.  JOURNAL  OF  ROD TICUtTURE 
AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER* 
{■ :  -  . 
December  15,  1898. 
recognising  the  lucidity  of  the  whole  report.  Certainly  there  is  no 
mistaking  the  paragraph  immediately  preceding  the  boldly  printed 
names  on  page  18  of  the  schedule,  which  distinctly  says,  “The 
following  is  a  list  of  varieties  of  Chrysanthemums,  either  classed  as 
synonymous  or .  as  too-much-alike,  or  which  at  times  so  nearly 
approach  each  other  in  general  appearance  that  they  must  not  he 
shown  on  the  same  stand.”  The  italics  are  mine. — E.  Mqlyneux. 
TOO-MUCH-ALIKE  VARIETIES. 
It  is  well  known  to  practical  growers  of  Chrysanthemums  that 
certain  varieties,  taken  on  different  buds,  will  give  blooms  quite  distinct 
in  appearance.  If  it  were  only  necessary  to  show  blooms  that  appeared 
distinct,  then  two  blooms  of  Duchess  of  Fife,  one  taken  early  and  the 
other  late,  could  be  shown  as  distinct  varieties,  for  in  buiid,  petal  and 
colour,  they  are  quite  dissimilar ;  and  one  noted  grower  at  the  late 
Aquarium  Show  did  not  recognise  my  bloom  of  this  variety,  so  different 
was  it  from  his  own.  Countess  of  Warwick  is  another  example  which 
would  puzzle  many  judges. 
The  crux  of  the  whole  matter  rests  with  the  judges.  If  these  men 
are  practical  growers,  and  acquainted  with  the  peculiarities  and 
characteristics  of  all  the  varieties,  very  few  mistakes  would  be  made  ; 
but  to  appoint  hotel-keepers  and  such  like,  who  cannot  possibly  know 
the  ins  and  outs  of  a  collection  such  as  it  is  necessary  to  keep  to-day, 
is  to  court  dissatisfaction  and  endless  protests.  I  am  told,  by  an  eye 
witness,  who  was  an  official  at  a  show  lately  in  Kent,  that  the  judges 
removed  the  stands  from  the  table  and  placed  them  on  the  floor  to 
judge  them.— A  Grower. 
[Our  correspondent  do<s  not  say  that  one  of  them  laid  himself 
down  with  his  head  on  the  floor  to  see  the  depth  of  the  blooms.] 
Now  that  the  date  of  several  exhibitions  to  be  held  during  1899 
have  been  announced,  1  should  like  to  impress  upon  the  executive 
committee  of  every  society  the  desirability  of  an  early  issue  of 
schedules  of  prizes.  Nothing  is  gained  by  holding  back  the  prize 
list ;  and  exhibitors  have  a  better  opportunity  of  completing  their 
list  of  varieties  when  they  know  what  is  required.  I  would  also 
remind  societies  which  are  affiliated  to  the  N.C.S.  that  the  new  rule  as 
to  classification  of  too-much-alike  varieties  should  be  inserted  in  the 
schedule.  It  would  be  still  better  to  print  the  -whole  of  the  varieties 
that  are  bracketed  in  the  N.C.S.  schedule  as  a  guide  to  exhibitors. 
Hitherto  it  has  been  the  general  rule  of  affiliated  societies  to 
include  in  their  prize  schedule  the  words,  “  all  questions  of  nomen¬ 
clature  in  varieties  to  be  settled  by  the  N.C.S.  catalogue,”  or  words  to 
that  effect.  The  catalogue  of  the  N.C.S.  has  been  the  recognised  guide 
of  all  affiliated  societies,  and  it  is  surprising  what  a  large  number  of 
Chrysanthemum  devotees  who  do  not  know  of  the  existence  of  such 
a  catalogue.  Small  wonder,  then,  that  exhibitors  get  disqualified 
for  the  inclusion  of  varieties  that  are  staged  contrary  to  the  recognised 
standard  of  law.  I  fear  this  would  have  happened  more  frequently  if 
judges  had  taken  the  extreme  law  into  their  hands  and  disqualified  all 
stands  that  contained  some  of  the  bracketed  blooms  of  the  N.C.S. 
prize  schedule.  In  my  opinion  it  would  be  extremely  hard  to  dis¬ 
qualify  an  exhibitor  for  this  reason  where  no  such  special  intimation 
was  contained  in  the  prize  schedule  of  this  recent  alteration  in  nomen¬ 
clature  of  certain  sorts  that  have,  no  doubt,  in  the  past  caused 
considerable  trouble  to  judges,  annoyance  to  exhibitors,  and  mystery 
to  visitors. 
The  rule  adopted  by  the  N.C.S.  bearing  upon  the  staging  of 
too-much-alike  Chrysanthemums,  with  the  long  list  of  bracketted 
varieties .  appended  thereto,  has  in  it  the  germ  of  future  discontent 
among  the  numerous  affiliated  societies  which  it  is  highly  desirable  to 
avoid,  and  therefore  it  is  a  fair  subject  for  discussion  by  the  Committee 
whether  the  rule  should  not  be  modified. 
The  Classification  Sub-Committee,  consisting  of  experts  appointed 
by  the  N.C.S.,  adopted  a  rule  in  the  first  instance  which  amply  met 
the  case  it  had  to  consider,  and  threw  upon  the  judges  the  responsi¬ 
bility  which  many  authorities  think  should  properly  belong  to  them, 
but  the  General  Committee  in  their  wdsdom  declined  to  adopt  it. .  The 
merest  novice  who  saw  the  two  blooms  of  Mrs.  Ileale  and  the  Princess 
of  Wales,  as  shown  in  Mr.  Lees’  stand  at  the  N.C.S.  Show,  could  see 
that  they  were  quite  distinct  and  true,  and  yet  the  judges  were 
compelled  by  the  rule  as  it  now  stands  to  disqualify.  \our  able 
correspondent  Mr.  Orchard,  one  of  the  judges,  who  very  properly 
under  the  rule  disqualified  Mr.  Lees’  stand,  says  that  the  many 
attempts  to  blind  the  judges  at  various  shows  may  have  prompted 
the  Committee  in  their  action.  If  this  be  so,  no  one  can  find  fault 
with  the  motive ;  but  would  not  the  warning  contained  in  the  rule 
adopted  by  the  Classification  Committee  in  the  first  instance  have 
sufficiently  met  the  case  ?  That  Mr.  Lees,  a  member  of  the  very 
Committee  who  made  the  rule,  should  be  the  first  to  inadvertently 
fall  a  victim  to  it  is  a  strong  argument  for  its  modification. 
I  have  neither  the  time  nor  the  ability  to  discuss  the  points  of 
similarity  under  varying  circumstances  of  the  long  list  of  bracketted 
varieties,  but  maintain  that  this  question  may  safely  be  left  to  the 
judges.  If  an  exhibitor  is  so  bold  as  to  exhibit  blooms  as  distinct 
varieties  which  are  not  distinct  (in  the  opinion  of  the  judges),  he 
should  be  prepared  to  take  the  risk  of  his  temerity. 
Another  point  is,  where  is  the  list  of  bracketted  varieties  to  end  . 
As  time  goes  on,  other  varieties  will  have  to  be  added.  Many  of  the 
affiliated  societies  have  made  and  acted  upon  the  rule  that  the  N.C.S. 
catalogue  is  the  standard  of  nomenclature,  but  when  they  adopted  this 
rule  the  list  of  bracketted  varieties  did  not  exist.  The  question, however,, 
arises,  Is  any  conditions  which  the  N.C.S.  choose  to  make  for  the 
guidance  of  their  own  exhibitors  binding  upon  an  affiliated  society  ? 
In  my  humble  opinion,  the  answer  to  that  question  is  in  the  negative, 
unless  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  rules  of  the  affiliated  society,  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  such  provision  in  the  conditions  of  affiliations  of 
the  N.C.S.  Some  of  your  correspondents  seem  to  hold  the  opposite 
opinion.  However  this  question  may  be  decided,  I  think  it  is  in  the 
interests  of  a  National  Chrysanthemum  Society  to  make  only  such 
rules  and  regulations  which  are  to  be  binding  upon  its  affiliated 
societies  as  will  command  by  their  judicial  moderation  the  ready 
acquiescence  of  the  majority  of  other  Chrysanthemum  societies, 
and  so  tend  to  insure,  in  the  words  of  Sir  Albert  Rollit  in  his  speech  at 
the  recent  annual  dinner,  its  own  “  annual  and  perennial  prosperity. 
I  hope  that  the  Committee  of  the  N.S.C.  will  give  the  subject  the 
consideration  which  it  deserves. — Edw.  Harland,  Hull. 
If  exhibitors  would  take  reasonable  pains  in  staging  characteristic 
blooms  of  all  there  would  be  no  need  for  bracketed  varieties — at  least, 
not  for  those  that  have  lately  given  so  much  trouble.  Cultivators  of 
experience  know  quite  well  that  the  four  vaiieties — Princess  of  Wales, 
Mrs.  Heale,  C.  H.  Curtis,  and  Major  Bonnaffon  are  as  distinct  as 
possible,  but  when  they  are  staged  out  of  character — namely,  an  early 
bloom  of  one  and  a  late  bloom  of  another  variety,  what  wonder  if 
there  is  confusion  and  vexation.  Exhibitors  have  only  themselves  to 
blame  for  these  necessary  precautions  by  show  officials. 
I  have  at  times  during  the  season  just  passed  wished  I  had 
absolute  power  to  disqualify  such  stands  of  so-called  incurved  Chrys¬ 
anthemums  as  have  been  too  frequently  met  with.  I  allude  to  the 
inclusion  of  such  varieties  as  President  Nonin  and  Duke  of  Wellington, 
both  admittedly  first-class  incurved  Japanese  varieties.  More  than 
once  have  I  seen  these  varieties  amongst  the  incurved,  or  what  are 
now  known  as  belonging  to  that  section.  A  salutary  lesson  of 
disqualification  would  do  more  to  check  this  inclusion  than  all  the 
writings  in  the  press  for  a  whole  year. 
How  can  a  judge  determine  the  law  of  nomenclature  without  such 
varieties  have  come  before  a  properly  appointed  classification  com¬ 
mittee  ?  Judges,  as  I  look  upon  them,  are  there  to  carry  out  laws — 
not  make  them.  I  have  heard  many  comments  upon  the  various 
paragraphs  contained  in  the.  .report  of;  the  Committee  appointed  by  the 
N.C.S.,  but  I  think  an  impartial  reader  will  have  no  difficulty  in 
Mr.  Orchard,  on  page  440,  argues  that  societies  affiliated  to  the 
N.C.S.  are  not  bound  by  the  ruling  of  the  Classification  Committee  as 
published  in  the  schedule  of  prizes,  but  rather  that  of  the  N.C.S.’s 
Catalogue.  These  affiliated  societies,  says  Mr.  Orchard,  in  most  cases 
state  in  their  schedules  that  “  the  National  Chrysanthemum  Society  s 
Catalogue  will  be  the  standard  work  of  reference  in  all  cases  of 
classification.”  I  would  like  to  ask  how  many  societies  are  guided  by 
this  Catalogue  ?  and  whether  Mr.  Orchard  himself  has  taken  it  as  a 
guide  when  he  officiated  as  judge?  or  even  the  many. members  of 
the  Catalogue  Committee  ?  It  will  be  sufficient  for  me  in  this  instance  to 
mention  but  one  variety  to  prove  that  this  Catalogue  is  not  the  guide 
some  would  like  us  to  believe.  1  have  already  mentioned  the  difference  of 
description  of  Major  BCnnaffon  and  C.  II.  Curtis,  and  now  classed  as  too 
much  alike,’’  and  I  would  now  like  to  point  out  the  fact  that  Duchess 
of  Fife  is  classed  in  the  N.C.S.  Society’s  Catalogue  as  a  Jap,  but  has 
both  this  season  and  last  been  6hown  in  hundreds  of  winning  stands 
of  incurved.  Now,  how  many  exhibits  has  Mr.  Orchard  or  other 
members  of  the  Catalogue  Committee  disqualified  because  they  have 
not  conformed  to  the  classification  as  given  in  the  Catalogue? 
True,  in  the  schedule  of  the  N.C.S.  we  find  that  Duchess  of  I  ife  is 
an  incurved,  but  this  counts  for  nothing,  as  we  are  told  the  Catalogue 
is  the  guide.  The  Classification  Committee  have  bracketed  Duchess 
of  Fife  and  Mrs.  Airdrie  together  as  being  too  ihuch  alike;  but  let  ii» 
