GG 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER 
[ July 22, 1886. 
closely identified, capable of settling disputed points ; and, again, I ask, 
Wbat is Kew about 1 
Surely with all their resources the authorities there might have 
educated themselves ere this, or some official should be encouraged to do 
so. Is nothing being done anywhere or by anyone ? It is true there has 
been a conference, but it appears to have come to nothing. I was not 
there, but heard it was “ just a jumble.” It seems as if everybody wanted 
something done, and no one knew exactly what. So far as I can learn 
no plan was formulated, no basis of action decided on, but everything 
was left open, and any persons could “ chop in ” according to fancy, 
or nurse their little schemes to their heart’s content, or discontent, for 
there appears to have been as much of this as the other, as I heard of 
no one being satisfied. The whole thing seems to have been very much of 
a farce. 
If there is any one place in England to which we have a right to look 
for light on a subject on which we appear so much in the dark, it is Kew. 
It is supported by the country for the benefit of the country, and I am 
one of the many who think that everything that is ascertained in the 
establishment that is of interest to the horticultural community should 
be made known in the widest possible manner in the shape of reports 
issued periodically for insertion in all the gardening papers. 
There must be a great amount of knowledge locked up, so to say, at 
Kew, and amongst this much about Orchids, for it will be conceded that 
very little is given to the world. What do others say ?—A Taxpayer. 
It appears that the rather perplexing subject of Orchid nomenclature 
is still under consideration by the Committee appointed for the purpose, 
and if this is so it is somewhat strange that the Floral Committee of the 
Royal Horticultural Society should take the alteration of names into their 
own hands, pending an authoritative decision. At the last meeting at 
South Kensington an Oncidium was exhibi'ed under the name of 0. ma- 
cranthum Southgatei which was certificated, the name being altered by 
the Committee to “ Southgate’s Variety.” An Odontoglossum crispum 
variety was also certificated under the name of Mrs. C. Dorman. On the 
other hand, another variety of O. crispum was certificated as Hrubyanum, 
and a vote of thanks was accorded for an Odontoglossum vexillarium 
named Hollingtoni. There is a very strange inconsistency in this naming, 
and if the Committee thought fit to alter the names to popular designations 
in one case why were they allowed to remain in the botanical form in the 
others ? I think we have a right to expect some explanation of this course, 
and in the absence of a decision on the part of the Nomenclature Com¬ 
mittee, I fail to recognise the right of the Floral Committee to alter the 
names of plants brought before them.—Ax Orchid Grower. 
ROSE SHOWS. 
THE NATIONAL ROSE SOCIETY.— July 15th. 
NOTHER provincial Ex. 
hibition has passed aw r ay, 
and the 1886 meeting at 
the Botanical Gardens, Birming¬ 
ham, must be written down as a 
success so far as the Roses and 
gathering of Rose-growers were 
concerned. Heavy rains in some 
districts prevented some exhibi¬ 
tors who had entered from put¬ 
ting in an appearance. Still, there was 
a large representative gathering of lead¬ 
ing growers, as our report of the prize¬ 
winners will show, and there was 
quality in a large proportion of the blooms 
staged, and in many instances the competition 
was very close. The general impression amongst the 
Birmingham visitors was that it was a grand display of 
Roses, and expressions were freely made that it was the best 
all-round exhibition of Roses seen in Birmingham. Merveille de 
Lyon Rose was in grand form, and the stands of twelve blooms 
were an attractive feature. The Tea Roses also were fine, such as we rarely 
see in the midlands, and some Roses, such as A. K. Williams, Ulrich 
Brunner, Mdlle. Marie Verdier, and others, were in splendid form every¬ 
where. Amongst the Teas Madame de Watteville and Madame Cusin were 
written down in notebooks frequently, and no wonder, for both are great 
acquisitions in new colours. 
The executive of the Botanical Society did all they could to make 
effective arrangements, and Mr. W. B. Latham must bs thanked for what 
he did to secure success. The large glass exhibition building was crowded 
with exhibits, and the day was fortunately cool and moderately cloudy. 
There was a capital attendance, but as the subscribers to the gardens 
and their families are admitted free, and the expenses of the Botanical 
Society in various ways, including a bonus of £100 to the National Rose 
Society, it will entail a loss of quite £100, as the receipts for the one day did 
not exceed £50. 
Division A (nurserymen) for seventy-two trusses, the Cranston Nursery 
Company,’Limited, were placed first, their best blooms being Abel Carriere, 
Mrs. Baker, Mrs. Jowitt, Pride of Waltham, Mdlle. S. Rodonanche very fine, 
Henri Ledechaux, President Senelar fine, Ulrich Biunner, Prince Arthur, 
Princess Charlotte de la Tremouille, John Stuart Mill, Merveille de Lyon, 
and Duchesse de Morny. Mr. B. R. Cant was second with smaller blooms, 
but good also. Third Mr. Frank Cano, Colchester; fourth Messrs. Paul 
and Son, Cheshunt, and then there was one other box staged. In class 2, for 
thirty-six, three trusses of each, there were five exhibits. First Mr. B. R. 
Cant, his best being Reynolds Hole, Niphetos, Ulrich Brunner, Franpois 
Louvat, Prince Arthur, A. K. Williams, Souvenir d'Elise, Countess of 
Oxford, Duke of Edinburgh, Dr. Sewell, Madame Gabriel Luizet, Duke of 
Wellington, Alfred Colomb, Mons. Noman, Souvenir d’un Ami, Comtesse de 
Nadaillac, Louis Van Houtte, Mdlle. Marie Verdier, Madame Hippolyte 
Jamain, Charles Lefebvre, Merveille de Lyon, and Teas Madame de Walte- 
ville and Madame Cusin. This was a very fine stand of clean bright 
flowers. Second Mr. Frank Cant; third Messrs. Paul & Son; fourth Mr. 
C. Turner, Slough. 
In class 3, eighteen Teas and Noisettes, single trusses, ther-e were five 
exhibitors, and this class was well represented and much admired. First, 
Mr. Frank Cant, with very fine blooms, consisting of Madame Willermoz, 
Catherine Mermet, La Boule d’Or, Madame Lambard, Niphetos, Souvenir 
d’Eiise, Comtesse de Nadaillac, Madame Margottin, Souvenir d’un Ami, 
Marechal Niel, Devoniensis, Madame Caroline Kuster, Marie VaD Houtte, 
Madame Welche, Madame Bravy, Madame Cusin, Madame Angele Jacquier, 
and Innocente Pirola. Second, Mr. George Prince, Oxford, Catherine 
Mermet, Madame Cusin, Francisca Kruger, Marie Van Houtte, Madame 
Lambard, and Marcillin Rhoda were all very fine. Third, Mr. B. R. Cant. 
In class 4, thirty-six distinct Roses, single trusses, there were seven 
exhibits. First, Messrs. Harkness & Son, nurserymen, Bedale, with back 
row—Etienne Lamy, Merveille de Lyon, no name, Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, 
Franpois Michelon, Charles Darwin, Marie Rady, Marie Verdier, Charles 
Lsfebvre, Madame Hippolyte Jamain, E. Y. Teas, Ulrich Brunner. Second 
row—Souvenir de Paul Neyron, Le Havre, Tea Jean Duoher, Louis Van 
Houtte, Tea Catherine Mermet, Alfred Colomb, Madame Hippolyte Jamain 
(Query.—I have it so in my notes, but in the hurry of taking them I did 
not notice the repeat) Pierre Notting, Elie Morel, Beauty of Waltham, 
Marechal Niel, Prince Arthur. Front row—Duke of Teck, Captain Christy, 
Avocat Duvivier, Tea Souvenir d’un Ami, Horace Vernet, Countess of Rose¬ 
bery, Duke of Edinburgh, Mons. Alfred Dumesnil, Lord Macaulay, La 
France, Dupuy Jamain, and Princess Beatrice. Second Messrs. J. Burrell and 
Son, nurserymen, Cambridge, with Reynolds Hole, Victor Verdier, Etienne 
Levet, Duchesse de Morny, and Madame Clemence Joigneaux all very fine 
blooms. Third, Messrs. John Jefferies«fe Son, nurserymen, Cirencester. Fourth, 
Mr. T. Mattock, Headingham, Oxford. In class 5, for eighteen distinct trebles, 
there were six lots staged. First, Messrs. John Jefferies & Son, with a fine 
stand of blooms—viz., Countess of Oxford, Dr. Andry, Baroness Rothschild, 
Beauty of Waltham, Merveille de Lyon, Ulrich Brunner, Queen of Queens, 
Louis Van Houtte, Madame Gabriel Luizet. Second row—Alfred Colomb, 
Marie Verdier, Rosieriste Jacobs, Marguerite de St. Amand, Marie Baumann, 
Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, A. K. Williams, La France, and Ferdinand de 
L'sseps. Second, Messrs. G. Cooling & Son, Bath, with a smaller but good 
lot. Third, Messrs. Harkness & Son. Class 6. twelve Teas or Noisettes 
single trusses, brought out five exhibitors. Mr. J. Mattock was placed first 
with Jean Ducher, Hippolyte Jamain, David Pradel, Innocente Pirola, 
Souvenir d’Eiise Vardon, Madame de Watteville. Front row—Marechal 
Niel, Souvenir d’un Ami, Comtesse de Nadaillac, Cornelia Koch, Catherine 
Mermet, and Marie Van Houtte. Second, Messrs. Harkne.-s & Son; third, 
Messrs. G. Cooling & Son. 
The following are the amateurs’ classes. Class 7, thirty-six distinct, 
single trusses. Five exhibitors. First, The Rev. J. H. Pemberton, 
Havering, Romford, with a very fine lot of blooms—viz., Comte Raimbaud, 
Madame Charles Wood, Alfred Colomb, Madame Eugene Verdier, Marie 
Baumann, Ulrich Brunner, Marquise de Castellane. Madame Charles 
Crapelet, Alphonse Soupert, Xavier Olibo, Niphetos, Countess of Oxford. 
Second row — Mdlle. Eugenie Verdier, Mdlle. Victor Verdier, Madame 
Gabriel Luizet, Charles Lefebvre, Merveille de Lyon, Auguste Rigotard, 
Pierre Notting, Belle Lyonnaise, A. K. Williams, Baroness Rothschild, 
Horace Vernet, Franpois Michelon. Front row—Mdlle. Annie Wood, 
Madame Bravy, Abel Carriere, Tea Comtesse de Nadaillac, Comtesse de 
Camondo, Souvenir d’Eiise Vardon, and others. Second, Mr. T. B. Hall, 
Rock Ferry, Birkenhead, Ulrich Brunner, Beauty of Waltham, Etienne 
Levet, and Etoile de Lyon being very fine. Third, T. W. Girdlestone, Esq., 
Sunningdale, with an excellent stand ; and fourth, Mr. W. J. Grant, Hope 
End Farm, Ledbury, with exceptionally good blooms. The exhibits in this 
class were all fine. 
In class 8, twelve varieties, three blooms of each, four exhibitors, first 
Mr. W. J. Grant with a very fine stand—viz., Marie Verdier, Alfred Colomb, 
Baroness Rothschild, Horace Vernet, Merveille de Lyon. Marie Baumann. 
Front row—A. K. Williams, Souvenir d’un Ami, Louis Van Houtte, Marie 
Van Houtt°, Marie Rady, and Abel Carriere. Second, Mr. T. B. Hall, with 
very fine blooms, especially Marie Verdier, A. K. Williams, Louis Van Houtte, 
Captain Christy, Merveille de Lyon, and Etienne Levet. Third, Rev. J. H. 
Pemberton. Class 9, twelve Teas or Noisettes, Bingle trusses, first Mr. T. B. 
Hall, with a very fine stand of Madame Willermoz, Souvenir d’un Ami, Alba 
Rosea, Madame Cusin. Second row—Comtesse de Nadaillac, Hon. Edith 
Giffard, very fine; Jean Ducher, Etoile de Lyon. Third row—Madame Van 
Houtte, Madame Lambard, Madame Welche, and Catherine Mermet. 
Second, the Rev. E. G. King, D.D., Madingley Vicarage, Cambridge, who 
had a grand bloom of Souvenir d’Eiise Vardon. Third, the Rev. J. H. 
Pemberton. There were two other boxes staged in this class. 
In class 10, twenty-four, single trusses, distinct, there were five exhibits, 
and Mr. C. Williams, Lower Eaton, Hereford, was placed first with 
Madame Charles Crapelet, Comtesse de Serenye, Rosieriste Jacobs, Mdlle. 
Marie Verdier, Prince Arthur, Lady Sheffield, Merveille de Lyon, John 
Stuart Mdl. Second row—Beauty of Waltham, Duke of Wellington, Ulrich 
Brunner, Marie Rady, Duchesse de Morny, A. K. Williams, Star of Waltham, 
Abel Carriere. Front row'—La Rosiere, Boroness Rothschild, Fisher 
Holmes, Marhehal Niel, Reynolds Hole, Mdlle. Marie Closon, Pride of 
Waltham, and Maurice Bernardin. Second, the Rev. L. Garnet, Chester, 
with an even good lot, Heinrich Schultheis, Ulrich BrunLer, Mr.lie. Eugenie 
Verdier, Etienne Levet, and Duke of Wellingto being his finest blooms 
