246 Notes and Gleanings. 



selected and short ; for, undoubtedly, short names are the best, and easiest to be 

 remembered. When we turn to the nomenclature of French roses, we often find 

 the opposite of brevity ; in some instances, no less than six words being used 

 to designate a single variety. We cannot complain of the grand array of princes, 

 dukes, duchesses, marshals, generals, and other high and mighty personages, 

 when they represent known and distinguished individuals : but we do stumble 

 over such appellations as Souvenir de la Reine d'Angleterre, Triomphe de la 

 Terre des Roses, Souvenir de Bernardin de St. PieiTe, La Baronne Pelletan de 

 Kinkelin, and which, when uttered by those unacquainted witli the French lan- 

 guage, have a very odd and even ludicrous effect ; still more so, the contractions 

 very often and naturally applied to those lengthy designations for which our 

 French neighbors appear to have an especial aptitude. I know of an instance 

 which afforded me much amusement when it occurred. An honest, hard-work- 

 ing, but somewhat illiterate gardener in this neighborhood, whose ideas of 

 orthography are rather misty when any departure from the strictly phonetic prin- 

 ciple is observed, labels his roses for his own and others' recognition. When 

 the name is copied from a catalogue, all goes on rightly enough ; but, a catalogue 

 not being always at hand, our friend is left to the resources of his own memory. 

 Some very curious derangements are the consequence. The instance that 

 amused me was the well-known General Jacqueminot, which was marked General 

 Jack-me-not, the syllables being distinctly separated. It is very usual to recog- 

 nize that rose about here as " General Jack," Charles Lefebvre as " Charley," and 

 Jules Margottin as " Old Jewels." Mr. Radclyfife knows similar cases, I beheve. 

 What Xavier Olibo will become it is not easy to guess, unless " Holybones." 



These cases are simply absurd, but not altogether unnatural nor inexcusable. 

 Much more deserving of notice, in my opinion, is the abuse of a term that has 

 now been many years applied ; I mean the term "perpetual," as used to desig- 

 nate what is now the most important section of roses as distinguished from 

 Bourbons, Noisettes, and other hybrids. It has been more than once correctly 

 remarked that this term is an abused one : then why perpetuate it 1 The w'ord 

 "perpetual" not only does not express what the rose is, but also it is not the equiv- 

 alent for the word the French use ; viz., re/nontant. Now, the word ?-e/nontant 

 does express, as nearly as it is possible to find any word, the idea intended to be 

 conveyed ; but, as we have no equivalent English expression for it, it is worse 

 than ridiculous to make a floundering attempt at translating a word which admits 

 of no translation. The usual procedure in such cases is to adopt it. There can 

 be, therefore, no more impropriety in designating this particular section of roses 

 remottta}it hybrids than in calling a fiddle a violin. The French themselves 

 make no attempt to translate such words as "jockey," "wagon," "milord," &c., 

 although these words contain letters and sounds the very opposite of their 

 adopted orthography and pronunciation. In the same way, we accept such 

 phrases as sang-froid, aide-de-camp, beati-monde, &c., in their original significa- 

 tion, without essaying to render them into English. 



Upon the ground of common usage, then, I venture to suggest that the term 

 "remontant hybrids" should be substituted for the incorrect "hybrid perpetuals." 

 — English Journal of Horticulture. 



