November 8,1894 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
423 
productions on v?hich Mr. Pettigrew has so flatteringly, scientifically, 
and fluently discoursed. 
I think I knew all the varieties of auld lang syne long before “ the 
days of the Potato disease.” What are left of them can almost be 
counted upon the lingers of one hand. But the gone and nearly 
forgotten ones are handed down by cross-breeding ; their blood, so to 
speak, can be found in my seedlings analogous to the pedigree of a 
British racehorse. This allegory holds good for present day Potatoes, 
and 1 shall feel glad to make it known to Mr. Pettigrew that he cannot 
partake of an English Potato without being directly, or of late years 
indirectly, beholden to me. I say of “ late years,” because many people 
are following in the lead—crossing, unfortunately, my sorts with others 
indiscriminately for the attainment merely of vulgar size, for show, or 
otherwise to fill a sack—considerations only for their breeches’ pocket, 
or, as Mr. Pettigrew tritely writes it, “ filthy lucre ; ” Shakespeare called 
it “ trash.” That is where I heartily agree with your able correspondent, 
whose article 1 have read with the pleasure it created ; but where he 
writes “ the only exception,” apart from “ improvement ” in the whole 
range of horticulture lies in the Potato, I feel he touches, without being 
aware of it, the good name of— Eobt. Fenn. 
The National Eose Society.—The Trophy Question. 
I SHOULD have thought your correspondent “ W. E. Eaillem ” 
(page 412) would hardly give up a discussion on such a poor plea as 
that of “ personality,” when in reality there was none. I might with 
equal reason have said I declined to argue with one who gave an 
incorrect version of what I had written, even if it be not absolutely 
correct to call mangled copy of what I wrote “ misquotation.” I confess 
to a real disappointment, as I thought " W. E. Eaillem ” would stand to 
his guns. It is to be hoped he will reconsider his determination. We 
are all looking forward to Mr. Mawley’s explanation of his analysis. 
I shall be pleased to see it, as the analysis has always been a puzzle 
to me. 
The Eose Season of 1894. 
Everything that “ D., Deal," writes has a freshness which makes even 
a subject otherwise trite appear to be almost novel. I therefore read his 
review of the past season (page 412) with much pleasure. 
I would like to refer to a topic or two in that letter. I have been 
at many shows in 1894 without taking Eoses, but acting as a judge, and 
1 think that the custom he decries of employing local judges has not 
been as much apparent as in other years. I think that the system, 
although economical, is not advantageous, and with the best intentions 
to act with absolute impartiality, it is better not to know whose 
flowers one is judging. The knowledge that a box, in reality slightly 
inferior to that of another candidate, belongs to a grower of far greater 
reputation may cause infinite trouble to judges. There were two cases 
this year that I remember where ignorance of the real position resulted 
in bliss to, and a right judgment in favour of, the conqueror ; but it 
might have been otherwise with the local knowledge of which 
“ D., Deal" speaks. 
I cannot see how dressing Eoses is to be done away with. I agree 
with “ D., Deal," that the practice has a tendency to be overdone, and 
it may beeome necessary for judges to act with greater stringency ; 
but as an exhibitor my leaning is certainly in favour of some slight 
dressing being allowed. I think that many Eoses require some as¬ 
sistance, although in others the saying about Nature unadorned certainly 
applies. 
My experience of the autumnal blooms of 1894 has oddly enough 
been the opposite of that of “ D., Deal" as I have this October cut some 
beautiful flowers of Mrs. John Laing, Victor Hugo, Charles Lefebvre, 
La France, Augustine Guinoisseau, and other Hybrid Perpetuals, as 
well as many Teas ; yesterday (Ist November) I cut a good Charles 
Lefebvre. Only for the deluge of rain which we have had in the 
last ten days Eoses would still be in abundance and of fair quality—a 
rare experience to me in November. 
I thoroughly agree with the remarks on the “dear old garden Eoses.” 
They are mostly akin to rubbish w’hen they have to be relegated from 
the exhibition standard to the inferior position inferentially assigned to 
them by the National Eose Society as “ Garden Eoses.”— Charles J. 
Grahame. 
Eose Analysis. 
Let your readers imagine for a moment that after each of the last 
nine metropolitan exhibitions of the National Eose Society, nearly every 
prizewinner had sent me all the exhibition labels in his prize stands, and 
that I have before me over 16,000 of these labels. Then suppose that 
from this huge pile of labels I picked out all those having La France 
written on them, and that they amounted to 320. That there were also 
about 310 A. K. Williams, 280 Marie Baumanns, 220 Madame Cusin, 
200 Hon. Edith Giffords, 170 Louis Van Houttes, the same number of 
Madame Bravys, and so on. Now considering the high positions in the 
Eose world occupied by most of the exhibitors who are supposed to 
have sent me the above mentioned labels, the numerous districts and the 
variety of soils and situations their flowers represent, to say nothing of 
the different characters of the past nine Eose seasons, surely under 
these eircumstances I might consider myself provided with splendid 
materials for framing something like a really trustworthy and practical 
Eose analysis. 
Truth to tell these are the very same materials, although not 
obtained after the same easy manner, that I now have at my disposal. 
Moreover, if a table were drawn up placing each Eose according to the 
total number of times its name had appeared in the prize stands, most 
of the varieties would arrange themselves practically in the order I have 
given them in my last analysis. 
In the first analysis which appeared in 1886 the actual numbers in 
which each variety had been shown in the exhibition of that year 
regulated its place in the tables. After the second year I was, however, 
able to insert the average number of times the different Eoses had been 
staged at the three preceding shows, and thus year by year the varieties 
were arranged in their relative positions with increasing accuracy. 
At last the time came when I had sufficient evidence to enable me 
to see that averages calculated after this purely arithmetical fashion, 
although in the main correct, were in exceptional cases more or less 
misleading. This brings me to the explanations given last year, which 
were as follows :— 
1, In the first place I found that certain old favourites were being 
more or less superseded by better and newer sorts of a similar colour, 
and that by calculating their averages for the whole series of years they 
were made to occupy and retain higher positions than they were entitled 
to. For instance, Captain Christy was shown on an average in twenty- 
seven stands at the first four exhibitions, but in only 12'2 stands at the 
remaining five shows, consequently the latter average has been given it 
as better representing its present position among exhibition Eoses. 1 
may here add that the only other sorts now on the tables which have 
been similarly treated, and which show any decided symptoms of decline 
as exhibition varieties, are Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, Marie Eady, Xavier 
Olibo, Duchesse de Vallombrosa, Monsieur Noman, and Marguerite de 
St. Amand ; and among the Teas, Etoile de Lyon, Souvenir de Paul 
Neyron, La Boule d’Or, and Madame H. Jamain. On the contrary, the 
records of those Eoses which have, to a great extent, superseded these 
declining kinds, are every year being staged in larger numbers, and 
must therefore receive just the opposite treatment if they are to take 
their proper places in the analysis. I may instance the premier H.P., 
Mrs. John Laing, which is given an average for only four years, 45 5. If 
the average were calculated for the full six years that it is entered on 
my own tables it would be lowered to 37'3. 
2, Abnormal seasons also often play sad havoc with certain sorts, 
while unduly favouring others. Consequently, when calculating the 
averages for varieties seriously affected in this way, the number of times 
they were staged under such exceptional conditions has in fairness to 
be omitted. Otherwise, as pointed out by “ Y. B. A. Z.” last year, they 
would stand either higher or lower than they should. For example, La 
France was shown on an average in 37 6 stands at eight exhibitions, 
but in only fourteen stands in 1893. If this adverse record of fourteen 
were included, and it were given its average for the full nine years, it 
would come out as 35‘0, and consequently instead of being at No. 3 it 
would find a place just below Ulrich Brunner. On the other hand as an 
instance of a Eose specially favoured I may name Senateur 7ai88e, 
which was staged in twenty-one stands in 1888, but on an average only 
seven times at the remaining shows, and never more than eleven times 
at any one of these. I have therefore estimated its proper average as 
7 for eight exhibitions instead of 8’6 for the nine. 
3, Then the newer sorts gave some trouble at first, and still continue 
to do so, but a little consideration showed me that if they were to appear 
at all in the tables, and they can never, as a rule, expect to compete on 
anything like equal terms with their more largely grown brethren— 
the established kinds—they must find places in accordance with their 
doings at the most recent exhibitions alone. For example, Caroline 
Testout (1890) was shown in three stands in 1893 and in thirteen in 
1894, but the latter value alone is taken as a guide to placing it in the 
table. With Eoses of rather earlier introduetion like Ethel Brownlow 
(1887), an average for two or more years is of course preferable, and 
wherever the figures warrant it this is given instead. Knowing the 
disadvantage at which these newer Eoses are mostly placed in the 
tables on a"ccount of their youth, I always deal separately with their 
recent doings in the remarks accompanying each analysis, so that a 
better idea may be formed of their relative merits. 
4, Then again the varying number of Eoses tabulated each year was 
found to have a more or less disturbing influence when comparing the 
records for the different years. But this difficulty has been easily 
overcome by calculating all the averages for a show, or rather analysis, 
of average extent. For instance, the actual figures for A. K. Williams 
for the nine years are 35, 34, 35, 30, 44, 36, 38, 23, and 33 average 
34'2. When corrected they come out as follows: 39, 35, 34, 30, 37, 36, 
40, 25, and 32—average 34 2. It will be noticed that correcting the 
individual averages in this way does not in the least affect the positions 
accorded the different Eoses in the tables. 
I can assure your readers that I have done my very best to make all 
the foregoing explanations as clear as I possibly could ; but without the 
help of the comparative tables I work from it is rather like trying to 
describe in detail some simple piece of machinery unaided by any 
