76 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
January 24,1895. 
262 and 286 we get the word “aggravating” where “irritating” or 
“ provoking ” is meant. This is a common error, but only common folk 
may be excused making it. 
The anthor must be congratulated on the selection generally, and the 
publishers on the excellence of the illustrations. Only photographers 
and printers know the technical difficulties in the way of producing such. 
Plates facing pages 263 and 292 could have been improved by the reduc¬ 
tion of the straggling high lights which draw the eye to their 
contemplation.— Arcanum . 
Rosa Borreri. 
I AM looking into the history of Rose-growing in the classics, and I 
feel sure I may make your interest in it an excuse for troubling you 
with a few questions. 
The hiferi rosaria Pcesti have always been a puzzle. In Murray’s 
S. Italy, I,, p. 182, it says, “ These Roses have disappeared, though a 
few plants may be found near the ruins of the temples, flowering 
regularly in May, which Mr. (Dr.) Hogg states agree best with the Rosa 
Borreri”—(Linn. Tr., vol, xii.). I have no access to the Linnean 
Transactions, and I do not know what the Rosa Borreri is. When I 
was at Passtum, twelve years ago, it was winter, and I made nothing out 
of the Roses. Can you tell me whether the Roses differ here at all from 
the ordinary wild Rose of the South of Europe?—G. E. J. 
[Rosa Borreri is a native species, so named by Mr. Woods in 
compliment to Mr. Borrer of Henfield. It is scarcely distinguishable 
from R. micrantha, and is identical with R. inodora of Agardh. We do 
not know what the Rose of Poestum of Virgil’s Georgies, book iv., 
ver. 119, is, further than it is one of those mythical subjects which 
from time to time give rise to some discussion.] 
Rosa rugosa. 
This grand single and very distinct Rose has been nearly a 
hundred years in England, but never, I believe, until lately taken in 
hand for improvement. I rejoice to say this has now been done by 
Buttons of Reading. Mr. Martin, their famous hybridiser, has been 
three years at work on it, and has lately favoured me with some short 
notes of his operations. He has every facility. A grand hedge 40 yards 
long, and about 4 feet high, divides a certain portion of the Portland 
Road Nurseries, Heps on this have been fertilised, with the following 
results, I should add that Mr. Martin is enthusiastically in its favour. 
He writes of it :—“ Seven months of the year it is clothed in a mantle of 
beautiful and profusely serrated foliage, which for cutting and arranging 
with other flowers for indoor decoration can scarcely in any way be 
equalled. The display of the handsome heps, glittering in the autumn, 
fine rosy scarlet to a clear yellow, with others of a bronzy terra-cotta 
bordering on the edge of the beautiful foliage, causes everyone to admire 
it. For table decoration it has a charm of its own. In the woods, as a 
covert for game, it is useful and attractive when once established.” This 
is a digression, but due to Mr. Martin. He has passed over rugosa alba 
as too feeble a stock, and is seeking for his new colours and character in 
R, rubra. Blooms on the great hedge were fertilised in 1890, “as soon 
as the buds were formed, early in the morning, to prevent the action of 
insects or the wind performing the act of fertilisation from its own or 
foreign pollen.” There will be the less danger of this, as, I grieve to 
say, rugosa is the only Rose now tolerated at the Portland Nurseries. 
This has been crossed with the old York and Lancaster. 
It is to be regretted that Lord Penzance’s wider and more liberal 
selection of parent pollen was not adopted. This, however, is not the 
business of the public. We shall be thankful even for a new striped 
variety. It is an interesting matter of comparison “ we gatherel pods 
of R. rugosa crossed naturally,” Mr. Martin says ; in respect of which, 
on opening the seed apples we found the crossed pods contained only a 
very few seeds, and of only half the size of those from the naturally 
crossed pods.” And now for results. “ We sowed in heat early in 
1891, and at midsummer, 1892, we found the naturally fertilised seed 
germinating fruit; later on we found the crossed seedlings appearing, 
very much shorter in growth, with smaller leaves and more spiny.” 
They had a narrow escape from a severe-minded boy who was on the 
point of throwing them away as being so inferior in size to the others. 
They have had every care, but have not bloomed even yet. “ In 1893,” 
says Mr. Martin, “ we placed plants of each section in heat, but no 
flowers were produced on either of the six plants, though the wood was 
well ripened.” I have just seen them all planted out, well fed, and 
protected, twenty-six plants “from the artificially and naturally crossed 
plants.” They can hardly be so unreasonable as to refuse to bloom again 
this year ; and when the N.R.S. visits Reading in 1896 will no doubt be 
in full force ; rivals then of Lord Penzance, and repaying Mr. Martin 
for his paternal pains.—A. C. 
Medals for Trophy Classes. 
I AM glad to find that the above subject is again being brought 
before your readers, and think that the suggestion for gold medals (on 
page 35) to accompany the trophies is a most excellent one. It is 
certainly very bard on an exhibitor who may have fought hard and won 
■the National Rose Society’s trophy (one of the most valuable prizes ever 
offered at a Rose or horticultural exhibition) to have no memento of the 
honour after the year has expired. 
I have known more than one of our first rank exhibitors decline to 
compete with his best Roses for the championship, and “ go in ” for a 
piece of plate that would become the winner’s absolute property, 
so that to some of our exhibitors to “ have and to hold ” a small prize in 
kind for a lifetime is preferable to holding even the champion cup for 
one brief year. It would appear from this that something more than 
the mere honour is needed to secure the best Roses in the premier class. 
The expense of the suggested melals might be met by dropping the 
two classes that were added in 1887 to the provincial exhibitions, and 
allow the Jubilee trophy to be offered in the largest amateur and open 
classes, as is done at the metropolitan exhibition. Such an arrangement 
would effect a saving of £12, which would more than provide the five 
medals that would be necessary. This suggestion is, I think, better 
than either “ J. B.’s ” (page 35) or “ W. R. Raillem’s ” (page 50), Should 
none of the suggestions meet with approval, how would it act to impose 
an entrance fee in the special classes of, say Ss., which could go towards 
supplying the medals ? 
Any of the above arrangements, except “ W. R. R.’s ” (which I 
suppose would not be compulsory) would still leave past winners 
unrecognised, which is not desirable, for they have been, and many still 
are, liberal supporters of the Society, and any act of liberality (such as 
medals for past successes) on the part of the Society would in all pro¬ 
bability be repaid twofold in increased subscriptions and offers of special 
prizes by the recipients. The medals would prove a source of great 
pleasure to every winner, more especially to the one who from ill health 
or any other cause may have had to give up exhibiting.—A NORTHERN 
Member. 
PEELING AND CLEANING VINE RODS. 
While not advocating the entire removal of the outer bark from the 
rods of Vines I do not think as much harm accrues from so doing as 
Mr. Craven (page 6) would have us believe. It is well known that 
Vines which are denuded of the greater part of their bark are quickly 
covered again with more. Neither do I think that the Vines so peeled 
increase so slowly in the diameter of their stems as some persons 
imagine. I have taken a few measurements from the stems of Vines 
growing not far from where I write, and the barking they have many 
times undergone does not appear to have prevented their making good 
progress during the fourteen years they have been growing. 
One house is devoted to Muscat of Alexandria entirely. One Vine at 
6 inches from the ground is 8^ inches in circumference, at 2 feet 6 inches 
from the same point it measures the same. Another rod 4 feet from the 
top of the border is 5^ inches around the rod, at 9 feet from the base it 
is still 5^ inches, a third rod at 3 feet measures exactly 7 inches. In an 
adjoining house Gros Guillaume at 6 inches above ground measures 
9 inches, and at 3 feet it is the same size. Lady Downe’s at 2 feet 
measures 6^ inches, and a Black Hamburgh at 1 foot girth 6 inches, at 
6 feet it is 5\ inches round. In all cases the measurements were taken 
between the spurs. The Vines have yearly borne heavy crops of fruit, 
and produced bunches good enough to win premier awards at shows, 
and the crop of Muscats borne last year was the best yet produced 
by these Vines. I am not an adviser of the close peeling process, 
but should not hesitate to peel off the bark if circumstances necessitated 
its removal. 
In my opinion it is the only way to cleanse Vines from that 
insidious pest mealy bug, and that alone will not do it. Mr. Craven may 
think himself extremely fortunate in not having had to deal with Vines 
much infested—if at all—with this pest. If his experience had been the 
other way perhaps he would have resorted to more extreme measures 
than simple washing with soapy water. Mr. Craven has produced very 
fine Grapes from Vines that I am well acquainted with, and has just 
cause to adhere to his present system of treatment, but whether readers 
generally will accept his dictum that the removal of the bark hinders 
the expansion of the rods and stems to the extent he would have 
us believe is another question; personally I think otherwise.— 
E. Molynrux. 
I HAVE been pleased by reading the interview with a noted Grape 
grower. I think the remarks have been full of common sense from 
beginning to end—a great thing in gardening. With regard to stripping 
Vines of their bark, and scraping into the skin with a knife, I do not 
think there is any common sense in that. I go over the Vines with my 
hands, and remove any loose bark for appearance sake. I have had 
247 bunches of Black Hamburgh and Foster’s Seedling on four Vines, 
two each, in a quarter-span house, 27 feet by 18. I have both sorts 
hanging now. I cut eight bunches last week. When I had finished 
limewashing the walls, with paraffin in the mixture, I painted the Vines 
all over with the same compound. I was troubled a little with the berries 
of Foster’s Seedling splitting when they were swelling, but I attributed 
it to an extra dose of nitrate of soda which I have been using as a 
change for the Vines.—H. C,, Morcjield, 
Some correspondence having recently appeared in the Journal of 
Horticulture under the above heading, I venture to send a tew lines; 
and although some of the remarks which I shall make will not coincide 
with some that have already appeared, I do not write with any dis¬ 
respectful feeling towards anyone, and should a controversy follow let 
it be a friendly one. Cleaning Vines is the question at issue, which 
means cleansing them of some parasite with which they are infested. 
If it be mealy bug or red spider, I maintain that it is necessary to strip 
them of all loose bark in order to get at the insects, and no amount of 
washing or painting on the top of the bark will affect the life of the 
insects that are underneath it. This I have proved many times. I well 
remember a very bad case when employed as a subordinate in a gentle¬ 
man’s garden in Worcestershire some years ago. Being winter time, and 
