October IS, 1891. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
810 
Y EAR by year tlie different varieties tabulated in these analyses 
are gradually settling down into their relative true positions. 
The present lists are based upon data obtained from the last six 
leading Exhibitions of the National Rose Society. Another forward 
season like those of 1889 and 1890, was however this year wanted to 
keep the balance true between the early and late varieties ; instead 
of which we rosarians had unfortunately to contend against one of 
the most backward summers of the series, and to make matters 
worse the date on which the Society’s Metropolitan Exhibition was 
held happened to be rather earlier than usual. A backward season 
does not so much unduly favour the earlier kinds of Roses as 
place at a disadvantage those which come into flower somewhat 
late in the summer. For instance, A. K. Williams and Senateur 
Vaisse, taking into consideration the total number of H.P.’s 
tabulated each year, were this year shown only about an average 
number of times, while a still earlier variety than either, Lady 
Mary Fitzwilliam, was not nearly so frequently staged as at the 
two previous shows when the seasons were so much more forward ; 
whereas some of the later flowering kinds, like Ulrich Brunner, 
Merveille de Lyon, and Louis Yan Houtte, have never since 1886 
been so poorly represented. 
For the purpose of this analysis the names of over 11,000 Rose 
blooms have been tabulated in all—the number of Hybrid 
Perpetuate and of Teas and Noisettes in each year being as 
follows :— 
1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 
Hybrid Perpetuate ... 1038 ... 1130 ... 1247 ... 1176 ... 1396 ... 1184 
Teas and Noisettes ... 509 ... 642 ... 854 ... 778 ... 631 ... 662 
1547 ... 1772 ... 2101 ... 1954 ... 2027 ... 1846 
The above figures do not indicate, as in the case of the Dahlia and 
Chrysanthemum analyses, the actual extent of the different shows, 
but simply the number of names that have been taken down each 
year from the different prize stands. 
The Hybrid Perpetuate which were exceptionally well shown at 
the Crystal Palace this year were Madame G. Luizet, La France, 
Charles Lefebvre, Duke of Edinburgh, Comtesse d’Oxford, Prince 
Arthur, Marquise de Castellane, Dr. Andry, E. Y. Teas, and 
Ferdinand de Lesseps. Among those scantily represented, con¬ 
sidering the positions they occupy on the list, may be mentioned : 
Marie Baumann, Ulrich Brunner, Frangois Michelon, Merveille de 
Lyon, Her Majesty, Louis Van Houtte, Marie Rady, Baroness 
Rothschild, and Camille Bernardin. 
If the present analysis be compared with that of 1886 it will be 
found that the following Roses have already disappeared entirely 
from the list—viz., Madame Lacharme (at one time considered such 
a great acquisition as a white H.P.), Annie Laxton, Annie Wood, 
Edouard Morren, Lord Macaulay, Penelope Mayo, Boildieu, John 
Stuart Mill, Souvenir de la Malmaison (B), Mrs. Jowitt, and 
Nardy Freres. In 'the place of these varieties we find on this 
year’s list such valuable acquisitions as Mrs. John Laing (No. 3), 
Her Majesty (No. 11), Earl of Dufferin (No. 38), Vicountess 
Folkestone (No. 40), and Victor Hugo (No. 44) ; and of the 
established varieties quite low down on the list Duchesse de 
Morny, Auguste Rigotard, and Comtesse de Serenye. Of the fifty- 
seven Hybrid Perpetuate which both lists contain in common there 
No. 590 .—Vol. XXIII,, Third Series, 
are only three, and those light coloured varieties, which show any 
decided signs of declining in favour as exhibition Roses, and these 
are Marie Cointet, Marguerite de St. Amand, and Comtesse de 
Serenye. 
It almost invariably takes five years after its first introduction 
before a new Rose can be placed in this analysis on anything like 
the same footing as the established varieties. In other words, 
until this period has elapsed it is seldom that a sufficient number of 
plants of any new kind are grown by exhibitors generally to allow 
of its being adequately represented at “ the National.” In the 
accompanying tables therefore, as in former years, the positions of 
all the newer sorts depend upon their averages for five, four, three, 
or two years, as the case may be, still newer sorts being placed 
accoiding to the number of times they were staged at this year’s 
Exhibition only. 
Of the newer H.P.’s mentioned in last year’s analysis, Viscoun¬ 
tess Folkestone, sent out in 1886, has improved slightly this year 
on its previous position. Although one of the most charming of 
all “ garden ” Roses it will, I fear, never take a high position as 
an exhibition variety, owing to the looseness of its petals and their 
frequent roughness at the edges. Mrs. John Laing, although first 
introduced only four years ago, now occupies the third place on the 
list. Last year it was only second to the leading flower—Madame 
G. Luizet. This loss of one place is, however, not due to this 
variety being less frequently shown in 1891 than in 1890, but 
l’ather to the fact of La France, which was more numerously staged 
than any other Rose in the Exhibition, being in such superlatively 
good form, and thus supplanting it. Earl of Dufferin, distributed 
in the same year as Mrs. J. Laing, has fallen from No. 24 to 
No. 38 ; but in so backward a season this late-flowering kind had 
scarcely a fair chance of showing what its capabilities might be 
under average conditions. Lady Helen Stewart, another 1887 
Rose, which appeared at the end of last year’s analysis, does not 
find any place in this one. Sir Rowland Hill is also absent from 
the present analysis. Although there are now no fewer than sixty- 
six Roses in the table of Hybrid Perpetuate, there is not among 
them a single variety of foreign introduction with a later date 
against it than 1884—Victor Hugo, at No. 44. 
Catherine Mermet still heads the list of Teas and Noisettes, and 
at the present time holds the premier position without any serious 
rival, although this year staged but an average number of times. 
Innocente Pirola, on the other hand, only just manages to retain 
the second place in the analysis with great difficulty, never before 
having been so seldom shown. Souvenir d’Eiise, Madame Cusin, 
Souvenir de P. NeyroD, and Madame Margottin were also less 
frequently staged than at any of the preceding five Exhibitions. 
Marechal Niel and Madame Lambard were also poorly represented : 
indeed, the only Teas which appeared in unusual strength were 
the Hon. Edith Gifford, Madame Bravy, Princess of Wales, and 
Devoniensis. 
Referring back to the 1886 analysis as we have previously done 
with the Hybrid Perpetuate we no longer find on our present list 
Belle Lyonnaise, Madame Welche, Jean Pernet, Perle des Jardins 
(how much a really good and dependable yellow Tea Rose is still 
wanted !), and David Pradel. Their places are, however, taken by 
such choice new comers as The Bride (No. 5), Souvenir de 
S. A. Prince (No. 21), Madame Hoste (No. 27), Cleopatra (No. 31), 
and one established variety Madame A. Jacquier (No. 32), the 
first three of which at all events are far superior to any of the 
varieties they have superseded. Next year we shall, I hope, be 
able to add to these Ernest Metz, an extremely promising new 
Tea. The only varieties on this year’s analysis which show 
any marked signs of decline as exhibition Roses are Madame 
Willermoz, Souvenir de P. Neyron, Madame II. Jamain, and 
Madame Margottin. 
We have four new Tea Roses on the list. The Bride 
sent out in 1885, which, although still at No. 5, is destined, I think, 
No. 2246 .—Yol. LXXXV., jOld Series. 
