Jaonary 2 , isoo. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
11 
sorts, in giving to thoir offspring: names almost identical with others 
already existing. For example, Mme. Eugene Verdier (H.P.) and Mile. 
Eugenie Verdier, and then repeating Mme. Eugene Verdier again as a 
Tea I The result of this kind of naming is that “ Madame ” and 
“ Madamoiselle ” become completely mixed. Sometimes one is entered 
when the other is evidently meant, and more often we get a hybrid 
form of name, in either “ Madame Eugene V.” or “ Mademoiselle 
Eugenie V.,’’ both hybrid names appearing also as Teas 1 Other ex¬ 
amples will at once suggest themselves—e.y., Hippolyte Jamain and 
Mme. Hippolyte Jamain (H.P.), and Mme. Hippolyte Jamain (Tea) ; 
Jules Margottin and Mme. Jules Margottin and Mme. Margottin ; Mme. 
Ducher and Marie Ducher and Jean Ducher ; Mme. Scipion Cochet 
(H.P.) and Mme. Scipion Cochet (Tea) ; Princess of Wales (H.P.) and 
Princess of Wales (Tea) ; Prosper Laugier and Mme. Prosper Laugier ; 
•Julius Finger and Jules Finger ; Jules Chretien, an old worthless pink 
H.P., and Jules Chrfitien H.P. (Schwartz, 1878), a handsome dark one ; 
Souvenir de Victor Hugo (H.P.) and Souvenir de Victor Hugo (Tea); 
Baron Nathaniel de Rothschild and Baronne Nathaniel de Rothschild, 
both H.P.’s; and so on ad inji/ii’nm. Or is our language so poor in 
names that we need have two so similar as Lady Sheffijld and Lady 
half—which half, by the way, would do for the next new Rose—e.y., 
Archduchess Maria Immaculata might very well be content to be simply 
styled “ Archduchess.” “ Immaculata ” would then make an admirable 
name for the next new white Rose, and we should have “ Maria ” over 
and to spare. Prince Camille hardly needs “ de Rohan ” added, any 
more than Souvenir d’Elise requires “ Vardon Princess Mary could 
well do without “ of Cambridge Madame E. de Bonnieres de Wierre 
could surely spare “E. de Bonnieres” for some other flower and really 
not feel the loss; and the promised new Rose of 1890 might be con¬ 
tent to submit to the inevitable, and be from the outset what she is 
bound to be in the end, “ Dowager Duchess,” leaving Duchess of Marl¬ 
borough ” for some future novelty. I seriously think this question of 
simplicity and distinctness of nomenclature is a matter rosarians would 
do well to lose no time in grappling with. 
A GOOD MELON—THE COUNTESS. 
Among the great numbers of Melons that were examined by the 
Fruit Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society last year not one 
■Suffield ? Raisers might surely exercise a little ingenuity in choosing 
really distinctive names for their new introductions. Nor can I think 
the constant harping on one string, however distinguished, tends to 
clearness— e.g., Paul Verdier, Eugenie Verdier, Victor Verdier, Mme. 
Eugene Verdier (H.P.), Mme. Victor Verdier, Emilie Verdier, Marie 
Verdier, Souvenir de Victor Verdier, Mme. Eugene Verdier (Tea), and 
probably several others. Similar lists might be made of Jamains, 
Margottins, Levels, Lyons, Lyonnaise, &c. Nor are our neighbours 
across the Channel alone in this, for amongst English names we have 
Beauty of Waltham, Glory of Waltham, Piide of Waltham, Queen of 
Waltham, Star of Waltham, Waltham Climbers Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ; Glory 
of Cheshunt, Grandeur of Cheshunt, Brightness of Cheshunt, Cheshunt 
Scarlet, Cheshunt Hybrid. What wonder if the average gardener gets 
altogether “mixed” with such a repetition of the dominant name! 
Surely one can have too much of such great Rose names as Verdier, 
■Cheshunt, Waltham, Lyons, Ac. 1 And might we not usefully drop at 
least half of the multitude of Madames and Mademoiselles, and most of 
the Souvenirs ; indeed, all of them, except when needed for the sake of 
dearness ? Might we not, for instance, without any disrespect or undue 
familiarity, talk of Alfred de Rougemont, Alphonse LavalMe, Bellender 
Ker, Charles Crapelet. Clemence Joigneaux, Gabriel Luizet, Norman 
Ndrnda, Eug6nie Verdier, Marie Cointet, Marie Rady, Therese Levet, 
Angele Jacquier, Caroline Kuster, Gabrielle Drevet, Admiral Courbet, 
Riza du Parc, &c., Ac. Some of the very long names might well drop 
met with greater approval than this. The Countess, as it was exhibited 
by its raiser, Mr. J, H. Goodacre of Elvaston, seemed to possess a com¬ 
bination of good qualities, productiveness, size, appearance, and flavour 
being so markedly represented that all hands were promptly held up 
for a first-class certificate. The fruit is yellow in colour, distinctly 
netted, thin in the skin, thick in the flesh, which is nearly white, tender, 
juicy, and pleasantly flavoured. The character of the variety as it was 
exhibited is accurately displayed in the engraving, fig. 2, for which we 
are indebted to Messrs. James Veitch A Sons, who are introducing 
the Countess to the Melon-loving public ; and persons who grow this 
variety as well as it was presented by its raiser will have reason to 
be satisfied with it and themselves. 
LILY OF THE VALLEY. 
My answer to your correspondent Mr. Coombe, on page 303, as to 
why I prefer a substantial loam for the growth of this plant, is very 
simple—viz., that having seen it growing naturally in such a soil, and 
having noticed it produce the best results, I naturally recommend such 
for its cultivation. Without doubt it flourishes well in a good rich 
