JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
382 
[ October 26, 1882. 
recommendation in the fact that it has also other names besides 
those given above, such as Bidens atrosanguinea and Dahlia 
Zimapani, under which it is seen in several English gardens and 
nurseries. In reference to the latter Mr. W. Thompson of Ipswich 
writes—“ Dahlia Zimapani was introduced by the collector Bene¬ 
dict Roezl, who gave the plant that name. I believe I sent it to 
the late Sir William Hooker for figuring in the ‘Botanical Maga¬ 
zine’ (tab. 5227, January 1st, 1861), but to the best of my recol¬ 
lection the seed came into my hands from one of the continental 
seedsmen about the year 1860. It is certainly close enough in 
external appearance to the Dahlias to excuse Roezl and others for 
having associated it with them ; but I suppose the authority of 
such a botanist as Sir W. Hooker is not to be gainsaid.” 
Such in brief is the origin of the name, and the excuse urged 
above'— i.e., the general external resemblance to Dahlias, is quite 
sufficient; for, taking the D. glabrata, D. Merckii, and D. gracilis 
type, there is little to distinguish them on casual observation from 
the Cosmos. They are dwarf, with pinnately divided foliage, 
slender, tuberous, fascicled or bunched roots, and their flowers are 
borne on long slender peduncles, in all of which characters the 
Cosmos closely resembles them. The chief difference is in the 
involucre (the calyx-like green bracts surrounding the ray florets), 
which in the Dahlia consists of two series, the outer usually con¬ 
sisting of five bracts, strongly reflexed, dark green, and of thicker 
texture than the inner series, which closely surround the ray 
florets and consist of about eight thinner and lighter green 
bracts. The same portion of the flower in the Cosmos is also in 
two series—five bracts in the outer not reflexed, and eight in the 
inner—but of similar texture, both closely surrounding the ray 
florets, the inner series being slightly coloured like the florets. 
There are some other differences in the florets themselves, but 
they need not be repeated here. The foliage is of thicker texture 
and much less succulent than that of Dahlias. It, moreover, has 
a totally distinct taste, and though this cannot be considered as 
possessing much weight as a botanical character it is important 
in another respect—namely, it is obnoxious to slugs ; and Mr. H. 
Cannell of Swanley, who has a large number of plants, states that 
he has never found one leaf injured by those pests—conclusive 
evidence, in his opinion, that it is not a Dahlia. 
Having thus disposed of the nomenclature, the value of the 
plant as an occupant of our gardens may be briefly referred to. 
It cannot claim a high place for brilliancy of colouring, as its 
rich velvety maroon flowers are only seen to the best advantage 
when in contrast with the lighter or brighter flowers of its con¬ 
geners, the single Dahlias, or similar dwarf plants. There is a 
peculiar richness of tint, however, that is very pleasing, and when 
associated with other flowers, as hinted, it has a striking effect. 
The long peduncles also admirably fit it for cutting, and the 
blooms continue fresh for several days in water. It succeeds 
well under similar treatment to the Dahlias, lifting the tubers in 
autumn and storing them in a dry cool place safe from frost; or 
if the roots are allowed to remain in the ground during winter, 
which, however, is scarcely a safe course, they must be amply pro¬ 
tected with a covering of ashes, litter, or similar material. 
It may be observed that the species (C. diversifolius) of which 
this is a variety, was described by Otto in Knowle’s and West- 
cott’s “ Floral Cabinet ’" some years ago, but it has smaller flowers 
than the variety, of a rosy lilac colour not unlike Anemone japo- 
nica, the roots being tuberous as in the one now described. Another 
perennial Cosmos is known in gardens—viz., C. scabiosioides ; but 
C. bipinnatus, figured in this Journal, page 265, September 21st 
of the present year, is an annual, and quite distinct from these, 
though Mr. F. W. Burbidge, usually so correct, appears to consider 
C. bipinnatus and C. diversifolius as synonymous.—L. Castle. 
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues. —The sixtieth report of 
the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods, Forests, and Land 
Revenues has been recently issued. In the past year, ended on March 
3rd last, the gross sum that was credited as received from the rents 
and royalties, and the “ thinnings of the plantations of the property,” 
amounted to £346,560; but from that amount there have to be 
deducted various sums that were allowed to tenants, principally in 
consideration of the losses sustained by them from a succession of 
adverse seasons during the past six years. These allowances amounted 
to £20,652 17s. 10d.— equal to 21 per cent, on the rental. The report 
proceeds : “ For the same purpose of assisting the tenants, and in order 
to enable them to cultivate their farms to the best advantage to 
themselves, nearly £130.000 have been expended by the Crown in the 
pa9t six years in under-drainage and in the construction and enlarge¬ 
ment of farmhouses and farm buildings and cottages, and in other 
works of permanent improvement of the land in my charge. In 
the past year the sum of £23,237 9s. bd. was expended in works 
of that description and in repairs. The proportion of that sum 
which was expended in works falling under the definition of the 
‘Improvement of Land,’ within the meaning of the Improvement 
of Land Act, 1864, amounts to £16,723 10*. 4 d. The sum was 
paid out of capital in pursuance of the Land Revenue Acts, which 
provide that the cost of such works shall be charged to capital and 
be repayable by instalments out of income. The residue of the out¬ 
lay, amounting to £6513 19*. 1 d., was paid out of income.” 
THE ROSE ELECTION. 
It may interest some of the readers of “ our Journal ” to com¬ 
pare the results of the present election with the matured judgment 
of the first rosarian in America, Mr. H. B. Ellwanger, a gentleman 
to whom I feel most deeply indebted ; for in the earlier elections, 
when as yet the ages and raisers of the different varieties re¬ 
mained in cloudland, when mystery shrouded these interesting 
data, Mr. Ellwanger, unknown to me even by name, and there¬ 
fore quite unsolicited, wrote from America, filling up many of the 
gaps in these columns, whilst from the pages of his catalogues I 
have learnt more on these points than from any of our English 
growers, excepting our old and departed friend the Rev. W. F. 
Radclyffe. 
Few can appreciate the difficulty on these points in the earlier 
elections. Now that we have the catalogue of the National Rose 
Society the difficulty has comparatively speaking disappeared ; 
but I desire to give houour where it is due, and the catalogue of 
Messrs. Ellwanger & Barry was, in this respect at any rate, an 
example to our own growers and an unvarying help to myself. 
As the great authority on Roses and Rose-growing in America, 
I have thought that the contrast between the two lists might 
prove of some value. 
THE ELECTION LIST. 
MR. ELLWANGER’S LIST. 
1. Marie Baumann. 
1. La France. 
2. A. K. Williams. 
2. Alfred Colomb. 
3. Alfred Colomb. 
3. Marie Baumann. 
4. La France. 
4. Madame. Gab. Luizet. 
5. Baronne de Rothschild. 
5. Baronne de Rothschild. 
6. Charles Lefebvre. 
6. Marie Rady. 
7. Marquise de Castellano. 
7. Mdlle. Eugenie Verdier. 
8. Duke of Edinburgh. 
8. Louis Van Houtte. 
9. Etienne Levet. 
9. Horace Vernet. 
10. Marie Rady. 
10. Xavier Olibo. 
11. Capitaine Christy. 
11. Pierre Notting. 
12. Louis Van Houtte. 
12. Capitaine Christy. 
13. Dr. Andry. 
13. Madame V. Verdier. 
14. Ferdinand de Lesseps. 
14. Mons. E. Y. Teas. 
15. Francois Michelon. 
15. Marquise de Castellane. 
16. Madame V. Yerdier. 
16. Baron de Bonstettin. 
17. Marie Finger. 
17. Abel Carribre. 
18. Comtesse d'Oxford. 
18. Jean Liabaud. 
19. Mons. E. Y. Teas. 
19. Alfred K. Williams. 
20. Madame G. Lui7.et. 
20. John Hopper. 
21. Horace Vernet. 
21. Comtesse de Serenye. 
22. Sbnateur de Vaisse. 
22. Fisher Holmes. 
23. Dupuy Jamain. 
23. Annie Wood. 
24. Marguerite de St. Amand. 
24. Charles Lefebvre. 
25. Duke of Wellington. 
25. Eliza Boelle. 
26. Xavier Olibo. 
26. Prince C. de Rohan. 
27. Beauty of Waltham. 
27. Beauty of Waltham. 
28. Annie Wood. 
28. Rev. J. B. Camm. 
29. Duchess of Bedford. 
29. Charles Margottin. 
30. Comtesse de Serenye. 
30. Comtesse C. de Chabrillant. 
31. Camille Bernardin. 
31. Countess of Rosebery. 
32. Reynolds Hole. 
32. Comtesse d’Oxford. 
33. Duchesse de Vallambrosa. 
33. Egeria. 
34. Prince C. de Rohan. 
34. Francois Michelon. 
35. Star of Waltham. 
35. Etienne Levet. 
36. Le Havre. 
36. Maurice Bernardin. 
37. Fisher Holmes. 
37. Paul Nevron. 
38. Countess of Rosebery. 
38. Victor Verdier. 
39. Marie Yerdier. 
39. Jean Soupert. 
40. Abel Carribre. 
40. Mdlle. Therbse Levet. 
41. Victor Verdier. 
41. Prince de Portia. 
42. Pierre Notting. 
42. Boieldieu. 
43. Duchesse de Morny. 
43. Helen Paul. 
44. John Hopper. 
44. Gaston Levbque. 
45. Charles Darwin. 
45. Mons. Noman. 
46. Duke of Teck. 
46. Marguerite de St. Amand. 
47. Madame Lacharme. 
47. Abel Grand. 
48. John S. Mill. 
48. Hippolyte Jamain. 
The comparison of these two lists is not without interest. It 
appears to me that the pronounced colours, whether very light or 
very dark, do better in America than in the old country. Our 
new acquisition of 1877, Madame Gabriel Luizet, stands very high ; 
and La France, Eug6nie Yerdier, and Comtesse de Serenye all 
stand higher, as do amongst the darks Horace Vernet, Xavier 
Olibo, Pierre Notting, all these being in the first dozen, and in the 
second we find Baron de Bonstetten and Jean Liabaud, the former 
not named in our seventy-five, and the latter actually seventy- 
fifth. Baronne de Rothschild and Beauty of Waltham stand re¬ 
spectively Nos. 5 and 27 in each list, whilst most of us will wonder 
at the low position of Charles Lefebvre, perhaps our most con¬ 
stantly good dark Rose, which rarely burns as so many of the 
