558 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 21, 1893. 
Cherry Parli. —I saw this at York, and it is very like Annie King; 
Commodore (J. D. Stuart).—A distinct shade of pale blue, evidently 
a fine variety for forming masses. 
Con O'Neil (J. D. Stuart).—White with rich stripes of violet purple; 
extra fine. 
Diva (J. D. Stuart).—Pure white, small bloom, and entirely rayless ; 
a’charming flower of good form. 
Duchess of Rothsay (Dobbie & Co.).—A much improved Countess 
of Kintore, and very fine. 
Duke of Clarence (Irvine).—Rich black with deep blue blotches ; a 
very handsome and distinct variety. 
Erin (J. D. Stuart).—A rich coloured striped flower ; fine. 
George Lord (Steel).—Sulphur yellow, with a deep orange central 
blotch ; a very fine rayless variety. 
Hibernia (J. D. Stuart).—Rich purple striped, distinct and fine. 
Jane Bell (Irvine).—Heliotrope clouded with mauve, fine and 
distinct. 
Lady Borthioich (Irvine).—A charming variety, and distinct. 
Lady Dufferin (J. D. Stuart).—White, marked with pale mauve or 
heliotrope ; distinct and fine. 
Lillie Langtry (Dobbie & Co.).—A fine and rich coloured striped 
variety of good substance and form. 
Lovelight (J. D. Stuart).—White, with a distinct Picotee margin of 
blue lilac, and very pretty and distinct. 
Maggie Todd (Irvine).—Rich violet clouded with purple, lighter 
coloured top petals ; a handsome variety. 
Mahogany (Smellie).—Bronzy crimson veined with lemon; bright 
and fine, and very distinct. 
Mary Stuart (J. D. Stuart).—White, a little tinted with cream ; an 
extra fine, quite rayless, variety of good form. 
Miss Emily Revh (J. D. Stuart).—A bright carnation-striped flower; 
distinct and fine. 
Mrs. Joseph Chamberlain (J. D. Stuart).—Rose clouded with lilac; 
a distinct variety. 
Mrs. C. Kay (Dobbie & Co ).—Raised by Mr. C. Kay of Gargunnock. 
White bordered with heliotrope ; a distinct and pretty variety. 
Mrs. Joseph A. Olliver (Irvine).—A very fine variety. 
Mrs. Scott (Steel).—White, with a yellow blotch below the eye, and 
quite rayless and of excellent form. 
Pride of Etal (Steel).—White, bordered with pale lilac, retaining the 
“ Violetta ” style of flower ; a bright, distinct, good variety. 
Prince of Orange (Dobbie & Co.).— A rich, deep golden yellow self ; 
a decided acquisition in every way, and reported to be a good bedding 
variety. 
(Steel).—Creamy yellow of “Sylvia” type. 
William (Irvine).—A grand flower, of fine form and substance, 
very rich black violet, blotched and clouded with pale blue. 
William Jones (Irvine).—A Countess of Kintore style of flower, but 
smaller and of exquisite form. 
1 have also seen other fine varieties raised by different growers, but as 
I have no knowledge of an intention to introduce them until the autumn 
of 1894 or spring of 1895, there is no necessity for alluding further to 
them now. There are likewise many other varieties which are being 
introduced for the first time by Messrs. Dobbie, Irvine, Pye, and others 
which I have not seen, and therefore they are not mentioned here. 
It will be noticed, as before mentioned, that many of these new 
varieties have been raised by Mr. J. D. Stuart and Mr. McKee, both of 
whom often send me blooms of their seedlings, and both are on the right 
track in raising some very fine varieties, and they pass into other hands 
for distribution. I am unable to allude to Mr. McKee’s new varieties, 
as their distribution is so uncertain, but I think Mr. Irvine will be 
offering some of them, and I can safely say that his Tara, The Clown, 
Decorator, Spray, and Charm will be acquisitions. Mr. McKee’s 
Countess, Duchess, and Magnet (the latter especially, and already in 
cultivation) gave him fame as a raiser. Mr. J. D. Stuart has been 
most successful, and at the great Pansy shows of the midlands has 
exhibited so many good seedlings, certificates were granted to some of 
them, only real merit being recognised. Messrs. Dobbie also have other 
new varieties, but I have not seen them.—W. D. 
It will be clearly noted by those persons who read the notes on 
recently introduced varieties by your correspondent “ W. D.” (page 438) 
we have now arrived at a period when these plants are very popular. I 
cannot speak as an old cultivator myself, but I certainly do grow the 
majority of the catalogue varieties, both new and old. My object in 
sending these notes is to protest mildly against the constant influx of so 
called novelties. A glance at the list furnished by your correspondent 
will suffice to show the practical growers that, at least, half of the 
varieties should never have been brought before the public. It would, 
of course, be very unwise on my part to particularise, but I know at the 
present time many of the varieties introduced three years ago are now 
discarded from some collections. I would not have my name associated 
with a Viola I knew would be ultimately discarded; neither would I as 
a trade grower introduce a worthless variety. The time will come 
when our Viola specialists will have to exercise the same discretion as 
the rosarians do at the present time. 
Viola growers are now sacrificing everything for large flowers, losing 
sight entirely of the habit of the plant, a point, I take it, as of- equal 
importance to the flowers. What is the use of a Viola plant that will 
grow a foot or more in an upright direction like a Pansy ? yet how 
many of our modern varieties come under this head. Exhibitors to 
some extent are responsible for the introduction of these unsightly 
growing varieties ; so long as the flower is large and distinct, it would 
appear they do not mind any other defect. I saw several of our new 
varieties last season that were more than a foot high tied to stakes, 
and this in a dry season. While the exhibitors make size the principal 
point in their flowers, or appear to do so, we shall continue to receive 
the annual quota of these “ leggy ” varieties. We have many dwarf 
forms to work upon, and I think we should do well to discard this class 
of leggy plants which is now in the ascendant. The Ardwell Gem 
family of Goldfinch, Duchess of Fife, and White Duchess, are all models 
as far as habit is concerned, the foliage being on the surface of the 
ground, forming a pretty carpet. 
We want the hybridiser to persuade the blooms of the tufted plants 
to look up. Dr. Stuart of Chirnside appears to be on the right track, 
for his Sylvia, a creamy white with good habit, possesses nearly all the 
characteristics that go to make up a fine Viola. Blush Queen, by the 
same raiser, is of good quality, while the Violetta type certainly opens up 
a new field for Viola raisers. The foliage and habit are all that can be 
desired, now we want larger flowers, to make almost an ideal Viola, 
with a tendency to early flowering added thereto. 1 should like other 
Viola growers to give us their opinion on this most important matter, for 
I think it only wants pointing out to start the raisers of new varieties 
on a different track.—J. B. R. 
Burnside’s Bijou on Tea Roses. 
Ip there be any royal road to a knowledge of Rose culture it has 
certainly been discovered by the Rev. F. R. Burnside, Birch Vicarage, 
near Hereford. It is an age of expansion in literature, but it is also one 
of precis, compendiums, and compression. Even the English literary 
sentence has shrunk from fifty words in the Carolian era to twenty-five 
in the Victorian. Those who love to meander through the reams of text 
that are printed in gardening papers upon Rose cultivation will not get 
much of this linked sweetness long drawn out in Mr. Burnside’s work on 
“ Tea Roses : How to Grow and Exhibit Them.” He very soon comes 
to the point. He has accomplished a feat which, so far as we know, is 
unparalleled. He has compressed all he considers necessary to be known 
on the cultivation of Tea Roses, on which he is an admitted authority, 
in the space equal to about a page and half of the Rose matter in our 
columns, the remaining pages, one-third of the book, being devoted to a 
good descriptive list of varieties. Mr. Burnside’s Bijou is published by 
Messrs, Jakeman & Carver, Hereford, and Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, 
Kent & Co., London. 
Roses Comte Alphonse de Serente and Comtesse de 
Serenye. 
The above have been confused in more than one instance by friends 
of mine, and it may be well to note their great dissimilarity. Comte 
A. de Serenye was introduced by Louvais in 1866, and is now almost 
extinct in this country. No nurserymen’s list that I have contains it. 
The shape is good, but the flower is small ; colour bright clear rose, 
with a tinge of lilac and purple. It flowers very early, and almost 
always produces a fair bloom in the autumn from the point of late 
growths. At one time it was a great favourite with me, and is still 
most distinct from any others. 
Soon after Comtesse de Serenye came out, in 1875 (Lacharme), I 
had an instance of its confusion with the older Rose, and this by a 
trade grower, who said he had had it for years. He had mistaken 
the name. Lacharme’s Rose is very double, and a bad opener during 
any but a dry and cool season. I did not get a bloom in 1893. The 
colour is a light rosy-peach, petals thin in texture, and very numerous, 
easily spoilt by wet, but a magnificent Rose occasionally. The shape 
of these two is different; so, too, are the growth and foliage, while in 
colour they are most distinct. I cannot help thinking a little more 
care in avoiding names too suggestive of other varieties might be an 
advantage. We have Duke and Duchess, Comte and Comtesse in so 
many varieties, to say nothing of La France and La France of 1889, 
that one not thoroughly conversant with Roses, or exceedingly careful 
about names, is apt to confuse them at times. There is a Comte de 
Paris in Hybrid Perpetuals and again in the Teas, and a Comtesse de 
Paris also in the former class.— Practice. 
The Winter Protection of Roses. 
There is an old saying in regard to the cooking of hares, viz , “ first 
catch your hare, &c.” “ W. R. Raillem’s ” note (page 540) in reply to 
“ A Lover of Roses” (page 510), rather reminds me of this old saw, as 
his advice in regard to mulching Rose plants with leaves would be a 
troublesome matter to such of us as live in big towns or on the borders 
thereof. During and since the recent stormy weather I think I could 
more easily have collected a good mulching of the debris from roofs, in 
the shape of broken slates, than an equivalent amount of fallen leaves. 
Nevertheless, I quite agree with “ W. R. Raillem ” that if you can get an 
ample supply of leaves and then have sufficient persuasive power over 
