440 
December  8.  IfeyS. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
Prepare  the  cuttings  by  severing  them  below  a  joint,  and 
removing  the  lower  leaves.  The  holes  for  their  reception  must  be 
made  with  a  blunt  stick,  and  the  cuttings  inserted  so  as  to  rest  on 
the  base.  This  is  very  important.  The  soil  must  also  be  pressed 
firmlv  round  the  cuttings  and  the  sand  levelled.  Afterwards  afford  a 
gentle  watering.  The  position  for  the  cuttings  must  then  be  decided 
upon.  Strong  heat  is  not  helpful,  but  the  reverse,  as  it  causes  evapora¬ 
tion  from  the  leaves  too  rapidly,  the  leaves  flag,  and  rooting  is  conse¬ 
quently  retarded.  A  structure  heated  sufficiently  to  keep  out  frost 
suffices.  The  cutting  pots  ought  to  be  placed  in  a  box  covered  with 
glass,  under  a  hand-light,  or  in  a  frame  with  a  light  which  will  move 
off  or  open  conveniently.  The  base  on  wlr.ch  the  pots  stand  should 
be  moist,  and  kept  so.  Keep  them  perfectly  close,  but  once  a  day 
at  least  wipe  off  auy  rooistu  e  that  has  collected  on  the  glass.  Watering 
oucht  not  to  be  required  frequently,  but  the  soil  must  he  maintained 
moist. 
Give  a  light  position,  but  shade  the  cuttings  from  any  excessive 
sunshine  which  majr  cause  them  to  droop.  When  roots  begin  to  form 
air  must  be  admitted,  but  some  may  be  considerably  more  advanced 
than  others  in  rooting.  These  pots  may  be  withdrawn,  and  placed 
together  under  a  hand-light  or  in  a  box  where  air  may  be  given, 
gradually  increasing  in  volume  until  full  exposure  is  possible.  The 
best  place  after  this  is  on  a  shelf  close  to  the  glass,  and  there  they  may 
remain,  duly  watering  and  ventilating,  until  the  increase  of  roots 
warrants  their  being  potted  singly,  or  those  in  thumbs  transferred to. 
larger  pots. — E.  D.  S. 
TOO-MUCH- ALIKE  VARIETIES. 
I  AM  not  surprised  at  some  of  your  readers  taking  exception  to  the 
harshness  of  any  rule  that  enforced  the  disqualification  of  a  stand  of 
incurved  blooms  such  as  was  staged  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Lees  at  the  exhi¬ 
bition  of  the  National  Chrysanthemum  Society  at  the  Royal  Aquarium 
on  November  8'h,  and  as  one  of  the  judges  responsible  for  the  dis¬ 
qualification,  I  am  glad  to  note  that  no  one  put  the  om;s  on  us,  for 
under  the  new  rule  we  had  no  alternative  but  to  disqualify.  It  would 
not  have  been  fair  to  the  other  exhibitors  had  we  not  done  so.  It  must 
be  acknowledged  that  the  executive  did  all  they  could  to  bring  the 
rule  to  the  notice  of  exhibitors,  for,  in  addition  to  the  special  note 
printed  before  class  1  in  the  schedule  calling  attention  to  this  parti¬ 
cular  resolution,  there  is  a  foot-note  under  the  list  of  the  bracketed 
varieties  which  runs,  “The  attention  of  exhibitors  is  particularly 
called  to  the  foregoing  list  of  too-much-alike  varieties,  bracketed 
together,  which  should  be  carefully  examined  previous  to  staging 
blooms  for  competition.”  That  this  should  have  been  overlooked  by 
the  exhibitor  in  question  is  unfortunate,  but  it  shows  that  the  best  of 
men  make  mistakes  sometimes. 
As  regards  the  merits  of  the  blooms  there  were  no  two  opinions. 
As  “  Sadoc  ”  says  (page  417),  if  all  exhibitors  were  careful  to  stage 
them  so  distinct  as  Mr.  Lees,  there  would  be  no  necessity  to  make 
the  rule.  To  this  I  agree.  Mr.  Lees  has  the  true  type  of  Mrs.  Heale, 
and  when  such  is  the  case  there  is  as  much  difference  between  that 
and  the  parent  Princess  of  Wales  as  there  is  between  Queen  gf 
England  and  Empress  of  India.  1  take  it  that  what  prompted  the 
Society  to  take  this  step  were  the  many  attempts  which  have  been  made 
to  blind  the  judges  at  various  shows  by  exhibiting  a  bloom  from  an 
rarly  crown  bud  of  Princess  of  Wales — which  naturally  comes  pale — 
as  Mrs.  Heale,  and  a  flower  from  a  later  bud  as  Princess  of  Wales, 
though  both  may  have  been  from  the  same  plant.  This  has  caused 
considerable  heartburning  in  disqualification,  or  wrangling  if  overlooked 
or  passed  by  the  judges.  Why  is  it  we  so  very  rarely  see  Mrs.  Heale  in 
its  true  form?  Because  the  true  stock  is  so  very  scarce  on  account  of 
its  shyness  in  producing  cuttings.  It  is  well  known  all  the  Princess 
type  are  more  or  less  clean-stemmed,  as  we  term  it,  but  Mrs.  Heale  is 
particularly  so. 
_This  is  no  new  contention.  It  is  now  some  sixteen  or  eighteen 
years  since  this  question  was  brought  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Kingston-on-Thames  Chrysanthemum  Society,  and  I,  possessing  the 
true  types,  produced  blooms  of  the  two  varieties,  which  convinced 
the  Committee  that  it  was  possible  to  exhibit  them  quite  distinct. 
But  it  is  only  on  rare  occasions  that  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing 
them  so  distinct  as  in  the  stand  that  has  caused  this  correspondence; 
hence  probably  it  was  a  wise  plan,  and  will  save  many  disputes,  to 
bracket  the  two  together.  There  is  not  the  necessity  now  to  retain 
doubtful  varieties  as  there  was  in  the  past  decade,  when  it  was 
difficult  to  find  the  last  two  varieties  to  make  up  a  stand  of  twenty- 
four  distinct  incurved,  there  being  now  so  many  newer  introductions 
at  the  exhibitor’s  command. 
In  the  case  of  the  awards  that  have  been  made  at  the  exhibitions 
of  some  of  the  affiliated  societies  this  season  I  have  contended  that 
they  are  not  on  the  same  fooling  as  the  parent  Society  this  year.  In 
most  of  the  affiliated  societies’  schedules  there  is  a  foot-note  stating 
that  “  The  National  Chrysanthemum  Society’s  Catalogue  will  be  the 
standard  work  of  reference  in  all  cases  of  classification.”  And  as 
this  new  rule  or  resolution  is  not  yet  published  in  the  Catalogue,  or 
the  varieties  bracketed  together  there  as  synonymous,  it  is  not  binding 
on  the  affiliated  societies  this  year.  The  schedule  is  not  the  Catalogue, 
but  it  may  be  the  first  step  to  that  work  of  authority,  and  compilers 
will  do  well  to  notice  the  new  addition  that  no  doubt  will  be  published 
before  the  corning  season. 
This,  probably,  will  explain  to  “A.  D.  ”  why  varieties  passed  at 
other  exhibitions  were  disqualified  at  the  N.C.S.  For  the  reason 
given  I  have  passed  some  ot  the  bracketed  varieties  that  have  been 
shown  fairly  distinct  at  provincial  shows  since  their  disqualification 
at  the  National,  and  have  explained  the  reason  why  I  did  so,  but  like¬ 
wise  have  given  them  a  word  of  caution  to  be  on  their  guard  another 
year. — C.  Orchard,  Bembridge,  I.W. 
“  Sadoc,”  page  417,  seems  to  hold  that  all  other  Chrysanthemum 
societies  should  adopt  the  classification  rules  of  the  N.C.S.  Why  so? 
If  the  N.C.S.  choose  to  adopt  an  absurdity,  why  does  it  follow  that 
other  societies  should  take  the  same  course  ?  I  can  understand  that 
societies  affiliated  to  the  N.C.S.  are,  by  reason  of  such  affiliation,  bound 
by  its  rules,  but  certainly  none  others.  I  have  not  charged  the  trade 
with  doing  anything  improper  in  reference  to  selling  these  varieties 
classed  as  too  much  alike,  and  therefore,  if  shown  in  the  same  stand, 
causing  disqualification.  What  I  complain  of  is  that  these  varieties, 
catalogued  as  distinct,  have  both  distinct  names  and  descriptions, 
and,  stranger  still,  have  largely  been  by  the  N.C.S.  and  other  societies 
ceitificated  under  the  names  put  into  commerce  as  distinct. 
But  every  grower  of  Chrysanthemums  knows  that  whilst  so  many 
of  these,  and  indeed  of  other  non-classified  varieties,  have  at  certain 
times  strong  points  of  resemblance,  they  have  at  other  times  strong 
points  of  dissimilarity,  and  that  fact  serves  to  show  that  they  are 
really  distinct.  No  trouble  of  this  kind  existed  until  some  officious 
N.C.S.  member  thought  immortality  was  to  be  obtained  by  creating 
this  contested  and  condemned  classification,  which  has  made  matters 
worse  rather  than  better. 
As  to  disqualifications  under  the  N.C.S.  rule,  judges,  however 
imbued  they  may  be  with  faith  in  the  infallibility  of  the  N.C.S. 
classification,  have  no  right  or  power  to  disqualify  such  flowers 
at  shows  other  than  the  N.C.S.,  unless  they  have  special  instruc¬ 
tions  to  that  effect,  and  a  classified  list  is  published  in  the  schedule. 
If  the  N.C.S.  Floral  Committee  absolutely  relused  to  make  awards 
to  too-much-alike  flowers,  how  few  of  these  cases  of  similarity 
would  occur.  But  when  that  body  certificates  a  variety,  and  then  the. 
Classification  Committee,  some  time  or  other  later,  brackets  that 
variety  with  another  as  too  much  alike,  it  is  certainly  making  the 
Floral  Committee  look  ridiculous.  The  whole  thing  is  a  hobby  of 
someone’s,  being  well  ridden  to  death. 
I  have  been  wondering  how  matters  would  work  out  in  connection 
with  some  other  things,  fruit  for  instance,  if  these  fadmongers  had  their 
way.  How  many  Peaches,  Nectarines,  Plums,  Apples,  Pears,  Goose¬ 
berries,  Strawberries,  and  others,  would  be  classed  as  too  much  alike? 
After  all,  this  trouble  grows  in  the  Chrysanthemum  so  much  because 
of  its  sportive  habit.  No  sooner  is  a  sport  produced  than  it  is  named 
and  certificated  and  put  into  commerce  as  distinct.  What  wonder  if, 
because  a  sport’s  flowers  not  unfrequently  resemble  those  of  the  parent 
variety  !  Still,  if  the  sport  be  recognised  as  a  distinct  break  or  variety 
that  fact  should  authorise  the  exhibiting  of  flowers  from  it  in  all 
classes  in  which  the  section  to  which  it  belongs  is  admissible.  With 
whom  the  responsibility  rests  of  putting  varieties  into  commerce  as 
distinct  that  are  now  declared  as  too  much  alike  I  leave  any  critic  to 
determine. — A.  D. 
HYBRID  CHRYSANTHEMUMS. 
Your  practical  contributor,  “A.  D.,”  has  ably  ventilated  a 
question  which  deserves  the  consideration  of  some  of  those  who  are 
expending  a  vast  amount  of  thought,  time,  and  money  in  raising  new 
varieties  of  the  autumn  bloomiDg  Chrysanthemums.  As  your 
correspondent  suggests,  something  might  be  done  to  impress  on  the 
Marguerite  (Chrysanthemum  frutescens)  the  colours  and  larger  flowers 
than  the  others.  In  other  directions  also  results  might  be  looked  fur. 
One  might  suggest,  for  instance,  that  C.  maximum  and  similar 
perennial  congeners  might  be  operated  on.  Possibly  only  failure 
would  result,  but  those  who  have  followed  the  vast  strides  made  with 
other  plants  will  not  despair  of  the  possibility  of  seeing  some  progress 
in  the  direction  indicated.  We  might  thus  in  the  outdoor  garden 
link  together  the  favourite  Pyrethrums  with  their  exquisite  colours 
with  the  early  flowering  Chrysanthemums  of  August  and  September. 
— S.  Arnqtt. 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS  FOR  THE  QUEEN. 
Messrs.  W.  &  G.  Drover,  Chrysanthemum  f  growers,  Fareham,  we 
are  informed,  have  had  the  honour  of  submitting  forty-eight  Chry¬ 
santhemum  blooms  to  her  Majesty  the  Queen  at  Windsor  Castle. 
They  were  very  much  admired. 
