222 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
March  10.  1898, 
UMS 
New  Feench  Cheysanthemums. 
“  Obseevee  ”  (page  172)  is,  of  course,  not  aware  that  my  article  on 
this  subject  was  written  a  long  time  before  its  appearance  in  print,  possibly 
being  crowded  out  by  more  pressing  matter.  If  MdlJe.  Lucie  Faure  and 
Madame  Ferlat  had  been  authoritatively  pronounced  as  incurved,  I 
should  have  conformed  to  that  ruling  ;  but  when  novelties  are  seen  for 
the  first  season,  individual  writers  can  only  form  their  own  impression  of 
them  from  such  examples  as  come  under  their  notice.  “  Observer  ”  may, 
no  doubt,  consider  the  task  an  easy  one  to  decide  for  himself  whether  a 
novelty  is  incurved  or  Japanese  incurved  ;  but  I  notice  that  even  my 
friend  Mr  Molyneux  protests  against  the  free  and  easy  way  in  which 
some  of  the  “  mongrels  ”  are  being  included  in  the  true  incurved  section, 
so  that  dilference  of  opinion  would  perhaps  have  been  a  better  word  to 
use  than  misrepresentation.  ‘‘  Observer  ”  carries  his  criticism  a  little 
farther,  and  objects  to  some  of  the  descriptive  terms  I  employ.  If 
“  Observer  ”  does  not  know  the  meaning  of  “  distinct  novelty,”  I  can  only 
say  that  Madame  Ed.  Roger  is  a  novelty  because  it  is  new  ;  that  it  is 
distinct  because  it  is  green,  and  unlike  any  other  novelty. — C.  H.  P. 
Belfast  Show  Reflections. 
As  regards  the  variety  shown  by  Mr.  Mease  as  Yellow  Madame 
Carnot  at  Belfast,  Mr.  Brock  refers  me  to  Mr.  Molyneux’s  notes  on  new 
varieties  in  your  issue  for  December  9th.  Allow  me  to  inform  him  that 
Mr.  Molyneux  was  one  of  the  judges  who  passed  Mr.  Mease’s  fine  bloom 
at  the  Royal  Aquarium  labelled  as  Yellow  Madame  Carnot,  and  Mr. 
Molyneux’s  remarks  on  new  varieties  were  not  made  till  after  the  shows, 
when  he  would  have  had  every  opportunity  of  thoroughly  examining  all  the 
different  sports  in  question.  I  well  remember  when  Charles  Davis  was 
brought  before  the  Floral  Committee  of  the  N.C.S,  by  various  exhibitors, 
the  colour  variations  were  far  more  distinct  than  any  forms  of  yellow 
sports  of  Madame  Carnot.  Mr.  Mease,  no  doubt,  made  himself  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  Belfast  schedule  before  sending  such  a  distance,  and 
surely  such  an  old  hand  at  exhibiting  would  not  knowingly  risk  staging 
a  variety  that  was  not  in  commerce.  I  always  thought  it  is  a  mistake  to 
confine  exhibitors  to  varieties  in  commerce.  It  is  perplexing  both  to 
exhibitors  and  judges,  and  as  far  as  I  can  see  answers  no  good  purpose. 
Respecting  the  cardboard  used,  I  said  nothing  about  its  being  legitimate. 
I  thought  I  made  it  clear  that  if  the  cardboard  were  removed  the  exhibitor 
would  have  been  placed  in  the  same  position  on  the  merits  of  his  blooms 
alone.  I  can  assure  Mr.  Brock  he  need  not  apologise,  at  least  to  me  ; 
my  feelings  are  not  wounded  in  the  slightest.  I  rather  delight  in  fair 
criticism. — E.  Beckett,  Aldenham  House  Gardens. 
Peehaps  a  little  explanation  from  me  may  put  the  matter  re  Prim¬ 
rose  Madame  Carnot  a  little  more  satisfactorily.  I  was  the  introducer  of 
G.  J.  Warren,  and  Mr.  Jones  introduced  Yellow  Madame  Carnot,  which 
to  all  appearances  were  the  same.  I  had  also  heard  of  or  seen  six  other 
yellow  sports  from  various  places,  one  of  which  was  at  Box  Hill,  and 
which  Mr.  Mease  was  growing.  These  various  sports  were  all  supposed 
to  have  been  the  same  in  colour,  and  although  Mr.  Mease  had  the 
champion  flower  in  the  November  show  of  the  N.C.S.,  no  one  would  have 
known  whether  it  was  any  different  from  G.  J.  Warren  in  the  bad  light. 
Indeed,  I  believe  Mr.  Mease  fully  thought  then,  as  I  did,  that  they  were 
the  same,  and  sent  his  blooms  to  Belfast  honestly  thinking  he  was  acting 
according  to  the  schedule. 
Not  being  an  exhibitor  I  had  not  noticed  the  regulation  that  “  All 
blooms  must  be  already  in  commerce.”  As  I  was  assisting  Mr.  Mease’s 
man  in  naming  his  blooms  the  good  light  enabled  me  to  see  the  bloom  in 
question  was  not  so  deep  in  colour  as  G.  J.  Warren,  but  a  primrose  colour. 
I,  therefore,  said  that  was  not  G.  J.  Warren  (syn..  Yellow  Madame 
Carnot),  and  I  advised  that  it  be  simply  described  “  Primrose  Carnot,” 
quite  ignorant  of  the  conditions.  Moreover,  had  these  conditions  been  in 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Mease’s  assistant  he  had  plenty  of  spare  blooms,  and 
could  easily  have  rectified  the  matter,  and  he  would  then  have  held 
exactly  the  same  position.  I  can  fully  sympathise  with  Mr.  Beckett,  and 
do  not  see  how  he  could  have  done  otherwise  than  he  did  under  the 
circumstances. 
As  I  fear  that  I  was  the  cause  of  all  the  trouble  which  has  arisen  by 
the  suggestion  I  innocently  made,  I  think  the  above  explanation  is  due 
to  all  concerned.  I  am  quite  sure  that  Mr.  Mease  would  not  attempt  to 
evade  any  conditions,  and  I  am  also  sure  that  Mr.  Beckett  felt  the 
difficulty  of  the  position  in  which  he  was  placed  and  did  what  he  thought 
was  right.  I  have  absolutely  no  personal  feeling  in  the  matter.  I  think 
Mr.  Brock  was  justified  in  bringing  the  matter  forward,  and  should  like 
to  see  him  defeat  all  comers  next  autumn. — W.  Wells. 
[We  think  the  explanation  of  the  matter  in  dispute  is  as  clear  as  it  can 
be  made.  The  ‘‘bad  light”  in  the  Aquarium  was  quite  inadequate  for 
detecting  different  shades  of  yellow,  and  we  fully  believe  that  all  who  have 
been  personally  interested  in  this  case  acted  in  the  best  of  good  faith. 
Mr.  Brock  was  justified  in  bringing  the  matter  forward.  We  think  when 
large  sums  of  money  can  be  provided  for  sensational  prizes,  two  judges 
should  be  engaged  as  security  against  accidents,  and  when  this  is  not 
done  we  are  inclined  to  regard  the  show  authorities  largely  responsible 
for  what  may  happen  of  the  nature  indicated.  After  no  small  experience 
with  a  goodly  number  of  highly  capable  and  deservedly  trusted  judges, 
we  have  not  discovered  the  prodigy  of  infallibility.] 
Decline  of  Incueved  Cheysanthemums. 
I  DO  not  think  there  is  one  person  of  experience  who  will  attempt  to 
refute  the  above  heading.  Visitors  to  the  autumn  exhibitions  in  various 
parts  of  the  country  find  a  steady  decline  in  this  type  of  the  autumn 
queen.  Not  only  a  backward  tendency  in  popularity  with  visitors,  but  a 
gradual  falling  off  in  the  quality  of  the  blooms.  No  doubt  there  are 
strong  reasons  for  this  rapid  decline  in  the  true  Chinese  or  incurved 
Chrysanthemum.  Writers,  cultivators,  and  visitors  will  draw  their  own 
conclusions  as  to  the  cause.  Having  perhaps  as  much  opportunity  as  most 
persons  who  are  interested  in  this  section,  owing  to  my  extensive  tours 
annually  to  the  principal  exhibitions,  I  have  decided  in  my  own  mind  what 
are  some  of  the  causes  of  decline  in  this  section.  Although  the  exhibition 
table  is  a  good  basis  to  found  a  reason  upon,  it  cannot  be  urged  that  it  is 
the  end  of  all  that  appertains  to  Chrysanthemums.  Many  persons  who 
object  to  exhibiting  pay  annual  visits  to  the  autumn  meetings  to  view 
the  productions  of  others,  and  may  be  to  pick  up  an  occasional  wrinkle 
or  two. 
I  do  not  purpose  dealing  with  this  subject  purely  from  an  exhibitor’s 
point  of  view,  but  rather  in  a  general  way.  No  one,  however,  will  doubt 
that  to  see  the  finest  specimens  of  incurved  Chrysanthemums  we  must 
visit  the  exhibition  table.  Although  some  of  the  finest  blooms  as  grown 
are  often  seen  on  purely  decorative  plants,  yet  the  finishing  touches  are 
usually  seen  upon  the  exhibition  table.  It  cannot  be  urged  that  any 
decline  is  due  to  a  want  of  recognition  in  the  various  prize  schedules.  In 
the  palmiest  days  of  incurved  Chrysanthemums  the  prizes  offered  were 
decidedly  inferior  in  value  to  what  they  are  at  the  present  time.  It  is  not 
an  uncommon  occurrence  now  to  find  a  class  for  twenty-four  blooms,  these 
not  distinct,  for  which  the  handsome  sum  of  £10  and  a  silver  cup  are 
offered  as  the  first  priz-».  Exhibitors  of  experience  know  well  how  much 
easier  it  is  to  fill  a  class  where  half  a  dozen  duplicate  blooms  are  allowed 
as  compared  to  the  distinct  requirements  of  classes.  The  decline  then  is 
not  due  to  want  of  encouragement. 
If  we  desire  to  seek  for  reasons,  from  an  exhibition  point  of  view,  we 
must  recognise  the  weakened  constitution  of  certain  varieties  or  families. 
Whatever  may  be  the  cause  of  this,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  there  is  this 
deterioration  in  stamina.  Take,  for  instance,  that  group  known  as  the 
“  Tecks.”  Can  it  be  argued  that  a  single  bloom  of  any  one  of  the  seven 
varieties  comprised  in  the  family  is  seen  nowadays  that  in  any  way 
resembles  those  grown  half  a  dozen  years  since  ?  He  would  indeed  be  a 
bold  man  who  says  yes.  This  once  valued  type  has  been  in  existence 
thirty  years,  being  introduced  by  Pethers  1868,  and  four  years  after  saw  the 
first  sport  in  the  form  of  that  charming  rose  pink  flower  Hero  of  Stoke 
Newington.  As  showing  the  value  of  this  variety  for  exhibition,  it  was 
almost  invariably  found  in  the  back  row  in  the  strongest  competition.  I 
mention  this  to  show  the  difference  existing  a  few  years  as  compared  with 
the  present  day.  Nowadays  it  is  difficult  to  find  this  variety  in  a  stand, 
which  proves  conclusively  its  decadence  as  an  exhibition  flower.  Even 
Princess  of  Wales  is  now  only  a  shadow  of  its  former  self.  No  variety  has 
taken  or  assisted  to  secure  so  many  prizes  as  this  when  staged  in  what  is 
known  at  an  undressed  condition.  The  natural  form,  beauty  of  floret  and 
solidity  of  the  whole  bloom  of  a  fully-developed  “  Princess,”  was  indeed 
something  to  admire  to  a  lover  of  incurved  Chrysanthemums. 
But  from  an  exhibition  point  of  view  the  greatest  declination  is  in  the 
Queen  of  England  and  its  light  offspring.  The  original  of  this  group  was 
introduced  by  Salter  as  long  ago  as  1847.  Twenty  years  ago  it -was  no 
unusual  sight  to  see  plants  10  feet  high,  while  now  the  difficulty  appears 
to  be  to  get  them  half  that  height.  Some  cultivators  may  urge  that  this 
is  desirable.  I  have,  however,  seen  the  finest  of  the  blooms  that  have 
been  produced  during  the  period  named,  and  not  infrequently  the  plants 
bearing  them  also,  and  if  it  were  an  easy  matter  to  obtain  exhibition 
blooms  from  tall  plants  in  days  gone  by,  and  it  is  quite  the  reverse  at  the 
present  time  from  dwarf  plants,  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  are  too 
obvious  to  need  comment.  Can  cultivators  induce  their  plants  to  grow 
as  strong  or  as  tall  as  they  would  wish  1  If  they  can  and  then  do  not 
produce  representative  blooms,  what  is  the  reason  ?  To  what  source  but 
that  of  deteriorated  constitution  can  we  attribute  the  decline  of  varieties 
that  are  well  known  to  be  of  the  first-class  ? 
Counteracting  influences  are  advocated,  such  as  planting  out  and 
growing  the  plants  for  a  couple  of  years  in  poor  soil.  The  idea  is  that 
the  constitution  of  the  plants  has  been  weakened  by  feeding  and  other 
unnatural  methods.  I  confess  I  regard  such  opinions  as  those  of  pure 
theorists.  It  is  very  well  for  a  person  to  give  it  as  his  opinion,  based 
purely  upon  supposition  that  the  above  remedy  is  the  all-saving  ground 
for  success  ;  but  I  for  one  do  not  accept  it,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
I  have  put  such  proposals  and  many  others  to  the  test,  in  the  hope  of 
securing  creditable  examples  of  the  various  members  of  the  “  Queen  ” 
family.  Repeated  experiments  of  changing  stock,  propagating  on  the 
coolest  of  methods  that  a  cold  frame  will  admit,  in  the  hope  that  the 
slowest  of  the  initiatory  growth  would  lay  a  foundation  for  a  more 
substantial  superstructure,  have  all  failed.  Twenty  years  since  I  saw 
better  blooms  of  the  “  Queen  ”  family  growing  against  a  south  wall  in 
the  near  neighbourhood  of  Liverpool  than  three  parts  of  those  seen  on 
the  exhibition  table  last  season.  How  do  theorists  account  for  this? 
Many  exhibitors  of  the  present  day  do  not  take  the  same  personal 
interest  in  the  growth  of  the  plants  or  the  preparation  of  the  blooms 
for  showing  as  was  the  case  a  decade  or  two  ago.  Too  much  of  the  work 
