404 
JOURNAL  ON  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
October  29,  1903. 
oxhibitors  who  never  intended  to  fill  all.  In  such  gross  abuses 
as  these,  some  fine  should  be  imposed. 
'Ihe  method  of  denoting  the  winning  stand  varies  with  indi¬ 
viduals.  As  fast  as  the  awards  are  made  they  should  lie  denoted 
cn  the  exhibits,  and  by  the  time  all  are  adjudicated  the  visitors 
can  ascertain  which  are  the  winning  .stands.  Quite  the  best 
.system  is  that  of  giving  to  each  competitor  a  full-sized  prize  card 
for  every  exhibit  that  he  enters,  he  being  respoirsible  for  the 
proper  placing  of  each  card,  which  is  upside-down  in  front  of  the 
exhibit.  I'pon  the  card  is  written  the  name  and  address  of  the 
exhibitor  and  his  gardener,  denoting  also  what  the  class  repre¬ 
sents,  and  not  merely  giving  the  schedule  number,  as  in  some 
instances,  which,  to  an  ordinary  visitor,  is  complicated.  A  space 
is  left  near  the  top  of  the  card  for  denoting  the  value  of  the  prize 
— first,  second,  or  third.  When  the  award  is  made  and  noted  in 
p/oncil  on  the  back  of  the  card  by  the  judge,  all  that  is  required 
to  complete  the  plan  is  for  an  attendant  to  follow  the  judges  and, 
with  adhesive  printed  slips,  fasten  to  the  space  left  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  the  class  of  prize  gained — 1,  2,  3,  as  it  may  be.  Different 
coloured  slips  are  adopted  by  most  societies  to  denote  the 
grades  of  prizes,  viz.,  red,  blue,  and  black. 
When  a  card  is  given  to  all  exhibitors  (as  indicated),  those 
not  receiving  a  prize  are  generally  turned  up  after  the  judging 
by  an  official.  Visitors  like  to  know  who  are  competing  unsuc¬ 
cessfully  as  well  as  those  who  do  win  prizes.  Some  societies 
]n-ovide  cards  in  the  same  way  as  here  indicated,  but  enclose  each 
in  an  envelope,  not  to  be  opened  until  the  award.s  are  made  on 
the  enveloiDC.  This  entails  labour  which  could  be  better  spent 
elsewhere.  The  aim  here  is  to  prevent  a  .judge  knowing  whose 
exhibit  he  examines.  Such  a  precaution  is  superfluous  with  a 
judge  of  integritj". 
Some  societies  may  not  wish  to  provide  a  card  for  each  exhibit, 
cn  the  score  of  cconom,y  in  the  time  required  to  write  them  and 
the  cost  of  such  cards.  The  remedy  in  such  a  case  is  this:  as 
f  ist  as  the  entries  are  received,  each  one  is  denoted  bj’  a  number 
opposite  the  name  and  address  entered  in  a  book.  This  same 
u’lmber  applies  to  the  exhibitor  throughout  the  show.  As  many 
exhibits  as  he  has.  as  many  slips  of  paper  are  given  him  on  the 
morning  of  the  show.  To  each  exhibit  he  places  one  slip,  and 
so  on  throughout  the  show.  Alongside  each  class — say,  “  Twenty- 
four  Japanese  blooms” — three  prize  cards  are  placed,  simply 
denoting  first,  second,  and  third  prizes,  with  a  space  left  for  the 
name  and  addre.ss  of  the  winner.  As  the  award.s  are  made,  the 
number  of  the  exhihitor  is  written  in  pencil  on  the  back  of  tho 
card  according  to  its  grade.  These  cards  are  taken  to  the  secre¬ 
tary’s  table  to  have  the  name  and  address  of  the  winner,  which 
is  found  in  the  entry  book.  I  need  hardl.y  sa.y  I  do  not  recom¬ 
mend  this  s.ystem.  I  give  it  as  an  alternative  for  the  bei\efit  of 
those  who  cannot  adopt  the,  full-card  .system. — E.  Molynel^x. 
Sir  William  Jaefoon  Hooker. 
{Continued  from  page  340.) 
“  My  father’s  reputation  as  one  of  the  foremost  botanists  in 
this  country  was  confirmed  b.y  his  succes.s  in  the  Glasgow  Chair, 
and  rapidly  rose  as  his  successive  publications  appeared.  Very 
soon  .he  had  but  one  compeer  in  Great  Britain,  Dr.  Bindley,  for 
Robert  Brown  towered  above  both  as  ‘  Botanicorum  facile 
l)iinceps.’  It  was  a  happy  augury  for  the  progress  of  the  science 
which  both  worshiirped  with  single-minded  zeal,  that  Bindley 
and  my  father  were  regarded  as  meriting  equal  recognition  as 
scientific  botanists  and  indefatigable  labourers  throughout  forty- 
five  years  of  their  active  lives,  and  that  they  should  have  been 
fast  friends  till  death,  within  three  }nonths  of  one  another.” 
Referred  to  from  the  last  sentence  is  the  following  interesting 
footnote,  drawing  attention  as  it  does  to  the  contemporarj'  career 
of  Bindley,  Avhose  name  must  be  of  great  interest  to  the  Society. 
“The  following  admirable  summary  of  the  life-works  of  my  father 
and  Bindley  respectively  is  extracted  from  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Amei'ican  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  May  29,  1866:  ‘The 
names  of  Hooker  and  Bindley,  which  stood  side  by  side  in  our 
botanical  section,  are  naturally  associated  as  those  of  the  two 
most  eminent  botanists  in  Great  Britain  ;  also  by  the  parallel 
course  and  near  coincidence  in  the  close  of  their  lives.  Born  in 
the  same  neighbourhood,  in  youth  receiving  their  education  at 
the  same  school,  and  early  drawn  together  by  similar  predilec¬ 
tions,  they  both  devoted  themselves  with  singular  energy  and 
perseverance  to  their  chosen  pursuit ;  exerted  for  many  years, 
although  in  somewhat  different  ways,  a  paramount  influence  upon 
the  advancement  of  botanical  science;  and  died  near  together  in 
place  and  time — the  elder  at  Kew,  on  August  13  last,  at  the  age 
of  eighty  years;  the  younger  at  Turnham  Green  on  the  1st  of 
the  ensuing  November,  at  tho  age  of  sixty-.seven  years.  For  a 
long  time  they  were  the  two  most  distinguished  teachers  in  Great 
Britain,  one  at  a  northern,  and  the  other  at  the  Metropolitan 
University.  They  severally  conducted  two  of  the  principal  serial 
works  by  which  botany  contributC'S  to  floriculture;  and  they 
deve  loped  into  highest  usefulne.ss  the  two  great  establishments— 
th?  Royal  Gardens  at  Kew  and  the  Horticultural  Society  of 
Bondon.  Both  wrote  and  published  largely — Hooker  only  upon 
descriptive  botany,  in  which  he  greatly  excelled,  while  Bindley 
traversed  a  wider  field,  and  grappled  with  abstruser  problems  in 
every  department  of  the  science,  always  with  confidence  and 
facility,  but  not  with  unvarying  success.’  ” 
While  Bindley  is  before  us  it  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  take 
another  footnote  given  in  the  first  chaiDter.  He,  having  shown 
great  zeal  and  ability  as  a  local  botanist,  was  invited  to  Hales- 
worth  with  the  view  of  encouraging  him,  and  that  he  might  there 
occup3"  himself  in  the  translation  of  Richard’s  “Analyse  des 
Fruits.”  He  had  been  looking  forward  to  employment  as  a 
botanical  collector  abroad,  and  this  is  the  amusing  incident  : 
“  The  housekeeper  at  Halesworth  finding  that  his  bed  was  never 
occupied,  after  a  vain  search  for  a  reason,  reported  the  fact.  His 
distressed  host  had  to  ask  for  an  explanation,  which  was  simply 
that  his  guest  was  inuring  himself  to  the  hardships  of  a  collector’s 
calling  bj"  sleeping  on  hard  boards !  ” 
We  now  return  to  the  narrative.  “As  his  own  reputation 
advanced,  so  did  that  of  his  herbarium  and  libraiy,  which,  before 
he  had  been  ten  years  in  Glasgow,  were  reckoned  as  amongst  the 
richest  private  ones  in  Europe.  This  was  due  to  his  active 
correspondence,  judicious  purchases,  the  contributions  of  his 
former  pupils,  especially  from  abroad,  to  his  methodical  habits, 
and  to  the  welcome  he  gave  to  all  botanists  who  desired  to  con¬ 
sult  his  collections.  For  the  operation  of  mounting  specimens, 
Ac.,  he  emploj^ed  aids,  of  whom  I  remember  two;  the  first,  in 
about  1827,  I  think,  was  a  native  of  Dundee,  a  keen  algologi.st, 
James  Chalmers  b.y  name,  who  prepared  fasciculi  of  named  Alsre. 
in  quarto  form,  in  the  disposal  of  which  my  father  aided  him.  The 
other  was  Dr.  J.  Klotzsch,  who  spent  some  j’ears  as  thei  Curator 
of  the  Herbarium.  Klotzsch  was  an  excellent  fellow,  a  devoted 
mycologist,  and  rvhilst  at  Glasgow  would  .study  iro  other  branch  of 
botany  but  Fungi.  .  .  .  Returning  to  Berlin,  he  took  up  the 
study  of  flowering  plants,  acquired  distinction  as  a  botanist,  and 
became  eventually  Keeper  of  the  Royal  Herbarium,  Berlin.  The 
onlj'  other  aids  my  father  had  in  Glasgow  were  my  mother,  as 
amanuensis,  and  myself ;  for,  having  been  attracted  to  botany 
from  mj"  childhood,  much  of  mj'  .spare  school  and  college  time  was 
devoted  to  the  herbarium. 
“  Verj."  soon  after  the  settlement  of  the  herbarium  and  librar.y 
in  Glasgow,  botanists  from  all  parts  of  Europe  flocked  to  it, 
amongst  whom  the  following  eight  made  the  mo.st  frequent  and 
longest  sojourns,  some  of  them  becoming  collaborators  with  the 
owner:  R.  K.  Greville,  G.  Bentham,  Sir  J.  Richardson,  G.  A. 
Walker-Arnott,  W.  Wilson,  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley,  H.  C. 
Wat.son,  and  W.  H.  Harvey.  Mr.  Bentham’s  first  visit  was  in 
1823,  from  which  occasion  he  dated  his  permanent  adhesion  to 
botany  a.s  an  occupation  for  life.  The  next  (in  1823)  was  Dr. 
(afterwards  Sir  John)  Richardson,  R.N.,  the  companion  of 
Franklin  in  his  Arctic  expeditioirs,  through  whom  my  father  was 
made  known  to  the  Bords  of  the  Admiralty,  the  Directors  of  the 
Hudson’s  Bay  Company,  and  the  chiefs  of  the  Colonial  Office, 
thus  becoming  the  recipient  of  many  herbaria  made  by  the  officer:, 
of  these  departments,  and  the  author  of  works  published  under 
their  authority.  It  further  led  to  his  being  asked  to  recommend 
jmung  medical  men,  fond  of  natural  history,  from  amongst  his 
pupils  especially,  to  embark  in  their  service  abroad.” 
Numerous  interesting  associations  and  important  acquaint¬ 
ances  made  in  Scotland  must  be  omitted,  but  let  us  take  the 
following  paragraph  :  “  In  1828  mj'  father  first  became  acquainted 
Avith  the  Rev.  M.  J.  Berkeley,  of  King’s  Cliffe,  Northampton¬ 
shire,  the  mj’cologist,  rvho  Avas  then,  I  believe,  on  his  Avay  to 
A'isit  Captain  Carmichael  in  Appin.  This  led  to  a  very  intimate 
friendship  and  repeated  A'isits  to  West  Park  and  Kew.  Mr. 
Berkeley  took  the  .'^ame  interest  in  the  Fungi  of  the  herbarium 
as  Mr.  Wilson  did  in  the  Musci,  and  but  for  him  this  order  of 
plants  Avould  never  have  attained  its  present  pre-eminence ;  for 
hi.s  zeal  induced  my  father  to  urge  his  correspondents  in  all  parts 
of  the  Avorld  to  collect  fungi ;  Avith  Avhat  success  is  shoAvn  by 
the.richness  of  his  herbarium,  and  the  numerous  papers  on  exotic 
genera  and  species  of  the  order  published  by  Mr.  Berkele,y  in  the 
botanical  journals,  in  the  ‘Transactions  of  the'  Binnean  Society',’ 
and  many  other  Avorks.  Mr.  Berkeley  also  contributed  the 
volume  on  Fungi  to  the  third  edition  of  Hooker’s  ‘British  Flora’ 
(vol.  V.,  p.  11,  of  Smith’s  ‘English  Flora’),  and,  dying  in  1889. 
he  bequeathed  his  herbarium  to  Kcav,  together  Avith  the  choice 
of  his  botanical  librarj*. 
“In  1830  Mr.  HcAvett  Cottrell  Watson,  the  most  accomplished 
of  British  botanists,  then  resident  in  Edinburgh,  requested  per¬ 
mission  to  accompany  the  students  of  the  botanical  courses  ow 
an  excursion  to  the  Breadalbane  Mountains,  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  altitudes  affected  by  their  plants.  Thus  com¬ 
menced  a  A'ery  actiA'c  and  interesting  correspondence  betAveen 
my  father  and  this  acute  botanist,  Avhich  led  to  the  publication  of 
many  papers  in  the  journals  conducted  by  the  former,  to  the 
botanical  expedition  of  the  latter  to  the  Azores,  and  indirectly  to 
his  valuable  account  of  the  flora  of  that  interesting  archipelago  in 
Godman’s  ‘Natural  History  of  the  Azores’  (Bondon,  1870).  In 
1831  Mr.  W.  H.  Harvey,  of  Bimerick  (aftei'Avards  Professor  of 
Botanj'  in  the  Roj'al  Dublin  Society,  and  Keeper  of  the  Her¬ 
barium,  and  eventually  Professor  of  Botany  in  Trinity'  College, 
