and that Moore used poetic licence wnen ne wruic ui 
the honey “that drives men mad” — the honey col- 
lected by the bees of Trebizond from the flowers of a 
species of Rhododendron, according to Tournefort ; 
but if the Dahlia is rifled, and the bees have not sufti- 
cient instinct to avoid it on account of its hurtful 
effects on themselves, it is not probable that the 
poisonous Rhododendron bloom would be rejected in 
consequence of its being injurious to the honey eater. 
Wild Thyme is, I know, very much liked by bees, 
and we always liked when purchasing honey to get 
some from cottagers who lived near a certain moun- 
tain where wild Thyme abounded. Perhaps some 
classical recollections of Mount Ilybla influenced 
the order given when we invariably said, “ Re- 
member you get the mountain honey.” //e/en £. 
IFainey. 
The following are considered very good plants 
for bees ; — -Annuals ; French Poppy Limnanthes, 
various ; Nasturtium, various ; Mignonette, Sun- 
flower. Biennials and perennials ; Canterbury Bells, 
white Clover (very good). Wallflower, Thyme. The 
famous Narbonne honey is said to owe its peculiar 
flavour to this plant. J. D. 
Your inquiring correspondent, “ L. G.,” will 
find in the following list many plants suitable for 
bees, some of which, in addition to their yielding 
honey, can be recommended for their pollen-producing 
Missouri -iotamical Qi-zui 
George Ergelmarn Pape.^ 
Ifotitcs of ^ooks. 
The Rosarian’s Year Book for 1883. Edited 
by the Rev. H. Honywood D’Ombrain. (Bern- 
Two portraits grace this volume — that of Mr. 
George Baker, of Reigate, whose genial qualities 
are sympathetically told, and that of Mr. E. R. Whit- 
well, the winner of the Amateurs’ Challenge Trophy, 
and the prime mover of the Darlington meeting of the 
Society. Mr. Whitwell’s success is the more remark- 
able from his relatively limited resources so far as 
number of plants is concerned, and the northern 
district (Durham) in which he grows them. The Rose 
Society may be cited in some sense in defence of 
special societies, for it has certainly evoked, and, 
better still, co-ordinated the zeal of numerous enthu- 
siasts. It has set an example to the parent Society in 
not confining its operations to the metropolis, but has 
aroused local energy and co-operation in almost every 
county — it has done, in fact, what the Royal Horti- 
ticultural Society should have done long ago, and 
what it may still do in the future. Its publications 
have some of them been useful to a high degree, and 
others have been amusing— at least to those who wrote 
them. The catalogue of Roses, the directions for 
their growth, and the various practical papers have 
all been useful and worthy of a national Society. 
The present publications, although edited by one of 
the secretaries, and owing its chief permanent value 
to the contributions of the other, is not to be looked 
on in the light of an official publication. This cir- 
cumstance may possibly be held as an excuse for the 
introduction of articles in the trashy calico-Rose style 
which some amateurs seem to think it appropriate to 
use when writing about the Rose— a style in the 
present case rendered the more offensive by the large 
infusion of slang. Is there any reason why amateurs, 
and clerical amateurs in particular, write about the 
Rose in a style which they certainly would not adopt 
when writing of any other subject in which they took 
an equal amount of interest, and which they 
would be ready to decry as unworthy of the 
subject ? After-dinner oratory is well enough in its 
place and season, provided there be not too much of 
it, but it is rarely intended or suited for publication 
next morning. And so with the literature of the Rose 
of the kind we have been alluding to, a little of it at 
the right time is a pleasant stimulant, but one that it 
cm copyright reserved garden 
03 
CO 
O 
