334 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ April 28,18S7. 
growth, fine scent, of all the different colours, and every flower 
perfect in form. This is not going to occur to-morrow, however, 
nor the day after either. _ , 
The fact of one or two new Roses being brought out each year, 
which are really improvements on existing varieties, goes to show 
that if we are going to keep up with the times, we must have these 
new comers. But I do not advise for a moment that all the 
novelties, or any of them, should be bought directly they come out 
at 10s. Gd., or even 5s. each. I should suggest that the proper 
course to adopt is to wait and watch, to read the horticultural 
papers, and see the opinions of those who have bought the novelties 
at high prices and are proving them. Read, too, the reports of the 
Rose shows, and also the reports of the Royal Horticultuial 
Society's meetings, where the certificates and other awards of 
merit are given to new Roses. If a new Rose is really worth 
having, you may depend upon it its name will be in everybody s 
mouth, and the careful observer and reader need not waste much 
of his money. ... 
It will be quite soon enough to buy novelties in their second 
season, when they are reduced in price. If the buyer follows the 
above described plan lie will be compelled to do so, as there is not, 
as a rule, much information to be got during the first season about 
the novelties of that year —except raisers’ descriptions, which may 
be generally taken with a grain of salt—or shall we say half a 
hundredweight ? 
The three leading novelties just at present are Her Majesty, 
Clara Cochet, and The Bride. The first two have not been proved 
yet to my knowledge ; there is no doubt about their growing ■ 
Her Majesty has been exhibited by the raiser to some extent, and 
no doubt Clara Cochet will give us flowers in due time. The 
raiser of the latter, Lacharme, is of opinion that it is the best Rose 
that he has ever raised, and as he has produced among other Roses 
Charles Lefebvre, Xavier Olibo, and Louis Van Houtte, I think 
there is not much risk about this one. The Bride is a sure card; 
ihis I can personally testify. A white sport from Catherine 
Mermet, it has all the good qualities of that variety, and is, if 
anything, of more free-blooming habit. Lastly, it will grow, 
which, in my opinion, is not the least of its virtues. 
Since wiiting these lines we have advices of more new Roses. 
Mrs. John Laing we have heard of before, but Princess Beatrice (T), 
and The Puritan, are now announced for the first time. Grand 
Mogul, too, is now offered. These are all certificated varieties, and 
the careful observer should watch their progress.—D. Gilmour, JUN. 
(To be continued.) 
CHRYSANTHEMUMS AND THEIR CULTURE. 
T AM quite prepared to discuss any question so far as my critique had 
any bearing on Mr. Molyneux’s book. Before going any further I must 
protest against his substituting for argument an assumption of superior 
knowledge which is displayed to show up the ignorance of his opponent. 
I f we are as far from the “ desired point as before ” the reasons are because 
he upholds his teachings as the "royal road” and only road to success. 
If I have not proved his teachings to be wrong, he has done nothing in 
the controversy to prove that he is in willing accord with his professions 
of being anxious to give the large number of Chrysanthemum growers 
the full benefit of his experience, or to prove himself worthy of his 
fame. If he is not willing to do so, let him candidly admit it, this 
course at once will end the controversy. After he has filled three 
columns of the Journal with matter purporting to be an answer to the 
critique, he naively informs us on page 20(5 that when it was published 
he was quite content to let the general public be the judge as to the 
soundness of its teachings compared to his own. We are now informed 
by him that my attempts to prove his perverse alteration of arguments 
can be of no interest to the general public. This style of argument 
may be very convenient, but is it trusting to the verdict of the public ? 
I think not. It looks rather as if Mr. Molyneux were assuming the 
functions of both judge and jury only to remark my ignorance, because 
forsooth I do not know a “ Beverley ” from “ Mr. Bunn.” In my last 
rejoinder I certainly removed Mr. Bunn and all his relations from the 
controversy as having no bearing on the argument, and I never asked 
Mr. Molyneux either to replace it, or his reasons for so doing. 
Although Mr. Molyneux asks me for further evidence, which I hope 
to advance, the only evidence with which he supports his theory rests 
on the basis that a large number of plants must be grown on the lottery 
system, trusting to chance for some of them to turn up prizes. The 
others he relegate s to his new found region of “ unaccountables.” Why 
does he evade the whole question of the complications of bud formation 
which I prominently brought forward as the most important factor bear¬ 
ing on the case ? If my word is to be relied upon as well as Mr. Moly¬ 
neux’s, I certainly brought sufficient evidence ; in fact, according to his 
own showing, I was “ very full ” mi that point. I am waiting for him 
to show that I am in error, but the only thing that Mr. Moly- 
noux has brought forward in regard to this point was that a bud 
sometimes showed in July, with the sapient remark that of course 
this bud would have to be removed. Allow me ,to ask Mr. 
Molyneux if he found the buds forming in July—say on a plant of Meg 
Merrilies, or Princess of Teck, or Boule d’Or under ordinary circum¬ 
stances of growth, when would he be able to secure the next buds ? and 
what would they be worth to us in this part of the country ? Yet he 
asserts that in spite of all I “ say to the contrary those sorts will show 
their buds at the proper time” without any special treatment. 
If Mr. Molyneux wants still further evidence let us take the question 
of the unreliability of the variety Belle Paule, which arose in the 
Journal last autumn. Several reasons were advanced to account for 
the flowers not being up to their previous standard. This being compa¬ 
ratively a new and rare sort growers would only have a small stock, and 
not growing it previously they would be at a loss to understand its 
habit. The time the buds showed would in most cases be a matter of 
chance, and complaints would, of course, arise from those who had not 
been fortunate in securing good blooms, the reason being that the buds 
were not secured at the proper time suitable to their localities. I assert 
that the above causes have more influence on the quality of the bloom 
than any unreliability inherent to the above or any other variety, of 
course always taking into consideration that the plants are rationally 
treated. 
In further support of what has already been advanced, Mr. Ireland, 
on taking charge of the gardens of Lord St. Oswald at Nostell Priory 
last year, in order to improve the collection of Chrysanthemums which 
he found there, had a quantity of plants forwarded to him. During 
transit a good proportion of those plants were accidentally broken. From 
the broken plants flowers were produced, mostly superior to those which 
were allowed to break naturally, among them being such material as 
the Queens and Empresses in the incurved section, and Madame 0. 
Audiguier in the Japanese. These same flowers were not only the best 
in a very fine display, but they would not have disgraced any company 
of prizewinners. 
If Mr. Molyneux had visited Huddersfield Show last year he might 
have been induced to change his tone somewhat after seeing Mr. Midg- 
ley’s Japanese flowers, and if his incurved flowers did not win first 
honours in an open class competition there was every credit due to him. 
considering that he has only been a grower, like the majority of York¬ 
shire gardeners, for three or four years. On good authority I am in¬ 
formed that the best flowers in Mr. Midgley’s stands were grown on the 
system which Mr. Molyneux affects to despise. In respect to the flowers 
generally at Huddersfield, if it is evidence sufficient for Mr. Molyneux. 
a gardener writes me to say that he “• was assured by Mr. Wright, one 
of the Judges, that the Japanese varieties were as well shown at Hud¬ 
dersfield as at any place he had ever seen.” Moreover, Mr. Midgley is. 
so well satisfied with his system of growing that he intends to adhere 
to what has brought him to the front of Yorkshire growers, which is as 
creditable to him individually as if he was shining by the reflected 
light of a silver challenge cup, taking all in all into consideration.— 
T. Garnett. 
BORONIA HETEROPHYLLA. 
.Several species of Boronia have been favourites in British green¬ 
houses for many years, and have retained their places while scores of 
other handsome and useful Australian plants have been discarded. The 
chief reasons why they have remained to some extent popular is that 
they are not so difficult to manage as many other hardwooded plants 
from the great southern continent ; they are free in growth, free in 
flowering, and readily increased by cuttings. Then, too, while most of 
them have bright rosy or delicate pale pink flowers, a few possess a 
most agreeable fragrance that would alone render them favourites with 
cultivators. As an example of the last-named property it is only 
necessary to mention Boronia megastigma, which has dull-coloured, 
almost insignificant flowers, jet so powerfully fragrant that a couple of 
plants are sufficient to perfume a large greenhouse. Of the brightly 
coloured species, perhaps B. elatior is the best known and most generally 
admired. Now, however, we have in the species represented in tie 
illustration (fig. GO), B. heterophylla, one which combines the qualif- 
cations of both those named, and it is quite safe to predict that in a few 
years time it will be the most generally grown Boronia in this country. 
Boronia heterophjdla is a native of West Australia, being found, 
according to Bentham, on the Kalgee River, in places sometimes inun¬ 
dated.” It has been known for over twenty years, as it is included by 
the author just mentioned in his “ Flora Australiensis,” published in 
1863, who gives F. Mueller as the authority for the name. In that work 
fifty-seven species of Boronia are described in seven series—namely. 
Valvatae, Heterandrae, Pinnatse, Oyaneae, Variabiles, Terminales, and 
Pedunculate. In the second of these, Heterandrre, so named from the 
different forms of the anthers in the same flowers, are included B. 
megastigma, B. heterophylla, B. elatior, B. tetrandra, and B. crassifolm. 
It will thus be seen that botanically is B. heterophylla as closely related 
to the two other favourite Boronias as it is intermediate in character. 
In general appearance it is, however, much more like B. elatior than 
B. megastigma, it is of similarly slender growth to the former, the 
flowers are of similar shape and colour, but considerably richer and! 
darker, and then it has the fragrance of B. megastigma. 
The plant has been grown for some years at Kew, and on several 
occasions we have admired its handsome flowers in the Winter Garden, 
where most of the Australian collection is grown. Messrs. J. Veitch and 
Sons, Chelsea, have also succeeded in obtaining plants of it, and a 
number of these shown on March 22nd of this year at South Kensington 
at once attracted the attention and admiration of all the horticulturist* 
