October 1,1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
280 
shoots shortened, leaving about five joints and one joint of the 
sub laterals. We then cleared all rubbish out of the house and 
syringed well with water in which petroleam had been mixed 1 oz. 
to the gallon and the same quantity of softsoap. This syringing 
was repeated occasionally until all the leaves had died. The 
Vines were then pruned rather closely, all crevices in the rods 
cleaned with a knife, and all loose bark removed. The walls 
were thoroughly scraped, and. with the woodwork, were 
syringed with boiling water containing 4 ozs. softsoap to the 
gallon. The houses were closed and well fumigated with strong 
brimstone; the walls were whitewashed with hot lime, sulphur, 
and carbolic acid, all glass and woodwork being painted with 
petroleum, working it well into the crevices. The Vines were 
scrubbed twice with hot softsoap water 6 ozs. to the gallon. 
Some tar was obtained from the gas house and some stiff clay; 
the latter was thoroughly dried and reduced to a powder and 
then stirred into the tar, making rather a stiff kind of paint. 
This was then thoroughly worked all over the Vines with a stiff 
brush, taking especial care to stop all the holes and crevices in 
the rods. Four inches depth of soil was taken off the border, 
and as the outside roots had been all lifted, the inside ones were 
disturbed as little as possible, some good decayed manure, bones, 
and fresh turfy loam were put on again, and we thought we 
might say good-bye to the mealy bug after that. 
The Vines were started steadily on January 5 th and al 
appeared secure until February 13th, when the leaves were 
unfolding and the sap in rising had slightly swollen the rods, 
causing little fissures in the tar-and-clay mixture round the 
spurs. On examining these a few bugs just hatched were found 
in two or three places, and it was evident our enemy was not 
killed. A gallon of warm water was obtained, and into this we 
put half a pound of softsoap, five wineglasses of petroleum, and 
five wineglasses of carbolic acid, and then painted all the Vine 
rods thoroughly, working it well round the spurs, but taking 
especial care not to touch the young shoots; this was a drop too 
much for the little white-coated visitors, and not one has 
survived. 
When using the petroleum we were always very careful to 
keep the mixture well stirred; the carbolic acid used was the 
common dark brown kind, which can be obtained at 4s, 6d. per 
gallon, and which we find very useful for many purposes.—W. H. 
Divers, Kelton Hall. 
ROSES-CONFUSING NOMENCLATURE. 
Shakespeare has a great deal to answer for. He rashly 
suggested that “ A Rose by any other name would smell as 
sweet,” and, as if to prove him a prophet, Roses have been given 
almost every other name conceivable. But the bard said “ any 
other” name, and those who in desperate vindication of his seer- 
ship have given a Rose the same name as that of one already in 
existence are likely to be considered, like some other zealots, 
tiresome. 
For instance, we have Comtesse de Paris (E. Verdier, 1864), 
a pretty enough H.P., though too thin to be of real value, where¬ 
upon Leveque, in 1883, sends out another Comtesse de Paris, 
which in spite of being a first-rate Rose, by some considered 
better than Countess of Rosebery, is likely to get less notice 
than it deserves owing to a confusion with a comparatively 
worthless variety. In the same way Jules Chretien (Schwartz, 
1877), a really good, vigorous, free-flowering, dark H.P., espe¬ 
cially as a garden Rose to grow as a standard, makes its appear¬ 
ance to confuse growers who have discarded the indifferent 
variety of the same name distributed by Damaizin in 1869. It 
i3 only by the specification of his earldom that the beautiful but 
delicate Earl of Beaconsfield (Christy, 1880) escapes nominal 
identity with Lord Beaconsfield (Schwartz, 1878) ; while E. Ver- 
dier’s two seedlings, Madame Prosper Laugier (1875) and Pros¬ 
per Laugier (1884) run a considerable risk of getting mixed, as 
do the two Teas Madame Margottin (Guillot, 1866) and Madame 
Jules Margotten (Levet, 1871). 
Sometimes, no doubt, it is only a vegetable coincidence when 
two Roses appear in the same season with the same name, as 
when in 1877 Nabonnand, called a pretty light H.P. Madame 
Anna de Besabrasoff, a name which Gonod simultaneously 
bestowed upon a dark red seedling from Charles Lefebvre. 
Franc;oi8 Louvat and Francois Levet, as well as Levet’s two 
Teas, Madame Berard and Madame Bernard, are two pairs of 
names very liable to confusion, but this may be perhaps best 
avoided by growing only the first-named of each couple, F. Levet 
and Madame Bernard being of little value. 
Happily many Roses thus afflicted have gone out of cultiva¬ 
tion, but Vemet keeps up the complication by this year dis- , 
tributing Baronne Nathaniel t e Rothschild to get mixed with 
Baron Nathaniel de Rothschild (Leveque, 1883), regardless also 
of the fact that this makes the sixth Baron(ne) Rothschild sent 
out. Perhaps the best wav to avoid a muddle in this case will 
be to adopt Mr. George Paul’s plan of translating the lady’s 
title at once to Baroness Nathaniel de Rothschild. 
The giving of the same name to two Roses that are in differ¬ 
ent classes is less reprehensible, but still inconvenient, hr if 
anyone wishing for Nabonnand’s pretty red Tea Duchess of 
Edinburgh (1874) should receive instead Dunand’s H P. of that 
name, probably remarks would be made of the kind that is not 
usually fully reported, while vituperation would inevitably ensue 
on the receipt of Nabonnand’s Tea Duchesse de Vallombrosa 
(1879) when Schwartz’s beautiful H.P. had been desired. So 
that it may not be altogether useless to indicate the following 
chief instances of this malpractice :— 
Jules Finger. 
Madame Hippoljts Jamain 
Duke of Connaught . 
Duchess of Connaught. 
Madame Eugene Yerdier ... 
Princess of “Wales . 
Princess Beatrice . 
Henry Bennett . 
Madame Ducher. 
f H.T. Lacharme, 1870. 
fT. Madame Ducher, 1879. 
( T. Guillot, 1869. 
(H.P. Gaipon, 1871. 
f H.T. Bennett. 1879. 
( H.P. Paul & Son, 1870. 
f H.T. Bennett, 1879. 
\ H.P. Noble, 1882 
f H.P. E. Yerdier, 1878. 
IT. Levet, 1883. 
) H.P. Wm. Paul, 1864. 
( T. Bennett, 1882. 
(“H.P. Wm. Paul, 1872. 
I T. Bennett’s new Tea, 
| H.P. Lacharme, 1875. 
j T. Levet, 1872. 
) T. Ducher, 1869. 
X H.P. Levet, 1879. 
The last two names may be excused as being but little cultivated. 
Levet’s Madame Ducher, although a tine flower, being such a 
wretched grower and a victim to mildew. 
After so considerable a work as the publication of their illus¬ 
trated catalogue, the Committee of the National Rose Society 
will probably be glad to let such matters rest for a time, but 
when next the question of synonyms is gone into, the authorita¬ 
tive judgment of the Committee on the following very-much- 
alike Roses, quite apart from their worthiness of inclusion in 
the catalogue, will be gladly welcomed :— 
La Reine, Reine du Midi, Alice Dureau ; Due de Rohan, Mrs. 
Jowitt; Souvenir de Spa, Comtesse de Camando; Antoine 
Ducher, Edouard Pynaert, Marie Louise Pernet; Madame 
Berard, Melanie Soupert; Alfred Colomb, Wilhelm Koelle; 
Elise Boelle, Madame Noman, Mdlle. Bonnaire, Madame O. 
Kerchove; Madame Maurin, Madame Denis, Adele Pradel 
Bougere, Clothilde; Narcisse, Enfant de Lyon.— Theta. 
APHIDES AND THE DROUGHT. 
I have deferred writing for this Journal some notes on the 
extraordinary migration of aphides (vulgo “fly” or “blight”) 
that occurred last July, because I was desii'ous of ascertaining 
whether in those locilities where numbers of these insects were 
noticed travelling through the air they were subsequently found 
infesting plants in gardens to an unusual extent. So far as I 
know up to the present time, such was not the case upon the 
Hops, and of course upon various cultivated plants there have 
been aphides during the later summer, but not generally in 
abundance, but they were very plentiful in many places through 
the early part of the season undoubtedly. The prompting cause 
of this migration was, to all appearance, the dryness and com¬ 
parative coolness of July, owing to which the plants that had 
afforded food to the aphides failed to yield the needful supply of 
sap. As a consequence, these insects (at least, certain speciesj, 
ceased to multiply in the wingless form, and a brood emerged of 
the winged type, which then set forth to seek fresh provender 
with questionable success. 
For the information of some readers, I may state briefly that 
it is customary for the insects of this tribe, or the majority of 
them, to make two yearly migrations—one in the spring, the 
other in the autumn, the particular date depending upon the 
weather. It is on these dull, somewhat oppressive days, of which 
we get several both in spring and autumn, that, from the check 
given to the flow of sap, the food plants of the aphides no longer 
furnish abundant food, The unwinged insects no longer appear, 
the winged emerge, and then follows a migration, when people 
say, and truly, “ there is a blight in the air.” An easterly wind 
has been credited, amongst other mischiefs, with that of bringing 
aphides, but I do not think facts support this, for I have seen 
1 em flying with the wind from every quarter. As a rule, they 
