■The Canadian Horticulturi^ 



|HF Floral Edition 



Vol. XLV. 



PETERBORO, ONT., JULY, 1922 



Some of the Newer Peonies 



No. 7 



THE numbers following the name of 

 the originator denote the ranking 

 of the variety in the American 

 Peony Society's Symposium, based on 

 the votes of the members. The voting 

 is upon a scale of ten ; in which a grade 

 of ten represents the highest excel- 

 lence. 



Auguste Dessert (Dessert) — This has 

 not been planted long enough to give 

 tji^ical flowers, but the color is brilliant 

 and pleasing, and one feels it has great 

 possibilities. 



Ginette (Dessert) 8.8 — Another 

 choice early blooming variety of deli- 

 cate coloring. It is difficult to predict 

 accurately which will prove the finest 

 of these three, Ginette, Jeannot, or 

 Rosette, as they have not been planted 

 long enough to give typical blooms, but 

 the odds are in favor of Jeannot. 



Jeannot (Dessert, 1918) 8.9 — A 

 charming bloom, large and of delicate 

 coloring. Probably it will prove to be 

 one ^ of the choicest of the newer 

 peonies. 



Mme. Jule's Dessert (Dessert, 1909) 

 9.4 — This is an older peony than any of 

 the above, but it has been much grown 

 in Canada. It is a beautiful thing, open- 

 ing a delicate pink and fading to almost 

 pure white. 



Philippe Rivoire (Riviere, 1911) 9.2 

 — This ranks the highest of any crim- 

 son peony, so in the mass it must be 

 very beautiful. The color is a peculiar 

 shade of deep purple-crimson. Ameri- 

 can Beauty boiled down to a deep color 

 would perhaps convey a fair idea of it. 

 The only blooms I have seen have not 

 been very large. It does not convey 

 the impression of being a showy land- 

 scape variety, as the color is soft rather 

 than brilliant. 



Raoul Dessert (Dessert) 9.0 — Enor- 

 mous, full flower. 



-ngfellow (Brand, 1907) 9.0— This 

 vaiioty was procured from the Peter- 

 ••"on Nursery, Chicago, and as they 

 tantee their stock true to name, I 

 ■ every reason to believe it is the 

 true variety, but, after the plaudits it 

 has received from all sources, I must 

 confess that it has not come up to my 



Miss M. E. Blacklock, Meadowvale, Ont. 



expectations. It is a good paeony, but 

 not so good as Karl R. or Mary B., 

 which both ranks several points lower 

 in the symposium. It may be that my 

 soil does not bring out its full beauty. 



Walter Paxon (Richardson) 9.3 — A 

 wonderfully pure and lovely shade of 

 pink of medium size and inclined to be 

 bomb-shaped, the texture delightfully 

 soft, as in La Tendresse; fairly free 

 bloomer, but not especially robust in 

 growth. 



Rosette (Dessert) 8.9 — Scarcely as 

 beautiful as Jeannotj- but a desirable 

 early variety. 



Solange (Lemoine, 1917) 9.7 — The 

 coloring of Ihis variety is quite unique, 

 a creamy-pink deepening at the heart 

 Large, beautifully formod ; flowers 



■ he renort of the i 

 if Ontario Uorticiil: 

 - iu5t convention. 



■I Names 

 It ion and 



An Attractive Entrauce 



A rustic rose aroh form.i the entrance to the i>eony wallj 



In the tjiirdtn of W. H. Scott, DuikIhs. Out. 



freely produced. Fairly vigorous 

 grower. Generally conceded to be one 

 of the most beautiful paeonies at pres- 

 ent in existence, as its rank indicates. 



Touranfjcllc (Dessert, 1910) 9.4 — 

 This charming variety is a delicate, 

 pure, almost flesh-pink with no hint of 

 the objectionable magenta in it. Its 

 flowers are of fair size and pretty 

 shape, and to see it is to love it. 



Elizabeth B. Browning (Brand) 9.2 

 — This is a fine variety that promises 

 well, and its high rating in the sympo- 

 sium shows that it is likely to prove 

 w^orth having. It is not as good a 

 grower as Frances Willard. 



Frances Willard (Brand, 1907) 9.1— 

 A large free-flowering white, that pro- 

 mises to become very popular. It is a 

 free grower and bloomer. 



Karl Rosenfield (Rosenfield) — A 

 brilliant and attractive red variety 

 with fairly large fiowers in clusters; a 

 vigorous grower. 



Mary Brand (Brand, 1907) 8.7— This 

 is a little richer and more brilliant in 

 color than Karl Rosenfield. Both are 

 better, in my estimation, than Longfel- 

 low, which ranks 9.0 in the paeony 

 symposium, while Mary Brand only 

 ranks 8.7 and Karl Rosenfield 8.8. 

 Mary Brand is a fairly large flower, 

 and in shape, growth and fragrance 

 leaves little to be desired in a crimson 

 i)aeony. 



Water Lilies in Ponds 



A I HAPPY feature in the gardening 

 of the present day is the increas- 

 ing use of hardy aquatics. By 

 their aid many a sheet of water or little 

 pond is being brightened and made a 

 most charming feature of the garden. 

 No hardy aquatic can compete in value 

 for this purpose with the newer Nym- 

 phxas, the creations of M. Latour- 

 Marliac and other raisers. These are 

 among the most delightful of all flowers 

 and their cultivation should be en- 

 couraged in ever}^ possible way. 



It is necessary, however, to employ 

 them with discretion. I observe a 

 tendency to overcrowd the plants — a 

 tendency due to the natural desire to 

 make as much of their beauty as pos- 

 sible by growing as great a number as 

 can be used in the space at command. 

 In consequence, in the course of a few 

 years the plants become too large and 

 crowded together, with the result that 

 the water is covered by the leaves, and 

 the latter are so thick that the flowers 

 do not come so freely. I have found 

 that Nymphsas bloom much more 

 freely when the suu has access to the 

 water and its rays are not cheered to 

 too great a degree by the foliage. In a 



