JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
390 
[ October 28, 1880. 
opinion. It will be noticed that Rubens and Alba Rosea hold 
exactly the same position ; practically Jean Pernet, Madam Welsh, 
Moird, and Madame de St. Joseph also do so. Much in the table, 
however, speaks for itself. 
In this twenty-four varieties election the first column denotes 
the best six (not twelve), the second the next best six, and the 
third the next twelve. 
a £ 
Ama- 
Nurse 
- r aJ 
T3 • 
c C3 
• > 
Charac- 
Raiser’s 
teurs. 
-4-< 
O 
n men. 
O 
a3 -g> 
J- O 
Name of Rose. 
ter. Age. 
Name. 
A 
B 
O 
H 
A*B*C* 
1 
2 
Souvr. d’un Ami.. 
T. 1846 
Belot Defou- 
13 
8 
2 
23 
12 
4 
1 
17 
40 
g£re .... 
2 
8 
Marechal Niel.... 
N. 1864 
Pradel .... 
19 
2 
1 
22 
14 
2 
0 
16 
38 
3 
1 
Catherine Mermet 
T. 1869 
Guillot, fils.. 
9 10 
3 
22 
12 
4 
0 
16 
38 
4 
5 
Marie Van Houtte T. 1871 
J Ducher ? 
(Levet ? 
11 
7 
4 
22 
10 
6 
0 
16 
38 
5 
3 
Devoniensis. 
T. 1838 
Forster .... 
11 
7 
3 
21 
9 
6 
2 
17 
38 
6 
4 
Gloire de Dijon .. 
T. 1853 
Jacotot .... 
14 
2 
4 
20 
15 
2 
0 
17 
37 
7 
6 
Nipbetos . 
T. 1844? 
4 
9 
7 
20 
9 
5 
3 
17 
37 
8 
9 
Souvenir d’Elise .. 
T. 1855 
Marcet .... 
7 
7 
6 
20 
4 
4 
6 
14 
34 
9 
13 
Belle Lyonnaise .. 
T. 1S69 
Levet. 
11 
3 
5 
19 
2 
7 
5 
14 
33 
10 
10 
Rubens. 
T. 1859 
(Robert ? 
/ E. Yerdier ? 
2 
3 14 
19 
1 
5 
6 
12 
31 
11 
14 
Madame Willermoz T. 1847? Lacharme .. 
0 
4 11 
15 
2 
7 
6 
15 
30 
12 
15 
Madame Lambard. 
T. 1877 
Lacharme .. 
2 
3 
9 
14 
4 
3 
7 
14 
28 
13 
7 
Perle des Jardins.. 
T. 1874 
Levet . 
0 
5 
9 
14 
1 
5 
8 
14 
28 
14 
11 
Souvr. de P. Neron 
T. 1871 
Levet. 
1 
6 11 
18 
0 
5 
3 
8 
26 
15 
17 
Anna Ollivier ,... 
T. 1872 
Ducher .... 
4 
3 
8 
15 
1 
3 
6 
10 
25 
16 
18 
Celine Forestier .. 
N. 1859 
Leroy. 
4 
2 
4 
10 
3 
o 
8 
14 
24 
17 
21 
Madame Berard .. 
T. 1873 
Levet. 
3 
3 12 
18 
0 
1 
5 
6 
24 
18 
22 
Com. de Nadaillac T. 1872 
Guillot .... 
2 
3 
8 
13 
0 
2 
8 
10 
23 
19 
12 
Jean Ducher. 
T. 1874 
Ducher .... 
2 
3 10 
15 
0 
1 
7 
8 
23 
20 
20 
Alba Rosea . 
'r. 1855 
2 
3 
7 
12 
0 
5 
5 
10 
22 
21 
23 
Madame C. Kuster N. 1872 
Pernet .... 
2 
6 
7 
15 
0 
0 
7 
7 
22 
22 
26 
Adam . 
T.1838 
Adam. 
1 
1 13 
15 
0 
5 
1 
6 
7 
22 
23 
16 
Madame Falcot .. 
T. 1858 
Guillot, fils.. 
0 
0 
6 
6 
3 
7 
15 
21 
24 
19 
Madame Margottin T. 1866 
Guillot, fils.. 
0 
1 10 
11 
0 
3 
7 
10 
21 
25 
23 
TriomphedeRennes N. 1857 
Lanzezeur .. 
1 
4 
5 
10 
0 
3 
5 
8 
18 
26 
25 
Homfere. 
T.1859 
Robert .... 
3 
3 
o 
O 
9 
0 
0 
7 
7 
16 
27 
£9 
Bouquet d’Or .... 
N. 1872 
Ducher .... 
3 
6 
4 
13 
0 
1 
1 
2 
15 
28 
34 
Madame Bravy.. 
T. 
Guillot, p6re 
1 
4 
4 
9 
0 
2 
3 
5 
14 
29 
27 
Mad. Hip. Jamain 
T. 1869 
Guillot, fils. . 
0 
2 
4 
6 
0 
1 
3 
4 
10 
30 
38 
Innocente Pirola.. 
1 575 
Mad. Ducher 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
0 
5 
5 
3 
31 
40 
Reve d’Or. 
N.1870 
Ducher .... 
1 
0 
3 
4 
0 
0 
3 
3 
7 
32 
(31 
Madame Welsh .. 
T. 1878 
Mad. Ducher 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
5 
6 
7 
to 
\ 32 
Jean Pernet. 
T. 1848 
Pernet .... 
0 
0 
5 
5 
0 
1 
1 
2 
7 
34 
1,42 
Madame Camille.. 
.1871 
Guillot, fils.. 
0 
1 
5 
6 
0 
0 
1 
1 
7 
35 
41 
Amazon . 
T.1873 
Ducher .... 
1 
3 
0 
4 
0 
0 
2 
2 
6 
30 
37 
Lamarque . 
Marechal .. 
0 
3 
0 
3 
0 
0 
3 
3 
6 
37 
(33 
Marie Guillot .... 
T. 1875 
Guillot, fils.. 
0 
0 
3 
3 
0 
0 
3 
3 
6 
(46 
Madame Charles.. 
T. 1864 
Damaizin .. 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
5 
5 
6 
38 
36 
Isabella Sprunt . . 
T. 
Sprunt .... 
0 
0 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
5 
39 
30 
Boule d’Or . 
T. 
Margottin .. 
1 
0 
2 
3 
0 
0 
2 
2 
5 
(39 
Safrano . 
T. 1839 
Beauregard 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
9 
O 
4 
5 
(28 
President . 
Moire . 
T. 
American 
variety 
0 
0 
3 
3 
0 
1 
1 
2 
5 
(44 
T. 1844? 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
3 
3 
5 
(43 
Mad. de St. Joseph T. 1846? 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
4 
4 
5 
Ten more Roses polled four votes, five were named three times, 
twelve obtained notice only twice ; and twenty-three, a fourth of 
the whole number named (ninety-four), had but a solitary vote. 
Will not this tabular statement surprise many ? It is not that 
in naming twenty-four varieties or thirty-six varieties, there is 
any such marked difference in the first three dozen, for were a 
beginner to order the first three dozen from either list there 
would only be a difference in four ; but it is the surprising dif¬ 
ference in the number of votes polled after about a dozen have 
been named. For instance, with twenty-eight voters in the thirty- 
six varieties, we do not arrive at a Rose polling only half the 
“highest possible '’ till we arrive at No. 29, Bouquet d’Or; 
whereas in the twenty-four varieties with forty-one voters it is 
reached as early as No. 25, and then with a drop of two below. 
Indeed the rapid falling-off of the number of votes after two 
dozen have been named, although the voters are so much more 
numerous, appears to me fully to bear out the remarks of one of 
our greatest rosarians in the trade when he says at the end of his 
list, naming two or three additional, these “ would about exhaust 
the number of Teas.” Truly in this comparison of the greater 
and smaller number of varieties it is quality that tells. Judged 
by the test of quality—that is, first-class votes, Mardchal Niel must 
have been a long way at the head ; indeed no other Rose would 
have been near, dear old Gloire following at a respectable distance. 
There is, in fact, a “ soft place,” a weak point in the Teas, and it 
is, I apprehend, setting aside the delicacy, the matter of “stuff.” 
Here, as I ventured in one of the earlier elections to say, is the 
blot on their escutcheon. Either this valuable quality is deficient, 
so that many of the varieties are thin, or there is so much of the 
article that a dampness in the weather or any slight blemish 
seals up the bud and it refuses to unfold its charms. Such Roses, 
for instance, a3 Isabella Grey, America, and Marie Guillot are 
extremely disappointing in this way, and it is in this that 1 think 
Catherine Mermet excels, that though very full, she rarely refuses 
to open—at least that is my experience. 
As I thought it would interest many of our readers to see the 
American opinion of the class, I sent a voting paper to our kind 
friend Mr. Ellwanger, in New York. It will be recollected that 
his list of two years ago in the general election was noticeable for 
the very strong aroma of Tea that pervaded it, which made me 
suspect that the climate was better adapted to their growth than 
our own, and I now append his list:— 
Position in 24 vara. 
Position in 36 vara. 
1. Marechal Niel . 
.. No. 2 .... 
. No. 8 
2. Catherine Mermet . 
.. „ 3 .... 
. „ 1 
3. Marie Y. Houtte . 
.. „ 4 _ 
. „ 5 
„ 19 .... 
. „ 12 
5. Madame Bravy.. 
„ 28 . .. . 
. „ 34 
6 . Boug6re . 
.. four votes .... 
. „ 48,9 
7. Rubens . 
.. No. 10 .... 
. „ 10 
8 . Marie Berton . 
.. not named .... 
9. Comtesse Itizadu Parc ... 
. only two votes .... 
. No. 47 
10. Marie Guillot . 
No. 37,8 .... 
. „ 33 
11. Nipbetos . 
„ 7 _ 
. „ 6 
12. Triomphe de Milan . 
.. two votes . 
13. Deyoniensis . 
No. 5 _ 
14. Souvenir d’un Ami . 
„ 1 _ 
. „ 2 
15. Belle Lj^onnaise. 
„ 9 .... 
. „ 13 
16. Hom&re . 
.. ,,26 .... 
. „ 25 
17. Comte de Sembui. 
not named .... 
18. Perle des Jardins . 
No. 13 
. No. 7 
19. Jean Pernet. 
„ 32, 3, 4_ 
. „ 32 
20. Comte de Grivel. 
.. not named .... 
21. Madame de Yatry. 
22. Marq. de Sanina . 
.. one vote .... 
23. Mons. Furtado ‘. 
.. two votes .... 
. No. 52 
24. Sombreuil . 
.. three votes .... 
It thus will be seen that in naming twenty-four varieties Mr. 
Ellwanger names several that are not considered in any degree 
deserving with us. 
The names of those who have assisted in the election of twenty- 
four varieties, and to whom all, but most especially the return¬ 
ing officer, are deeply indebted, include, of course, all those whose 
names appeared in last week’s issue as assisting in the thirty- 
six varieties, and the following additional amateurs :—Revs. 
Alan Cheales, J. H. Fuller, J. A. Williams, and E. L. Fellowes ; 
Messrs. E. R. Whitwell, Henry Poulter, Wm. Walters, W. H. 
Wakeley, and J. Tranter; and of nurserymen—Messrs. B. R. 
Cant, H. Frettingham, Jefferies & Son, and Mitchell & Sons, 
making with the twenty-eight named last week forty-one voters 
in all. 
I have selected three lists out of the forty-one sent in as specially 
interesting. Messrs. Ewing’s is comprehensive and gives a 
reason for almost every vote. The Rev. C. H. Bulmer’s ideas of 
“ too much alike ” are acted on in his list; whilst Mr. S. R. Whit¬ 
well adds to each Rose a number signifying its position and value 
as an exhibition variety. 
Messrs. Ewing & Co.’s selection. 
“Best six Tea or Noisette Boses for general purposes, second best six, next 
twelve, and third twelve.” 
1. Gloire de Dijon (not a true Tea) 
2. Mardchal Niel (for climbing 
under glass or on walls) 
3. Nipbetos (for pots, planting out 
under glass, forcing, and low 
walls in the open air) 
4. Perle des Jardins (the best yellow 
for pots) 
5. Madame Falcot (the best of its 
colour for cutting in the bud 
state for button-holes and bou¬ 
quets) 
6. Isabella Sprunt (the best of its 
colour for the same purposes as 
Madame Falcot) 
The following are equal for many 
purposes to the above : — Catherine 
Mermet, Climbing Devoniensis, Old 
Devoniensis, Jean Ducher, Louise de 
Savoie, Madame Lambard, and Marie 
Van Houtte. 
7. Kubens 
8. Celine Forestier 
9. Bougfere 
10. Lamarque 
11. Solfaterre 
12. Triomphe de Rennes 
Equal to the above for various pur¬ 
poses are David Pradel, L’Enfant 
Trouvd, Comte de Sembui, Madame 
C. Duster, Adrienne Christophle, Perle 
de Lyon, Belle Lyonnaise, Cheshunt 
Hybrid (not a true Tea), Madame 
Willermoz, Souvenir d’un Ami, and 
Comtesse de Nadaillac. The last va¬ 
riety will probably go up higher when 
more experience has been had of it. 
13. RSve d’Or 
14. Aline Sisley 
15. Duchess of Edinburgh (Yeitcb) 
16. Homere 
17. Iunocenta Pirola 
18. Letty Coles 
19. Madame Bravy 
20. Madame Bremont 
21. Madame Camille 
22. Madame Charles 
23. Madame Denis 
24. Madame J. Margottin 
The following may be classed as 
about equal in merit:—Madame Mar¬ 
gottin, Safrano, Sombreuil, Triomphe 
de Milan, and Madame Welsh. The 
last-named Bose will probably have 
a higher position after further trial. 
25. Goubault (extra fragrant) 
26. Viscomtesse de Cazes 
27. La Boule d’Or (under glass only) 
28. Madame Damazin 
29. Abricote 
30. Madame T. Janin (for small buds 
only) 
31. Madame Trifle 
32. Madame Cecile Berthod 
33. Marie Guillot 
34. Beine de Portugal (this Rose and 
Marie Guillot would be amongst 
the “ best ” if they opened freely) 
35. Souvenir d’Empereur Maximilian 
36. Souvenir de Paul Neyron 
(Some of this season’s Teas and hy¬ 
brid Teas promise well, but we do not 
name them till we have proved them 
more fully.) 
