
is to show a florist flower in—and only in—its highest 
florist types. I think that we have no need to exhibit 
our mistakes, and say—like Beau Brummel’s valet, 
when met returning from his master’s dressing-room 
withanarmful of crumpled cravatsoverhisarm—“These 
are some of our failures ! ” The ‘ ‘ life ” of the Carnation, 
Auricula, Tulip, or any florist flower in other than its 
florist forms, is surely a little beyond the range of our 
florist societies, which exist for the one definite aim of 
developing the flower in what are known as its florist 
types. I like a thing true to name, and a florist society 
is for the improvement of florist flowers as such. I 
cordially agree with you in agreeing with our friend 
Hibberd’s remark that “ Florists have an important 
duty to see that the public have the best in their 
several classes.” But not out of them ! Scarcely, to 
have to admit to a stranger of 1 ‘ the public ” who may 
admire a run Carnation, or a nondescript prettiness in 
“fancies.” Ah, yes ! but that is not relatively a flower 
of a high standard in this scale of beauty. This is 
rather the “doing” our duty in the shady sense of 
getting out of it. Again, as to your comparison between 
the three classes of bizarre and flake Carnations, and 
the six of edged Picotees—with the suggestion why 
there should not be only three of each—I think the 
edge in colour and depth marks off the Picotee as dis¬ 
tinctly as the stripes distinguish the Carnation ; and 
that “ to lump” the edge colours in Picotees would be 
analogous to lumping the Carnation colours into simply 
bizarres and flakes. It would be easier, perhaps, for the 
eye that sees dimly the difference between theerimson and 
the pink and purple bizarre, but it would not interpret 
the flower fully. So, if we had Picotees classed only 
by depth of edge, the florist would miss all the delicate 
distinctiveness to which he is accustomed, and feel the 
calculation too rough and ready. Well ! you must not 
take me for an autocrat on the Carnation or any flower, 
I only give you my opinion freely as you ask it. You 
may say of me playfully, “Ah ! rather thin of petals 
on the Picotee question ! ” As playfully let me gently 
whisper, “Don’t burst your pod ! ” 
March 26th, 1890. F. D. Horner. 
IV.— Mr. Dodavell to Mr. Horner. 
I will add a few words only in notice of your letter of 
the 26th. You have done, and admirably done, that 
I asked for when I invited comments germane to my 
proposition of March 3rd. There is, I think, a little 
misunderstanding as to my feeling for the smaller as 
contrasted with the larger grower. Certainly, I desire 
in nothing to handicap the larger for the benefit of the 
smaller ; I seek, as throughout our exhibitions, to 
establish the nearest practical approach to equality, by 
compelling the exhibitor to select, not contribute, in 
gross. Your suggestion to limit the number the 
exhibitor may produce in each class—which had 
previously reached me from more than one quarter, and 
which, I think, should be adopted—goes a long Avay 
towards meeting the difficulty, and will, I think, be 
most beneficial in practice. As regards the colours, 
you do not touch upon the extension of the classes 
already adopted by the National, or quite sympathise 
with me possibly in my estimate of the effect such 
extensions may have. Practically, I do not think a 
difficulty would be found to attend a competition of 
mixed colours. But if it be strongly urged the 
competition should not be of all colours and hues of 
colours, let us at least try to find some solid ground for 
division, and separate only by primary colours, say of 
red and its hues, rose-pink, salmon, salmon-pink, and 
salmon-scarlet; purple and its hues, to lilac. This 
Avould give us two divisions, including every colour at 
present developed in the white ground Picotee, and all, 
I think, likely to be developed. Be that as it may, it 
would give us a sure starting-point at once, which the 
present system does not. 
I regret our divergence of views as to the seifs and 
fancies. But I cannot consent to look upon these 
sections as our “failures.” Interpreting our laws in 
the strictest possible sense, I hold they are well within 
our lines, so I think to exclude would be a sin of the 
gravest magnitude. Granting we are specialists, and 
our shows should be special, could we illustrate the 
life of the Carnation without these sections ? Could I, 
because I thought there was more variety, more 
brilliance, more power in the bizarre, be justified in 
rejecting the less-gifted self or the motley, whilst 
these latter, for certain purposes of grouping or 
decorative effect, beyond dispute excel the former ? 
Personally, of course, I might ; and no man, whatever 
he might think of my caprice, could rightfully impose 
his law upon me. But in my character as chief 
servant to the’Carnation and Picotee Union, what then? 
We have 400 supporters at this time—to be 500, surely, 
before the year is out. Fifty of our friends come into 
line with you and I. Seven times fifty admire the 
Carnation, and seek its use from a slightly different 
standpoint. Can we ignore their requirements ? Ah, 
no. Because we are virtuous, we are not to forbid the 
innocent “cakes and ale”—veritable enjoyments to 
friends with tastes and requirements slightly varying 
from ours. Again repeating my hope that you will be 
with us on August 5th, and cordially reciprocating all 
your kindly thought. 
March 28th, 1890. E. S. Dodavell. 
Gold-laced Polyanthuses. 
Undoubtedly these Avere an indifferent lot at the 
Royal Aquarium, and the awards made laid the judges 
open to a good deal of adverse criticism. One im¬ 
portant quality in a gold-laced Polyanthus is that the 
lacing which margins the segments of the pip should 
also go through the centre of the segments, striking 
the golden centre in an unbroken line. In the col¬ 
lection to which the second prize was awarded there 
were at least four plants that scarcely had a pip laced in 
this way. Years ago this defect would have been a 
disqualification. Some of the flowers were pin-eyed ; 
but as we have grown somewhat lax in this matter, in 
regard to many of the Alpine Auriculas, we can hardly 
be strict in the matter of the gold-laced Polyanthus. 
Not a few of the newer alpine Auriculas err grievously 
in this respect. I am pleased to see that Mr. J. James, 
Woodside, Farnham, has produced some very fine 
seedling varieties of the gold-laced Polyanthus. I 
trust that next season he will be able to show plants of 
them, so that we can gauge their merits to the fullest 
extent. We are still depending upon George IV., 
Exile, Lancer, Cheshire Favourite, William IV., and 
Sidney Smith, as we did years ago. A few days ago 
Mr. James Thurstan, of Cardiff, sent me a few pips of 
seedling gold-laced of a decidedly promising character, 
and if he will persevere with them, something good 
must result. I am fortunate this season in having a 
pin-eyed seedling that seems to me to possess all the 
qualities of a first-rate variety, save the thrum eye. I 
hope to be successful in getting some seed from it.— 
R.D. 
Auricula, Monarch. 
The Rev. F. D. Horner informs me that this fine green- 
edged variety is not so early to flower as I had supposed, 
and that it is always a slow opener, which is usual 
with the green-edged varieties. Were it not for the 
assistance of a little fire-heat by night, I doubt if we 
should see many green-edged Auriculas shown the 
third week in April. The reason Mr. Horner assigns 
for Monarch flowering so early this season is that it was 
a very mild time in January at Low Fields; the plants 
thus got an unusual start, and the trusses were bare 
in January. But it does not breed freely with Mr. 
Horner, because, as he states, he does not grow His 
plants for mere size, and they get no rich composts, he 
being content to use his kitchen-garden soil Avith a little 
leaf-soil, and therefore they do not break into increase 
so much as if they were grown in a more stimulating 
compost. — R. D. 
Tree Carnation, Flambeau. 
This is a new variety of a rich bright vermilion colour, 
now in floAver in the collection at the Royal Nursery, 
Slough. It is of the finest shape, with smooth stout 
petals, and, unlike so many of the tree Carnations, does 
not split its pod. It is indeed a grand variety, and 
Mr. Turner is to be complimented upon the production of 
so superb a flower.— R. D. 
Auricula, Magpie. 
1 think that in this almost perfect white edged 
Auricula we get a most beautiful and highly promising 
variety. It is one of the Rev. F. D. Horner’s seedlings, 
and it was shown by him in his collection of twelve 
varieties at the Drill Hall on April 22 nd. On that 
occasion the Rev. F. D. Horner exhibited no less than 
four Avliite-edges of his own raising—viz., Magpie, 
Atalanta, Desdemona, and Snowdrift—a somewhat 
unusual number. There is a stoutness of substance, 
symmetry, a brilliant soft beauty, a correspondence of 
zones of colour in combination with a strong tube in 
this variety that places it at the head of the Avhite- 
edges. Had I taken part in the selection of the 
premier Auricula at the Drill Hall, I should have 
selected Magpie in preference to the Rev. F. D. Horner, 
green edge. But it was selected as the premier Auricula 
at Manchester, the Rev. F. D. Horner states, as “ very 
smooth and brilliant, a very good type in habit, 
carriage, and floAver.”— R. B. 
- ~>X< - 
THE LATE MR. STUART H. LOW- 
By the courtesy of Mr. Hugh Low, we are enabled this 
week to publish a portrait of the late Mr. Stuart H. 
Low, whose regrettable [demise at Clapton was 
recorded in our last issue, at p. 550. It has been 
prepared from one of the few photographs taken of 
him, and is a characteristic likeness. 
