May 12, 1894. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
577 
about the synonym, and secondly the double refe¬ 
rence is a great waste of time. All that has been 
obviated by the new and revised edition. Another 
alteration that has been made has been to remove 
the English meanings of the specific names to the 
end of the book, where they form a list equivalent to 
a glossary. We do not think this so happy an 
alteration because of the double reference already 
stated. If the meanings accompanied the words 
to which they relate, gardeners would more readily 
become familiar with them when consulting the 
alphabetical list of names with the information 
attached to them. The reason for this was, of course, 
the frequent repetition of the same word in different 
genera. But a dictionary is merely a book of 
reference, and not to be read like a story, so that the 
objection applies with less force. The chief value of 
the dictionary is that it contains an up-to-date list 
of species and varieties of plants as well as hybrids 
and garden forms, which could not be found else¬ 
where between the two boards of one book. The 
generic names adopted by the Genera Plantarum 
have been followed with few exceptions where 
garden usage is allowed to preponderate. It is a 
pity, however, that complete uniformity was not 
adhered to. We have'never been able to determine any 
tangible difference between the Indian Azalea and 
the Rhododendrons. 
-* 1 — 
NATIONAL CHRYSANTHEMUM 
SOCIETY. 
Presentation to Mr. Jukes. 
A SPECIAL general meeting of the members of this 
Society was held at Anderton’s Hotel on Monday 
evening for the double purpose of paying a graceful 
compliment to Mr. E.C. Jukes on his retirement 
from the office of vice-chairman of the Society, and 
discussing Mr. C. E. Shea’s paper on "Judging 
Chrysanthemums,’’ which was read on the nth of 
December last. The President, Sir Edwin Saunders, 
occupied the chair, and in presenting to Mr. Jukes 
a copy of the resolution passed at the annual general 
meeting beautifully emblazoned on vellum, and 
which bore testimony to the greatly valued services 
which he had rendered to the society, said they had 
met to meet a contingency which they had not fore¬ 
seen when he last had the pleasure of meeting the 
members. The retirement of Mr. Jukes from active 
participation in the management of the society they 
could not but regard as a great loss. They would 
greatly miss his genial presence, his kiudly bearing, 
sound judgment, and judicious advice, but they had 
some consolation in the knowledge that he was not 
leaving them for any failure of his faculties or 
physical health, through no disagreement with his 
colleagues, nor from any want of faith in the future 
of the Society. Mr. Jukes could not be with them 
in the flesh so often as he had been, but he, the 
President, felt certain that he would always be with 
them in spirit, and zealous as he had been as a culti¬ 
vator and exhibitor of their favourite flower in the 
past, they could but wish that he may be equally 
successful in the future. They could not part with 
Mr. Jukes without some recognition of the signal 
services he had rendered to the Society, and he was 
sure the members would concur in the decision 
that had been arrived at, that their thanks should 
take some permanent form which would recall to 
him the many pleasant hours he had spent among 
them. Mr. Ballantine, as one of the oldest officers 
of the Society, also paid a tribute of admiration to 
the zeal which Mr. Jukes had displayed in promo¬ 
ting the best interests of the Society since it became 
national in name, and in the character of its aims and 
operations. 
Mr. Jukes, who on rising to reply was received 
with a most cordial ovation, said that he felt deeply 
grateful for the kind words that had been said about 
him—words, indeed, that were far too kind, but 
which he would value so long as he lived. He was 
proud of his connection with the Society, and 
greatly valued the honour of having been re-elected 
so often to the office of Vice-Chairman. The many 
hours he had spent among them had been very 
pleasant ones, and it had been a great pleasure to 
him to watch the progress made by the Society, and 
to assist in its development. They had had some 
serious difficulties to contend with, and had suffered 
some grievous losses in the deaths of Mr. Holmes, 
Mr. Sanderson, and others ; still the progress made 
by the Society since it became national had been 
very remarkable. They had a prince of secretaries 
in William Holmes, and they had a good secretary 
in Mr. Dean. They did not always see eye to eye 
with Mr. Dean, or with each other, but they all 
recognised the fact that he filled a very difficult 
position with the greatest credit to himself, and with 
the one single object which they all had in view— 
the welfare of the N.C.S. Personally, he had not 
in the least degree lost his interest in the Society ; he 
hoped to continue to exhibit as heretofore, and to 
come among them as often as he possibly could. 
A cordial vote of thanks having been accorded to 
the President, who on leaving invited Mr. Jukes to 
take the chair for the remainder of the evening, the 
discussion of Mr. Shea’s paper, which follows, 
commenced. 
ON JUDGING CHRYSANTHEMUMS. 
A silver cup lost by a single point. A prize, 
rightly coveted, lost by two points, in a class of forty- 
eight. These are no flights of fancy, but the record 
of sober fact, as the history of even a single season’s 
showing will amply demonstrate. Two points only 
separated the second and the third prizemen in the 
great class of forty-eight at the Crystal Palace; and 
but a single point divided two of the prize stands in 
the admirable twenty-four’s which gave us the 
best Japanese blooms at the late Aquarium Show. 
But it is surely needless to multiply instances which 
must be familiar to all of us. The gain or loss in¬ 
volved in the award of prizes is not to be measured 
by money value only, for there is that involved 
which is to most men more to be esteemed than cash 
—credit and reputation; and we have the added 
disappointment of well-founded hopes that the skill 
and labour of a twelvemonth shall at last receive the 
crown of public recognition. But I cannot put the 
whole case in fitter phrase than that given to us by 
Mr. Wright, of the Journal of Horticulture, who aptly 
sets the matter before us thus :—" It is obviously a 
matter of vital moment that the prizes be rightly 
awarded, both as an act of justice to individuals, and 
as indicating a standard of excellence for the 
guidance of those cultivators who have ‘ something 
still to learn,’ and these, it may be confidently stated, 
are in a considerable majority. A prize, then, 
wrongly adjudged is something more than an act of 
injustice to an individual, for it amounts to setting 
up a wrong standard of value, which is a public 
misfortune.’’ 
We all know the science of cultivation of the 
Chrysanthemum has brought its produce to such a 
pitch of excellence that the climax would almost 
seem to have been obtained, and lines, almost as fine 
as the spider’s web, serve to divide to-day the 
exhibits of the leading growers of our autumn 
flower. Can it then be claimed that the science of 
judging to-day stands level w'ith the science of culti¬ 
vation ? I think he would be a bold man who 
would answer that question in the affirmative. I 
dare say many of those now present have done what 
I have done after the day’s judging has been 
completed, and that is to ask some expert to go over 
the prize stands and just " point ’’ them up to see 
how far the results accord with the awards which 
have been made, or, better still, to get this done 
before the official fiat has gone forth. Then ask 
another expert of equal eminence, and so forth. This 
may be a questionable proceeding, but surely it is as 
permissable to experiment (within limits) with 
people as with plants. Anyway, it has been done, 
and with what result ? This, that the entire series 
of unofficial judges differ, measurably, inter se, in 
their estimates of the " pointing ’’ value of the 
stands, and oftentimes in close competitions I have 
seen the verdict of the official judges entirely over¬ 
turned ; and the actors in this bouleversement have 
been every whit as competent and experienced as the 
official judges on the occasion. 
To what then must we ascribe this remarkable 
latitude of opinion and result, where, of all things, 
exactness and definite certainty are most desirable ? 
The answer is tersely given in the old saying, “ as 
many men, as many minds.’’ We have men, compe¬ 
tent and experienced growers, who know everything 
about the Chrysanthemum, but who yet cannot 
agree in the judgment of a flower ; and a very little 
familiarity with the matter tells us why. The attri¬ 
butes of a perfect bloom have, by this time, become 
a matter of pretty general acquiescence. Briefly 
stated, they are :— diameter, depth, solidity,finish, fresh¬ 
ness, and colour; and some would add (especially 
with the Incurved section) breadth of petal. But 
although these aspects of perfection find general 
acceptance in the abstract, we find in practice that 
individual judges are influenced by no recognised 
canon of judging which lays down for them the 
relative proportion and importance which these 
same attributes shall bear in the final summing up of 
the value of the bloom. 
Each worships at the shrine of a particular 
goddess; but, in the tribute paid to the Pantheon of 
Divinities, there is no constant relation, balance or 
proportion. To one man " weight’’is the leading 
virtue; to another, "finish"; to yet another, 
" colour ’’; and I have known men whose love of an 
"even stand’’would lead almost to the conclusion 
that cultivation had become a non-essential in 
competitive exhibition. 
No one of us would for a moment suggest that the 
attributes which 1 have stated should not have a 
direct influence on the judgment to be passed, but 
what I claim is the quantum of influence which such 
attributes shall, inter se, be allowed to exercise, shall 
not be left to the individual whim and taste of the 
particular judge chosen for the occasion, but shall 
be regulated by distinct and established " Canons of 
Judging,’’ having the weight of all the authority 
which can, in the Chrysanthemum world, be brought 
to bear upon the matter. In other words, that the 
e.xhibitor shall be in a position to cultivate his plants 
with a distinct " standard ’’ of excellence in view, and 
that his choice productions shall not be left to the 
operation of the particular idiosyncrasies of Judges 
Brown, Jones and Robinson. 
The science of j udging should be as exact a science 
as that of cultivation. 
Let me explain in practical aspect what I mean. 
It may be conceded, without the necessity for dis¬ 
cussion, that in all cases where the relative excellence 
of the stands cannot be estimated almost at a glance, 
the method of " pointing ’’ up each individual bloom 
must be adopted. Further, it has been urged by 
two judges of considerable experience and authority 
(Messrs. J. Wright and E. Molyneux), that points, 
even if as many as six, are quite insufficient for the 
adequate expression of the gradations of quality 
which are to be found in blooms of the Chrysanthe¬ 
mum, and that there should be "points’’and 
"marks"—as shillings and pence—at the disposal 
of the judge wherewith to express his estimate of 
the value of the bloom. 
Personally I entirely accede to the view thus 
stated. The principle, or system which I advocate 
is briefly this : that each of the several recognised 
attributes of excellence which I have enumerated ;—■ 
"Diameter,’’ " depth,” " solidity,” " finish,’’ "fresh¬ 
ness,” and " colour,” and we may add, perhaps, 
" breadth of petal ”—should have allotted to it 
a certain and definite number of points and marks 
(shillings and pence), and that a distinct law to that 
effect should require the judge to estimate the value 
of the bloom upon that basis. 
We have before us six, or if we accept also 
" breadth of petal,” seven separate aspects of the 
flower to deal with. 
The question at once arises, what relative value 
of points and marks should be accorded to the 
several aspects named, and in asking this question I 
am conscious that I am " opening the flood-gates,” 
and inviting the expression of opinions which may 
be very diverse, and which diversities it is my very 
object to elicit, control, and regulate. To thrash 
out now, to its ultimate conclusion, the question of 
the exact relative proportions to be adopted would 
be obviously impossible, but I would point out that 
the possible difficulty of the task should not hinder 
the attempt, and certainly affords no valid objection 
to the principle at stake; nor, indeed, do I believe 
that, if seriously undertaken by such a body of 
experts and practical men as are to be found within 
the governing body of the National Chrysanthemum 
Society, there would be any sensible difficulty in the 
mitter. The major considerations, in my judg¬ 
ment, to be kept in view in apportioning the relative 
values, should be to elevate those aspects of 
excellence w'hich are the essentials, or, at any rate, 
are the evidences of skilful cultivation, and to 
relatively subordinate those other aspects which are, 
or at least may be, rather the evidence of the 
possession of the " big battalions,” and the great 
advantages of selection which these provide. For 
instance, "size” {i.e , "diameter,” and "depth" 
with " solidity ” ) are aspects which must depend on 
