March 20, 1890. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
245 
States which followed the close of the Mexican war, and who, fired by 
the enthusiasm of Asa Gray, opened to the world under his guidance 
the botanical treasures of the western and south-western parts of this 
country .—(^American Garden ani Forest, March Sth.') 
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS—A CATALOGUE COMMENTARY 
(Continued from page 225.') 
A SLIGHT accident in the type in making up the article last week 
necessitates the reproduction of a few lines to render the references to 
Gloire de Dijon intelligible. 
Gloire de Bijon. —A Rose of such notoriety, which forms seed vessels 
freely, has naturally been a prolific parent of Roses of similar manners 
and customs, forming a race to themselves. Perhaps the best of these 
are Bouquet d’Or (Ducher, 1872)—which, strange to say, is classed 
among the Noisettes in all the catalogues which I have seen except 
those of the National Rose Society and of Mr. G. Paul—Belle 
Lyonnaise (Levet, 1869), which is sometimes considered good enough 
to show, and Madame Berard (Levet, 1870), a better shaped Rose, but 
quite a shy bloomer with me. There are many others, and the cry is 
still they come. A large variety in colour has been obtained, but all 
seem to be much inferior to the original in its strongest point—constant 
freedom of bloom. 
Homer (Robert, 1859).—Of very strong growth with fair foliage, but 
more suited for a pillar than a wall, and best as a big bush. I have 
never heard any doubts about this being a pure Tea, but it is of unique 
habit and manners, being, as far as I have seen, perfectly hardy and of 
strong constitution, and I wonder we have had no seedlings from it. It 
is not liable to mildew and but little injured by rain, does well as a 
dwarf, is a free bloomer and fair autumnal, pretty in colour, but small 
in size. It is hard to prove a negative, and I will not say that Homer 
never comes perfectly shaped, because I have heard of one, though I did 
not see it. Its bad manners in this respect are more aggravating 
because each imperfect bloom has the promise of a beautiful shape, but 
marred by a malformation. As often happens, the strongest blooms are 
the most imperfect, and the buds should be cut small, as buds, before 
their promise is spoiled. The exhibitor will have none of it, but for 
buttonholes and bouquets he cannot deny the buds the despised epithet 
of “ pretty.” Nay, I saw lately in the inquiry column of a horticultural 
paper a note from a correspondent asking for names of “ three of the 
the most sure, certain, ani useful blooming Roses,” and he was referred 
by the Editor to Gloire de Dijon, Souvenir de la Malmaison, and 
Homer ! Well, well! tastes vary, and no doubt it is right they should, 
else all the young men in the world would be in love with the same 
young lady, and (which is more to our present purpose, though perhaps 
less disastrous) there would be an end to all those pleasing varieties of 
opinion as to which are the best Roses (and even as to which are Tea 
Roses) which have made the statistical returns of the Rose Conference 
80 interesting to Rose lovers. 
Hon. Edith Gifford (Guillot, 1882).—Of small growth and foliage, 
rather liable to mildew, but much injured by rain. A very good Tea Rose 
indeed, the blooms of which come very well, of fine shape, petal, centre, 
and size. It is thoroughly reliable, an excellent show Rose, early, free 
blooming, a good autumnal, and does well as a dwarf. A good Rose and 
a good “ doer,” a great acquisition, and a large improvement upon 
Devoniensis. I see that one catalogue at least has managed to describe 
its colour at some length without using the objectionable (?) word 
■“ white,” and I am sure all who know the Rose will appreciate the feat. 
lanocente Pirola (Ducher, 1878).—Of only fair growth and foliage ; 
requires rich soil, and does not do so well as a dwarf ; not much liable 
to mildew nor absolutely spoiled by a little rain. The blooms come 
well, and the shape is one of the most perfect we have, like the whorl of 
a shell. It is fairly free in bloom and lasting, but not one of the best 
autumnals, and not often very large till overblown. Most pure in 
colour, but, dear me ! three of the leading catalogues describe its colour 
without mentioning the word “ white!” I can only suppose there is 
some mysterious point of honour about it. Fine in petal and centre, 
this Rose should be a great favourite with those purists (with whom I 
have much sympathy), who insist upon regularity and perfection of 
shape as being the one thing desirable above all others. 
Jean Bucher (Ducher, 1874).—Of strong, stout, stiff growth, with 
good foliage; does well as a dwarf, and is not very liable to mildew, 
but perhaps more sensitive than any Tea Rose to wet or rain. It must 
have dry weather, even when yet a hard bud, as soon as ever it shows 
colour, or it will not come to any real good. The very strongest buds 
are apt to come rough or divided, but as a rule they come pretty well if 
the weather continues dry, and when a fine bloom does come at last it is 
grand in shape, petal, centre, size, colour, and lasting qualities. It is a 
thoroughly free bloomer, good in a dry autumn, and fairly hardy for a 
Tea Rose. The colour is variable ; sometimes there is a good deal of 
salmon pink about it, especially on the outside ; rarely it is quite yellow, 
and then very fine ; when overblown the blooms have a good deal of red 
in them, and are very decorative at a little distance. 
Jules Finger (Ducher, 1879).—Of good growth, with fair foliage ; 
does well as a dwarf, is not much liable to mildew, and can stand a 
shower. The blooms generally come well, but the shape is not a refined 
one, the centre petals being incurved, whereas we expect the more 
elegant pointed form in a Tea Rose. Pretty good as a free bloomer and 
autumnal, not very large, and aggravating in colour. This is fairly 
good and pure when the flower first opens, but it will not hold it when 
cut, and if kept too long (for it has a lasting shape) it turns to a livid 
hue, which almost tempts one to use the word “ ugly.” Note that there 
is a Julius Finger among the H.P.’s, a light coloured flower of little 
merit. 
La BouXe d'Or (Margottin, 1860).—Of fair, stiff, but rather dwarf 
growth, with good foliage ; very little liable to mildew, but being extra 
full it is a slow opener, and will not stand any wet. It does well as a 
dwarf, and the blooms come fairly well, though occasionally divided. 
This is a Rose of very large fine petals, which give it great value for 
show purposes, but it has rather a bad name as one that will not open. 
I have even heard it recommended that the roots should be cut in 
summer when the buds are formed to starve it into opening ; but I 
cannot advise root-pruning for any Rose, except perhaps Climbing 
Devoniensis. It is a grand flower under glass, and well worthy of some 
artificial protection from rain when grown out of doors for exhibition ; 
but this is not an easy business to manage satisfactorily. I have experi¬ 
mented with several sorts of caps, shades, and cones, but hope there is 
something better, firmer, cheaper, and more easily shifted yet to be 
found. Whatever be used let no one make the mistake of replacing the 
cover when the ground is wet, or the radiating moisture will settle on 
and rot the petals. It is seldom of any use as an autumnal, but is free 
blooming, capable of reaching a large size, and of extraordinary lasting 
qualities. I have seen a strong bloom on a south wall, exposed to a 
cloudless July sun, take nearly a week to open fully. The typical 
shape, as the name implies, has a round ball in the centre, but it often 
comes with a fine point, and is then much better, the great petals stand¬ 
ing out like wings. “ Bright golden yellow ” is the general description 
of the colour, but this shade is unattainable out of doors, as it will not 
open without sun, which makes the colour much paler. After cold wet 
weather the buds (if any survive) will open much more quickly should 
a sunny time follow. 
Madame Angela Jacquicr (Guillot, 1879).—Of pretty good growth 
and foliage, not much liable to mildew, but injured by rain. It will do 
well as a dwarf, but wants rich soil and high culture to be worth any¬ 
thing. The blooms come generally pretty well, and a good show flower 
may often be obtained, of fine petals, nice pointed shape, and full size. 
The colour is not striking, and, however described, it will be found more 
white than any other colour when grown out of doors. This is a Rose 
which seems to have improved or grown in favour during the last two 
or three years, but it is not specially noticeable as a free bloomer or 
autumnal. 
Madame Berard (Levet, 1870).—See Gloire de Dijon. 
Madame Bravy (Guillot, 1848).—Synonyms : Alba Rosea, Josephine 
Malton, and Madame de Sertot. Of good growth and fair foliage, not 
liable to mildew, but impatient of rain, and rarely producing show 
blooms when grown as a dwarf. The blooms come generally well, but 
the shape is very globular, almost like an incurved Chrysanthemum, and 
such a form requires the utmost regularity, and shows at a glance the 
slightest imperfection. The wood is pliable, and the blooms are there¬ 
fore pendant, and can only be seen in perfection when artificially sup¬ 
ported in a vase or Rose stand. A very free bloomer and fairly hardy, 
but the autumnal buds rarely expand fully. It is of fair size, but owing 
to the globular shape loses in this respect when compared with other 
Roses whose outer petals are long and stand well away, and is seldom 
large enough to be shown among H.P.’s. I do not know whether this 
Rose has deteriorated of late, but one does not, I fancy, see it shown so 
often as formerly. The objection of some Tea Roses to be grown as 
dwarfs, a mode of culture which affords the greatest facilities for pro¬ 
tection from frost, seems likely to cause such dainty varieties to lose in 
popularity. 
Madame Cusin (Guillot, 1881).—Of poor growth, with characteristic 
wood and very small foliage ; not much injured by rain, but liable to 
mildew, and I cannot get it to do any good as a dwarf—indeed, few 
seem to be able to grow this Rose strongly, and it is not often seen well 
shown. The blooms almost always come well, and the shape is unique, 
with a fine point in the centre, and the petals all well separated and 
standing apart from one another. No dressing is required for this Rose, 
as the spreading out of the petals is one of the chief objects of this 
practice. Not large, but very free flowering; the buds must be 
rigorously thinned and the plant treated most generously if anything 
much above buttonhole size be aimed at. A fine colour sometimes, but 
this, as is often the case, is fleeting, and the general hue soon becomes 
dull. 
Madame de Watteville (Guillot, 1883).—This Rose, which formed a 
new and notable departure in Tea Roses, seems to me slightly similar 
in strain to the last-named. The growth is never more than moderate 
with me ; the foliage is small, and I cannot make it do well as a dwarf. 
For the first two or three years of its existence it was, I think, only 
shown in its full beauty by one rosarian, but all the leading exhibitors 
are able to grow wonderful blooms of it now. I suppose it is done from 
standards. The blooms come well, even though the buds be crinkled 
and apparently badly shaped, and the appearance of the flower is 
