December  25,  1902.  JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
The  Chrysanthemum  Audit. 
Mr.  Molyneux  very  justly  remarks  that  it  will  be  difficult 
indeed  for  any  person  to  cavil  at  the  selection  of  varieties  in  his 
analysis  given  in  the  Journal  last  week.  I  have  compared  this 
audit  with  that  of  1898,  only  four  seasons  since,  but  oh  !  what  a 
difference !  That  audit  seems  now  to  be  ancient  history.  It 
is  very  interesting  to  note  the  “  ups  and  downs”  of  some  varieties, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  persistency  with  which  others  keep 
their  good  positions.  Australie  is  one  of  the  latter,  and  yet  it 
has  little  to  recommend  it  besides  its  size  and  easy  culture.  The 
tall  habit  of  the  plant  goes  very  little  against  its  popularity.  It 
is  very  remarkable  to  note  what  a  large  number  of  newcomers 
are  admitted  to  the  fifty,  most  of  which  had  poor  positions  as 
outsiders  in  the  last  audit.  Bessie  Godfrey,  the  top  in  the  list 
of  last  season’s  novelties,  has  now  24  votes  (out  of  a  possible  27) ; 
Madame  Paola  Radaelli,  23;  and  Ethel  Fitzroy,  22;  all  of  which 
only  received  4  votes  last  season.  Duchess  of  Sutherland  has 
22,  against  2  of  last  year;  and  Mrs.  T.  W.  Pockett  the  same 
number  of  votes,  against  1  last  year.  General  Hutton,  20,  against 
2 ;  Sensation  receives  21,  against  3 ;  whilst  George  Lawrence, 
Godfrey’s  Pride,  and  Mrs.  H.  Emmerton,  each  not  mentioned  in 
the  last  audit,  now  receive  14  votes  apiece.  Mafeking  Hero, 
another  not  mentioned  in  the  last,  has  now  21,  but  it  was  intro¬ 
duced  the  preceding  season,  so  can  hardly  be  classed  as  a 
novelty. 
Twenty-one  electors  vote  for  Miss  Elsie  Fulton,  against  4  in  the 
last ;  and  6  vote  for  Princess  Alice  de  Monaco,  against  2  in  the 
preceding  audit.  The  first  named  was  supposed  to  have  been 
raised  by  the  Maidenhead  firm,  and  purchased  by  the  Ryecroft 
firm,  and  sent  out  two  seasons  ago.  The  last  named 
is  from  Mons.  Nonin,  and  was  sent  out  about  two 
years  previously.  The  newest  arrival  has  by  far  the 
best  position  of  the  two,  yet  it  would  be  an  interest¬ 
ing  topic  if  the  voters  would  inform  the  Journal 
readers  where  the  two  differ.  Personally,  I  believe 
that  there  is  no  difference,  and  the  older  variety  has 
been  rechristened.  Some  of  last  season’s  novelties 
cut  a  very  poor  figure  indeed,  but  the  season  may  be 
responsible  for  this. 
I  do  not  care  to  say  much  about  my  own  varieties, 
but  I  am  certain  that  Exmouth  Crimson  will  prove 
much  better  than  its  present  position  gives  it.  Mrs. 
E.  Hummel,  with  9  votes,  against  0  in  the  previous 
audit,  will  “  go  up  ”  considerably  next  year,  or  I  am 
mistaken.  It  is  infinitely  superior  to  Mr.  J.  Bryant, 
being  very  much  larger  and  deeper,  although  some¬ 
what  of  the  same  colour.  Nellie  Bean  will  also  rise, 
and  Miss  Lucy  Evans  should  also  obtain  a  better 
position.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  F.  S.  Yallis 
receives  19  votes,  and  yet  when  I  placed  three  mag¬ 
nificent  blooms  before  the  Floral  Committee  of  the 
N.C.S.  it  was  passed,  as  being  too  much  like  G.  J. 
Warren.  The  voters  seemed  to  have  formed  a  better 
opinion  of  it  than  the  members  of  the  committee, 
and  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  have  seen  the  variety 
in  such  fine  form  as  were  the  blooms  mentioned. 
I  consider  the  weakness  of  the  audit  is  that  the 
votes  are  recorded  not  in  accordance  with  the  per¬ 
sonal  experience  of  the  voters  gained  by  growing 
the  varieties  voted  for,  but  rather  from  the  blooms 
they  have  seen.  For  example,  it  is  probable  that 
none  of  the  electors  have  grown  either  F.  S.  Vallis 
or  Madame  Waldeck-Rousseau,  for  the  stocks  of  both 
of  these  varieties  have  practically  been  confined  to 
the  trade.  It  then  resolves  itself  in  some  measure, 
and  especially  with  the  new  varieties,  as  to  what 
facilities  an  elector  has  had  for  seeing  blooms.  Now, 
as  another  example  of  the  argument,  had  the  twenty- 
seven  electors  seen  the  fine  flowers  as  staged  by 
Mr.  T.  Lunt  at  the  Edinburgh  Show,  Princess  B.  de 
Brancovan  would  have  received  three  times  the  num¬ 
ber  of  votes  (8)  which  are  now  recorded  for  it.  Again, 
Miss  Elsie  Fulton,  or  Princess  Alice  de  Monaco, 
wrnuld  have  the  premier  position  for  the  best  white 
variety  had  all  seen  it  in  the  form  in  which  it  has 
been  staged.  Still,  Mr.  Molyneux  remarks:  “A 
selection  of  varieties  under  the  method  adopted 
appears  to  better  illustrate  the  opinions  of  those 
best  calculated  to  'judge  as  to  the  selection  of  a 
collection  as  compared  to  the  making  up  of  a  list  of  those 
varieties  exhibited  at  any  prominent  show  like  that  of  the  N.C.S. 
or  Edinburgh.”  Yet  it  was  mainly  at  these  two  shows  that  F.  S. 
Yallis  and  Madame  Waldeck-Rousseau  got  into  favour.  Can¬ 
didly,  I  am  not  so  much  gone  on  the  last  named  variety  as  are 
some.  It  has  size,  and  that  is  its  chief  recommendation;  the 
colour  is  a  bit  dull,  and  with  an  ordinary  season  may  be  more  so. 
Still,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  by  up-to-date  growers. 
The  more  the  audit  is  examined  the  more  interesting  it  be¬ 
comes.  It  shows  the  varied  opinion  of  what  is  certainly  the  best 
combination  of  leading  growers  and  most  prominent  exhibitors 
in  the  kingdom.  Let  us  take  a  few  of  the  most  popular  varieties, 
to-  wit,  Mrs.  Barkley,  Madame  Carnot,  Edwin  Molyneux,  and 
Lord  Ludlow — four  typical  varieties — and  yet  there  are  some 
among  the  electors  who  would  not  place  them  among  “  the  best 
fifty,”  which  means  that  they  know  fifty  varieties  which  are 
superior.  Now  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  at  some  time  or 
other  these  varieties  have  been  seen  by  the  electors  in  remark¬ 
ably  good  form,  and,  judging  by  these  flowers  alone,  the 
electors  would  have  placed  them  among  “  the  best  fifty.”  Having 
grown  them,  they  are  not  to  be  biassed  in  their  opinion  because 
some  do  grow  them  to  perfection.  Lily  Mountford  only  gets 
16  votes  out  of  a  possible  27,  which  is  rather  disappointing  to 
many  growers,  whilst  Mrs.  H.  Emmerton  has  14,  and,  I  believe, 
time  will  prove  that  this  variety  is  placed  too  high  ;  also  that 
Madame  Herrewege  will  prove  a  better  variety  than  Nellie 
Pockett.  This  last  and  Madame  Gustave  Henri  should  receive 
little  encouragement,  for  the  white  is  not  clear  enough 
generally.  After  having  tried  it  for  two  seasons,  I  would  recom¬ 
mend  growers  to  try  Madame  (not  “Mrs.”)  Mageimaekers.  It 
is  of  the  build  of  Madame  Herrewege,  and  is  full  of  promise. 
In  the  last  audit  I  wrote  as  follows:  “  There  are  many  which 
are  now  out  of  the  “  fifty,”  but  are  “mentioned,”  which  will  find 
a  place  in  it  next  year;  whilst  many,  including  Mutual  Friend, 
Lady  Ridgway,  Madame  Gustave  Henri,  Henry  Weeks,  Pride  of 
Madford,  Madame  P.  Rivoire,  Mrs.  Palmer,  and  perhaps  the 
Viviand  Morel  family,  will  be  superseded.”  In  the  present 
audit,  with  the  exception  of  Madame  G.  Henri,  all  are  outsiders. 
In  the  incurved  section  I  note  that  Countess  of  Warwick  and 
Mrs.  W.  C.  Egan  are  again  mentioned  as  distinct  varieties,  when 
CHRYSANTHEMUM  MRS.  D.  V.  WEST.  (See  page  58^ 
