12 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
January 4, 1894. 
Hybrid Teas. 
Ok page 659 (last vol.) “ W. K. Raillem ” has an interesting note on 
the above. It is a question upon which I feel rather strongly, and I 
would like to make a few comments upon the subject. Like“W. R. 
Raillem ” I am desirous of being loyal to the decisions of the majority. 
As an attending member of the Catalogue Committee I may say that we 
had much discussion regarding several varieties, and the pretensions of 
Victor Verdier to a position among the so-called Hybrid Teas was 
brought forward. I do not endorse that part of the general report 
where it is claimed that several foreign trade growers have followed the 
Society’s lead by introducing a separate section for Hybrid Teas. Both 
German and French growers were pioneers in this respect, not followers. 
What is a Hybrid Tea ? This is a very pertinent question when we 
note the many inconsistencies of the present list. If a cross between 
Teas and Hybrid Perpetuals, then most decidedly we have omitted 
several. I think the difficulty of forming a class between the two main 
sections of Teas and Hybrid Perpetuals is one which might well have 
been avoided. I believe I am correct in stating that the necessity 
arose through a feeling of the General Committee that some provision 
should be made for a class devoted entirely to this growing section. 
Viscountess Folkestone and others were barred from the Teas and 
Noissttes, and yet could not be exhibited in the classes set apart for Hybrid 
Perpetuals. By the way, there are no classes entirely for Hybrid Per¬ 
petuals now ; but they did exist, and may again. It was also con¬ 
templated to frame a class entirely for the H. Teas; hence the 
necessity for deciding which kinds were to be included. Personally, 
I must say I am far from satisfied with the result of our labours in this 
direction. I do not think the latter part of your correspondent’s opening 
paragraph is so inconsistent as it appears. With the Teas and Noisettes 
we have become so intermixed that there is absolutely no distinction ; 
they have been shown together for many years ; and it is hard to name 
a variety in one class which could not be duplicated in the whole of its 
characteristics by a selection from the other. 
It was necessary to do something, but I fear we have not hit upon 
the best plan ; not only for the present but the future. If the definition 
of a Hybrid Tea is a cross between the two classes then we have failed 
to sift them out thoroughly, and if this is to be a guide we shall soon 
have this middle class a complete mixture; some crosses favouring one 
pareut much more than the other. We have lumped the Teas and 
Noisettes as a way out of that difficulty. Then why not do so with 
the Hybrid Perpetuals, Hybrid Teas, Hybrid Chinas, and Hybrid 
Bourbons? In what way does Paul Verdier, Charles Lawson, Blairi 
No. 2 and others differ from selections we could make from the Hybrid 
Perpetuals ? I would even include the true (?) Bourbons, and call them 
all hybrids of Roses. 
At present the number of classes makes it difficult to find many 
of our best Roses. Until the National Rose Society decided the 
question one might pick up the catalogues of our leading growers, and 
find several remarkable differences of opinion. We surely did not 
want a new class entirely. I see much confusion in the future, and 
only the small present benefit of knowing which varieties will be 
recognised as Hybrid Teas in the class or classes I believe it is in¬ 
tended to form for them. As the question has been opened by a 
member of the sub-Committee, I am glad of the opportunity to give 
these few notes. At some personal inconvenience and expense I 
attended all but one meeting (when questions were to be brought for¬ 
ward upon which I did not feel competent to vote), and I am sure our 
labours were heavier than those who are not in the habit of framing 
a catalogue would imagine ; but I am afraid we have over-classified our 
floral queen.— Pbactice. 
CRITICISING THE CRITICS. 
It is I know rather a dangerous practice to criticise what other 
correspondents may have written, still some will rush into danger 
sometimes, and I fcr one take a plunge. However, I do so in a kindly 
spirit, just because 1 desire to elicit, so far as may be possible, facts 
and truths. A correspondent, “ A Fruit Grower and an Exhibitor ” 
(page 673, last volume), having undertaken to set another right on 
some points in fruit culture, and having imade public his criticisms on 
replies to certain questions, I follow suit. 
First, Is canker in fruit trees principally caused by the roots pene¬ 
trating into bad subsoil? The fruit grower replies, Yes ; then adds that 
strong growers worked on free slocks are rarely affected. But is not 
such a reply practically a contradiction ? If the roots getting into bad 
subsoil produce canker, how is it that strong growers on free stocks, the 
roots of which equally get into bad subsoils, are rarely affected with 
canker ? I agree with the first cause so far as it goes, but then it should 
have applied to particular varieties, which notably canker, whilst 
the strong growers are certain other varieties that do not canker. How 
is that distinction explained ? Only on the hypothesis that some sorts 
require as foods manurial compounds that others do not, or have in 
abundance, or can find, whilst others starve. No doubt Mr. Abbey will 
say that some varieties are more susceptible to fungoid attacks than 
others, hence canker. I am, however, dealing with “ A Fruit Grower’s ” 
replies solely now, and I think “ A Member of a Gardeners’Association ” 
must have felt that the answer to the first query needed much amending. 
Then in relation to the second query, as to the inactivity of roots of 
fruit trees. Vines especially, during the winter. We are told that 
practically, if not literally, they are inactive. Now, on that head I 
would ask. What ground have we for assuming that tree roots, even 
when the heads are apparently at rest, are really inactive? Of course it 
is so concluded because the trees are, so far as we can discern, performing 
no active function. We must not forget, however, in dealing with this 
subject, that whilst tree heads in the winter are in a low temperature, 
roots remain in the ground under precisely similar conditions all the 
year. The earth is rather colder, it is true, but after all, at some 12 to 
18 inches below the surface how much cooler is the soil now than it will be 
next April, when leafage develops ? Can we prove that, even although 
the winter roots may not be performing important functions ? I think 
they do, if for no other reason than that Nature utilises the winter 
chiefly for giving to the soil its greater portion of moisture, and if roots 
remain practically inactive, or as it were stagnant, during the long winter 
season, it is easy to suppose that they would decay. We can understand 
roots becoming absolutely inactive in great drought because they can only 
operate in a moist soil, and find in such soil plant food. Our only 
reason for assuming that roots are inoperative in the winter is that we 
see no results of their activity. But if we lift deciduous trees in the 
winter, lay them in for a few weeks, then lift again, do we not always 
see ample evidence that roots have been active although the trees do 
not show it above ? 
The answer to the third question is of necessity dependant on that 
given to the preceding one. As my own opinion is that roots are always 
active, I prefer to hold that top growth on Vines follows rather than 
precedes root action. That artificial warmth in the case of forced Vines 
is essential for the production of leafage there can be no doubt. Light 
cannot be by any means so important a factor in growth production as 
is generally assumed, as it is found easy with suitable warmth to obtain 
robust growth and leafage on Vines in January, whereas in a state of 
nature they would not leaf until May. It is therefore obvious that 
given heat allied to such indifferent light as Nature furnishes in the 
winter, growth and foliage can be had at any time. We may too 
remember that the soil is practically as dark to roots in May as in 
January. Light becomes an important factor in plant growth when 
leaves and fruit have to be matured, but in the matter of generating 
leafage at the first, it comes a long way below heat. 
With regard to the giving of liquid manure to fruit trees just previous 
to coming into bloom, it would seem as if this query must apply to 
trees in pots, as it seems so unlikely that fruit trees would need any 
special waterings so early as the month of April, when outdoors most 
trees are blooming, and those on walls often in March. But, perhaps, 
though not so stated, the query applied to fruit trees under glass. 
Obviously, in this case, trees ought not to need watering just then, for 
there has been so far very little strain on the roots for foliage pro¬ 
duction, and if Nature’s course in giving the bulk of her moisture to 
trees in the winter has been followed in houses, though unfortunately 
it seldom is, by then the trees ought to want no special watering until 
the fruits were well set. Of course, trees in pots need constant water¬ 
ings, but even in their case liquid manure will be found most useful 
after there is ample leafage and the fruit is developing, as no form of 
manure is so quickly operative as is that given in liquid form.—A. D. 
Remakes Beaeikg ok Fruit Culture. 
Akythikg relative to the above is always interesting, especially if 
Vines are included in the question. I note at page 573, in last week’s 
Journal, “A Fruit Grower and Exhibitor” is asked. Do the roots of 
Vines start into growth before or after growth has commenced? In 
my opinion your correspondent has given his querist the proper 
answer, and if he wishes a practical proof of it he can easily have it 
if he has any pot Vines under his charge. If he will turn one of the 
Vines out just as the buds are bursting into growth he will observe that 
there is no root action; but wait until the third leaf is showing, 
when there will be from 4 to 6 inches of growth made, turn the Vine 
out again, and he will see that the roots are beginning to move.— 
R. M., Somerset. 
NOTES ON EUPHORBIAS. 
Mr. G. Pareakt contributed a very interesting article on these 
desirable winter flowering plants on page 655 of-the last volume of the 
Journal of Horticulture, the cultural points in which many readers will 
be found to agree. Euphorbia jacquiniaeflora is undoubtedly diflflcult 
to root successfully from cuttings, at least with those who are unpro¬ 
vided with good convenience for propagating purposes, including 
bottom heat, and if the rooting process is slow the after progress is 
invariably poor. What is wanted is a steady bottom heat and a close- 
fitting propagating frame. More than ordinary attention is usually 
paid to the preparation and insertion of cuttings, which are always soft, 
and emit a milky fluid on being separated from the parent plant. 
Many growers insert the ends in dry sand or powdered charcoal to absorb 
and prevent an excessive loss of sap. I have followed this course with 
varying success, but the best plants I have ever had were from cuttings 
obtained from a gardening neighbour, and not subjected to the treat- 
