32  JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE 
The  Chrysanthemum  Analysis. 
May  I  have  space  for  iiiy  annual  observations?  The 
Analysis  iiroves  many  things,  and  yet  is  not  conclusive.  Still, 
on  the  wliole,  it  is  interesting.  The  result  shows  that  even 
some  of  our  prominent  growers  do  not  agree  as  to  the  merits  of 
what  are  the  best  dozen  varieties.  As  with  iirevious  audits,  so 
with  this;.  I  would  point  out  ceidain  varieties  which  several  of 
these  growers  do  not  consider  worth  a  place  among  the  best 
fifty  Japs.  Soane  of  the  omissions  may  be  accidental.  If  not, 
it  means  that  there  are  some  growers  who  do  not  understand  the 
culture  of  our  very  best  varieties,  or  are  so  far  behind  the  times 
that  tlicir  collections  do  not  yet  contain  them,  or  perhaps  they 
have  not  even  noted  them  at  some  show. 
The  variety  at  the  top  of  the  Analysis  was  voted  for  by  all. 
It  could  not  very  well  be  otherwise ;  but  with  so  much  good 
material  to  work  on,  at  least  a  dozen  others  sho-uld  be  in  the' 
.samo  position;  that  is,  they  should  have  received  the  full 
possible  number  of  votes.  Can  it  be  believed  that  any  up-to- 
date  grower  considers  that  there  are  fifty  better  varieties  than 
the  following,  to  say  nothing  of  others :  Mrs.  Bai'kley,  Mrs. 
Geo.  Mileham,  Madame  P.  Radaelli,  Miss  Elsie  Fulton,  Bessie 
Godfrey,  Madame  Herrewege,  and  Ethel  Fitzroy?  All  are  of 
easy  culture,  have  good  ^  con.stitutions,  combined  with  good 
colour,  form,  and  size;  in  fact,  many  more  growers  succeed 
generallj'  evith  these  than  they  do  with  the  variety  which  tops 
the  lot.  It  would  be  of  very  great  interest  to  learn  why  these 
varieties  were  omitted  by  some  voters.  It  is  .safe  to  predict 
that  these  will  be  standard  varieties  for  several  years  to  come, 
aind  may  be  really  included  in  the  best  twelve. 
The  position  of  F.  S.  Vallis  is  remarkable,  considering  that 
it  was  only  .shown  by  two  growers  last  season,  and  that  the 
National  Chrysanthemum  Society  only  last  season  objected  to 
recognise  its  merits  by  awarding  it  a  F.C.C.,  the  same  society 
having  more  than  once  ignored  Mafeking  Hero,  which  also 
obtains  a  high  position.  It  is  curious  to  note  that  this  variety 
(Mafeking  Hero)  and  Sensation  are  ahead  of  Bessie  Godfrey, 
which  most  gi’owers  will  admit  .should  not  be  .so  ;  but  the  last- 
named  receives  eleven  votes  as  one  of  the  best  twelve  new 
varieties,  wliereas  Sensation  is  not  mentioned  in  this  class,  yet 
both  belong  to  the  same  set.  It  looks  as  if  some  voters  con¬ 
sidered  Bessie  Godfrey  as  a  novelty,  and  did  not  put  it  among 
the  fifty;  whilst  others  considered  it  could  not  be  cla.ssed  as  a 
novelty,  altlmugh  it  was  really  a  1902  introduction. 
Guy  Hamilton,  Mrs.  E.  Hummel,  Loveliness,  Princess  de 
Brancova  should  have  received  more  votes,  for  they  will  be  with 
us  for  some  time  to.  come.  Edwin  IMolyneu-x,  which  has  hitherto 
been  placed  almost  at  the  top,  is  now  nearly  at  the  bottom, 
and  only  retains  a  “  place  ”  by  two  votes.  Still,  there  is  nothing 
to  equal  it  when  it  comes  good,  but  mo'.st  growers  find  it  unre¬ 
liable  generally.  I  am  .surprised  at  that  hideous  variety, 
Madame  Waldeck-Rousseau,  being  placed  among  the  be.st  fifty. 
It  has  been  seen  once  or  twice  in  fair  form  and  of  large  size, 
hut  the  colour  was  that  of  the  bottom  of  an  old  boot.  It  is  of 
weak  growth  and  difficult  to  “  do,”  perhaps  even  more  so  than 
the  preceding  variety. 
Four  years  ago  I  stated  that  Marejuiso  V.  Venosta  should 
have  been  placed  higher.  It  has  gone  up,  but  in  face  of  more 
recent  arrivals  should  now  be  di.scarded.  The  past  sea.son  has 
suited  it,  but  it  has  only  size  to  recommend  it.  Mrs.  H.  Emmer- 
ton  .shoidd  not  find  a  jalace  among  the  best  fifty,  and  Geo. 
Lawrence  will  probably  receive  a  fall  after  a  season  pf  normal 
conditions.  Mine.  Naegelmackers  is  already  among  the  fifty, 
and  it  will  go  higher  yet.  It  was  seen  in  excellent  form  at  the 
Cb’y.stal  Palace  Show,  being  in  the  first  prize  exhibit  in  the  Vase 
class.  The  Floral  Committee  did  not,  however,  consider  it 
worthy  of  a  F.C.C.  Still,  it  will  be  interesting  to  note  whether 
the  decision  was  justifiable.  Much  more  could  be  said,  but 
space  will  not  permit. 
The  class  for  twelve  varieties  of  1902  and  1903  is  not  definite 
enough,  ife.ssie  Godfrey,  which  was  sent  out  during  the  spring 
of  1902,  is  the  only  variety  of  that  year  which  is  mentioned  at 
all  in  this  audit.  The  voting  produces  a  ridiculous  result.  Miss 
Mildred  Ware  hei'c  receives  twenty-seven  votes,  although  the 
number  of  votes  are  much  less  than  in  the  fifty  class,  when  the 
same  variety,  with  forty  voters,  only  gets  seventeen  votes.  Let 
AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
January  14,  19C4. 
us  put  their  po.sition  side  by  side,  and  note  how  absurd  it  works 
out :  * 
By  4:0  Vota-3. 
By  Less 
1S02  Varieties. 
Best  50. 
12  Ni 
Mrs.  Geo.  iMilobam  ... 
.  38  ... 
...  0 
Sensatio'u 
.  36  ... 
...  0 
Bessie  Godfrey . 
...  .  ...  35  ... 
...  11 
Ethel  Fitzroy . 
.  3!  ... 
...  0 
and  several  others  of  this  year. 
1903  Varietie.-^. 
% 
F.  S.  Vallis  . . 
.  37  ... 
...  19 
Mrs.  F.  W.  Valli.s 
.  18  ... 
...  24 
Miss  Mildred  Ware 
.  17  ... 
...  27 
Henry  Perkins . 
. .  16  ... 
...  22 
W.  Duckham  . 
...  fO  ... 
...  10 
Miss  Olive  Miller 
.  10  ... 
...  16 
Geo.  Penford  . 
.  9  ... 
...  19 
Mary  Inglis  ...  ■  ... 
.  8  ... 
...  5 
Lady  Mary  Conyers  ... 
.  7  ... 
...  14 
Lord  Hopetoun  ... 
.  8  ... 
...  8 
Alfriston . 
.  2  ... 
...  8 
Goo.  INIiloham . 
.  6  ... 
...  10 
S.  T.  Wright  ...  •  ... 
...^  ...  6  ... 
...  0 
Donald  McLeod . 
.  5  ... 
...  7 
Mrs.  A.  K.  Knight 
...  •  ...  7  ... 
...  0 
When  I  toucli  on  the  novelties  for  the  coming  season  I  am 
on  dangerous  ground,  and  for  obvious  reasons  can  say  but  little; 
but  I  would  ^k  whether  it  is  not  a  mistake  to  have  these  in¬ 
cluded.  How  many  of  the  forty  growers  can  have  seen  the 
novelties,  and  are  in  a  position  to  make  a  comparison?  Very, 
very  few  indeed!  It  must  to  a  great  extent  be  “hearsay” 
knowledge  only.  Five  varieties  are  mentioned,  with  Lady 
Cranston  heading  the  list,  and,  of  course,  this  position  will  not 
be  disputed  ;  but  the  po,sition  of  Beauty  of  Leigh  is  surprising 
indeed.  Tastes  differ,  but  I  have  seen  it  throughout  the 
season,  both  early  and  late,  and  it  had  every  good  quality,  size, 
form,  fulness,  and  richness  of  colour.  Quite  true,  it  has  not 
been  seen  in  picture  form  so  often  in  the  various  papers,  but  it 
was  seen  in  excellent  style  at  the  Ci'ystal  Palace.  Mayhap 
few  only  of  the  fifty  voters  attended  this  show.  Lady  Cranston, 
great  beauty  as  it  is,  has  not  yet  been  illustrated  in  the  horti¬ 
cultural  papers. 
But  let  us  examine  the  1903  varieties.  .  Here  we  have,  out  of 
forty  votes,  only  seventeen  who  consider  Miss  Mildred  Ware 
should  be  included  in  the  be.st  fifty,  whilst  a  considerably  less 
number  partaking  in  the  election  gave  it  twenty-seven^  as  the 
best  new  variety.  Seventeen  only  vote  for  Mrs.  F.  S.  Vallis  in 
the  first-named  chuss,  and  twenty-seven  in  the  second.  ^On  the 
other  hand,  thirty-seven  votes  are  recorded  for  F.  S.  Vallis  as 
one  of  tlie  best  50,  and  yet  only  nineteen  as  a  new  variety. 
Lord  Hopetoun  is  not  mention^  in  the  fifty  llsL  and  yet 
obtaiirs  eight  votes  as  a  new  variety  ;  whilst  S.  T.  Wright  gets 
eight  in  this  class,  and  is  not  mentioned  among  the  best  fifty. 
I  would  express  the  opinion  that  Mrs.  F.  W.  Vallis,  S.  T. 
Wright,  F.  S.  Vallis,  Miss  Olivo  Miller,  Geo'.  Penford,  W.  Duck- 
ham,  Alfriston,  and  possibly  others,  should  have  been  placed 
above  Miss  M.  Ware.  This  variety  was  well  boomed,  but  is  con¬ 
sidered  by  many  to  bo  too  soft,  and  the  colour,  pretty  as  it 
undoubtedly  is,  soon  fades  and  becomes  insipid.  Lady  Mary 
Conyers  in  one  place,  and  “  Lady  Couzens  ”  in  another,  is  pro¬ 
bably  intended  for  one  and  the  same  variety. — W.  J.  Godfrey. 
i  for  Garden  Beds. 
We  trust  that  even  such  humble  flowers  as  these  uiay  bo 
thought  to  be  sufficiently  beautiful  to  merit  a  .special  notice  in 
the  Journal,  for  they,  like  the  gorgeous  and  charming  Tom 
Thumb  Tropseolums  (Nasturtiums),  are  apt  to  be  put  to  one 
side,  in  out  of  the  way  places,  in  the  higher  class  gardens.  We 
think  this  is  a  fault  to  be  guarded  against,  for  a  bed  of  selected 
Mimuli  such  as  Dobhie  and  Co.  posse.ss,  is  as  beautiful  and 
almost  as  interesting  as  an  Auricula  bed  in  spring. 
Of  the  Monkey  Flowers  thei'e  are  forty  species,  and  they 
vary  considerably.  M.  cardinalis*  furnishes  a  very  bright 
flowering  plant  for  summer  beds  and  borders,  or  for  pot  culture, 
to  flower  in  springtime  in  greenhouses.  M.  moschatus  is  the 
well-known,  fragrant  Musk  of  our  cool  houses,  and  is  used  for 
carpeting  sub-tropical  beds.  The  M.  luteus  varieties  delight  in 
a  moist,  cool,  humid  soil,  and  seeds  should  be  sown  on  the 
surface,  and  not  covered,  unless  within  the  finest  dusting  of 
sifted  soil. 
