NATIONAL ROSE CONFERENCE. 



175 



ON THE GROUPING OF THE GARDEN VARIETIES 

 OF ROSES. 

 By Mr. William Paul, F.L.S., F.R.H.S. 



If all the garden varieties of roses could be brought under view 

 at one and the same time, they would be found to compose a 

 very heterogeneous mass. The rose has been treated as a 

 domesticated plant for so long a period that the varieties are 

 almost innumerable, and are also remarkable for the extent to 

 which they differ in habit, foliage, and flowers. So widely have 

 our modern garden varieties departed from what may fairly be 

 assumed to be Nature's roses, that it is difficult, if not impossible, 

 in some instances, to conjecture from what species they have 

 descended. Roses were grown from seed at least two thousand 

 years ago, and the seedlings would no doubt vary in appearance of 

 plant and flower even then. This variation would go on widening 

 and increasing up to a certain period, and finally the hybridising 

 and cross-breeding of modern times comes into play. The latter 

 process has so mixed up the botanists' species, that in studying 

 the modern varieties I often see — or fancy I see — features or traces 

 of more than one or two species in the same variety. 



Now the grouping of the garden varieties of roses might be 

 attempted from various points of view ; for example, they might 

 be grouped (1) according to their botanical affinities ; (2) accord- 

 ing to their season of flowering ; (3) according to their habit of 

 growth ; (4) according to the colours of the flowers ; and so on. 

 If, however, I rightly understand my work, I have nothing to do 

 to-day with botanical affinities ; Monsieur Crepin, who has 

 greatly distinguished himself in this line, will, no doubt, 

 efficiently cover this ground. I have to deal with roses from the 

 cultivator 's point of view. In taking up this work, two lines of 

 action present themselves to my mind as the most desirable to 

 follow — the one, to sweep away every vestige of the labours of 

 previous workmen and rear a structure entirely new ; the other, 

 to preserve the foundations and solid walls of the old building, 

 rearranging both old and new materials in such order as congruity, 

 taste, and convenience may dictate. 



After due study and reflection I have chosen the latter course, 

 and, in doing so, I have not striven to differ as much as possible 



