mittee to co-operate with a committee of the League, if they, also, thought favorably of the proposition. I doubt if we could give a proper judgment in regard to it in this open session.

The amendment was duly seconded.

Mr. Bolgiano-Baltimore-(Mr. Bolgiano read a communication signed “F. H. B.")

This letter has no signature to it. There is another point I have been thinking about, and that is if the seed merchants and seed growers refuse to accept contracts from the government isn't the government so intent on securing these seeds that they are very apt to start growing stations of their own? They undoubtedly have men around them who are thoroughly competent to start such growing stations or growing farms, and wouldn't the result be detrimental, even worse than what it is at present, to the seed growers and merchants? If the government is bound to give seed away, wouldn't it be better to let the seed growers and merchants get the benefit of it?

Mr. H. W. Wood-I do not understand what question we are to vote "yes" or "no" on.

Mr. Wood-(Louisville)-Whether we shall take this matter up at this meeting of the American Seed Trade Association rather than put it off until next year. I think the sooner this is acted on the better. The longer it goes on the worse it gets, and, if it is the sense of this meeting that the measure be adopted, we can lay it before the League. If they care to take it up, then both associations can appoint committees.

Mr. H. W. Wood-I do not think Mr. Wood understands my motion. My motion was to appoint a committee now, to report at a later session of this convention, tonight or tomor row morning, and the matter be acted on at that meeting. The amendment withdrawn.

President Stokes-The motion is, to appoint a committee of three to consider the letter of Mr. Northrup and present a report at a future session of this convention.

The motion, having been duly seconded, was agreed to. And the Chair appointed Messrs. W. Atlee Burpee, H. W. Wood and S. M. Pease members of said committee.

President Stokes-Unless there is some further business to claim our attention at this time, the reading of papers will be taken up. We have a paper on the table from Mr. Lester M. Morse, Santa Clara, Cal., who kindly consented to write a paper on "Limiting Our List of Varieties." Mr. Morse was anxious to be with us to read the paper himself, but at the last minute was detained, so he forwarded his paper, which we will ask the Secretary to read.

(Secretary Willard here read Mr. Morse's paper.)

THE NEED OF STANDARD LIMITED LISTS.

I am frequently asked by friends in the trade whether or not it will ever be possible to abridge the list of some of our leading vegetables and flowers, especially Lettuce and Sweet Peas. Some of the comment is provoked possibly by our own trade lists which now carry seventy-eight varieties of Lettuce and one hundred and seventyone varieties of Tall Sweet Peas, and which threaten to grow larger to keep pace with the multiplying introductions of our customers. The Sweet Pea list has been, for some years past, unquestionably too long, but next season if we add the new introductions of the past season we will raise our figures to one hundred and eighty-five. Since we must permanently adopt some of these new varieties when they are introduced it is becoming necessary to discard the older ones, and we must do this every year so long as it is possible to improve the Sweet Pea.

The National Sweet Pea Society of England suggests a preferred list of fifty-six varieties for 1902, which list ought to meet with the approval of the best authorities on Sweet Peas. For a strictly high class list this number is sufficient, but we might raise it to one hundred varieties to allow for a variety of opinions and still be compelled to drop out about 40 per cent. of the complete list.

The phenomenal amount of development work done with the Sweet Pea is responsible for its long list of varieties, and while some of the names are synonymous, most of them represent differences, though many of them only slight differences in shade or in size or in form. For instance, in bright reds of practically the same shade we have eight varieties, viz.: Carmine Invincible, Invincible Scarlet, Cardinal, Ignea, Firefly, Brilliant, Mars and Salopian, each introduced about in the order named. Each, except the first three, as it appeared, was an improvement on the former, in size or form. The National English Society keeps three of these and discards five, which is liberal, indeed, for two would be sufficient, and, to my mind, these

should be Firefly and Salopian, allowing for two distinct forms. This same confusion exists in nearly every other shade. For example, Countess of Radnor was one of the first of the light lavenders, but we have also Princess May. New Countess, Celestial and Lady Grisel Hamilton-all very similar, indeed. Then in whites the list is even greater, with Queen of England, Alba Magnifica, Emily Henderson. Blanche Burpee, The Bride, Sadie Burpee and Dorothy Eckford, all pure white, and Mrs. Sankey and Sadie Burpee black seeded, not truly whites, but classified with them.

We classify sixteen different shades, and in each one there are from two to eight varieties that are very similar, and it is becoming absolutely necessary to adopt some plan of abridgement. To do it systematically and unitedly is the important thing. We do not need more than two of precisely the same shade unless it be for earliness. as in the case of Earliest of All and Mont Blanc or Josephine White. It is unfortunate that some varieties were brought out with a new name when the improvement is so slight, and in deciding on a limited list it is a constant problem to know how to discard certain old favorites.

If some one has had Countess of Radnor and has learned to know it, and is satisfied with it, it is difficult to induce him to change to Lady Grisel Hamilton. It is the same with Mars or Firefly-especially so as both these names are attractive, while the name Salopian is not. We will simply have to allow our preferred list to be long enough to contain most of the present favorites and discard same as fast as they show signs of falling out of favor.

So long as any of the trade felt a disposition to catalogue the full list it was necessary for the grower to grow them, but its dispo、 sition now to abridge the list is so general that growers can now drop out at least 40 per cent. of the old and superceded varieties.

We need this disposition to limit our lists along the whole category of plants, but if any one thing needs assistance more than another it must be Lettuce.

Our list of seventy-eight of what we believe to be the cream of American varieties sinks into insignificance when compared to the list of Mr. W. W. Tracy, Jr., in his Bulletin on American Varieties of Vegetables, where he has no less than five hundred and forty-seven different names of Lettuce, the list compiled from the catalogues and lists of American seed houses. In a list I have personally prepared from my notes on Trials for the past fifteen years I have some three hundred and eighty names, which names are quite distinct and repre sent both foreign and American varieties as catalogued by the principal seed houses. Of this list about two hundred and seventy-five are American. While I have never tried especially to secure every

known list with all the names, I have aimed to get a sample of every known variety of Lettuce in existence, and as a result of these trials and notes I find that if we allow for every possible difference of type -for color of seed; for size of plant; for Summer, Autumn, Winter or Spring uses; for hotbed, greenhouse or outdoor culture; for shape of head; for texture of leaf, etc.-we can account for about one hundred and ten varieties. Some of these differences are very slight. indeed, and are little more than technical, but there are actually some seventy fairly distinct varieties which an amateur could distinguish, and if we get down to distinctions in taste there are only some five different flavors, providing the Lettuce head is properly grown.

Now the largest houses in America catalogue an average of about twenty-five varieties, and a list of twenty-five will easily accommodate all the assortment necessary for a desirable list. It must, therefore, be extremely confusing to the ordinary seedsman who wants to buy Lettuce to be obliged to choose in a general way between five hundred and forty-seven names. I do not know that it will ever be possible to correct the practice of renaming existing varieties of vege tables or flowers, but I do believe that the practice is bad for the grower, the dealer and the public, and that some effort should be made along this line.

The general impression prevails among the trade that a special individual name attracts the customer exclusively to the house from which he purchased. I am quite positive, however, that the merit of this idea, though having some value, is greatly overestimated, owing to the reckless method of substituting practiced by some dealers. In some way or other it ought to be possible to determine by authoritative action what names are entitled to predominate, and let us recognize such names as standard. There should not, for instance, be several names for Deacon, though it is variously called St. Louis Butter, Imperial, Golden Gate, San Francisco Market, Largest of

All, etc.

Neither should there be several names for California Cream Butter, though it goes by Royal Summer Cabbage, Treasure, New Orleans, Spotted Passion, etc.

Unfortunately the same name with several houses represents different varieties, and quite frequently a house sends out a very different thing, two and even three years in succession under the same name. We accept this confused state of things simply because it exists, and we allow it to grow worse year after year because there seems to be no remedy.

In my own work on Lettuce about the farm I pursue the plan of establishing a list of standard names according to my own opinion, and then describe all similar varieties by stating the comparison

with the standard type. It would not be possible to adopt my list, perhaps, but there should be one established by some tribunal whom we in the seed business could all respect. The hope of such effort seems to me to lie in the United States Department of Agriculture, and in that particular division of it in charge of Prof. W. W. Tracy. If he should publish annual bulletins on vegetables in general there is no question about the seed trade, in time, adopting his reports. His department might compile what they believe to be a standard list of all varieties of vegetables and the Seed Trade Association could appoint committees on different families of vegetables to confer with him and his assstants on the list, and if possible have the joint report ratified by the Convention as a whole. This would establish the permanent list, and while everybody would refuse to recognize it in its entirety, during the first few seasons following its adoption, the annual publication of a bulletin with notes on new introductions would ultimately compel everybody to use care in the use of new names, if it would not altogether discourage the prac tice. This, of course, so long as the Agricultural Department attaches to itself such men as those it now employs, who will command our respect.

The good service the National Sweet Pea Society of England has already rendered us on Sweet Peas in suggesting a standard list of names and recommending the Preferred List makes me feel that the plan suggested on vegetables can be carried out successfully and to the great advantage of everybody interested. The abridgement of the list of Sweet Peas has not worked to the disadvantage of anyone there was more seed of them used last season than ever before, and the present season promises to be even better, and every house in America, I believe, catalogued or listed an abridged or preferred list.

There would surely be as much Lettuce as ever used if it were sold under fewer names, and I should think that a business would be more permanent as well as profitable if it used for its leaders particularly fine strains of well known things rather than pretended novelties with nothing new or attractive but the name.

Lettuce is not the only family that is abused by any means, and if we examine the Bulletin on American Vegetables critically we will find nearly everything in the same condition.

I can think of nothing in defense of a practice that makes five hundred and forty-seven varieties of Lettuce out of seventy, or five hundred and eleven varieties of Radish out of possibly one hundred or four hundred varieties of Onion out of not more than fifty real

ones.