January  20,  1898. 
>''62  JOURNAL  OF  HORTTCULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
Ax  American  Best  Twexty-five  Varieties. 
A  LIST  of  this  character  is  ever  changing,  owing  to  valuable 
additions  each  year  made  by  the  different  disseminators,  and  importations 
of  novelties  from  England  and  the  Continent.  iVIany  varieties  of  which 
some  growers  produce  beautiful  blooms,  are  almost  total  failures  wdth 
others,  but  in  the  following  list  we  have  endeavoured  to  include  only 
those  that  are  easily  grown  by  nearly  all. 
Twenty-five  large  blooms: — Mrs.  .Jerome  Jones,  W.  H.  Lincoln, 
Viviand  IMorel,  Mutual  Friend,  iVlajor  Bonnaffon,  IMayflower,  Eugene 
Dailledouze,  Mrs.  Henry  Robinson,  Golden  Wedding,  Madame  Felix 
Perrin,  Minerva,  iMdlle.  M.  A.  de  Galbert,  Modesto,  Silver  Cloud,  Charles 
Davis,  Golden  Gate,  Mrs.  S.  T.  Murdock,  [Miss  Minnie  Wanamaker, 
Helen  Bloodgood,  Marguerite  Jeffords,  Philadelphia,  Mrs.  Geo.  West, 
Maud  Dean,  Nyanza,  and  John  Shrimpton.  The  last  named,  though  not 
as  large  as  the  rest,  is  the  best  and  easiest  grown  red.  This  list  does  not 
include  any  of  the  novelties  of  1897,  which  will  no  doubt  push  one  or 
more  out  of  this  list. 
The  best  twelve  for  pot  plants  are  W.  H.  Lincoln,  Ivory,  Agnes  L. 
Dalskov,  L.  Canning,  Minerva,  C,  B.  Whitnall,  Golden  Hair,  Henry 
Hurrell,  Louis  Boehmer,  Geo.  W.  Childs,  Mutual  Friend,  and  Constella¬ 
tion. — E.  A.  Wood  (in  “American  Florist”). 
The  Best  Varieties. 
Ix  my  notes  re  “  Best  Varieties  ”  (page  38)  I  stated  that  Mr.  Lees 
omitted  Etoile  de  Lyon  from  his  list.  This  I  find  is  an  error  on  my  part, 
for  which  I  ajiologise  to  iMr.  Lees.  The  varieties  Georgina  Pitcher, 
iMdlle.  Lawrence  Z6d4,  and  Madame  G.  Bruant,  although  omitted  from 
the  list  of  fifty,  are  mentioned  by  this  grower  in  a  list  of  twenty  new 
varieties,  and  when  I  made  a  comparison  between  the  list  of  the  best  fifty 
and  sixty  varieties  as  given  by  Messrs.  Lees  and  Wells  I  overlooked  the 
separate  class  of  the  last  named.  “Mrs.  J.  J.  Glennen  ”  should  read 
“Glessner,”  and  “Dr.  Ziebert”  “Dr.  Liebert”  in  my  list  of  last  week 
-W.  J.  G. 
[In  an  early  issue  we  shall  publish  a  list  of  the  best  “  Chrysanthemums 
up  to  date  ”  as  determined  by  upwards  of  thirty  leading  growers  and 
judges,  ivho  have  opportunities  for  examining  new  as  well  as  old  varieties 
at  the  London  or  chief  provincial  shows.] 
I  SEE  that  ]\Ir.  Wells’  selection  of  the  best  sixty  Japs  (page  624)  comes 
in  for  some  criticism  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Godfrey  in  your  last  week’s 
issue.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  select  sixty  varieties,  each  of  which 
would  be  above  criticism.  Reference  is  also  made  to  the  best  twenty- 
four  Japs.  I  would  select  the  following  : — G.  J.  Warren,  Madame  Carnot, 
Australian  Gold,  Phoebus,  Edith  Tabor,  Ella  Curtis,  Georgina  Pitcher, 
Simplicity,  Mrs.  H.  Weeks,  Mrs.  J.  Lewis,  Lady  Hanham,  Chenon  de 
Leche,  C.  Davis,  V.  Morel,  E.  iMolyneux,  Thomas  Wilkins,  G.  W.  Palmer, 
Australle,  Royal  Standard,  Etoile  de  Lyon,  Eva  Knowles,  J.  Bidencope, 
Duke  of  York,  and  Lady  Ridgway.  If  the  above  were  shown  in  good 
form  I  think  neither  Modesto,  Oceana,  Western  King,  nor  Lady  Byron 
would  be  good  enough  for  comparison  with  them.  International  I  would 
not  grow. 
Mr.  Wells’  selection  of  fifty  incurved  is  also  open  to  criticism.  He 
does  not  think  either  Miss  D.  Foster  or  Miss  V.  Foster  worth  a  place. 
Both  these  varieties  were  sent  out  last  j^ear,  and  were  shown  on  all  the 
leading  stands  throughout  the  kingdom— viz.,  first  twenty-four  South¬ 
ampton,  first  twenty-four  Portsmouth,  first  twenty-four  Birmingham,  first 
twenty-four  Aquarium,  first  thirty-six  Aquarium,  first  twelve  incurved 
novelties  (Mr.  Wells’  own  stand),  and  first  at  Winchester,  not  to  mention 
others. 
Mr.  Molyneux,  writing  in  the  Journal  (see  page  420),  says,  “  Both 
these  varieties  possess  all  the  characteristics  needful  to  make  sterling 
exhibition  varieties,”  and  yet  Mr.  Wells  ignores  them  both,  but  includes 
five  of  the  Teck  family  in  his  selection.  Surely  some  explanation  should 
be  forthcoming. — F.  G.  Foster. 
Presextation  to  Mr.  J.  W.  Wilkixsox. 
The  popular  Secretary  of  the  Royal  Aquarium,  Mr.  James  .Watson 
Wilkinson,  who  is  about  to  be  married  to  Miss  Frances  W.  Blacklaws, 
was  (last  week)  at  the  Westminster  Palace  Hotel  presented  by  Mr.  Sheriff 
Dewar,  on  behalf  of  the  subscribers,  with  a  purse  of  £100  and  an  illumi¬ 
nated  address.  Mr.  R.  Dean,  who  presided,  said  that  Mr.  Wilkinson  had 
been  associated  with  the  Royal  Aquarium  from  its  foundation,  and  he, 
like  the  other  subscribers,  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  much  of  the 
success  which  had  been  achieved  of  recent  years  was  due  to  the  esteemed 
Secretary's  energetic  discharge  of  his  duties.  Mr.  C.  E.  Field  then  read 
the  address,  which  was  in  the  following  terms  : — “  This  tribute  of  esteem, 
together  with  a  purse  of  sovereigns,  is  presented  to  Mr.  J.  W.  Wilkinson 
by  a  few  friends  on  the  occasion  of  his  marriage,  with  the  warmest  good 
Avishes  for  his  future  happiness  and  continued  prosperity,  and  also  in 
recognition  of  his  many  kii^d  qualities  and  courtesy  always  evinced  in 
both  business  and  social  life.  ’  Votes  of  thanks  to  the  officials  who  had 
organised  the  testimonial  brought  the  proceedings  to  a  fitting  close.  The 
Committee  consisted  of  Messrs.  C.  J.  Noble,  H.  Cheesman,  C.  E.  Field, 
L.  del  Bono,  J.  Mortimer  Dudman,  James  Willing,  jun.,  A.  T.  Cates, 
R.  Dean,  R.  Ballantine,  H.  J.  Jones,  11.  W.  Wieland,  G.  C.  Fricker.  and 
W.  A.  Holmes. — J.  C.  (from  the  “  Daily  Chronicle  '’). 
The  N.C.S.  axd  the  R.A. 
Ax  incident  occurred  last  week  that  has  no  doubt  been  observed  by 
the  members  of  the  N.C.S.  generally,  which  helps  materially,  were  it 
needed,  to  throw  additional  light  on  the  close  relations  which  exist 
between  the  officials  of  the  Royal  Aquarium  and  certain  leaders  of  the 
N.C.S.  Surely,  henceforth,  after  this  display  of  arcades  ambo,  the  motto 
of  these  joint  personages  must  be  par  nobilefratrum.  I  observed  that  over 
a  festive  board  at  which  Mr.  Wilkinson,  the  Secretary  of  the  R.A.,  was 
the  guest,  Mr,  R.  Dean,  Secretary  to  the  N.C.S.,  presided,  and  he  was 
supported,  so  it  is  reported  in  the  papers,  by  [Mr.  R.  Ballantine,  Mr.  H.  J. 
.Tones,  and  Mr.  W.  A.  Holmes.  I  notice  that  the  names  of  the  Chairmen  of 
the  Executive  Committee  and  the  Floral  Committee  were  absent.  I  trust 
the  officials  present  at  that  festive  board  were  there  as  friends  and  sup¬ 
porters  of  the  R.A.,  and  not  as  representatives  of  the  N.C.S.,  though  the 
Chrysanthemum  community  will  naturally  think  they  were  the  delegates 
of  the  Society. 
In  such  a  phase  of  the  subject  w'e  see  here  illustrated  how  the  old 
Hackney  Society  clings  to  the  so-called  “National.”  The  term  is  a 
distressing  misnomer.  Were  the  Society  termed  the  Royal  Aquarium 
Chrysanthemum  Appendage  then  w  ould  it  be  fitly  named.  Readers  will 
not  fail  to  notice  amongst  the  persons  reported  as  being  present  at  this 
gathering  one  whose  name  as  a  prospective  Secretary  has  been  referred  to. 
Without  a  doubt  there  is  an  intention  to  get  this  youth  into  the  office  of 
Secretary  later,  if  the  members  of  the  N.C.S.  are  so  weak  as  to  allow 
themselves  to  be  overborne  by  a  name.  No  greater  mistake  could  be 
made  were  this  fatal  policy  carried  out. 
What  is  needed  in  the  N.C.S.  officials  is  freedom  from  old  associations, 
capacity  to  manage  on  independent  lines  prescribed  by  the  Committee, 
and  a  firm  resolution  to  make  the  National  Society  worthy  of  its  appellation. 
To  maintain  it  as  an  appanage  of  the  R.A.,  such  as  it  now  is,  is  to  degrade 
it  beyond  all  the  degradations  our  glorious  profession  of  horticulture  has 
ever  experienced.  What  is  to  be  done  ?  There  are  two  courses.  Every 
member  of  the  N.C.S.  who  detests  existing  arrangements  can  attend  at 
the  annual  general  meeting  and  vote  against  the  re-election  of  every  R.A. 
supporter  and  apologist ;  or  every  such  member  can  withdraw  from  the 
Society  and  proceed  to  form  a  new  one  truly  national  in  its  aims  and 
objects.  To  aid  this  end  the  National  Amateur  Gardeners’  Association 
should  present  a  formidable  force.  There  must  be  either  mending  or 
ending,  for,  as  Mr.  Moorman  suggests,  the  present  position  is  intolerable, 
— A  [Member. 
The  Rescue  of  the  N.C.S. 
Prior  to  the  disclosures  of  the  Secretary,  as  elicited  and  recorded 
by  Mr.  Moorman,  few  persons  could  have  imagined  that  what  was 
universally  supposed  to  be  the  strongest  of  our  special  floral  societies 
is  in  its  jiresent  deplorable  condition. 
Hundreds  of  persons  at  home  and  abroad  who  contribute  to  the  funds, 
under  (he  impression  that  the  Society  is  strong  and  independent,  must 
have  been  startled  by  the  Secretary’s  statement,  that  it  could  not  exist 
without  the  Aquarium.  What  a  confession  of  impotence  on  the  part  of 
the  N.C.S.  Committee,  of  which  the  paid  Honorary  Secretary  is  of  course 
the  exponent ! 
It  is  due  to  this  official  to  say  that  he  has  the  courage  of  his  convic¬ 
tions,  for  so  certain  is  he  of  the  inability  of  the  Society  to  stand  alone, 
that  he  has  threatened  to  resign  if  a  separation  is  effected  between  this 
“National”  Society  and  the  smoking,  dancing,  drinking,  and  home  of 
amusement  building  to  which  it  is  enchained. 
After  the  enormous  sums  of  money  which  have  been  contributed  by 
members  over  a  period  of  years,  and  the  scores  of  thousands  of  shillings 
which  must  have  been  paid  by  visitors  to  the  several  shows,  if  the 
disclosures  and  admissions  of  the  Secretary,  emphasised  by  his  notifica¬ 
tion  of  resignation  if  the  Society  ventures  to  stand  alone — if  all  this  does 
not  amount  to  an  impeachment  of  the  Chairman  and  Committee  for 
incapacity  in  management,  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  it  really 
does  mean. 
It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  Secretary  is  not  responsible  for  the 
existing  state  of  things.  The  Committee  is  responsible.  It  cannot  be 
supposed  for  a  moment  that  the  members  of  this  Committee  are  other  than 
earnest  honourable  men,  who  give  their  time  gratuitously  in  furthering 
the  objects  which  the  Society  was  established  to  promote.  But  the  best 
of  men,  or  men  with  the  best  of  intentions,  are  not  always  the  strongest 
men.  We  may  applaud  them  for  their  good  intentions,  but  if  they  allow 
themselves  to  be  misled,  or  their  functions  usurped  and  policy  dictated  by 
some  more  pushful  personality,  they  are  all  the  same  responsible  for  the 
results. 
Are  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  the  so-called  “National” 
Chrysanthemum  Society,  and  its  Chairman,  who  occupies  an  important  and 
responsible  position  in  the  horticultural  world,  satisfied  with  the  Society’s 
present  condition  and  subservient  connection  ?  If  so,  let  them  say  so,  and 
clear  the  air.  If  they  are  not  masters  of  the  Society,  as  “  On-looker” 
suggested  on  page  39,  but  mastered,  there  are  absolutely  only  two 
legitimate  alternatives — resignation,  or  the  removal  of  any  obstacle  of 
an  obstructive  character. 
The  policy  of  the  past  has  confessedly  been  a  policy  of  failure.  The 
Society,  as  its  leading  official  has  told  us,  is  not  independent— it  cannot 
stand  without  the  “  crutch.”  Clearly,  if  it  is  to  prosper  in  the  future,  and 
