884 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 26, 1893, 
one to reduce, and tliough journals have some influence, unanimity in 
the matter of accent and plurals is never likely to be absolutely estab¬ 
lished. The more popular horticulture becomes, and the more the 
knowledge of the ever-increasing number of new plants extends, the 
greater does the difficulty of agreement grow. The question is. How 
much use constitutes naturalisation in a language ? Botanical names 
are purely artificial, and constructed for the convenience of international 
communication between scientific men. Those plants that possess local 
names have the plural of these names formed according to the usage of 
the vernacular. But seeing that the scientific names form a kind of 
lingua franca.^ ought they to be subjected to distortion according as the 
person using them in the plural happens to be French, German, English, 
or Russian ? Of course the question is fraught with difficulties, espe¬ 
cially when we come to consider those names with the Greek endings 
(instanced by “Old Subscriber")—’Viz., is, ma, ojhs, 3.ni ojjsis. Surely 
many of us would hesitate, on the score of euphony, before uttering 
such pluralised forms as Acises, Ganymedeses, Phalrenopsises, which 
suggest the old nursery rhyme, “ three ghosteses sitting on three posteses 
eating bread and cheeseses.’’ 
Those who know anything of Greek must regret the substitution of 
such atrocious sibillations for the beautifully soft Greek plurals in mata 
and ides. What havoc the writers of the Restoration wrought with our 
mother tongue when they took to using “ thinks,” “ walks,” “ listens,” 
and “ freezes ” for “ thinketh,” “ walketh,” “ listeneth," and “ freezeth,” 
making it (as Frederick the Great said) like the language in which the 
serpent tempted Eve I But for this English might be positively agree¬ 
able for foreigners to hear. However, it has never been the practice of 
our race to sacrifice expediency to sentiment, and I am ready to admit 
that as nine-tenths of the scientific names of plants end with a vowel 
they suffer little by being given the ordinary English plural termination. 
“ Old Subscriber” is right in poking fun at the expression “ Narcissi 
show,” but he misses the mark when he apprehends the advent of “ Rosm 
shows.” The word “ rose” is as much English as “ violet,” and hence it 
could never be a question of thus pluralising it, as there might be were it 
still the Latin “rosa.” It would be equally absurd to talk of a “ Roses 
shows.”—“ Ribeses.” 
Most people will agree with the sentiments of “ A Grateful Old 
Subscriber ” (page fl.56) on this subject. No doubt Gladiolus is both 
right and impossible, therefore we must have an English pronunciation 
which is classically incorrect. I would strongly support the claims of 
Gladioais rather than Gladiolus—first, because if the pronunciation is 
to be English, we should follow the good old rule that “ the tendency 
of the English language is to throw the accent as far back as possible,” 
and Gladiolus is hardly possible ; second, because to my ears when I 
was young there was no other pronunciation, and Gladiolus is quite 
modern. But if “ A Grateful Old Subscriber” is going to try to induce 
people to change their pronunciation of even a single word, he has my 
sympathy, and he will want it before he has done.—W. R. Raillem. 
Hybeid Briar Roses. 
Lord Penzance has written me to say that his Hybrid Briars are 
at present being propagated by a firm of rosarians, and will be ready 
for distribution by the autumn of next year. They are beautiful hybrids, 
betw'een the wild Roses of the woodlands and the Hybrid Perpetuals 
of our gardens ; and partaking as they do of the characteristics of both, 
will doubtless prove distinct and splendid acquisitions. I think that 
Briar Roses should be more widely cultivated. Their reign, indeed, is 
short, but it is exquisite while it lasts. Such brilliant varieties as the 
Persian Yellow, the Austrian Copper, and the semi-double Rosa Harrisoni 
should be found in every garden.— David R. Williamson. 
Hot Season Roses. 
In reply to your correspondent, “ W. R. Raillem ” (page 358), re the 
behaviour of dark Roses during the past summer, I am able to state my 
experience differs somewhat from his own. I never remember having 
such a number of “ burnt ” flowers. I do not grow many varieties, but 
have about fifty dwarfs of Prince Camille de Rohan, and a like number 
of Abel Carri^re, which are grown on a really good Rose soil, but which 
requires enriching at the present time. I can safely say I did not cut 
twelve Roses off them that were up to exhibition form, the majority 
were very thin in petal, and those burnt badly ; in fact I might say 
scores were never picked for this simple reason. While I am of opinion 
the hot sun tends to this burning, I think with your correspondent it is 
not the only cause. Had the bushes been supplied with an adequate 
quantity of water or liquid manure I feel sure the results would have 
been different. I am of the opinion that poverty has something to do with 
burning, in some cases at all events. Ghnhral Jacqueminot has never 
been better with me ; in spite of the thin petals every bloom developed, 
and their colour left nothing to be desired, at the same time their lasting 
properties were very brief. Ib was a case of “ here to-day and gone to¬ 
morrow.” Most of the light-coloured Hybrid Perpetuals were satisfactory. 
especially these varieties that object to a wet season. I was surprised 
to find John Hopper so poor ; it was far below the standard in every 
respect, while the preceding season it was grand. I might add, 
the majority of my Roses are grown for cutting purposes, and not for the 
production of exhibition blooms.— Essex Rose Grower. 
Mr. Mawley’s “Analysis” of 1893. 
I confess to a sense of disappointment on reading Mr. Mawley’s 
explanation {Journal of Horticulture, page 358) of his method of 
arriving at the various positions the best exhibition Roses hold each 
season, more especially in respect to their status at the N.R S. Metro¬ 
politan Show. I have been under the impression while reading his 
analysis for some years that his figures represented real facts, whereas 
now I find that he practically uses the figures according to his own 
fancies. There is no doubt that the analysis must be in any case an 
arbitrary way of deciding the position of certain varieties, as they are 
taken only from winning boxes. This year it was of small consequence ; 
but last year, when the competition was so great, as many as twenty-one 
competing in one class, and many other classes having from eight to 
thirteen competitors, it would have been a fair criterion of a good 
exhibition, and very useful and interesting to have obtained the varieties 
shown by all competitors. 
Mr. Mawley says of his method of calculation, “ However complicated 
and unreal the system ” (his system) “ may appear,” it is in reality “a 
commonsense ” way of treating the statistics at his disposal. My view 
is that when people are dealing with statistics they should deal with the 
hard facts alone, and not alter such facts to suit any theories they may 
hold. It is action of this latter kind which gives people the handle to 
use the saying that figures can prove anything. I prefer a grain of 
truth and fact to a ton of theory, and I never like to see figures altered. 
Being a business man it may be rather a hard and dry way of looking at 
the matter ; but such is my way of thinking. Mr. Mawley practically 
arranges what in sporting language is called a handicap, according to 
his own views of the merits of the various flowers, but without 
much regard to their previous performances. Of course Gustave 
Piganeau, Ernest Metz, Ethel Brownlow, and other Roses, may next 
year be anywhere in an analysis of this kind, and very naturally in 
future their position will have little interest for me ; but it would be 
well for the guidance of others that some clear explanation should be 
given to show that the figures are evolved out of fancy more than 
fact. In regard to my query as to the number of prize boxes Gustave 
Piganeau and Ernest Metz were shown in, I used the words “big 
amateurs,” by which I mean those growing at least over 1000 plants of 
exhiniiion varieties. I acknowledge that both the above named varieties 
are indispensable to a big exhibitor ; but from the experience of several 
leading rosarians, growing many more and better Roses than I do, I 
find t at other opinions are in agreement with mine. 
In regard to seasons in general, and more especially as regards their 
effects on the Rose Shows of 1893 and of 1879, 1 may say that, bad as 
the Crystal Palace Show was this year, it would have been infinitely 
worse if it had been held on the 8th July, and no doubt Mr. Mawley 
will recollect that he and others were very strong advocates for that 
date, and were very sore at our defeating their motion to alter it. 
Mr. Mawley says “ VVe all know what the Drill Hall Show was in 
June 1891.” I merely say we all know what the Drill Hall Rose 
Show always is—rather a failure? I should be glad to know how 
many classes there were in the metropolitan schedule of 1879, and how 
many members the N.R.S. then had. With these figures, which are 
facts of the past, we could fairly compare 1879 and 1893.— Charles J. 
Grahame, Croydon. 
WALTHAM CROSS REVISITED. 
Many years ago, in the Hollyhock days, when that noble flower 
gave to gardens a “ character ” they have never possessed since, I, as 
one of its votaries, remember well deriving both pleasure and knowledge 
in reading an entertaining and instructive pamphlet entitled “ An Hour 
with the Hollyhock,” little thinking I should ever be privileged to spend 
an hour with its author, Mr. William Paul of Waltham Cross. Time, 
however, brings about changes frequently such as are not anticipated, 
and one of these eventually brought me into contact with one of the 
most experienced and accomplished horticulturists in the world. That, 
too, is several years ago, yet subsequent to the dread Puccinia invasion 
which practically swept the Hollyhock out of the country. True we see 
the stately flower again in gardens here and there, and occasionally a few 
blooms exhibited at southern shows, but they are very poor apologies 
for the grand varieties of past days when our author spent his “ hour ” 
with them. The nlants of the present are chiefly raised from seed and 
treated as biennials, and it would be well if many more were so grown ; 
but anterior to the fungoid scourge they were mainly increased by 
cuttings or root-grafting and treated as perennials. This is a 
reminiscence, a passing reference to days on which the minds of many 
love to dwell, and to which, and the “ manners and customs” of the 
period, many more of a later generation are of necessity strangers. 
Since the first visit alluded to, and the last, to be described, all 
things are not as they once were. For instance, on looking for the 
path from the platform of the railway station into the nursery, as in the 
old days, it was not to be found. “ Here, porter, I want to go into Mr. 
Paul’s nurseries ; there used to be a gate opening to them from here, but 
I can’t find it.” “No, sir ; there was never no gate from here.” “ But 
I once passed through it from the platform into the grounds.” “ No, 
