THE RELATIVE VALUE OF FLOWERS. 
"We have often had occasion to remark, that flowers, 
like friendships, were rarely valued for their intrinsic 
worth, or cultivated with the tender care their excel¬ 
lence deserves. The popular value of flowers is in pro¬ 
portion to their cost, their variety or the difficulty with 
which they are produced. It is too often the case, that 
plants, no matter how beautiful their flowers may be. or 
how well adapted for decorative purposes, how useful in 
the mechauic arts, or for medicine, they will rarely be 
grown unless the grower can show their foreign stamp. 
complain (?) of their great cost, and boastfully assert 
that " this collection cannot be duplicated in this coun¬ 
try." Then the plant of the most humble pretensions 
will have an enviable reputation, and a host of admirers, 
while a far more beautiful one would not be noticed, 
simply because it is common. Vliile the Mignonette. Pe¬ 
tunia and Geranium in the window of the humble me¬ 
chanic or sewing girl, is positive evidence of taste, re¬ 
finement and happiness of the occupant, they are un¬ 
noticed, if not despised, because of their associations: 
the rare flower, with little or no beauty either in form, 
color or fragrance, is an aristocrat in the conservatory 
of the wealthy. Our despised roadside Mullein, the liv¬ 
ing witness of worn-out, neglected soil, is an honored 
guest in an English garden, and introduced to its ad¬ 
mirers as the American Velvet Plant. In return, we 
bring from the Caucasus an allied genera, and give it a 
prominent place in our collection of rare exotics. In 
several of our Western States there is a statute prevent¬ 
ing the dissemination of noxious weeds, prominent 
among which is the Rudbeckia, or Cone Flower: in 
Europe the horticultural societies offer large premiums 
for the best display of these flowers. The Portulacca is 
treated with tender care in the English garden, because 
of its showy flowers that can only be produced at great 
expense, and in favored situations, as it will not thrive 
in soot and fog. Here it is regarded a nuisance because 
of its persistent efforts to grow where it is not wanted, 
like its cousin Purslane. It is one of our best hardy an¬ 
nuals, a more cheerful or showy flower cannot be found 
in our gardens, but too common to be valuable. We run 
wild after the Chinese Hibiscus, but will not tolerate in 
our gardens the more beautiful forms that are indigen¬ 
ous to our swamps. In what garden can we look for, 
with any hope of finding, those charming spring flowers, 
the Hepaticas, Anemones, Sangninaria, Trilliums, and 
the most beautiful of all spring flowers, the Viola podata, 
so common in our woods and roadsides? And where 
will we find any plants or flowers of foreign birth half 
so beautiful and pure ? 
The rage of something foreign is universal; it pervades 
all countries and peoples. We bring from Japan the 
Lilies we value most, and return to them from our fields 
and swamps the Lilies they value most. We bring from 
Europe the Ivy and return to them the Ampelopsis. and 
there is rejoicing in both hemispheres over rare or new 
plants. Thorpe sends to Cannel, of Swauley, England, 
his new Geraniums where they sell at high prices, ten 
times what they do at home, and in return Cannel sends 
to Thorpe his new Geraniums, that bring here extraordi¬ 
nary prices as “ newly imported varieties”—each in 
the other's country bringing prices far greater than in its 
own. without the question of real merit having been 
taken into consideration. 
The appreciation of a flower that can only be pro¬ 
duced under difficulties, may be realized from the fol¬ 
lowing paragraph taken from the Gardeners’ Magazine, 
London, March 3d: 
“ Stove and greenhouse plants include many good 
things. The Tuberose must of course take the lead, and 
then follows the beautiful Stcphanotis floribunda. Eu- 
eharis amazonica is invaluable, and not far behind it is 
the lovely Pancratium fragrans. These are all stove 
plants, and require a rather high temperature and skil¬ 
ful management. Rhynchospermum jasmiiioides pro¬ 
duces a profusion of delicately-scented flowers hi the 
early spring months. The noble Brugmansia Knigliti is 
sufficient in itself to fill a fan-sized house with a delight¬ 
ful fragrance.” 
The idea of giving the Tuberose precedence over the 
Stephanotis and Eucharis will seem to the American 
gardener at least strange. 
THE AMARYLLIS. 
The following able and interesting lecture on this 
popular flower was given by Shirley Hibberd Esq., at 
the meeting of the London Horticultural Society, on 
Tuesday, March 27th, 1883, for which, with the illus¬ 
trations, we are indebted to the Gardeners’ Magazine. 
3Ir. Hibberd said the name of the flower suggested 
that its history should begin somewhere in the 106th 
Olympiad; or, say some three hundred years before the 
Christian era, in order to bring the country girl, Ama¬ 
ryllis herself, to furnish the subject of the opening 
chapter. But there is nothing to be gained for our pres¬ 
ent purpose from the pleasant verses of Theocritus or 
the later lines of Virgil, for neither of these poets gives 
aught beyond the name, and as a matter of fact Ama¬ 
ryllis does not anywhere in classic poetry rise to the 
dignity of a heroine. But it is one of the glories of the 
Linnaean nomenclature that, by means of symbols selec¬ 
ted from imperishable nature, we are brought into con¬ 
tact with the sweet stories of old, the flower of to-day 
taking us to the very fountain-head of pastoral poetry- 
idylls of the poet of Syracuse. 
The Amaryllis in some form was known long before 
the time of Linnaeus, for John Gerarde had the one 
now known as Sternbergia lulea, which he figures at 
page 113 as Narcissus autumnalis major. John Parkin¬ 
son had this same plant, and figured it at page 75 of the 
“Paradisus,” and he had another which he figured at 
page 71 as Na/rcissus indicus, the Indian Daffodil, with 
