560 
JOURNAL CF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE 
GARDENER. 
[ December 20, 1889. 
should be of the true globular shape, which is an exacting form where 
the bloom is so very double and full ; but often the flowers come flat 
and open, more like Jules Margottin, from which it is a seedling. Very 
large, and a good laster ; a free bloomer, but not a good autumnal. 
A big standard of this Eose in full bloom is a fine sight, and very 
effective, especially at a little distance. Very hardy, and of strong 
constitution. 
Emilie Hausburg (Leveque, 1868).—A weakish grower, with charac¬ 
teristic very green wood and foliage. Not much liable to mildew or to 
be injured by rain. The blooms come fairly well, but very late, gene¬ 
rally too late for exhibition ; of splendid globular imbricated shape, 
with good petals, but weak in the centre ; good in lasting qualities and 
size, but by no means a free bloomer or a good autumnal. Thus this 
beautifully shaped and very distinct Rose is in a fair way to be dis¬ 
carded, being generally too late for exhibition and too shy in blooming 
and weak in growth to be useful for other purposes. 
Etienne Levet (Levet, 1871). — Of robust and smooth but very 
uncertain growth; long, strong, and stout in rich soil, where it has a 
good hold, but otherwise quite short and stumpy. The foliage is very 
fine, and the blooms come well, with large, very smooth, shell-like 
petals ; but the shape is open, the centre rather weak, and the form not 
lasting. Must be cut small for exhibition, and is not very reliable in 
hot weather. Not much injured by mildew or rain, but not good as a 
free bloomer or autumnal. Of large size, and its grand petals and 
smooth even outline make it an effective show Eose ; but for general 
cultivation or on weak soils it is not one of the best. 
Eugene Furst (Soupert et Notting, 1876).—A very strong grower, 
with good foliage, liable to mildew, which appears even on the petals, 
but not much injured by rain. This is a Eose whose manner it is to 
waste all its strength upon the wood, and have none to spare to swell 
the bud. In H. P.’s and Teas we have some Roses which promise more 
than they perform, and others which perform more than they promise. 
Thus, in H. P.’s, this Eose has small blooms on very strong shoots, while 
Francois Michelon has very large blooms on thin small shoots. In Teas, 
the class of those who promise more than they perform finds exponents 
in Comtesse Riza du Parc, and (with me) Etoilede Lyon, while the good 
part of Francois Michelon is ably played by Comtesse de Nadaillac. 
Eugene Furst comes fairly well, of a good dark velvety colour and fail- 
shape, lasting well. The blooms are late and not so numerous as they 
ought to be, though coming well again in the autumn ; but it is an 
impostor, and wastes a quantity of good Eose nutriment on those sturdy, 
lazy, disappointing shoots. 
Eugenie Verdier (G-uillot., 1869).—See Marie Finger. 
Exposition de Brie (Grainger, 1865).—See Ferdinand de Lesseps. 
E. Y. Teas (Yerdier, 1874).—Only moderate in growth, with fair 
foliage. Not much liable to mildew, and stands rain fairly. The blooms 
come well, very full, of compact, regular, smooth, globular shape, bright 
colour, and good lasting qualities, but decidedly below the average in 
■size. Fairly free in bloom, but not much use as an autumnal. 
Ferdinand de Lesseps (Yerdier, 1869).—Synonyms, Exposition de 
Brie, 1865 ; Maurice Bernardin, 1861 ; and Sir Garnet Wolseley, 1875. 
This, though not the oldest, is probably the best known of the four 
ideclared by the N.E.S. to be identical. It is said that Sir G. Wolseley 
_s lighter in colour than the others, but having given it up for several 
^ears I cannot now offer an opinion on the subject. Of good growth 
nd foliage, rather liable to mildew, but not much injured by rain. The 
•rooms come pretty well, of good globular shape and fair general 
dualities. This variety always seems to me to represent a fair average 
Vrimson Eose, unusually free from peculiarities or special manners and 
c ustoms. 
Fislier Holmes (Verdier, 1865).—Of good growth and fair foliage. 
Particularly liable to mildew, but not much injured by rain. The 
blooms come well, of the good pointed shape of Duke of Wellington, 
which it slightly resembles. The N.E.S. catalogue speaks of it as 
"rather thin,” but I have not found it so ; on the contrary, with me 
the shape is lasting, though the brightness soon fades. Rather below 
the average size, but very free blooming, and a capital autumnal. This 
is a most useful sort, which accommodates itself well to circumstances — 
shuts up its petals at night, tightens its point in hot weather, and forms 
a beautiful buttonhole in the autumn, or when not thinned for show 
purposes. 
Frangois Michelon (Levet, 1871), of peculiar and very characteristic 
growth, with green, slender, yet fairly stiff stems, and thin poor foliage. 
This is the H.P. Rose par excellence whose performance is better than 
its promise. It seems incredible that those little buds an its spindly 
stems should open into what is one of the largest and finest show Roses 
we have ; but they do. The petals look thin, and the growth seems so 
weak that an exhibitor, who did not know the Rose, would be slow to 
believe it would stand or hold its shape in a hot tent; but it does this 
too. But little affected by mildew or injured by rain, and coming 
generally well, but the centre, though almost always well covered, is 
sometimes not very regular. The outline is generally good, but the 
•colour is not very lasting. Cannot be called a free bloomer, and is one 
of the very worst autumnals we have, a large proportion of the plants 
having no second crop. In propagating this Rose and others which are 
shy bloomers and bad autumnals care should be taken to bud from a 
flowering stem, for the young plant will probably not flower the first 
year if the bud has come from a “ runaway ” non-flowering autumnal 
shoot. Requires the Briar stock and rich generous treatment. We are 
indebted to this Rose, I think, if we may judge from similarity of wood, 
&c., for one of the best introductions of late years, Mrs. John Laing.— 
W. E. Raillem. 
(To be continued.) 
HOLLYHOCK FUNGUS (PUCCINIA MALY ACE ARUM). 
As a reader of the Journal I have been much interested in Mr. 
Alfred Bishop’s valuable contributions. His remarks on “ Fungus on 
Peaches,” in last week’s issue, page 505, have led me to ask, Can he 
recommend anything to destroy the Hollyhock fungus ? The different 
species of parasitic fungi are now causing much alarm among horti¬ 
culturists generally ; few indeed are without their pet flowers, and as 
few, perhaps, are without some parasitic pest to blight their hopes, and 
often to destroy the work of years. From the simple Snowdrop of early 
spring, with which Polyactis galanthina plays such havoc when once 
introduced, to our summer queen the Rose, where orange fungus (Coleo- 
sporium pingue) wrestles hard for victory, on to our stately Hollyhocks, 
the glory of autumn, we have to fight with this destructive pest. It is 
in the latter flower that I am especially interested, and as I hold a 
valuable collection, a remedy would prove most acceptable, not only to 
me but to Hollyhock growers generally. Mr. Bishop is the first person 
I know who has been able to eradicate a parasitic fungus, and I hope he 
will throw a little more light on the subject, or perhaps our valuable 
critic, Mr. Tonics, would give us a wrinkle or two. 
Mr. Bishop’s remark at page 506, “ I was now convinced the enemy 
was a fungus of some description, and treated the trees accordingly,” 
leads one to think that he can eradicate my fungus. I hope, therefore, 
he will not take it amiss in my asking the name of his mildew com¬ 
position, and whether he thinks it will destroy the Hollyhock fungus as 
effectually as that on his Peaches ; if so Hollyhock growers may brighten 
up a bit, and we shall soon see the plant established in all its beauty. 
Will someone kindly tell us the origin and development of fungi, and 
a'so how they can be successfully eradicated?—G. Steel. 
THE SOURCES OF THE NITROGEN OF VEGETATION. 
(Continued from page 40G.~) 
It is not yet conclusively proved that the whole of the nitrogen of 
leguminous plants comes from the subsoil; it is equally not proved that 
it comes from the air ; though in the case of crops belonging to other 
natural orders it may be affirmed that atmospheric nitrogen is not the 
source. May it be that the development of organisms capable of bring¬ 
ing free nitrogen into combination within the soil is favoured by legu¬ 
minous growth and crop-residue, as there can be little doubt is the case 
with the organisms which produce nitrification ? Frank has shown that 
on the roots of certain trees, especially the Cupuliferae, but also on 
Willows and some Coniferfe, is a fungus-mantle which is believed to be 
in true symbiosis with the higher plant; and it may well be supposed 
that the fungus partly assists the tree by bringing the organic nitrogen 
of the soil into a form in which it becomes available to the chloro- 
phyllaceous plant; much in the same way as has been observed by 
Gilbert in the case of fairy-rings, where the fungus, so to speak, pre¬ 
pares the nitrogenous nutriment for the grass. That the tubercules 
that are nearly always present on the roots of leguminous plants are in 
some way connected with the assimilation of nitrogen by the plants is 
an hypothesis that is gaining ground. Much study has of late years 
been devoted to the morphology and functions of these tubercules by, 
amongst others, Tscirch, Brunchorst, Frank, Van Tieghem, Lundstrom, 
and Marshall Ward ; and still more recently by Brfial, Beyerinck, and 
Prazmowski. It seems almost certain that these tubercules contain 
micro-organisms, which are the proximate cause of the excrescences, and 
these may live in symbiosis with the legumes, and prepare their nitro¬ 
genous food possibly from free nitrogen. The tubercules are richer in 
nitrogen than the roots themselves, and some observers look upon them 
as being merely reservoirs of nitrogenous nutriment, not as manufac¬ 
tories. Beyerinck ( Botan. Zeitung, 18S8 ) has obtained and cultivated 
an organism which he calls Bacillus radicicola, from these tubercules, 
and studied some of its reactions. It seems very probable that further 
study of these tubercules of the Leguminosae may put us on the right 
track for solving the mysterious nutrition of this order of plants. 
In a postscript to the memoir the authors state that they have started 
some experiments with leguminous plants much on the same lines as 
those of Hellriegel and Wilfarth. The results of these experiments will 
be looked forward to with very great interest. 
This memoir is a most welcome and solid contribution to a most im¬ 
portant problem. It is quite obvious that the last word on the subject 
has not been said, and probably very much more work must be done 
before it is. The authors, from their own labours and thought on the. 
subject, continued through so many years, are well able to criticise the 
work of others, and this they have here done, as far as most of the im¬ 
portant papers published up to date are concerned, in an able and frank 
manner. If leguminous plants are able to avail themselves of the free 
nitrogen of the air, or if soils are able, through the agency of microbes 
or in other ways, to fix free nitrogen, the exact conditions necessary for 
the accomplishment of these ends is not yet known. The conditions of 
risk and exposure to accidental sources of nitrogen-gain in small ex¬ 
periments in the open air are very great, and experiments made under 
such conditions require very careful verification. Also the methods of 
