234 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
September  10,  1903. 
a  body,  utterly  disagreed  -with  it,  scouted  it,  in  fact  as  unwork¬ 
able  ;  aud  so  far  have  merely  acted  as  critics,  without  having 
suggested  or,  as  a  learned  and  corporate  body  of  experts,  pro¬ 
duced  anything  better  or  more  practical  themselves.  Neither 
Mr.  P.  E.  Barr  nor  myself  desired  their  adoption  of  our  plan  ; 
we  were,  and  still  are,  open  to  any  new  light  on  an  intricate  and 
complicated  question. 
At  the  exhibition  of  the  Midland  Daffodil  Society,  held  at 
Birmingham  two  days  later,  April  16,  the  subject  was  again 
opened  by  Mr.  Barr  and  myself  at  the  dinner,  on  the  eve  of  a 
long  and  busy  day,  when  the  classification  here  reprinted,  with 
one  or  two  alterations  since  made,  was  read  by  Mr.  Barr,  who, 
on  concluding,  said  that  the  question  was  still  in  an  evolu¬ 
tionary  stage,  but  that  he  hoped  before  another  season  it  might 
be  brought  nearer  to  some  practical  solution.  It  ought  to  be 
stated  here,  that  before  the  subjoined  skeleton  plan  of  classify¬ 
ing  Garden  Narcissus  had  been  read  by  Mr.  Barr,  Professor 
W.  Hillhouse  read  a  proposed  system  of  his  own,  which  con¬ 
tained  many  excellent  points,  but  as  it  was  really  de  novo,  and 
ignored  even  the  backbone  of  the  system  in  use  since  1869,  to 
which  growers,  exhibitors,  and  others  have  become  accustomed, 
it  was  felt  that  it  could  never  be  adopted  in  its  entirety, 
although  containing  many  excellent  suggestions  for  a  remodelling 
of  an  elastic  and  workable  scheme.  Professor  Hillhouse’s 
suggested  system  is  published  in  this  number,  so  that  all 
interested  may  realise  its  importance  for  themselves. 
It  now  followed  that  the  speakers  at  Birmingham  were  really 
criticising  two  schemes  or  proposals  instead  of  one,  aud,  as 
usual  under  such  circumstances  and  late  at  night  after  a  good 
dinner,  neither  of  the  suggestions  had  justice  done  to  them.  In 
a  word,  I  may  paraphrase  an  old  saying,  “The  way  of  those 
who  propose  the  classification  of  the  Narcissus  is  hard.’’ 
Mr.  Engleheart  said  that  all  they  could  hope  for  was  to 
pledge  the  producers  of  both  schemes  not  to  rush  them  through 
until  they  had  a  more  favourable  opportunity  of  discussing 
them.  He,  with  more  time  to  do  so,  felt  that  he  should  criticise 
both  proposals,  and  he  thought  that  they  would  have  to  mix  up 
both,  and  run  them  into  a  much  more  simple  form,  before  they 
would  be  of  much  practical  use. 
The  Eev.  S.  E.  Bourne  followed,  and  said  that  there  must 
certainly  be  some  alteration  in  the  old  classification,  but  that 
care  rnust  be  exercised  lest  they  made  confusion  still  worse 
■  than  before.  Mr.  Bourne  pointed  out  that  Daffodils  were  now 
being  grown  in  America,  Australia,  aud  New  Zealand,  and  that 
it  would  not  do  for  them  to  adopt  a  totally  new  system  when  all 
growers  had  become  so  used  to  the  old  one.  He  considered 
that  a  practical  system  was  possible  and  workable,  and  that 
apparent  difficulties  must  be  boldly  faced  and  overcome,  and  he 
considered  that  what  Mr.  Barr  had  proposed  would  form  the 
foundation  of  a  good  and  workable  scheme.  Mr.  Engleheart 
observed  that  a  working  scheme  or  system  was  not  impossible, 
but  that,  so,  far,  the  present  schemes  were,  he  thought, 
unworkable. 
Probationary  Classification  of  Garden  Narcissi,  as  Suggested 
BY  Mr.  P.  R.  Barr  and  Mr.  F.  W.  Burbidge  at  the  Bir¬ 
mingham  Daffodil  Exhibition  and  Meeting,  1903. 
N.B. — Species  are  printed  in  small  heavy  type,  hybrid  and 
garden  varieties  are  shown  in  smaller  type. 
All  doubts  and  disputes  to  be  settled  by  actual  measurement. 
Group  I.  MAGNI  CORONATI,  TRUMPET  DAPPODILS. 
JHstinguisMng  character : — Tube  of  flower  as  broad  as  it  is  long 
(except  in  the  ease  of  Johnstoni),  and  the  crown  or  trumpet 
more  than  three-quarters  as  long  or  longer  than  the  perianth 
segments, 
A.  Ajax  or  True  Tri^mpet  Daffodils.  —  (Ajax  of  Salisbury 
Haworth  and  Herbert;  Pseudo-Narcissi,  of  Parkinson).  ’ 
(1)  Yellow  Selfs.  Example — N.  Maximus^ 
(2)  Bicolors,  with  white  perianth  and  yellow  or  primrose 
trumpet.  Example — N.  Horsfieldii. 
(3)  Silvery  white  and  sulphur-white  Selfs.  Example— lls 
Cernuus. 
(4)  Doubles.  Example — Telamonius  Plenus, 
B.  Johnstoni  (hybrids  of  Ajax  x  Triandrus) ;  tube  of  flower  much 
longer  than  it  is  wide.  Example— N.  Queen  of  Spain. 
C.  BACKHorsEi  (hybrids  of  Ajax  x  Tazetta,  the  seed  parent  being 
yellow  or  Bicolor  Ajax).  Example — N.  William  Wilks. 
D.  TrIdymus  (hybrids  of  Ajax  x  Tazetta,  the  latter  being  the  seed 
'  bedring  parent).  Example— S.  A.  De  Graaff. 
E.  Humei.  Example— Is .  Hume’s  Giant. 
F.  Corbularia  (syn.  Bulbocodium),  the  Hoop  Petticoat  or  Medusa’s 
Trumpet  Daffodils,  Self  yellow,  citron  or  white.  Example — 
N.  Corbularia  Conspicua. 
G.  Cyclamineus,  a  species  with  abruptly  reflexed  perianth  and 
remarkably  shortened  tube. 
Group  II.  MEDIO  CORONATI,  CHALICE  CUPS  or  STAR 
NARCISSI.  Mostly  hybrids,  but  including  the  two 
species  Triandrus  and  Juucifolius. 
A.  Incomparabilis  (Ajax  x  Poeticus). 
Distinguishing  character: — Depth  of  cup)  more  than  one-third  to 
three-quarters  the  length  of  the  perianth  segments. 
Example— Its.  Cynosure.  ,  ‘ 
B.  Barrii. 
Distinguishing  character: — Depth  of  cup>  one-quarter  to  one-thircl 
the  length  of  perianth  segments. 
Examjyle — N.  Barrii  Conspieuus. 
C.  Leedsii,  comprising  the  white  and  sulphur  cupped  Incompara¬ 
bilis  and  Barrii  forms  with  piure  white  segments.  Exa/mple— 
N.  Minnie  Hume.  > 
D.  Engleheartii,  comprising  the  varieties  with  flattened  disc-like 
crowns,  which  by  measurement  come  under  Group  II. 
Examples— S .  Egret,  N.  Astrardente,  &c. 
E.  Macleai  and  Nelsoni  (hybrids  of  Ajax  x  Tazetta  or  Ajax 
Bicolor  x  Poeticus). 
F.  Bernardi  (hybrids  of  Abscissus  and  Variiformis  x  Poeticus  and 
intermediate  between  N.  Incomparabilis  and  N.  Nelsoni). 
G.  Odorus  (hybrids  of  Ajax  x  Jonquilla).  Example — K.  Gdorus 
Rugulosus. 
H.  Triandrus,  a  species  with  abruptly  refiexed  perianth.  Example — 
N.  Triandrus  Albus  (Angel’s  Tears). 
I.  Juucifolius,  a  rush-leaved  species  with  widenefi^Eown. 
Group  IIJ.  PARVI  CORONATI.  Short  and  small-crowned  Nar¬ 
cissi. 
Distinguishing  character: — Depth  of  cupr  less  than  one  quarter 
the  length  of  perianth  segments. 
.4.  Poeticus  or  True  Poet’s  Daffodils.  Example—'^.  Poeticus 
Ornatus.  ’  'v-  ' 
B.  Burbidgei,  hybrids  of  N.  Incomparabilis,  Barrif,  and  Leedsii 
X  N.  Poeticus.  Examples — N.  John  Bain  and  Falstaff. 
C.  Tazetta,  bunch  or  cluster-flowered  Self  yellows,  bicolors,  whites, 
and  doubles  ;  also  N.  Schizanthes  orientalis. 
D.  Hybrids,  Tenuior,  Gracilis,  Intermedius,  Biflorus. 
E.  Species — Dubius,  Serotinus,  Elegans,  Viridi,florus,  Pachy- 
bolbos,  Canariensis,  Broussonetti,  &c. 
F.  Jonquilla  (a  species),  rush-leaved,  golden-flowered,  very  fragrant . 
As  I  have  already  said,  there  are  two  distinct  new  sections, 
viz.,  Johnstonei  and  Engleheartii,  to  be  provided  for,  and  this 
has  been  done  by  Mr.  P.  R.  Barr  and  myself  in  our  scheme, 
which  retains  all  the  old  divisions  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Baker,  in 
1869,  and  Mr.  Peter  Barr,  in  1884,  after  the  first  Na-rcissus 
Conference  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Societyi  Our  plan  is  ' 
also  elastic,  and  may  be  made  to  include  new  sections  when 
modern  raisers  of  seedling  Narcissus  succeed  in  creating  them. 
By  publishing  the  two  plans  (as  proposed  at  Birmingham)  in  the 
Journal  of  Horticulture  an  opportunity,  will  be  afforded  to  _a 
wide  circle  of  Daffodil  specialists,  ^ang^, breeders  to  note  their 
objections;  but  it  is  desirable  that  in  criticising  our  scheme 
something  better  should  be  proposed  dn  place  of  whatever  may - 
be  objected  to,  and  in  this  way  something  really  workable  and 
trustworthy  will  be  gained  worthy  of  general  approval. 
As  Professor  Hillhouse  pertinently  observed  at  Birmingharn, 
a  natural  or  genealogical  classification  for  garden  seedlings  is 
impossible,  “hence  classification  must  be  essentially  artificial, 
and  determined  by  convenience  and  elasticity.”  Mr.  Barr  and 
myself  had  already  and  quite  independently  arrived  at  the  same 
conclusion,  hence  the  suggestion  that  actual  measurements 
should  be  relied  upon  in  all  cases  of  doubt  or  indecision  at. 
public  exhibitions  of  these  flowers. 
I  am  deeply  indebted  to  the  very  excellent  fifth  annual 
report  of  the  Midland  Daffodil  Society  for  its  careful  reprint 
of  the  proceedings  as  to  classification  and  the  discussion  at 
Birmingham  in  April,  1903.—' F.  W.  Burbidge,  M. A.,  V.M.H. 
For  the  accompanying  illustrations  our  thanks  are  due  to 
Messrs.  Barr  &  Sons,  London. 
Professor  Hillhouse’s  Provisional  Scheme  for  Classifying 
Garden  Narcissi.  Proposed  and  Read  at  Birmingham 
Midland  Daffodil  Society’s  Show,  April  16th,  1903. 
Professor  Hillhouse  introduced  a  paper  for  discussion  on  the 
classification  of  the  genus  Narcissus  for  horticultural  purposes. 
In  the  course  of  a  very  learned  and  technical  paper,  he  dealt 
with  the  general  character  of  the  genus,  its  habitat  and  geo¬ 
graphical  range,  and  referring  particularly  to  it  as  a  polymorphic 
genus,  with  very  numerous  natural  hybrids,  and  like  i^osa,, 
Rubus,  and  other  genera,  not  yet.settled  down  by  evolution,  i.e.,, 
is  probably  in  a  developmental  state.  Hence  classification  must 
be  essentially  artificial,  and  determined  by  convenience  and 
elasticity.  There  were,  he  said,  two  fundamental  types  of 
flower,  (a)  the  large  corona,  six  stamens  of  equal  length,  arising 
from  near  the  base  of  the  tube;  and  (b)  the  small  corona,  six 
