CLASSIFICATION OF DAFFODILS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVI, Issue 4, 25 January 1911, Page 38

CLASSIFICATION OF DAFFODILS.

Ibis publication, issued under the authority of the Royal Horticultural Society, contains more than the title implies. It is, in fact, a readjustment, lor horticultural purposes, of previous classifications of the genus Narcissus, with a full classified list of all species and garden varieties which have been named up to date. It will be noticed in the title and general letterpress that the term ‘‘daffodil” is used for all forms of the genus regarded as garden flowers. It is certainly as convenient as it has now become popular to drop the older distinction between trumpet ■‘daffodils” and the shorter-crowned “Narcissi,” and henceforth it will be unnecessary to speak of daffodils and Narcissi. There is a legend that Haworth, who made a close study of the genus, and in 1831 contributed his narcissus monograph to Sweet’s “Flower Garden,” lost bis reason in the attempt to systematise the daffodils and daffodil-names existing in his time. Recent proposals and experiments in the direction of rearrangement for modern needs have produced, if not such dire results, at least sharp criticism and dissension, to which it is hoped the present publication will give pause. So many minds are bent upon the characteristics of this extraordinarily and deservedly popular flower that there must be differences of opinion as to its grouping in the garden and the showroom. But an appeal is here made to sink such differences, at all events until the present scheme has been fairly tried. It is not put forward as necessarily final, but as open to modification when, from time to time, the necessity may arise, in view of the unceasing production of new interbred forms. The scheme is the outcome of a second endeavour, within two years, by a special ad hoc sub-committee of the Narcissus Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society, and the present writer can testify to the extreme pains taken and the careful consideration given to all alternative schemes and suggestions communicated to the sub-committee. Broadly speaking, the several classifications used or proposed hitherto have been natural, artificial, or a mean between these two. A natural classification arranges its groups according to the botanical structure or obvious characteristics of the entire plant. Thus it would not put cyclamineus into the same division with trumpet daffodils, al-

though both may show the same relative dimensions of perianth and corona. Nor would it associate Jonquil la with triandrus, although both carry several Howers on one stem. An artificial system founds its divisions arbitrarily—e.g.. on the relative measurements of perianth and corona, without reference to botanical affinities. To find permanent acceptance, a system must probably be a compromise between the two. Length or shortness of crown as compared with the perianth segments will always be a

main criterion of grouping on the showstage. But, at the same time, the man with a true instinct for the individuality of a plant will resent the “lumping together,” say, of trumpet maximus and Bulbocodium, of Tazetta and triandrus, or of pure poeticus with its hybrids. For this reason the tentative arrangement drawn up very ably on such quite arbitrary lines of division by the Royal

Horticultural Society in 1908, failed to secure favour. Undoubtedly the classification and the arrangement of the then extant daffodils, made by Mr. J. (». Baker in 1869, and subsequently modified by Messrs. Barr and Burbridge, were an admirable compromise, and the main outlines will continue to serve the grower and the exhibitor. The present classification is practically the same, and

its differences are chiefly in the direction of simplification. At first thought, it may seem strange that classification should proceed from complex to simple, considering the vast and intricate output of seedling forms. But reflection will show that convenience will always tend to simplification. To take the instance of the Rose, nothing can be more complicated than the interbreeding which, from original forms, has given us the roses of our gardens of to-day. If fanciers had recorded the original ele-

ments and the intercrossing of the rose as they have of the daffodil, no doubt their classification would at one time have been highly intricate. But now a very few groups, with some popular name for each variety, suffice for the whole multitude in the rose garden or rose show. A long step in simplification was taken when, in 1884, it was decreed by the Royal Horticultural Society “that

garden varieties of narcissi. . . . should be named or numbered in the manner adopted by florists, and not in the minner adopted by botanists.” Consequentl\ in Messrs. Barr's catalogue—which has always served as a standard, since they have taken far more than a trade interest in the daffodil Narcissus ineompara bills sulphurous marginatus minor” became plain ••Queen Mab.” And the classi-

fication has dropped rather than increased its divisions; for example, the sub-classes Humei and Vincenti havq been struck out as superfluous. The classification here reviewed has aimed at

the utmost possible simplicity, i.e., at creating no more classes than enough to contain all well-known daffodils. Two. indeed, out of its eleven divisions are a provision for future rather than for present requirements. Division Ml., for cyclamineus hybrids, may perhaps hardly be filled in the near future, tor the flowers are so early as rarely to appear at the April shows. But cyclamineiv crosses so readily with other forms that it is sure to yield a large variety. Under Division VII.. for Jonquilla hybrids, few examples are as yet in commerce, but many are in the hands of raisers, and tin* “ break ” is beautiful, and likely to prove of high trade value. Triandrus hybrids (Division V.) are already a considerable and increasingly admired class. In particular the hardiness and loveliness in

texture and colour of the Lvedsii-trian dins seedlings demand their recogniti- n in any adequate scheme. Full consideration was given to every recommendation to make more classes, but it was evident

that no exhibition schedule or stage could embrace, without hopeless complexity, the classes which might plausibly be made l of interbred forms. For this reason the sub-committee braved the charge of inconsistency in retaining colour alone, without reference to form, as the criterion of Division IV., Lecdsii. it seemed better to have various white, short-crowned daffodils shown in one an<l the same class th in to separate them into classes according to length of crown. At the same time tnr distinctness in natural character or Leedsdi forbade its being classed as white inconi parabilis. The sub-divisions, according to colour, three in Division 1,, two in each of Divisions li. and HI., are certainly an irreducible minimum, but it was thought they would cover the

The stem being bent by rain, wires have been used to make the blooms face the camera. The top bloom is 2in across, the next 2Ain across, the third from the top 2£in, and the bottom bloom 2t 7-lUin across.

A handsome shrub, the large and elegant leaves turning crimson and gold in autumn

The top bloom is too reflexed and the lower one has a double standard.

ground. There has been some little controversy as to the retention of j-oelicus as a class apart from its small-cuppcd hybrids which approach it so closely, it was. however, the opinion of the most experienced raisers and growers that pure poeticus has still an unmistakable character which isolates it. and therefore, after full deliberation, it was kept separate. It is to be remembered that the

classification inis been drawn up chiefly lor the exigencies of the daffodil show, a point of view which explains such an arrangement as the relegation of the smaller species such as eyela milieus triandrus and Jonquilla to Division XI. (various), since they are not likely to find a pliee on the exhibition stage with their larger blood-relatives. The writer -would urge upon critics of

this classification the whole of its intricate material — certainly not tor the future as well as for the present; but that a very simple scheme, capable of expansion and addition, is preferable to premature and cumbrous attempts to classify minutely every one of all our myriad actual or potential daffodils. G.H.E. DETAILS OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF DAFFODILS. The 11 Divisions are as follow:— Division I.—Trumpet Daffodils. Distinguishing character: Trumpet or crown a-s long as or longer than the perianth segments. (a) Varieties with yellow or lemoncoloured trumpets, and perianth of same shade or lighter (but not white). (b) Varieties with white trumpet and perianth. (c) Bi-colour varieties, i.e., those hiving a white or whitish perianth,

and a yellow, lemon, or primrose trumpet. Division ll.—lncomparabilis. Distinguishing character: Cup or crown not less than one-third but less than equal to the length of the perianth segments. (a) Yellow shades with or without red colouring on the cup. (b) Bi-colour varieties with white or whitish perianth, and self yellow, red-stained, or red cup. Division Hl. —B'arrii (Incorporating Burbidgei). Distinguishing character: Cup or crown loss than one-third the length of the perianth segments. (a) Yellow shades, with or without red colouring on the cup. (b) Bi-colour varieties with white or whitish perianth, and self-yellow, red-stained, or red cup. Division IV.—Leedsii. Distinguishing character: Perianth white, and cup or crown white, cream or pale citron, sometimes tinged with pink or apricot; embracing all dimensions as found in the Incomparabilis aml.Barrii groups (Divisions 11. and HL).

DIVISION V.—Triandrus Hybrids. All varieties obviously containing N. triandrus blood, such as Queen of Spain, Earl Grey, Eleanor Berkeley, Moonstone, Agnes Harvey, etc. Division Vl.—Cyclamineus Hybrids. Division Vll.—Jonquilla Hybrids. All varieties of N. Jonquilla parentage, such as Buttercup, odorus, etc. Division VIII.-—Tazetta and Tazetta Hybrids. To include N. Tridymus, Poetaz varieties. the Dutch varieties of Polyanthus Narcissus, N. biflorus, N. Muzart, and N. iutermedius. Division IX.—Poeticus Varieties. Division X.—Double Varieties. Division Xl.—Various. To include N. Bulboeodium, N. Cyclam incus, X. Triandrus, N. juneifolius, N gracilis, N. Jonquilla, N. Tazetta (sp.) N. viridiflorus, etc. “ Gardeners’ Chroniel?.”

Shown by Mr. J .Walker. Thnme. nt the Dublin Dahlia Society’s Exhibition on September 20 and 21.