Rethinking Dahlia Classification: Cactus, Peony, and the Problem of Names

Published as Classification of the Dahlia (1931)

By J. J. Broomall

Original text by J. J. Broomall is in the public domain. Compilation, editorial notes, introduction, biography, and revised text copyright © 2026 by Steve K. Lloyd. All rights reserved. 

More than a decade after considering classification in The Evolution of the Dahlia, Broomall returned to the problem with a more specific complaint and a proposal of his own. He believed that the terminology then being used to distinguish forms such as Cactus and Semi-Cactus Dahlias gave an appearance of precision that the flowers themselves did not justify.

His alternative was visual. Rather than relying chiefly on verbal categories, Broomall proposed selecting representative Cactus forms from Type A through Type J and publishing them as a chart. A grower introducing a new variety could then describe its form by comparison with one of those types, or as intermediate between two of them. Similar systems, he suggested, could be developed for other classes.

The essay then turns from classification by form to the names themselves. Broomall dismisses the familiar "Peony Dahlia" designation as inappropriate, proposes "Art Dahlias" for the finest semi-double Decoratives, and questions whether Show, Ball, and Colossal Dahlias consistently deserve the names assigned to them. His impatience with imprecise terminology runs throughout, mixed with humor, personal experience, and an evident wish to make classification more useful to working growers.

The recent classification of the Dahlia by a committee of the A. D. S. does not seem to me to have solved the question very satisfactorily. In fact, I can not see that very much progress has been made.

In the classifying of the Cactus Dahlia, for instance, we are supposed to say "Semi-Cactus" instead of "Hybrid Cactus." Now, which is more correct? Hybrid means "A mixture of two species, a mongrel." Semi-means half. I cannot see how it can be correct to call a Dahlia half cactus when it is possible that it might be seven-eighths or fifteen sixteenths cactus in form or in lineage. In the first place apparently very few growers know why Dahlia Juarezii was called "Cactus Dahlia." According to what I have read on the subject it was so named because the flowers resembled the blooms of a certain Cereus in color, and not on account of the shape of the flower. Now I have seen a number of Cereus in bloom, as well as many other kinds of Cactus in large collections, including the 7½-acre cactus garden on the Huntington estate at San Marino, California, and I have never seen a blossom on any cactus at all similar in shape to the so-called Cactus Dahlia of today.

I have grown Juarezii for more than thirty years, and know that its petals are never narrow nor long and pointed like many of its descendants, but are comparatively short and only slightly pointed.

My wife was showing a teacher of gardening in a Los Angeles school through the garden a few years ago, and I happened to hear him say that "Golden West" was a "Hybrid Cactus." I showed him a bloom of Juarezii and asked him what it was. He replied, "A Hybrid Cactus." And he a teacher in our schools. According to the rules of the American Dahlia Society now in force poor old Juarezii could hardly qualify as a "Semi-Cactus." Oh Me! Oh My!

After crossing of the species followed by thirty or forty years of crossing and recrossing of varieties the majority of the Cactus Dahlias we now have are certainly mongrels in the full meaning of the term, but it seems a shame to call them such, for flowers that are of such transcendent beauty, of unparalleled variety of form and coloring are deserving of a different fate. Instead of the present ridiculous, erroneous, and wholly inadequate system of classifying I would suggest something like the following plan to give at least a partial idea of the different shapes of the Dahlia.

Select the most perfect type of the Cactus Dahlia, to be known as Type "A"; the next most desirable as Type "B" and so on until we reach the shape nearest in form to the Decoratives which we will say may be known as Type J. Let the Society publish a chart showing the various types thus designated, which need not be so very costly and could be sold at a price that every grower could afford to pay. The same system to be applied perhaps in lesser number of types to the Decoratives and other classes. Then in offering a new introduction the grower could describe it as being similar in shape to type A or B or that the form was intermediate in shape between two of the types on the chart so that the reader would have a fairly good idea of the shape of the new variety. In making up premium lists prizes might be offered for the best flower in the first five types on the chart, another for the second five types, etc.

Similar rules to be followed more or less in the other classes. It seems to me that some such plan could be adopted that would be far more adequate and satisfactory than the system now in use.

I feel this article would be incomplete without saying something about that nondescript class generally known as "Peony Dahlias." I invested some of my good money in the first set of "Peony Dahlias" sent out from Holland soon after they were introduced, with the idea that I was going to see a wonderful new kind of Dahlia. When they bloomed and I found that I had bought a lot of semi-double Decoratives I certainly was disgusted. The only one in the lot that had any merit whatever was the white "Queen Wilhelmina" and that has long since been superseded by hundreds of better whites.

Why they were called "Peony Dahlias" has always been a mystery to me, for I have never seen one that looked anything like any Peony I have seen. Generally speaking, I was never much in favor of "Peony Dahlias," but occasionally we see a semi-double Decorative of such rare beauty and gracefulness that they deserve a place in the garden, and I think the term "Art Dahlias" is much more appropriate than "Peony Dahlias."

In the matter of Show, Ball, and Colossal Dahlias I must say that I have never seen a Show Dahlia that was the shape of a "Ball" and I do not think a Dahlia should be classed Colossal unless it is at least six or seven inches in diameter. Anything called Colossal is supposed to be very large. The word colossal has originated from the "Colossus of Rhodes," and that celebrity was so large that he could stand astride of a ship, and it was not a toy ship either, so if we must have Colossal Dahlias, for goodness sake give us some large enough to deserve the name.

And now, fellow members, I would be pleased to learn your opinion of the above suggestions, and if you have a better plan to offer I surely will be glad to hear it. Please bear in mind I have written this for the good of the Dahlia.

1. Relationship to Chapter Three. Broomall had addressed the instability of dahlia classification and terminology earlier in Chapter Three of The Evolution of the Dahlia. The present essay revisits that subject rather than simply reproducing the earlier chapter. Its most substantial new element is the proposed Type A through Type J visual classification system, followed by his extended discussion of Peony, Art, Show, Ball, and Colossal Dahlias.
   
   

2. Earlier newspaper state. An earlier version appeared on January 16, 1931 under the title "Dahlia Classification." The surviving text includes Broomall's criticism of "Semi-Cactus," his discussion of Juarezii, and the Type A through Type J proposal, but ends with "CONTINUED NEXT WEEK." The surviving transcription is damaged in places, and the continuation has not been securely recovered. Because the newspaper version breaks off and part of it is missing, the catalog text printed here cannot be fully compared against it, and should not be described as simply reproducing the newspaper article. A line in the newspaper transcription states that the article was written at the request of an official of the American Dahlia Society. Because that wording has not been verified against the newspaper page image, it is not treated here as established historical context.