368 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 23, 188t. 
THE TEAS AND NOISETTES IN THE FOREGOING ANALYSIS 
ARRANGED ACCORDING TO COLOUR. 
Vert Light Roses. 
(White, Pale Flesh, or Cream.) 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
1 
Niphetos 
8 
Anna Olliver 
2 
Souvenir d’Elise Vardon 
9 
Alba Rosea 
3 
Innocente Pirola 
10 
Madame Bravy 
4 
Devoniensis 
11 
Mad. Hippolyte Jamain 
5 
Rubens 
12 
Marie Guillot 
6 
7 
Souvenir de Paul Neyron 
Madame Willermoz 
13 
Josephine Mai ton 
Pale Pink Roses. 
(Shades of Deep Flesh, Pale Pink, or Light Rose.) 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
1 
Souvenir d’un Ami 
9 
Moire 
2 
Catherii.e Mermet 
10 
Adam 
3 
Comtesse de Nadaillac 
11 
Homere 
4 
Madame Lambard 
12 
Comte de Paris 
0 
Madame Angele Jacquier 
13 
Madame Camille 
6 
Madame Cusin 
14 
David Pradel 
7 
Jules Finger 
15 
Comtesse Riza du Parc 
8 
Souvenir de Mad. Pernet 
Yellow Roses. 
(Shades of Yellow and BufE.) 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
Relative 
Positions 
in 
Analysis. 
Varieties. 
1 
Marechal Niel (N.) 
12 
Francisca Kruger 
2 
Marie Van Houtte 
13 
Amazone 
3 
Jean Ducher 
14 
Bouquet d’Or 
4 
Caroline Kuster (N.) 
15 
Jean Pernet 
5 
Etoile de Lyon 
IG 
Madame Bdrard 
6 
Perle des Jardins 
17 
Triompbe de Rennes 
7 
Belle Lyonnaise 
18 
Monsieur Furtado 
S 
Madame Margottin 
19 
Celine Forestier (N.) 
9 
Madame Welcbe 
20 
Marcelin Rhoda 
10 
La Boule d’Or 
21 
Perle de Lyon 
11 
Gloire de Dijon 
22 
Reve d’Or 
Tlie severe injuries inflicted on Marechal Niel by three 
consecutive hard winters can be clearly traced in the per¬ 
centages for that variety. In the first three of the eight 
years these were respectively 10-1, 10-7, and 10 8, while in 
1880 the per-centage fell to 7 0, in the next year to 5-3, and 
in 1881 to as low as 2-9. Last year it suddenly rose to 9‘5, 
but now in 1884 (owing to the hostile nature of the flowering 
season) it only stands at 5 7. Souvenir d’Elise in 1881 also 
fell very low—viz., to 2-6. On the other hand the per¬ 
centages of Souvenir d’un Ami during these cold winters 
never once descended below G'6, nor that of Marie Van 
Houtte below 5-3. The positions of the different Loses in 
the foregoing tables will therefore be seen in some measure 
to depend upon their relative degrees of hardiness. The few 
instances just given ought not, however, to be regarded as 
anything like fair average examples. In fact, taking the 
original tables throughout, the three severe winters just 
referred to leave as a rule no very clear or decided mark 
upon the per-centages for these years. And this is no doubt 
■due to the fact that the weather of the late spring and early 
summer has generally far more influence upon the quality of 
the blooms ultimately obtained than that of the preceding 
winter months. When, however, we come to take any indi¬ 
vidual year as a whole, its effect on certain Loses, whether 
favourable or otherwise, becomes at once apparent. For 
example, the Lose year just ended is shown, by the marked 
decline in their per-centages, to have been generally 
unfavourable to most of the H.P.’s, and particularly so to 
such fine varieties as Marie Baumann, Baroness Lothschild, 
Madame Gabriel Luizet, Captain Christy, E. Y. Teas, and 
Marquise de Castellane, and of the Teas and Noisettes 
to Marechal Niel, Anna Ollivier, and a few others. It has, 
on the other hand, suited Abel Carriere, Madame H. Jamain, 
Leynolds Hole, and Xavier Olibo amongst the H.P.’s 
admirably, also nearly all the Teas, and especially Souvenir 
d’un Ami, Jean Bucher, Marie Van Houtte, and Niphetos. 
For the leading idea of this analysis I gratefully acknow¬ 
ledge my indebtedness to that king of florists, Mr. Charles 
Turner, who at one of the early meetings of the National 
Lose Society suggested that the names of all the Loses in 
the piize stands at this Society’s metropolitan exhibition 
should be taken down and afterwards classified. The results 
in this way obtained would, he thought, after a series of 
years give the relative positions of all the leading sorts 
more accurately than could be secured in any other way. 
The materials at my disposal would not, of course, 
allow of my carrying out this plan in its entirety—indeed, 
at a crowded show the task of taking down so large 
a number of names has been found to be almost an impos¬ 
sibility. Something, no doubt, has been lost by my inability 
to adhere strictly to Mr. Turner’s original suggestion, for at 
no other Lose Show are all classes of exhibitors so equally 
represented. On the other hand, something, I hope, has 
been gained by not restricting the investigation to any 
one show or to any one period of the exhibition season. 
However this may be, the surprising uniformity in the fol¬ 
lowing mean per-centages for the different years will, I 
think, be generally accepted as a sufficient guarantee of the 
soundness and satisfactory character of the system as it has 
been here carried out. 
1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 
1-38 1-19 1-19 1-21 1-15 1-20 1-24 1-09 
These are the average per centages in each of the different 
years for all those H.P.’s (nearly fifty in all) which were 
entered in the original tables as having been generally 
exhibited throughout the whole of the eight years under 
consideration. The slight variations in the values for the 
different years evidently indicate the good and bad Lose 
years, the best Lose season in recent years being that of 1877, 
and the least favourable the one just passed. Although 
many of the varieties in my list of Hybrid Perpetuals take 
up very different positions as compared with Mr. Hinton’s 
election of exhibition Loses in 1881, yet it is satisfactory to 
find how little discrepancy there is in the positions of the 
leading varieties when taken as a whole, no less than 
nineteen of the first twenty-four Loses in his list finding a 
place among the first twenty-four H.P.’s in mine ; and even 
of these five absentees three, Marechal Niel, Catherine 
Mermet, and Merveille de Lyon, cannot properly be reckoned 
as defaulters, one being a Noisette, another a Tea, and the 
third quite a new Lose. It will, no doubt, be remembered 
that in the election referred to Mr. Hinton’s table included 
both Hybrid Perpetuals and Teas and Noisettes.—E. M., 
Croydon. 
PEAS IN 1884. 
Peas have always been the principal of summer vegetables. 
No crop is more generally grown, and the more anyone knows 
how to appreciate good vegetables the greater is the desire to 
extend the Pea season. Of late much attention has been devoted 
to the inti-oduction of very early varieties, as well as others which 
will remain useful until the end of the season, and much success 
has attended the hybridiser’s exertions in both sections, but I 
think the greatest improvement has taken place in mid-season 
and main crop variet'es, w’hich are ready early in June and do 
not cease until the end of September. 1 still regard Mr. Culver- 
well as the king of Pea raisers. True, he has not given us many 
new varieties for a year or two, but several of his productions 
are not surpassed by any others; their prominent points being 
robust constitutions, prolific habit, and excellent qualities. Of 
good American Peas we have very few, the dwarf-growing 
American Wonder, introduced by Messrs. Sutton some years 
