JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
October 14, 1880. ] 
345 
the purest water. The cream of these varieties has certainly 
floated to the surface. 
In the thirty-sis varieties poll Catherine Mermet heads the list, 
bearing out the remarks of one of the voters, who adds in a note 
enclosing his list, “ I think Catherine Mermet quite the best Tea ; 
it is excellent in every way, and hardly a bloom is produced that 
is not fit to show.” Personally I would almost endorse his 
opinion were 1 not so devoted to the queen of the twenty-four 
varieties poll—Souvenir d’un Ami. Both are exquisite specimens, 
both fairly hardy, whilst a good bloom of either would be a great 
addition to any stand of any dimensions. 
Only to new friends is it necessary to explain our table. The 
first column denotes the position of the Rose on the poll ; then 
follows the name of the Rose, its character, raiser’s name and 
the year of its introduction. Blanks occur here which I am 
unable to fill up ; but I would here express my thanks to Mr. H. 
Curtis of Torquay for his kind assistance in supplementing many 
of my omissions. Then follow the columns A, B, and C, represent¬ 
ing the number of first, second, and third-class votes each Rose 
has obtained, the simple letters being the amateur, and those 
with the asterisk the votes of nurserymen ; the last column being 
the number of votes polled by all the voters collectively. Two 
Roses having an equal number of votes have their position settled 
by the number of first-class or second-class votes ; if still equal 
they are bracketed together. 
The following table represents the thirty-six varieties election :— 
Cliarac- Raiser’s 
No 
Name of Rose. 
ter. Age. 
Name. 
1 
Catherine Mermet .. 
T. 
1869 
Guillot, fils.. 
2 
Souvenir d’un Ami.. 
T. 
1846 
Belot Defou- 
gere 
3 
Devoniensis. 
T. 
1838 
Forster .... 
4 
Gloire de Dijon .... 
T. 
1853 
Jacotot .... 
*5 
Marie Van Houtte .. 
T. 1871 
(Ducher ? 
(Levet ? 
6 
Niphetos . 
T. 
1844? 
7 
Perle des Jardins.... 
T. 
1874 
Levet. 
8 
Marechal Niel . 
N. 
1864 
Pradel .... 
9 
Souvenir d’Elise .... 
T. 
1855 
Marcet .... 
*10 
Rubens. 
T. 
1859 
(Robert 
|E. Verdier 
11 
Souvenir de P. Neron 
T. 
1871 
Levet. 
12 
Jean Ducher. 
T. 
1874 
Ducher .... 
13 
Belle Lyonnaise .... 
T. 
1869 
Levet. 
14 
Madame Willermoz.. 
T. 
1847? 
Lacliarme .. 
15 
Madame Lambard .. 
T. 
1877 
Lacharme .. 
16 
Madame Falcot .... 
T. 
1858 
Guillot, fils.. 
17 
Anna Ollivier . 
T. 
1872 
Ducher .... 
18 
Celine Forestier .... 
N. 
1859 
Leroy. 
19 
Madame Margottin.. 
T. 
1866 
Guillot, fils.. 
20 
T. 
1855 
21 
Madame Berard .... 
T. 
1873 
Levet. 
22 
Comtesse deNadaillao 
T. 
1872 
Guillot .... 
Madame C. Kuster .. 
N. 
1872 
Pernet .... 
Triomphe de Rennes 
N. 
1857 
Lansezeur 
25 
Hom&re. 
T. 
1859 
Robert .... 
26 
T. 
1838 
27 
Mad. Hip. Jamain .. 
T. 
1869 
Guillot, fils.. 
28 
President . 
T. 
American 
variety 
29 
Bouquet d’Or . 
N. 
1872 
Ducher .... 
30 
T. 
Margottin .. 
Mad. Ducher 
31 
Madame Welsh .... 
T. 
1878 
32 
Jean Pernet. 
T. 
1848 
Pernet .... 
33 
Marie Guillot . 
T. 
1875 
Guillot, fils.. 
34 
Madame Bravy .... 
T. 
Guillot, pere 
35 
Perle de Lyons. 
T. 1873 
Ducher .... 
36 
Isabella Sprunt .... 
T. 
Sprunt .... 
37 
Lamarque. 
N. 
1830 
Marechal .. 
38 
Innocente Pirola.... 
T. 
1875 
Wid. Ducher 
39 
Safrano. 
T. 
1839 
Beauregard.. 
40 
lteve d’Or. 
N. 
1870 
Ducher .... 
41 
Amazon. 
T. 
1873 
Ducher .... 
42 
Madame Camille .... 
T. 
1871 
Guillot, fils.. 
43 
Mad. de St. Joseph .. 
T. 
1846? 
44 
Moird. 
T. 
1844? 
45 
Comte de Paris .... 
T. 
1844? 
.Tardin de 
Luxembourg 
46 
Madame Charles .... 
T. 
1864 
Damaizin .. 
47 
Comtesse R. du Parc 
T. 
1876 
Schwartz .. 
Bougfere. 
T. 
1840? 
Souvr. de Mad. Pernet 
T. 
1875 
Pernet .... 
Aline Sisley . 
T. 1873 
Guillot, fils.. 
Narcisse. 
T. 
52 
Mons. Furtado. 
T. 
Laffay .... 
Ama- 
r cS 
Nurse- 
73 
£3 cfi 
teurs. 
o 
Eh 
rynien. 
O 
H 
d 
5H O 
A 
B 
C 
A*B*C* 
13 
0 
0 
13 
13 
1 
0 
14 
27 
13 
1 
0 
14 
12 
1 
0 
13 
27 
12 
1 
1 
14 
12 
1 
0 
13 
27 
9 
3 
1 
13 
14 
0 
0 
14 
27 
10 
3 
0 
14 
12 
0 
1 
13 
27 
8 
4 
1 
13 
11 
1 
1 
13 
26 
3 
6 
4 
13 
5 
6 
2 
13 
26 
12 
1 
0 
13 
12 
0 
0 
12 
25 
8 
4 
1 
13 
6 
4 
2 
12 
25 
4 
8 
2 
14 
5 
4 
2 
11 
25 
4 
9 
i 
14 
5 
3 
2 
10 
24 
4 
6 
4 
14 
1 
6 
3 
10 
24 
7 
5 
1 
13 
6 
4 
0 
10 
23 
4 
5 
3 
12 
7 
3 
1 
11 
23 
4 
5 
4 
13 
4 
6 
0 
10 
23 
0 
2 
8 
10 
8 
4 
1 
13 
23 
5 
4 
3 
12 
3 
6 
0 
9 
21 
2 
3 
3 
8 
4 
8 
1 
13 
21 
1 
5 
6 
12 
1 
5 
3 
9 
21 
4 
4 
1 
9 
5 
3 
3 
1 
20 
4 
5 
4 
13 
1 
5 
0 
6 
19 
4 
4 
2 
10 
3 
4 
1 
8 
18 
6 
2 
3 
11 
0 
5 
2 
7 
18 
3 
4 
2 
9 
3 
3 
3 
9 
18 
3 
1 
6 
10 
0 
5 
3 
8 
18 
1 
6 
2 
9 
0 
5 
3 
8 
17 
1 
5 
1 
7 
1 
3 
5 
9 
16 
0 
3 
5 
8 
1 
1 
4 
6 
14 
5 
3 
1 
9 
1 
1 
2 
4 
13 
1 
1 
7 
9 
0 
1 
3 
4 
13 
2 
4 
1 
7 
0 
1 
4 
5 
12 
0 
5 
4 
9 
0 
1 
2 
3 
12 
0 
3 
3 
6 
0 
2 
4 
6 
12 
3 
2 
0 
5 
2 
3 
1 
6 
11 
0 
0 
9 
9 
0 
1 
1 
2 
11 
0 
1 
2 
3 
2 
1 
4 
7 
10 
0 
1 
3 
4 
2 
0 
4 
6 
10 
1 
2 
1 
4 
0 
4 
2 
6 
10 
0 
0 
3 
3 
1 
1 
5 
7 
10 
1 
3 
2 
6 
0 
2 
1 
3 
9 
2 
0 
1 
3 
0 
2 
3 
5 
8 
1 
2 
2 
5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
8 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
3 
3 
6 
8 
0 
2 
2 
4 
0 
1 
3 
4 
8 
0 
1 
3 
4 
1 
1 
1 
3 
7 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
5 
0 
5 
7 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
2 
3 
5 
7 
0 
2 
0 
2 
1 
0 
3 
4 
6 
1 
1 
1 
3 
0 
1 
2 
3 
6 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
2 
2 
4 
6 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
2 
2 
4 
6 
0 
1 
3 
4 
0 
0 
2 
2 
6 
* These Roses I find with both names, being in one place attributed to one 
raiser, in others to the other. 
In all 120 Roses have been named by twenty-eight voters. 
Besides those tabulated, five other Roses obtained five votes ; eight 
mustered four votes each ; nine secured three mentions ; thirteen 
have only two votes ; and the honour of solitary notice is enjoyed 
by no fewer than thirty-three Roses out of 120 ; in round numbers 
one in five only received a solitary recommendation. 
It will be seen that in this portion of the election the number of 
amateur voters and nurserymen are the same—fourteen in each ; 
and the different value placed upon the Roses by the two different 
classes of growers is very interesting. Let us mark, for example, 
how amateurs appear to esteem Madame Berard, Jean Pernet, Perle 
de Lyon, Bouquet and Boule d'Or much more than the nurserymen 
do ; while, on the other hand, the latter show a marked preference 
for Madame de St. Joseph, Isabella Sprunt, Safrano, and Celine 
Forestier. On the other hand, Triomphede Rennes, Marie Guillot, 
and Moire have the same number of votes from each class, and in 
the former the value of each vote is almost identical. 
There is another point of great interest in the Teas, and that is 
their antiquity. The Hybrid Perpetuals are comparatively recent ; 
few, very few, of those that have been tabulated in the election 
lists can go back twenty years. On the other hand, look at our 
present list. Out of fifty-two tabulated varieties nineteen are 
over twenty years of age, ten are over thirty years, and several 
are over forty years old. Indeed, if there were Rose exhibitions 
thirty years ago the Teas must have had it all their own way for 
beauty, the H.P.’s of that date being very third-rate according to 
our present notions. Often we complain of our H.P.’s being too 
thin. There are many blooms even of so grand a Rose as Charles 
Lefebvre that one would like to see with just a few more petals, 
but in the Teas it is often a complaint in the other direction—too 
much stuff, and under a breath of unfavourable times a somewhat 
churlish retort, “ Well, then, I just wo’n’t open.” Alas ! this is too 
often the case. “ ’Tis sad, ’tis pity ; and pity’t is, ’t is true.” 
The names of those, who have kindly replied are these 
amateurs—Revs. H. B. Biron, E. P. Wellings, G. P. Hawtrey, and 
0. H. Bulmer ; Messrs. I. T. Strange, W. Mount, J. H. Arkwright, 
Alfred Evans, W. Corp, J. Mayo, T. Laxton, Geo. Baker, Joseph 
H. Pemberton, and a lady, “A. M.” Those of the trade to whom we 
are all indebted for their opinions are Messrs. Cranston & Co., 
George Paul, Keynes & Co., Curtis & Co., C. Turner, Davison and 
Co., George Prince, Rumsey, H. Merryweather, Ewing & Co., 
Mack & Son, Francis & Co., John Mattock, and Thos. Bunyard. 
To all of these helpers I tender my grateful thanks. Next 
week I hope to give the twenty-four varieties poll, and to add 
also a list from our friend Mr. Ellwanger of New York for com¬ 
parison— Joseph Hinton, Warminster. 
OLD v. GILBERT’S VICTORY OF BATH MELON. 
All who have grown Gilbert s Victory of Bath Melon were, I 
should imagine, rather puzzled at the description given of it by 
such a practical man as we have every reason to believe Mr. Petti¬ 
grew to be. What he really described on page 326 was Gilbert’s 
Netted Victory, and this he has confounded with the “ improved ” 
form of Victory of Bath, for which Mr. Gilbert is also accredited. 
When I first received the Netted Victory I was very much in 
hopes that it would be a netted, and, therefore, a really impioved 
form of Victory of Bath. This was, I must admit, altogether sup¬ 
position, as there was nothing to encourage the idea on the seed 
packet; and if Mr. Pettigrew still has his original packet, he, 
doubtless, also will find this to be the case. At the same time the 
name selected is misleading, and has had the eftect, I believe, ot 
causing many to be prejudiced against what is really a weil- 
flavoured and very distinct Melon. 
With regard to the identity of the two older varieties I may 
mention, that having also noticed the remarks on page 292, I 
alluded to them in my correspondence with an extensive and 
skilful Melon grower, who is also what but few gardeners are a 
great Melon eater. He says there is a “very great difference, 
and that “ Gilbert’s are not such good doers ; the fruit are smaller, 
with shorter footstalks, and the rind thicker than is the case with 
the old Victory of Bath. The latter is also nicely netted when 
well grown, but although of better flavour in the first instance, 
the fruit does not keep good so long after being cut as does 
Gilbert’s variety.” This to a certain extent agrees with Mr. 
Pettigrew’s description of the old variety.—W. Iggllden. 
FUNGI A RESULT, NOT A CAUSE OF DISEASE. 
“It is a singular fact that fungus is so often said to cause 
lisease. The Potato disease has repeatedly been attributed to it, 
o has Peach blister, and now we are told that it gives rise to^the 
hanking of Grapes. In every instance the idea is erroneous. I 
lave copied the foregoing from the beginning of my note on page 
106, in order to make it quite plain to “ S.” that my statement 
vas only “ general ” so far as it refers to these three forms of 
lisease, and not by any means so sweeping or comprehensive as 
le appears to suppose. As to what I have advanced being mere y 
1 the unsupported opinion of one individual,’ the note of An 
