2 



JOUBNAL OF HOBTICOLTUKE AND COTTAGE GABDENER. 



[ January 1, 1867. 



propagate, for it sometimes happens that a stooky-looking 

 plant tliat appears to invite being pulled into twenty pieces, 

 with a I'ttle root attached to each, will be found not to yield 

 more than three or four plants a few months afterwards. 

 This, of course, is where they are left to take care of them- 

 selves ; nursing in a proper propagating-house or ground will 

 in many cases insure as many plants as offsets. The Pampas 

 Grass is also not one of the easiest of plants to transplant ; 

 losses arise with it quite as often as with evergreen shrubs, 

 yet the latter drawbacks are trifling, and ought not to prevent 

 a more extensive cultivation of this charming autumn flower, 

 which deserves a place wherever there is a chance of its flower- 

 ing ; and even in places where this is uncertain an isolated 

 plant or two on sites judiciously chosen give a sort of tropical 

 aspect to the spot not afforded by anything else. It would, 

 however, be well if the farthest position northward at which 

 the plant flowers were made known through the pages of this 

 Journal, so that intending planters might know how to base 

 their expectations. I believe the plant is much affected by 

 the impurities of large cities, and is therefore not adapted 

 for the London squares, but of this I am not sufficiently in- 

 formed. 



It has often been a matter of regret that this plant does not 

 flower earlier, and a summer substitute for it has been sug- 

 gested in the shape of Arundo conspicua, a pretty graceful- 

 growing plant, but the paucity of the flowering spikes and their 

 smalluess, although burue on stalks as long as that of the 

 Pampas Grass, renders it only a poor substitute; other kinds, 

 however, may jn-ove more suitable, and even earlier-flowering 

 varieties of the Pampas Grass may in time be obtained. As it 

 is, there seem to exist variations in the times of flowering as 

 ■well as in the colour and formation of the spike. This is 

 more interesting than it there were no variety, and affords 

 another reason for a more extensive cultivation of the plant. 



— -J. EOBSON. 



NOTES OF AND ABOUT ROSES. 



1. Importation fkoh France. — I have read with satisfaction 

 the protest, at page 404, against the wholesale importation of 

 new Koses which are annually sent from France to tempt the 

 unwary, and deceive even the most practised rosarians. Long 

 before the publication of the article above alluded to, I have 

 had it in mind to again direct attention to this subject, with 

 the view of ascertaining whether it is possible to find some ex- 

 pedient for mitigating the plague yearly inflicted on the 

 Eose-growing and Eose-loving public. At present there are 

 but few signs of any abatement of the evil, for evil it assuredly 

 is in many respects. It is a severe tax upon our patience ; not 

 much less so upon our purse, upon our credulity, upon our 

 time ; for it is a waste of time in propagating a large number 

 of kinds " to prove " them to be worthless, and therefore a waste 

 of material on account of a useless application of it. ' I am 

 aware that these expressions will not be deemed "orthodox" 

 by some of our more enthusiastic Rose friends, but it is 

 necessary t;i speak out, and that, too, without reserve. 



If a really good Rose makes its appearance, it matters not 

 whence it comes, we welcome it, and accept it with due 

 honour and delight ; but so often do we have to glean it out 

 amidst a host of worthless or indifferent companions, that 

 the task becomes dispiriting, and we begin to regard with 

 suspicion every new-comer. It is not simply good Roses that 

 we should seek forout of the new announcements, but better 

 ones — that is, such as show some marked improvement or new 

 feature in advance of kinds we already possess, particularly as 

 regards form, colour, and size, combined with healthy habit 

 and constitution. 



I believe that the majority of om- nurserymen with whom 

 the cultivation of Roses is one of the most important subjects 

 of their business, regard, not simply with dislike, but with 

 aversion, the thankless task of propagating so many new kinds 

 annually, when experience has shown that only a few, a very 

 few, will remain sufficiently longin fav( ur to be "both profitable 

 and useful. Various remarks inserted in thtir catalogues 

 seem to intimate this feeling rather strongly, still more so the 

 number of names yearly expunged from their lists, previously 

 inserted because they were new. That " Index Expurga- 

 torius " of Roses, issued from Sawbridgeworth, though some- 

 what too rigorous to please most of us, is a notable advance 

 in the right direction, and a severe but telling evidence on 

 tbp part of the veteran horticulturist whose name it bears. 

 The impatience of the numerous Rose amateurs to possess 



and try novelties is, doubtless, the great cause of the demand 

 being supplied, and while the demand continues the supply 

 will be sure to follow. I do not propose, however, to discuss 

 this matter further than stating my belief that if purchasers 

 would only wait a sufficient time, for the truth would be sure to 

 come out, propagators would be relieved from a great burden, 

 and the time, labour, and expense of increasing inferior 

 Roses would be more economically applied, and more profitably 

 too, by a more cautious and restricted selection from the host 

 of new seedlings every year produced in France. I anticipate, 

 therefore, no detriment to the interests of the growers who 

 import them, but, on the contrary, much prevailing dissatis- 

 faction would be removed ; gi'eater confidence and increased de- 

 mand for what is really good would be substituted. 



More convincing than any argument will be the statement of 

 a few simple facts relating to the actual number of Roses raised 

 in France during several consecutive years ; a comparison of 

 the total number with the actual number of the same period 

 at present in the best trade catalogues will show very 

 pointedly the extent to which this annual importation is at- 

 tempted or actually carried on. By the Roses of any par- 

 ticular year is meant those sent out by our own nurserymen 

 m the spring of that year, and, therefore, first known to us in 

 the course of the season following, although announced by the 

 French growers in the autumn previous. As we know at 

 present but little of the past year's Roses, and almost nothing, 

 except by name, of the batch recently published in these 

 pages, no mention is made of any of them in the lists about 

 to follow, nor are they included in any of the numbers about 

 to be given. I therefore select the five years preceding last 

 year — that is, from 1861 to 1805 inclusive. 



The number of new Roses sent out during that period stands 

 as follows : — 



1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 



Hybrid Perpctuals SI 5S 67 48 69 



Bourbon 3 8 4 6 7 



Teas 3 5 4 8 2 



Other kinds 8 4 5 1 5 



Total 40 65 80 58 83 



In aU 336. 



If this number is not strictly accurate, the defect arises from 

 the circumstance of JM. Eugene Verdier publishing his an- 

 nouncements sometimes on a separate sheet. In one instance 

 (1862), I have lost or mislaid this sheet ; the total, therefore, 

 is deficient by the number of Roses sent out by M. Eugene 

 Verdier in that year — probably six or eight. 



The number of new French Eoses annually announced in 

 the catalogues of our principal growers varies, of course, 

 according to the number sent out in France. In the five 

 years 1861-5 the numbers varied from about thirty-five to 

 forty-eight ; the actual number introduced during the whole 

 period, therefore, scarcely exceeded two hundred, leaving 

 about one hundred and thirty that have probably never been 

 introduced into this country. In some of the best catalogues 

 not more than one hvmdred of these two bundled are now in- 

 serted, in several less than one hundred, aud m one above 

 alluded to I do not think there are fifty. In Mr. Radclyfie's 

 list of the best Eoses at page 202, there are but twenty-five 

 that belong to this period. 



During the same five years there were about a dozen 

 English seedlings and Roses sent out by our own growers, 

 five of these are in Mr. Eadclyffe's list, and some of the 

 others are still regarded with favour. 



These facts speak for themselves. 



2. Who Raised Our. Best Roses. — I quite agree with " D., 

 Ileal " that before attempting to estimate the merits of a new 

 and unknown Rose from the character and descr;piion given of 

 it by the raiser, it is some help to our estimatinu to know the 

 name of the raiser (especially in the case of French Roses), 

 that we may judge from his antecedents what amount of confi- 

 dence may be placed in his annoimcements. Our own nursery- 

 men, as a rule, do not affix the names of the raisers of Frenih 

 Rotes published in their catalogues, unless for some distinc- 

 tive purpose, as in the case where the same name has been 

 given to two different varieties, which has more than once 

 occurred; thus we have had Souvenir de Conite Cavour (Mar- 

 gottiii), and another of the same name by Robert et Moreau, 

 also Maiechal Souchet (Dnmaiziu), aud another by GuiUot fils, 

 and the name of the raiser is added no lunger than while 

 both kinds are retained in the catalogue. In the lirst instance, 

 Robert el Moreau's Souvenir de Comtu Cavour was dismissed 

 the second or third season after its aj^peaiance, while Mar- 



