5£94 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ September 30, 1886. 
Narcissus. —These form another grand class which may be 
grown to flower in December without any difficulty, hut after 
trying many varieties we now confine our culture to them. These 
are the Double Roman, white, with yellow cup, and Paper White, 
which is pure white. Like the preceding, they are potted and 
treated in all respects like the Hyacinths; in fact, it is an 
advantage of no little importance that the whole of the early 
bulbs may be potted from the one heap of soil and accompany 
each other all through their rooting and forcing stages. The 
bulk of the Narcissus, however, are larger than any of the others, 
and from four to sis should be placed in an 8-inch pot. If potted 
high the roots, when they become plentiful, are almost sure to 
push the bulbs up from the soil, and they may be checked in this 
way; but if the bulbs are potted deeply, and only the narrow 
crown allowed to be visible above the soil, they will grow well. 
There is no difficulty whatever in getting the two varieties just 
named into flower at Christmas, and the tall spikes are most 
useful then either for mixing with other pot plants in the con¬ 
servatory or cutting and furnishing glasses. Their fragrance is 
very strong. 
This ends our selection of very early forcing bulbs; others 
will be named, but none of them can be relied on to flower freely. 
We have done our utmost to force Crocuses into flower by 
Christmas, but always failed. The bulbs were potted with the 
other early ones, but they did not flower until far on in the spring 
months. Crocuses have therefore been given up. Scilla prsecox, 
or sibirica, is a very early flowering bulb, but it cannot be forced 
into flower under the conditions we write of until after the new 
.year. The Jonquils may also be classed with the Scillas in this 
i e r ct, but where there are plenty of delicate Roman Hyacinths, 
brilliant scarlet Tulips, and soft-tinted Narciss in flower during 
November and December other bulbs will not be much missed, 
and may stand over until the days begin to lengthen.—J. M. 
DRESSING CHRYSANTHEMUM BLOOMS. 
I AM extremely obliged to your able correspondent Mr. Molyneux 
for his kind remarks on page 279 respecting the undressed blooms of 
Chrysanthemums referred to on page 25G. I quite agree with him that 
the blooms in question were of large size and great depth, and very clean 
and fresh, and fine broad petals and of excellent quality. Some of the 
-petals had been put a little into shape ; I saw one gentleman put his pencil 
into one or two of the flowers, and they appeared to be rather loose. 
But I did not ask the question on that point altogether, I simply thought 
that your correspondent objected to undresssed blooms, and for another 
reason. Some few years since I remember Mr. Mitchell showing in the 
claFS for twenty-four blooms against Mr. E. Sanderson. Mr. Mitchell 
had some extraordinary large blooms in his stand, half as large again as 
Mr. Sanderson’s, but they were not dressed, or but slightly so. The first 
prize was given to Mr. Sanderson in this case because his blooms were 
better dressed, and if I remember right it was reported so. For these 
reasons I asked, Why not have a class for undressed blooms as well as for 
dressed blooms ? Now the question is, if all these large undressed blooms 
were properly dressed they would in all probability have lost one-third of 
their size when they were “cupped.” I do not for one moment wish to 
dispute the decision of the Judges, for I know them all well, and know 
them to be honest men cf business.—W. M. 
ROSES AT THE NATIONAL ROSE SOCIETY’S 
METROPOLITAN EXHIBITION IN 1886. 
The following analysis is compiled from a tabulated list of all the 
Roses shown in nearly every one of the prize stands in the first twenty 
classes at the Exhibition of the National Rose Society held at South 
Kersington in July last. The total number of blooms entered in 
this list I find to have been 1547, of which 832 were exhibited by 
amateurs and 715 by nurserymen. The points most clearly brought 
out by this analysis are (1) the character of the past Rose season 
and its influence on the different varieties ; and (2) the prominent 
positions which are being taken by some of the newer Roses, and 
consequently the advance that has been made in recent years towards 
the improvement of the Queen of flowers. 
First as regards the weather of the exhibition season. It will 
be remembered that June continued extremely dry and cold until 
within a few days of its close, when hot weather all at once 
set in and lasted until after the day of the National. Com¬ 
paring the present analysis with tbe one which appeared in 
the Journal of Horticulture on October 23rd, 1884, which may be 
taken as giving the standard or average relative positions of the 
different established varieties, lhe following Roses come out as having 
stood the hot, dry, forcing weather remarkably well, if, indeed, many 
i f them were not actually benefited by it—viz., Madame Gabriel 
Lffizet (5), Marie Rady (9), Mens. Noman (37), Camille Ber- 
nardin (20), Xavier Olibo (21), Duchesse de Vallombrosa (16), Marie 
Cointet (34), Le Havre (15), Piince Arthur (25), Annie Laxton (20), 
and Annie "Wood (32); and among the Teas, Caroline Kuster (9), 
Jean Ducher (4), Innocento Pirola (4), La Boule d’Or (10), and 
Madame H. Jamain (15). On the other hand the following varieties 
were but very indifferently represented—viz., La France (5), Duke 
of Edinburgh (7), Marquise de Castellane (16), Alfred Colomb (9), 
Marguerite de St. Amand (8), Etienne Levet (17), Baroness Roth¬ 
schild (25), Madame Lacharme (9), Louis Van Houtte (25), Com- 
tesse d’Oxford (22), Marie Verdier (18), Madame Victor Verdier (35), 
Pride of Waltham (31) ; and of the Teas, Souvenir d’un Ami (8), 
Catherine Mermet (7), and Rubens (6). The figures in brackets 
after the above names are intended to indicate the number of places 
lost or gained in the case of the different varieties mentioned as 
compared with their positions in the general analysis of 1884. _ It 
should not be forgotten, however, that at the time this Exhibition 
was held some of the late-flowering kinds had not in many districts 
come fully into flower. This is alone sufficient to account for the 
low positions of some of the above varieties, while thin Roses, such 
as Baroness Rothschild and Marie Verdier, would of course.be further 
handicapped by the hot weather prevailing on the morning of the 
Show. 
Coming now to the newer varieties, and arranging them in the 
order in which they appear in the two lists, it will be found that 
among the Hybrid Perpetuals Lady Mary Fitzwilliam (1882) takes 
the first place. This so-called Hybrid Tea, which, by the way, is 
one of the freest flowering of all Roses, stood in the 1884 analysis no 
higher than 96 on the Pet, but has this year—no doubt a favourable 
one for this particular Rose—actually attained to the place of No. 9. 
The next in favour is Merveille de Lyon (1882) the most reliable of 
all the white H.P.s, but still falling far short in several points of the 
perfect white Hybrid Perpetual we may one day hope to see. Then 
we have Violette Bouyer (1881), which, although not nearly so white 
as the Rose last named, is nevertheless to my mind a more pleasing 
flower. Heinrich Schultheis (1882), which follows next, is of a 
charming and at the same time very distinct colour. The merits of 
that fine-petaled variety Ulrich Brunner (1881) entitle it to a much 
higher place than the one it has obtained in the present analysis, 
but the hot weather was no doubt on this occasion greatly against its 
being generally staged in good condition. Mr. B. R. Cant of Col¬ 
chester, a very reliable authority, regards it as the best H.P. sent out 
for years, and states that with him it is always in bloom, never 
mildews, and is at the present time as green with foliage as in June. 
Among those less prominently placed may be mentioned Duke of 
Teck (1880), Pride of Waltham (1881), Rosieriste Jacobs (1880), 
Madame Isaac Periere (1880), Mrs. Jowitt (1880), and Queen of 
Queens (1883). The chief place among the Teas is taken by that 
beautiful hot-weather variety Etoile de Lyon (1881), and next comes 
the deep-tinted and stout-petaled Madame Cusin, then three Teas of 
still more recent introduction—Hon. Edith Giffard (1882), Princess 
of Wales (1882), Madame de Watteville (1883)—all of them un¬ 
doubted acquisitions. 
When we consider that none of these new Roses are more than 
six years old, and that ai many as four of the first twelve varieties 
in the accompanying list of Hybrid Perpetuals are less than ten 
years old—viz., Madame Gabriel Luizet and A. K. Williams nine 
years each, and Lady Mary Fitzwilliam and Merveille de Lyon only 
four years each—and that many promising Teas are coming on the 
scene, it will not 6urely be denied that substantial progress is being 
made in the improvement of our national flower; 
For the benefit of non-exhibitors I will now give a list of twelve 
Hybrid Perpetuals and six Teas selected from the above tables. In 
making the selection I have endeavoured to name only such kinds in 
their different shades of colour as yield the choicest blooms, and which, 
being free-flowering, hardy, and of good constitution, are likely with 
moderate care and~attention to do well—viz., of Hybrid Perpetuals, 
A. K. Williams, Baroness Rothschild, Camille Bernardin, Charles 
Lefebvre, Duchesse de Vallombrosa, Dupuy Jamain, La France, 
Marie Finger, Marquise de Castellane, Merveille de Lyon, Prince 
Arthur, and Ulrich Brunner ; and from the Teas, Anna Ollivier, 
Hon. Edith Giffard, Innocente Pirola, Madame Lambard, Marie Van 
Houtte, and Souvenir d’un Ami. I would at the same time recom¬ 
mend that a separate bed should be exclusively given up to these 
Roses, which should be dwarf plants on either the seedling-briar or 
briar-cutting. If a greater number of plants be desired it would be 
advisable to obtain two, three, or more of any of the Roses mentioned 
here rather than commence at once with a numerous collection of 
less certain kinds. 
To the following members of the Committee of the National Rose 
Society I am indebted for kind assistance in taking down the names 
of the Roses at this Exhibition—viz., Mr. H. Appleby, Rev. H. A. 
Berners, Mr. J. Burrell, Mr. G. Bunyard, Mr. T. W. Girdlestone, Mr. 
W. J. Jefferies, Mr. E. B. Lindsell, and Mr. J. Sargant; also to 
Mr. T. VV. Girdlestone for aiding^me' in preparing the selection of 
Roses recommended above. 
