858 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 19, 1893. 
Hot Season Koses. 
The past season has offered a good opportunity for taking notes of 
such Roses as may fairly be called by the above title, and I think the 
general opinion would be that while some have fairly lived up to or 
even beyond their reputation, others have given disappointment. 
Though it certainly has been a hot and very dry year, it seems to me, 
from general impression and not from observation of the thermometer, 
that hot nights have not been many compared with those of some past 
years. The general idea is, I think, that a hot and dry year is favour¬ 
able to the light H.P.’s, but causes the dark ones to “ burn,” and that a 
cooler and duller year is therefore best for these latter. I am not at all 
sure that the “burning” or browning of the petals of dark H.P.’s is 
caused by bright hot sun, or at least by this alone. At all events, it is 
worthy of notice that I have in other years, at times when “ burning ” 
has been prevalent, seen buds which opened with some brown petals 
even in dull weather, and that during the past season I had not, to my 
remembrance, a single brown petal among all my dark H.P.’s. 1 should 
like to hear what others may have to say on this subject. If caused 
merely by the sun, why should one or two petals alone turn brown in a 
Rose, while others remain of the normal colour ? With me the dark 
H.P.’s were quite good this year, and some of the old fashioned light 
coloured ones were not successful. 
Of generally reputed hot-season Roses, Marie Rady was most disap¬ 
pointing ; the blooms “ came ” badly altogether. It is quite a different 
Rose with me now, being not nearly so reliable or good in colour as it 
was ten or a dozen years ago. Monsieur Noman was good, but all over 
long before show time, as it is quite one of the earliest. Pierre Netting 
was decidedly better than usual ; it opened freely, but was as late as 
ever. Reynolds Hole was magnificent, better I think than I have ever 
had it ; it often “ burns ” badly, but I did not see a discoloured petal. 
It is generally late, but this year was quite early, before many others, 
and even on maidens was all over before the shows began. Star of 
Waltham was disappointing, and came to no good in the first crop, but 
produced unusually fine blooms, good enough for any show, in 
September. 
Duchesse de Yallambrosa and Madame Lacharme are two fine- 
weather Roses, which used to give us a good deal of anxiety ; but 
neither of them with me is worth growing for show now, except in quite 
large collections. The latter was simply extinguished by Merveille de 
Lyon, which at once surpassed it on all points, and superseded it 
altogether. Good old G6n4ral Jacqueminot is a thin-petalled Rose, but 
with me it is decidedly better in hot seasons, being better formed and 
even more lasting at such times. Some extra full or even coarse Roses 
were, as might be expected, better than usual. Paul Neron and Mr. 
James Brownlow were well shown, and I had some presentable blooms 
of Madame Hippolyte Jamain. Mrs. Paul delighted me in the early 
part of the season with perfect show flowers, but a little later, when 
there were some shows at which to exhibit them, the blooms were 
quite shapeless. This seems to be absolutely a summer Rose. I have 
not, this year or last, on maidens or cut-backs, seen a single autumnal 
bud. Madame Gabriel Luizet had more autumn blooms than usual, but 
Francois Michelon showed no improvement in this respect. 
For Teas it has been an ideal season, as these Roses require drought 
even more than heat. Unfortunately of late years thrips have become 
a most serious pest in my neighbourhood, and in a really dry season 
they spoil an immense number of blooms. I consider they do more 
injury than mildew, and are very much more hurtful than aphides or 
orange fungus. The end of September and beginning of October my 
Teas (though of course rather small) are, I think, in some varieties 
distinctly better than they were in the height of the season, the thrips 
have disappeared, each bloom is clean and well shaped, and the colour 
is extraordinary. I have had Marie Van Houtte with the yellow as 
deep as Perle des Jardins, and the pink charming ; and The Bride with 
splendid pink outer petals as decided as in Mrs. James Wilson. I take 
this to be the result of cooler and duller weather without rain following 
close after dry heat, which seems to be ideal weather for the perfection 
of all Roses. I do not know whether those who grow Roses in pots 
under glass move them into a dry and cooler house for the actual 
blooming, but such a course seems to be indicated. 
Of reputed hot-weather Teas, Comtesse Panisse was very large, but 
much wanting in colour at midsummer ; it is very different now, Jean 
Ducher at least reminded us of what it might be under favourable 
circumstances ; but I was unfortunate with my few plants, which gave 
me nothing really good. I have one in my memory which gained the 
amateur medal at a national show at South Kensington several years 
ago, but I have seen nothing like it since. La Bouled’Or was very good, 
and opened well, too well on a south wall. Madame Margottin was a 
hopeless victim to thrips, but gave some fair blooms later, 
_ Eroile de Lyon is a poor Rose with me at the best of times ; if any¬ 
thing, it was worse than usual with me this year. My dwindled stock 
of it will be still further lessened. Madame Willermoz certainly comes 
but rarely of good shape ; but I had one grand bloom, very large and 
fine, with a perfect point in the centre. This Rose, and Mrs. Paul, 
remind me of the little girl in the nursery rhyme— 
“ Who had a small curl on her forehead :—• 
When she was good she was very very good. 
But when she was bad she was horrid.” 
—W. R. Raillem. 
Rose Analysis, 1886-1893. 
The friendly criticisms of Mr. Grahame and “ Y. B. A. Z.” (page 331) 
are very welcome, as they enable me to offer a few explanations as to 
the considerations which have guided me in framing the two tables in 
my last analysis. I must also thank them for the kind words of 
encouragement they have given me. There is one sentence in my 
analysis which both my critics appear to have overlooked, and it is a 
most important one. It is that in which I explain that all the averages 
“ have this year been recalculated on similar lines to those followed in 
my last Dahlia analysis.” I therefore refer them to page 247 of the last 
half-yearly volume of the Journal of Horticulture, where it is stated, 
among other things, “ that the claims of each variety, whether new or 
old, have been decided entirely on its merits.” 
When I first began this kind of work and for some years afterwards, 
there was nothing left for me to do but to take the number of times the 
different varieties had been staged in the prize stands, and to calculate 
from them the averages which govern their respective positions in the 
tables. But as years went on I began to see that a purely arithmetical 
process was in many cases very misleading. 
1, In the first place I found that certain old favourites were being 
more or less superseded by better and newer sorts of a similar colour. 
As to this diflBculty the plan now adopted will be found explained, and 
examples given in the Dahlia analysis just referred to. 
2, Exceptional seasons also often play havoc with certain varieties 
while unduly favouring others. Consequently, when calculating the 
averages for varieties seriously affected in this way the number of times 
they were staged under such exceptional conditions has to be omitted. 
Otherwise, as“Y, B.A. Z.” has pointed out, they would stand either 
higher or lower in the lists than they are entitled to. 
3, Then the newer sorts gave me some trouble at first, but a little 
consideration soon showed that if they were to appear at all in the tables, 
and they can never for some years hope to compete on anything like 
equal terms with their more largely grown brethren—the established 
kinds—they must find places in accordance with their doings at the most 
recent exhibition alone. 
4, Then, again, the varying number of Roses tabulated each year 
was found to have a more or less disturbing influence. But this diflBculty 
has been easily got over by calculating all the averages as for a show, 
or rather analysis, of average extent, I say easily got over, but of course 
all these recalculations each year involve a considerable amount of extra 
labour. 
As suitable corrections for all the above-mentioned inequalities have 
been most carefully and impartially made throughout the analyses 
under consideration, I cannot but regard it as the most practical and 
reliable of the series. However complicated and unreal the system I 
have adopted and endeavoured to explain may appear on paper, it is in 
reality simplicity itself, and, after all, only a common-sense way of 
treating the statistics at my disposal. 
In noticing more in detail the apparent flaws and inconsistencies in 
the analyses mentioned in your last issue, I propose referring my critics 
in each case to the foregoing numbered paragraphs. 
Mr. Grahame says that I have made a serious error in regard to 
Gustave Piganeau (1889), also as regards Ernest Metz (1888). If this 
be so he must be equally wrong in making Ethel Brownlow (1887) spring 
at once, “ literally and truly ” as he puts it, into the position at No. 20, 
because this variety was only staged four times in 1892, and consequently 
would come out, although the earliest introduction of the three, with an 
average of 10,5, and therefore only be entitled to a place at No. 26, or 
not far from the bottom of the table. But in my opinion Mr. Grahame 
is in this instance, as he says, “ literally and truly ” right, and if so we 
must also leave Gustave Piganeau and Ernest Metz where I have placed 
them in the tables (see paragraph 3). Another year or two will, how¬ 
ever, show whether these positions have been as correctly accorded to 
these youthful aspirants as their performances will allow. In reply to 
his inquiries I may here state that Gustave Piganeau was shown this 
year in twelve prize stands by amateurs and in the same number by 
nurserymen, and Ernest Metz in sixteen by amateurs and in fourteen 
by nurserymen, Ethel Brownlow seven times by amateurs, and ten by 
nurserymen. 
Mr. Grahame takes exception to A. K. Williams being described in 
the N.R S. catalogue as “good in autumn.” He says “ it is better in 
the summer than autumn with most people,” and so I fancy are most 
other Roses, ilf, however, he will refer to page 5 of the catalogue in 
question he will find the following necessary explanation at the head 
of the list* of Hybrid Perpetuals :—“ Where varieties are described as 
‘ good in autumn ’ they flower freely a second time.” Unfortunately 
this is more than can be said of many so-called Perpetuals. 
As to Mr. Grahame’s criticisms on some incidental remarks I made 
respecting the poor Rose exhibition held by the National Rose Society 
in 1879, there are undoubtedly, as he says, many more exhibitors now 
than there were fourteen years ago, and I hope the National Rose Society 
may justly claim some share in their conversion. But the question is, 
Had there then existed twice as many Rose exhibitors as at present 
would there have been a much better show ? I am afraid not, for unfor- 
