March  5,  1896. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
213 
votes  for  Thirty-six  Incurved  Varieties  ( continued )— 
88  Mrs.  Htale 
85  Brookleigh  Gem 
84  Lord  Wolseley 
84  Prince  Alfred 
79  Alfred  Salter 
78  Lucy  Kendall 
77  John  Doughty 
76  John  Lambert 
76  Mrs.  Robinson  King 
75  Globe  d’Or 
74  Hero  of  Stoke  Newington 
70  Mons.  R.  Bahuant 
68  Princess  of  Teck 
68  Lord  Rosebery 
63  C.  B.  Whitaall 
63  Lady  Dorothy 
54  Mrs.  John  Gardiner 
52  Mrs.  R.  C.  Kingston 
51  John  Salter 
49  William  Tunnington 
47  Mrs.  Norman  Davis 
44  Major  Bonnaffon 
43  Refulgens 
41  Nil  Desperandum 
38  M.  P.  Martignac 
35  Empress  Eugenie 
35  Lady  Hardinge 
30  Mrs.  W.  Shipman 
29  Charles  Gibson 
28  D.  B.  Crane 
27  Robert  Cannell 
26  Alfred  Lyne 
25  Madame  F.  Mistial 
22  John  Fulford 
21  Novelty 
19  Owen’s  Crimson 
18  Barbara 
16  Ami  Hoste 
15  Jardin  des  Plantes 
15  Mr.  Bunn 
14  Princess  Beatrice 
11  Mrs.  Mitchell 
11  Mr.  J.  Kearn 
9  Lord  Eversley 
8  Golden  Queen  of  England 
8  Beauty 
8  Mr.  James  Murray 
7  Emily  Dale 
6  George  Haigh 
6  Flora  Macdonald 
5  Prince  of  Wales 
5  Bonnie  Dundee 
5  George  Cockburn 
4  Noel  E’ragnell 
4  May  Tomlin 
4  Harold  Wells 
4  Richard  Parker 
4  Mrs.  L.  C.  Madeira 
3  Camille  Flammarion 
3  Cherub 
3  W.  Carpenter 
3  Mrs.  G.  Rundle 
3  Sir  Titus 
3  Beverley 
2  Marquise  de  Paris 
2  Comtesse  de  Forbin 
2  Golden  George  Glenny 
2  Isabella  Bott 
2  Mr.  Brunlees 
2  Mr.  Co  bay 
2  Mabel  Simpkins 
1  Director  Kowallack 
1  Miss  Bella  Wilson 
1  Percy  Surman 
1  Lemaille 
1  Bronze  Jardin  des  Plantes 
1  Mrs.  J.  Eyerman 
1  Rivelyn 
1  Duchess  of  Fife 
1  Mr.  Geo.  Glenny 
1  Mrs.  F.  W.  Flight 
1  Mrs.  W.  Peto 
1  Mrs.  Clibran 
1  Abbott’s  White 
1  Nonpareil 
1  H.  Shoesmith 
1  White  Venus 
1  Miss  M.  Morgan 
1  White  Beverley 
1  Aristine  Anderson 
1  Golden  Beverley 
1  Lord  Derby 
1  Mabel  Ward 
107  varieties 
Votes  for  Twenty-four  Incurved  Varieties. 
99  Lord  Alcester 
99  Empress  of  India 
95  Queen  of  England 
94  Charles  H.  Curtis 
93  Jeanne  d’Arc 
91  Princess  of  Wales 
90  Golden  Empress  of  India 
90  Miss  M.  A.  Haggas 
89  Baron  Hirsch 
86  James  Agate 
83  Mrs.  S.  Coleman 
82  Miss  Violet  Tomlin 
75  Robert  Petfield 
74  John  Lambert 
66  Madame  Darier 
64  Lucy  Kendall 
63  Alfred  Salter 
62  Globe  d’Or 
59  Mrs.  Robinson  King 
59  Lord  Wolseley 
58  Mrs.  Heale 
56  John  Doughty 
50  Prince  Alfred 
48  Brookleigh  Gem 
40  Mrs.  R.  C.  Kingston 
39  Hero  of  Stoke  Newington 
36  Mons.  R.  Bahuant 
35  Princess  of  Teck 
33  Major  Bonnaffon 
32  Lord  Rosebery 
27  William  Tunnington 
23  C.  B.  Whitnall 
21  Lady  Dorothy 
18  Nil  Desperandum 
16  M.  P.  Martignac 
15  D.  B.  Crane 
14  John  Salter 
13  Mrs.  N.  Davis 
11  Lady  Hardinge 
10  John  Fulford 
10  Empress  Eugenie 
9  Mrs.  John  Gardiner 
8  Golden  Queen  of  England 
8  Refulgens 
7  Charles  Gibson 
7  Owen’s  Crimson 
6  Mrs.  W.  Shipman 
5  Emily  Dale 
5  Mr.  Bunn 
5  George  Haigh 
5  Princess  Beatrice 
5  Robert  Cannell 
4  Mr.  James  Murray 
4  Mrs.  J.  Mitchell 
4  Jardin  des  Plantes 
3  Alfred  Lyne 
3  Ami  Hoste 
3  Barbara 
3  Harold  Wells 
2  Prince  of  Wales 
2  Novelty 
2  Bonnie  Dundee 
2  Mr.  J.  Kearn 
2  Marquis  de  Paris 
2  Noel  Pragnell 
1  Mrs.  F.  W.  Flight 
1  Isabella  Bott 
1  W.  Carpenter 
1  Beauty 
1  Cherub 
1  Mabel  Simpkins 
1  Miss  Mary  Morgan 
1  Flora  Macdonald 
1  May  Tomlin 
1  Sir  Titus 
1  Madame  F.  Mistral 
1  George  Cockburn 
1  Camille  Flammarion 
1  Lord  Eversley 
79  varieties. 
The  Chrysanthemum  Analysis. 
I  should  like  to  offer  a  few  remarks  on  the  Chrysanthemum  election 
noted  in  your  pages  last  week,  one  thing  striking  me  as  being  curious — 
viz.,  the  inclusion  of  such  varieties  as  Calvat’s  Australian  Gold,  and 
Mephisto,  which  have  never  been  grown  in  this  country  ;  also  new 
varieties,  such  as  Edith  Tabor,  Emily  Silsbury,  W.  Slogrove,  and  others. 
I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  only  varieties  that  have  been  in 
commerce  twelve  months  be  included  in  this  election.  Of  course  the 
varieties  mentioned  above  do  not  come  within  this  category.  [The  list 
would  not  then  be  “  up  to  date.” — Ed.] 
So  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  leading  varieties,  I  consider  the 
selection  a  very  good  one.  There  are  certainly  one  or  two  varieties  that 
I  might  not  have  included  ia  the  first  fifty,  but  will  refrain  from  men¬ 
tioning  these  in  face  of  the  general  excellence  of  the  list. 
It  ought  to  be  a  matter  for  congratulation  amongst  British  growers 
and  raisers  that  the  British-raised  varieties  hold  the  premier  position  in 
the  first  fifty,  the  number  of  varieties  claiming  this  distinction 
numbering,  I  believe,  twenty,  being  closely  followed  by  the  Continentals 
(eighteen)  and  Americans  (eleven),  while  one  variety  (Hairy  Wonder)  is 
of  Japanese  origin. 
When  visiting  the  N.C.S.  exhibition  in  November  last  I  particularly 
admired  a  group  of  foliage  plants  and  Chrysanthemums  put  up  by  a 
firm  of  Chrysanthemum  specialists  near  London,  and  understand  that  a 
gold  medal  was  awarded  for  the  same  as  a  group.  Bearing  these  facts 
FIG.  31  —MR,  E.  MOLYNEUX. 
in  mind,  I  do  think  it  misleading  for  that  firm  to  advertise  their 
specialties  in  Chrysanthemems,  and  point  to  the  gold  medals  awarded  to 
the  firm  for  new  Chrysanthemums. 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Secretary  of  the  N.C.S.  if  a  gold  medal  has 
ever  been  awarded  to  purely  new  Chrysanthemums  ?  I  venture  to  think 
not,  and  do  not  see  any  excellence  from  the  raiser’s  point  of  view  in 
putting  up  a  group  of  Chrysanthemums  with  other  plants,  whether 
grown  by  the  exhibitor  or  not.  Other  firms  or  private  growers  in 
various  parts  of  the  country  might  probably  arrange  as  good  a  group  of 
plants  if  they  could  be  relieved  of  the  expense  of  transit  to  and  fro, 
which  is  a  considerable  item.— T.  V.  D. 
I  FEEL  sure  there  are  many  interested  in  the  Chrysanthemum  who 
are  like  myself  desirous  of  thanking  Mr.  Molyneux  for  hi3  painstaking 
effort  in  endeavouring  to  arrange  in  some  order  of  merit  the  maDy  scores 
of  Chrysanthemums  that  now  exist,  and  to  say  how  much  we  appreciate 
his  labours  and  those  of  his  helpers  in  trying  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory 
and  reliable  conclusion.  The  surest  means  of  obtaining  such  an  end  is 
only  naturally  in  so  broad  a  subject  open  to  question,  and  doubtless 
opinions  are  diverse  and  numerous  as  to  the  best  course  to  pursue. 
On  paper  Mr.  Molyneux’*  article  explanatory  of  the  audit  seems 
excellent,  and  as  he  says  on  page  155  of  your  Journal,  “  it  cannot  be 
said  that  the  arrangement  is  other  than  a  thoroughly  representative 
one.”  No  one  can  deny  that  statement  as  applying  to  Great  Britain, 
but  1  venture  to  think  that  the  arrangement  is  not  a  practical  one,  and 
only  a  very  rough  examination  of  the  list  seems  to  confirm  it. 
The  most,  prominent  inconsistency  is  that  pointed  out  by  your  corre¬ 
spondent  “  D.”  Qpage  189)  in  reference  to  Madame  Carnot,  and  what 
grower  having  seen  Mrs.  Weeks  and  Philadelphia  (10  votes  each) 
exhibited  would  consider  them  of  equal  merit,  and  omit  to  place  the 
former  in  the  first  fifty  if  novelties  are  to  be  included  under  that  heading 
