4G 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 19,1888. 
WILLIAM ALLEN RICHARDSON. 
In reply to “ A Lady Gardener” I may state that this Rose does well 
under glass early in the season. It grows well, even luxuriantly, and 
flowers freely whether forced or allowed to come into flower naturally in. 
a cool house. Well ripened plants by gentle forcing can be had in 
bloom from the middle of February. It does well grown in pots either 
trained under the roof, or the strong shoots trained round five stakes 
X'laced round the sides of the pot in autumn. If the last method is 
practised after strong shoots issue from the base after flowering the old 
wood can all be cut away and the young ones trained under the roof 
until they are ripe. They can then be placed outside s cured to a wall 
or fence until they have been exposed to frost, which will induce complete 
rest. It will do splendidly planted out, and the flowers early in the 
season will last longer fresh in water than those of any Rose I know. 
The plants purchased now will not do for forcing. They should, 
whether planted out or grown in pots, be brought forward into growth 
under cool conditions. To start them in heat or attempt to force them 
the first season will ruin them. We presume those purchased will be 
plants lifted from the open ground. Planting out is strongly advised, 
if practicable, to keeping them in pots. In the latter they are confined 
at their roots, and naturally decline in vigour after a few seasons even 
under the best of treatment, unless they are transferred annually into 
larger pots.—W. B. 
FORCING ROSES. 
I AM glad to see in to-day's Journal a column specially for Roses- 
Though I have long grown in quantity Roses at all times of the year, 
yet, like “ A Suburban Amateur,” I much wish some really able Rose 
forcer, from large experience, would tell us in “ our Journal ” all about 
how' Roses should be and can be best grown in December, January, 
February, March, and April, including the best and most practical kind 
of house and heating arrangements. 
I have been a diligent reader of our Journal for seventeen jears, and 
whilst I readily admit more valuable practical knowledge of Rose¬ 
growing has been given to the world in it during that time than all 
other papers put together, yet I wish to say but little on the subject of 
forcing Roses has been given. 
The four papers- in Garden Worli, given last year, were good, and 
amongst the best available, but “our Journal” should give us something 
fuller and more exhaustive than those or of anything now published.— 
S. S., Herts. 
ROSE QUESTIONS 
I AM much obliged to those correspondents who have written in 
answer to my last letter, and have a few words to say in replJ^ Mr. 
D. Gilmour is an enthusiastic patron of the seedling Briar, and he advo¬ 
cates what was quite a new idea to me when 1 saw his atticle in the 
“ Ro.sarian’s Year-Book,” I mean cutting off the tap root even before 
the seedling is budded. In my innocence I thought the great, if not 
the sole, advantage of the seedling Briar as a stock was the possession 
of a tap root. If this has to be cut away in order to make it root 
horizontally like the cutting, I am even more inclined than before to 
give my preference to the latter. For what advantage under these 
circumstances has the seedling? “Its greater vigour,” says Mr. Gil¬ 
mour. But with m,e cuttings of the same age have made as much 
top and more root than seedlings ; however, I have never tried the 
plan of depriving the latter of their tap roots. I wonder, by-the-by, 
whether anyone has tried the seedling Manetti. 
Mr. Gilmour says, “ The greatest merit the seedling has is that it 
is grown from seed, seecilings being as a rule more vigorous than cut¬ 
tings.” If I may quote from the “ Year-Book,” he there explains this 
statement thus ;—“ The cutting is part of a branch cut from a tree, and 
made to root by a certain course of treatuient. The seedling is a per¬ 
fect plant grown from the seed of the wild Rose.” Now it is, I think, 
an interesting question whether the statement that a seedling is a more 
perfect plant than a cutting, is much more than sentiment. I think 
most people would say that there is at least something of truth in it, 
and that all plants are likely to suffer from too much or too long con¬ 
tinued artificial propagation. They would probably point to the un¬ 
healthy constitutions of the Ribston Pippin Apple or Moorpark Apricot 
as instances of this, and if rosarians, w-ould perhaps bring forward the 
alleged tendency to canker in Marechal Kiel, and the slow degenera¬ 
tion of other Roses, such as Prince Camille de Rohan. But these 
arguments would not apply to the Briar, which is only occasionally 
propagated in an artificial manner, and I think a majority would say 
that for all practical purposes the cutting Briar would be as perfect a 
plant as the seedling, especially if the latter were deprived of its tap 
root. 
I do not know whether it is fair to allude in this place to another 
statement in the “Year Book” by Mr. Gilmour on this subject. My 
hear y apologies to him, if I am “not in order.” He therein says the 
seedling Briar Joes not make suckers, “at any rate, not to anything 
like the extent, or the half of it, that the cutting does. The 
cutting is full of eyes to start with, and will anybody attempt to argue 
that the boys who are employed in nurseries to do this kind of work 
can remove the eyes from the cuttings so well and so completely as to 
make cuttings equal to seedlings, which latter have no eyes on their 
roots at all ?” That boys are fallible is an axiom well understood by 
gardeners and most people. The farmers in this part of the country 
have a saying that “A boy is a boy, two boys are only half a bov, and 
three boys are no boy at all,” the meaning of which, of course, is that 
when boys get together they are sure to play and “ humbug.” But is it 
not a little “ rough ” on Briar cutting to say that it is subject to suckers 
because boys are not trustworthy, and because some people neglect the 
good old adage, “ If you want a thing w'cll done do it yourself ?” Many 
thanks, however, to Mr. Gilmour for his notes, which are always 
interesting. 
I am extremely obliged to Mr. Worthington G. Smith for his kind 
answer to my query. I did not know that mildew was ever invisible in 
its summer stages. The case which I had in my mind of Rose mildew 
in a greenhouse was this : In April, 1886, I moved a Marechal Niel 
standard which had stood out all the winter, and was pruned to within 
an inch or two of the stock, with no leaf remaining, into a house where, 
to the best of my knowledge, there had been no Roses before ; it made 
three long shoots during the summer, on which I never saw a sign of 
mildew, and I often examined it. Towards the end of next March 
mildew appeared where there had been a little too much ventilation. It 
looked as if it had come in through the shutter, but if the simple spores 
are sometimes invisible to the naked rye, I suppose mildew was present 
during the previous summer, though undetected. 
Many thanks to “ S. C. B.” for his recommendations of preparations 
against mildew and thrips. I thought I had explained that the varie¬ 
ties which -vvflth me are spoiled by thrips are just those which are 
equally damaged by the clearest water when once they are in bloom, 
and therefore nothing liquid can be used. Preventive measures 
against mildew and thrips are what we want.—W. R. Raillem. 
THE CATALPAS. 
The majority of hardy trees grown in this country possessing 
any floral beauty produce their flowers in early spring, and the 
ornamental shrubs cultivated here are mostly similar in this respect, 
so that by midsummer there are few attractions left in gardens 
where trees and shrubs are valued. The Catalpas, however, provide 
a much later floral display, and if for this alone, they would be 
worthy attention ; but they possess several other good qualities, 
such as flourishing near towns, possessing a remarkably strong 
vitality, being of quick growth, and with their broad fresh green 
leaves are really beautiful for their foliage, and useful as shade- 
affording trees. They certainly also have a few defects, but they 
are chiefly experienced in northern or exposed situations, and in 
the south many handsome specimens may be seen that for half a 
century have been amongst the most admired occupants of 
gardens 
CATALPA BIQNONIOIDE3. 
The tree so generally known as “ the Catalpa ” is now recog¬ 
nised by authorities under the above title ; the name 0. syringm- 
folia, which is also widely used in nurseries and gardens, having 
been formerly given to the same tree, and is now ranked as a 
synonym of C. bignonioides. The adoption of these two names has 
caused some confusion, and even now it is not uncommon to find 
them classed as distinct in trade lists. Some of the earlier writers 
referred this tree to the genus Bignonia, to which it is closely 
related, and it was consequently described as Bignonia Catalpa in 
several botanical works. It appears, however, that the same 
designation has been conferred upon at least two other species— 
namely, C. Kaempferi and C. speciosa, the former by Kiempfer and 
Thunberg when describing the plants of Japan, and the latter by 
writers on the North American Flora. 
Catalpa bignonioides is an old inhabitant of English gardens, as 
it was introduced by a Mr. Mark Catesby from Carolina in 1726. 
It is faithfully described by Phillip Miller, and it was included in 
the Kew collection at the time Aiton published his “ Hortus 
Kewensis.” The tree is a native of Georgia and neighbouring 
States, but it was early and extensively planted for ornamental in 
the towns of the northern States as far as Massachusetts, and is now 
a common tree over a wide area. Loudon in referring to it says, 
“ The French of Upper Louisiana call the tree Bois Shavanon from 
its being found in abundance on the banks of the Shavanon now 
called the Cumberland but as w-ill be noted farther on. Dr. 
Engelmann considers this term was applied to C. speciosa, and had 
a different origin. In the southern counties of this country and on 
the Continent the Catalpa grows as rapidly as in its native land, 
quite a good sized tree being formed in ten or twelve years, and 
this has recommended it to many planters. Another advantage is 
that it succeeds in damp situations where some Conifers and other 
trees will not exist, but with the common Birch, Poplars, and 
Willows it flourishes admirably. A w-aterlogged soil is not suitable 
for it, but it does not object to abundant moisture where there is 
