Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

they said, and what I established; at the same time it must be recollected, that I cannot be

answerable for the

authorship. The late

Mr. Loudon did not, on all occasions, tell us who was the writer. In some cases they may be his own "criterions;" but let us take them in the rotation in which they appear.

In the criterion of The Hyacinth, not one word is mentioned about the individual pip being of any particular form, except that it should be perfectly double. He says, "The stem should be strong, tall, and erect, supporting numerous large bells, each suspended by a short, strong peduncle or footstalk, in a horizontal position, so that the whole may have a compact pyramidal form, with the crown or upper flower perfectly erect ;" and then he goes on to say of the pips or individual flowers, that they "should be large, and perfectly double; that is, well filled with broad, bold petals, appearing to the eye rather convex, than either flat or hollow." Well, all the first part contradicts itself. If the bells are to be suspended on short horizontal footstalks, the flower spike must be equal all the way up, yet they are to be of a compact, pyramidal form; and with regard to the individual flowers, I say they ought to be round in the outline, and halfround on the face; in other words, they should

be half a ball, and the lower ones should be attached to long horizontal footstalks, and the stalks should gradually shorten as they near the top. My properties of the hyacinth, therefore, corrected these errors and omissions.

Next comes The Tulip. The criterion, says Loudon, among other things is, that it "should be large, and composed of six pctals; these should proceed horizontally at first, and then turn upwards, forming almost a perfect cup with a round bottom, rather widest at top." A drinking horn or cup, is of precisely this shape. I decided that it should be a portion of a hollow ball, and having done so, I had at first half a dozen mongrels yelping at my heels, against my decision; and as soon as the public would have it so, they turned round, and described the same thing, with unimportant deviations, as their own.

The Ranunculus was, unquestionably, better described than any other flower, but not properly neither. on says it should be hemispherical, and I made the alteration that was required. It should be two-thirds of a ball, for all above two-thirds is detrimental.

The Anemone is required by Loudon, or the author he quotes, to consist of well rounded petals; and if any body will take the trouble to place half a dozen shillings round a seventh, a

flower of his standard will be appreciated; whereas I have defined the flower itself to be round, and said the centre or portion that forms what is called the doubleness, should be half a ball, formed of the florets; but I have defined another class of double flowers.

The "criterion of a good Crocus," in the same book, does not give the least idea of form, nor texture, but merely requires clear colours, and so forth. I have insisted on a particular form and thickness of petal.

The Narcissus is required by Mr. Loudon to possess "regularity of form and disposition in the petals and nectars." Who was to know what regularity of form and disposition meant? Narrow petals would do as well as wide ones; notched as well as plain; thin as well as thick. Nobody, however, could mistake my definition, which leaves nothing uncertain.

The Dahlia has its "criterion," as well as other flowers, and I will give that whole for its singularity. "The plant short, stiff, and bushy, prolific in flowers, having short peduncles; the flower well expanded, and standing boldly to the view, and the colours clear and distinct." Why, no man can call this any criterion! A semi-double, or even a single flower, with thin, notched, ragged, or pointed petals, and a disk as large as a

crown, answers this "criterion" in every possible way. I have founded a criterion that nobody can mistake.

<6 we must be con

The criterion of The Auricula is defined by the Florist's Directory, and copied into Loudon's; and although prolix, and difficult to understand, it is only in the proportions of the leading features that there can be any very great difference, that is, if I understand the author; he apologizes for the flowers, which he agrees "should be round," but says, tent if they are so nearly round, as not to be starry;" but the properties of colour puzzle us, as Loudon says; and he takes it, we think, from the old florists, and they from the Directory. The tube, the eye, and the exterior circle, containing the ground colour with its edge or margin. "These three," he says, "should be all well proportioned, which will be the case if the diameter of the tube be one part, the eye three, and the whole pip six, or nearly so." I dispute these proportions; and as in the colour and form consists the entire beauty of an auricula, it was a material point. I assert that, if it is to be done in diameters, the tube should be one, the eye two, the ground three, and the outer edge four; in other words, if the flowers were half an inch, the diameter of the yellow tube should be an

eighth of an inch; the next circle, enclosing the white, two-eighths; the next circle, separating the ground colour and the edging, three-eighths; and the extreme edge four eighths. I have more plainly defined all other points; and it was only after two evenings' discussion, in which I urged various arguments, and showed examples, that my properties were adopted in opposition to all that had been done before :-a strong proof it was different.

The Polyanthus, as defined by Maddocks, is very like the auricula in proportions; all I can say is, it was considered that a definition easier understood and less likely to misinterpretation was required, and it was provided by me. As a branch of the primula family, like the auricula, it has very distinct features, but I endeavoured to make them as well understood as possible. The idea of the centre stripe in every petal being required as a perfect thing "to terminate in a fine point," as pronounced by Maddocks, is simply ridiculous. There is no principle on which a thing so undefined should be admitted to a flower, the very stripe of which is its chief beauty, and never can be so very beautiful as when of an equal width in all its parts. However, it is not to be disputed, that Maddocks was as much before the cultivators of his day in defining

« ElőzőTovább »