186 STATE POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



ceived by any rose, and is the test of position. We do not think it necessary to 

 copy the number of votes in columns A, B, and C ; to give the total number of 

 votes a variety has received will be sufficient. There are several blanks in the 

 fourth and fifth columns denoting the age and the raisers; these we have filled 

 out so far as we were able, but there are still a few which remain unknown. A 

 few errors in the names of the raisers we have corrected. Selecting the first 

 thirty varieties named, we have a list which should be grown by every rosarist. 

 Since the list is not confined to hardy varieties, we are somewhat surprised at 

 not seeing more of the tea-scented section included, notably Rubeus and Marie 

 Ducher; still they are fairly represented, and we will not complain since the 

 list is headed by Marechal Neil. The Marechal is here called a Noisette, not a 

 Tea, but lie is really six of one and half a dozen of the other. We find in the 

 table eighty-six varieties. Among them are eight whose ages are unknown, and 

 two without raisers' names attached. 



It is interesting to draw a comparison between the merits of old and new 

 roses as gauged by this election. Taking the sorts introduced within the last 

 ten years, we find forty-five varieties new or comparatively so, against thirty- 

 three old ones — thus evincing that among the vast number of new varieties 

 annually introduced, there are at least two or three sorts worthy of general 

 cultivation. In 1809, nine roses were sent out which find a place in the table; 

 1870 was the year of the Franco-Prussian war, so we received none. For 1871, 

 there are ten; for 1872, three; for 1873, four; for 1874, six; for 1875, two. 

 Surely this is a good showing for he new sorts, particularly since so many of 

 them are among the first thirty. A collection of roses without La France^ 

 Louis Van Houtte, Marquise de Castellane, Francois Michelon, and M'lle 

 Eugenie Verdier, would be very incomplete. 



The eighty-four varieties to which the names of the raisers are attached, were 

 sent out by thirty-seven different parties. Many of these rosarists are dead ;. 

 some have retired from business. Among those still engaged in commercial 

 life is Francois Lacharme, of Lyons. From him we may expect at least one 

 good rose each year, since we have received them in the past. He is decidedly 

 the most reliable of the French rose-growers, in respect to the merit of the 

 varieties sent out by him. For proof of this we need only refer to the table, 

 where it will be seen he furnished ten of the varieties named. Eugene Verdier 

 follows with nine ; many of these are very superior sorts, but M. Verdier is- 

 not as particular as he might be in weeding out his seedlings. On an average he 

 sends out ten varieties each year, while Lacharme sends but three, Guillot Fils- 

 six, and Levet six. Levet has six roses honored by a place in the list, and 

 Guillot Fils five ; but we think that, in point of merit, those of Guillot Fils 

 rank next those of Lacharme. 



In conclusion, we would direct a word of caution to amateurs and others who 

 may be guided by this list in making selections, We cannot find every excel- 

 lence in any one variety. The varieties in this table were selected on account 

 of the beauty of the flowers, little or no regard being had to their hardiness, 

 vigor of growth, or prolificness of bloom, but are merely those which have been 

 adjudged the most beautiful. Still, no one who loves roses, — no matter how 

 small their collection, — would be willing to do without La France because it is 

 a poor grower and not quite hardy, nor to reject Marquise de Castellane and 

 Countess of Oxford because they are not fragrant. 



