10 
January  2,  189G. 
JOURNAL 
OF  HORTICULTURE  AND 
COTTA  GE  GA  R  D EN Ell 
Chrysanthemum  Mons.  Chenon  de  Leche. 
Conspicuous  in  many  respects  as  have  been  the  novelties  in 
Chrysanthemums  daring  the  past  season,  perhaps  none  has  teceived 
more  general  admiration  than  Mons.  Chenon  de  Leche,  of  which  the 
illustration  (fig.  2),  reproduced  from  a  photograph,  is  a  faithful 
pourtrayal.  It  combines  size,  substance,  and  grace  with  distinctiveness 
of  colouration,  and  may  naturally,  therefore,  be  expected  to  take  a  high 
rank  in  forthcoming  seasons.  From  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  it 
has  received  an  award  of  merit,  while  the  National  Chrysanthemum 
Society  has  honoured  it  with  a  first-class  certificate,  the  specimens  in 
each  case  being  staged  by  Mr.  W.  Wells,  the  Earlswood  Nurseries, 
Redhill.  The  florets  are  very  long,  regularly  arranged,  and  of  medium 
width.  The  colour  is  a  yellow  ground,  shaded  salmon-bronze  in  the 
centre,  passing  to  a  rosy  bronze  on  the  outer  florets.  It  is  a  reflexed 
Japanese  of  the  true  type. 
National  Chrysanthemum  Society. 
The  fixture*  for  189(5  are  as  follows  : — September  1st,  2nd,  3rd, 
not  9th,  10th,  11th  ;  October  6th,  7th,  8th  ;  Novembei  3rd,  4th,  5th,  Gtb  ; 
aud  December  1st,  2nd,  3rd. 
Disqualification  at  Glasgow. 
The  statement  by  Mr.  Elton  (page  601)  is  misleading  and  incorrect. 
We  have  carefully  measured  the  third  board  referred  to,  and  find  it  is 
26  inches  by  20,  the  others  being  27  by  20|.  This  difference  when  set 
up  and  covered  with  blooms  could  not  be  detected  by  eyesight  alone, 
and  was  only  made  apparent  by  actual  measurement,  which  makes  a 
misstatement  of  2  inches  in  both  directions  the  more  inexcusable.  This 
paragraph  is  an  attempt  to  cover  the  fact  that  Mr.  E - and  his  friends 
made  use  of  a  technical  infraction  of  the  rules,  thus  throwing  our 
blooms  out  of  the  competition,  and  enabling  others  to  creep  into  a  place. 
— J.  11.  Pearson  and  Sons. 
Yellow  Bouquet  bes  Dames 
Mb.  H.  J.  Jones,  Ryecroft  Nursery,  Lewisham,  writes,  11  Me  inquiry 
from  ‘Another  Mummer,’  on  page  601,  about  Yellow  Bouquet  des 
Dames,  this  was  sent  out  by  Messrs.  Clibran  &  Sons  about  two  years  ago 
under  name  of  Wm.  Firkins.  It  is  a  soft  primrose  yellow  colour.” 
Chkysanthemum  Mdlle.  Therese  Rey. 
It  may  not  be  generally  known  that  this  very  fine  Japanese  Chrys¬ 
anthemum  is  alHo  a  really  good  late  flowering  variety.  I  recently  saw 
some  plants  that  had  been  managed  by  topping  the  shoots  several  times 
in  the  early  stages  of  growth,  and  thus  producing  a  flowering  crop.  In 
blooms  of  the  size  that  might  be  expected  from  plants  thus  managed  ibe 
colour  partakes  of  a  whiter  tint  than  the  usual  creamy  suffusion  that 
^E^M8  the  largCr  and  earlier  blooms  of  tbis  charming  Chrysanthemum. 
Beauty  of  Teignmouth  and  Pride  of  Madford. 
Your  able  correspondent  Mr.  E.  Molyneux,  in  his  notice  of  new 
varieties  of  Chrysanthemums  (page  558,  last  volume),  in  describing 
Beauty  of  Teignmouth,  says,  “  This  and  Pride  of  Madford  seem  to  be  a 
little  confused.  Growing  side  by  side,  I  have  failed  to  detect  any 
difference  in  the  two.”  If  Mr.  Molyneux  had  the  two  varieties  true  he 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  detecting  the  difference  between  them.  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  growing  them  both  last  year  (1894),  and  found  them 
entirely  distinct,  both  in  flower,  foliage,  and  habit  of  growth.  Beauty 
of  Teignmouth  is  an  incurved  Japanese,  rich  purple  with  a  lilac  reverse  ; 
Pride  of  Madford  is  a  reflexed  Japanese,  crimson  cerise  with  silvery 
reverse.  They  have  both  received  awards  of  merit  this  autumn  by  the 
It  II.S.  They  would  not  give  awards  to  one  variety  under  two  names. 
By  Mr.  Molyneux’s  description  many  persons  may  be  led  to  believe  that 
if  they  get  Pride  of  Madford  they  will  have  Beauty  of  Teignmouth,  or 
vice  versa .  They  will  be  very  much  disappointed  if  they  do. — G.  Foster, 
Glendaragh  Gardens ,  Teignmouth. 
Chrysanthemum  Madame  Carnot. 
I  CAN  assure  “  A  Sceptic  ”  (page  581)  that  there  was  no  mistake  made 
in  the  measurement  of  the  premier  bloom  of  this  variety  at  Bawtry 
show.  In  my  previous  note  I  was  particular  to  keep  well  within  the 
mark,  the  exact  measurement  being  13£  inches  in  diameter.  “  Sceptic  ” 
assumes  that  because  one  grower  has"  not  exhibited  a  bloom  of  this 
variety  anything  approaching  it  in  size  that  it  is  not  possible  for  another 
grower  to  excel  what  has  already  been  done.  That  this  is  a  fallacy  is 
the  opinion  of — Yorkshireman. 
I  do  not  doubt  for  a  moment  that  blooms  of  this  grand  white  variety 
have  been  produced  13  inches  over.  I  have  only  grown  one  plant  from 
a  Tfry  amall  cutting  obtained  at  the  en'1  of  January,  1895  It  grew 
weakly  at  first,  but  from  the  time  it  was  placed  into  its  flowering  pot 
(9-inch)  it  gained  strength  and  branched  at  the  end  of  June.  The  buds 
were  taken  in  September,  but  I  did  not  note  the  date.  Tbe  plant  waB 
allowed  to  carry  two  flowers.  The  earliest  bloom  was  12  inches  over 
(for  curiosity  I  placed  a  rule  under  it) ;  the  other  was  about  10  inches, 
although  slightly  deformed.  We  have  had  Viviand  Morel  12J  inches 
over  and  deep  in  proportion,  and  at  one  time  we  thought  the  plants 
would  do  no  good.  From  the  time  they  were  rooted  they  persisted  in 
throwing  flower  buds,  and  continued  to  do  so  after  they  were  in  their 
flowering  pots.  On  the  whole,  however,  in  spite  of  this  we  never  had 
better  blooms.  Last  year  we  had  scarcely  a  good  bloom  of  Sunflower,  and 
this  year  every  bloom  from  a  dozen  or  more  plants,  three  on  a  plant,  was 
exceedingly  good,  and  would  not  have  disgraced  any  stand  of  fine  flowers. 
— Wm.  Bardney. 
Home  and  Fobeign-raised  Chrysanthemums. 
As  there  seems  to  be  growing  up  a  feeling  of  rivalry  as  to  tbe 
various  productions  of  Japanese  Chrysanthemums,  now  becoming  so 
wonderfully  abundant,  and  coming  from  France,  America,  and  from 
home,  I  would  suggest  that  a  most  interesting  class  at  an  exhibition, 
and  especially  at  the  proposed  N.C.S.  Jubilee  show,  would  be  one 
composed  of  these  three  sections  in  equal  quantities;  as  for  instance, 
twelve  French,  twelve  American,  and  twelve  of  home  raising  in  one 
stand,  each  dozen  being  blocked  together.  Assuming  that  only  the  very 
best  in  each  case  were  shown,  how  admirably  would  such  a  class,  if 
fairly  well  contested,  serve  to  show  the  respective  merits  of  each  country’s 
production.  A  well  known  trade  grower  said  not  long  since  that  he 
thought  twelve  of  M.  Calvat’s  would  equal  any  other  twelve  to  be  found. 
That  may  have  been  a  bold  statement.  1  do  not  suggest  that  raisers 
should  be  considered  in  the  proposed  class  aa  only  national  productions. 
At  present  we  show  Chrysanthemum  blooms  so  intermixed  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  create  comparisons.  But  auch  a  class  as  that  named  would 
not  only  prove  to  be  one  of  exceeding  interest,  but  it  would  create 
stimulus  on  the  part  of  raisers  of  those  countries  found  to  be  in 
the  rear  that  could  not  be  otherwise  than  helpful  to  Chrysanthemum 
production. — A. 
Incurved  Chrysanthemums. 
If  the  definition  given  by  “D”  (page  581)  that  a  true  incurved 
Chrysanthemum  should  have  “  broader  and  more  rounded  peals”  than 
those  possessed  by  Major  Bonnaffon  is  to  be  insisted  on,  we  shall  lose, 
many  of  our  best  varieties,  as  they  do  not  come  up  to  this  standard  of 
excellence.  For  instance,  C.  H.  Curtis,  all  the  Princess  of  Wales’ 
family,  some  eight  in  number,  Madame  Darrier,  Lord  Rosebery,  Novelty, 
Alfred  Lyne,  Mr.  James  Murray,  Mrs  J.  Gardiner,  Ami  Iloste,  Princess 
Beatrice,  George  Cockburn,  Madame  F.  Miitral,  not  forgetting  Eve  and 
Mabel  Ward.  We  should  then  have  to  rely  on  the  various  members  of 
the  Queen  and  Princess  Teck  families,  Empress  Eugdnie,  Jeanne  d’Arc, 
R.  Petfield,  Globe  d’Or,  and  such-like  varieties.  I  would  ask,  is  it 
worth  while  to  entertain  such  an  idea?  With  tbe  advent  of  Madame 
Darrier,  some  writers  said  such  narrow-petalled  varieties  gave  addi¬ 
tional  interest  to  the  section  of  incurved  Chrysanthemums  !  and  now  to 
please  the  peculiarities  of  other  writers  these  must  be  eliminated  from 
favour.  “  D  ”  may  not  know — I  suspect  he  is  not  acquainted  with  the 
cultural  requirements — that  in  some  localities  even  the  Queen  family 
does  not  give  broad  and  fully-rounded  petals.  Such  inferiority  then 
would  be  excluded  from  the  standard  set  up  by  this  theorist.  He  would 
be  a  bold  man,  indeed,  who  would  put  to  the  vote  the  exclusion  of  such 
a  charming  variety  as  C.  H.  Curtis,  for  example,  simply  because  its 
petals  are  too  pointed  to  please  pedantic  critics. — Sadoc. 
Chrysanthemum  Sports. 
The  production  of  new  colours  of  the  best  type3 — thus,  as  it  were, 
evolving  new  varieties,  raises  this  question  into  a  most  important  one. 
Darwin’s  researches  into  the  subject  of  variation  of  plants  and  animals 
under  domestication  shows  it  to  be  far-reaching,  involving  many  and 
various  issues.  Perhaps  the  most  important  bearing  on  the  matter  is 
whether  or  not  plants  possess  the  inherent  or  latent  principle  of  varia¬ 
tion,  independent  of  the  disturbing  influences  set  up  by  fertilisation. 
So  far  as  “G.  R.’s”  (page  581)  experiences  go  with  Pelaigoniums,  it  is 
interesting  to  know  that  to  some  extent  they  coincide  with  Darwin’s 
conclusions  on  the  plants  he  names,  and  also  on  Chrysanthemums  ;  yet 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  cross-fertilisation  as  the  direct  cause  of 
“  sports  ”  is  not  strong  enough  to  place  the  matter  beyond  doubt. 
No  one  acquainted  with  Darwin’s  methods  and  his  unbiassed  judg¬ 
ment  can  doubt  his  conclusions.  After  an  exhaustive  summary  of  an 
immense  array  of  facts  bearing  in  diverse  ways  on  the  question,  he 
writes  : — “  Hence  we  may  suspect  that  the  strong  tendency  in  the  Chrys¬ 
anthemum  to  produce  by  bud  variations  differently  coloured  flowers 
results  from  the  varieties  formerly  having  being  intentionally  or 
accidentally  crossed,  and  that  their  descendants  at  the  present  day  still 
occasionally  revert  by  buds  to  the  colours  of  the  more  persistent  parent 
varieties.”  This  being  one  example  of  a  series  in  support  of  that  view 
of  the  case,  against  that  view  let  us  take  the  following  excerpt  : — 
“  But  if  we  turn  to  the  other  end  of  the  series — namely,  to  such  cases 
as  that  of  a  Teach  tree,  which  after  having  been  cultivated  by  tens  of 
thousauds  during  many  years  in  many  countries,  and  after  having 
annually  produced  thousands  of  buds,  all  of  which  have  apparently 
been  exposed  to  precisely  the  same  conditions,  yet  at  last  suddenly 
produces  a  single  bud  with  its  whole  character  greatly  transformed  (as 
in  the  production  of  the  Nectarine)  we  are  driven  to  the  opposite 
