For whatever reason, things are picking up somewhat as the turn of the century approaches. From just one offering in the 1895 James Vick catalog above, to more than a dozen in the Peter Henderson 1899 catalog it started to become easier to find at least 4 or 5 varieties in most all catalogs.Henderson's varieties are approaching the pre-rust numbers...but without the lovely or interesting names.
Tokio, black with a white edge sounds really nice!! It is the only named variety.
This selection from Miss Martha Hizer in 1900 isn't as impressive, but at least we are beyond no choice at all.
And her catalog cover features hollyhocks!
1902 brings an ad featuring hollyhocks and a variety of forms.
1902 did not bring more choices to Hizer...but they did have a new engraving.
This is 1904, Ferry is doing pretty well here.
1905...another featured ad from Henderson.
1907...just an ad.
Uh-oh. Only one in Maule in 1908.
Miss Emma White has an OK selection in 1911. Check out the engraving she uses in the catalog. Look familiar? I can't really read the date on the artwork but it sure looks like 1895. Hollyhock generic catalog cut.
From what I have read, I am wondering if all those 100s of names varieties from Europe were a manifestation of hollyhock mania. One of the articles mentioned how hollyhocks do not seem to breed true easily. Were they really trying using proper isolation, etc?
M. Pelissier appears to have been breeding for form with success.
I am thinking some people planted many plants, and any of them that came up with a flower that matched a description were identified as that variety.
And the rust problem seems to have been less serious than first perceived once people realized excellent clean up care could limit the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment