November 15, 1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
445 
even scientific opinions. But this is an unpleasant topic. I will there¬ 
fore not pursue it, concluding instead with a quotation no doubt very 
familiar to “ Azoto.” “ It has always been the chief hindrance to a 
more rapid advance in botany that the majority of writers simply 
collected facts, or, if they attempted to apply them to theoretical 
purposes, did so very imperfectly. I have therefore singled out those 
men as the true heroes of our story who not only established new facts, 
but gave birth to fruitful thoughts and made speculative use of empirical 
material.” I humbly claim, rightly or wrongly, to follow in the 
footsteps of these latter.—A Sceptic. 
Mr. Mawley’s Rose Analysis. 
Mr. Mawley’s long letter (page 423) on the subject of his analysis 
justifies every word I said about it last year, although at that time my 
criticism was stated by him (and he received the support of an editorial 
note) to be unfairly severe. 
I am sorry that in the reply now given the Roses I mentioned were 
not specified and the exact number exhibited given, as well as the value 
and position assigned by Mr. Mawley put side by side—it would have 
been just as easy. I selected those Roses which would have exemplified 
matters fully, and I especially named Margaret Dickson, Ernest Metz, 
Charles Lefebvre, and Gabriel Luizet, as they are typical flowers. I 
stated last year in so many words that the analysis did not appear to be 
a practical one, and that the figures given exemplified the views of 
Mr. Mawley alone as to the proper value and position of the Roses 
tabulated. The answer to this was to the effect that I was not scientifi¬ 
cally expert (which I do not deny), and that the tables had been placed 
before some learned pundit, who had pronounced them perfect, and 
founded on the highest principles of mathematics, modified by know¬ 
ledge gained in meteorological research. So I pictured the work to 
myself as being analogous to the labours of Sisyphus, with the study of 
columns of logarithmic tables and meteorological reports superadded 
thereto. However, now “ the murder is out,” and I will give the 
analyst’s own words in support of my argument. Mr. Mawley quotes :— 
Capt. Christy, average 1886 to 1889 . 27‘0 exhibits 
„ „ 1890 to 1894 . 12-2 „ 
Inconsequently the latter average for 5 years 12 2 is 
alone given, and all that went before is ignored. 
Mrs. John Lainf, average for 4 years . 45 5 
„ ,, full 6 years . 37 3 
,, „ in table . 45’5 
This Rose was brought out in 1887 and would not be thought one 
whit the worse for working its way upwards by its own great merit. 
In the same way La France is stated to be assigned a position aiove its 
proper “ average,” or it would otherwise find a place below Ulrich 
Brunner; but Mr. Mawley omits to say that Ulrich Brunner has been 
placed where it is by Ibis own system of arrangement^ otherwise it might 
not be so high, and the comparison is useless without knowing how 
Ulrich Brunner got placed where it now is. 
Similarly, speaking of Senateur Vaisse, the analyst says, staged 
in twenty-one stands in 1888, but “ on an average ” (Mr. Mawley’s 
average, recollect), only seven times at the remaining shows, “ therefore 
estimated ” as 7, and not 8 6, which he says would otherwise be its 
value—but I make 6 x 7 + 21 = 63 ; and -^7 = 9, not 8 6 1 Now 
we come to one of the peculiarities of the analysis :— 
Caroline Testout, shown three times in 1893 and thirteen in 1894, 
“ latter value ” alone taken as a guide in placing it. But with Ethel 
Brownlow, introduced in 1887, the actual average of three years is 
given, being the period in which it has been taken prominent notice 
of. As far as one can see both these estimates can be ignored next 
year. 
Why give Caroline Testout an unreal value (if value it can be called) 
and place Ethel Brownlow in its exact position as exhibited ? To my 
mind this shows a want of any fixed system in the “ valuation.” I 
dislike the word “ value,” but it really rather shows the hollowness of 
the table from a practical point of view, and emphasises my assertion 
that the analysis is simply one man’s estimate of worth, 
Mr. Mawley has no need to apologise for a possibility of his 
explanation not being clear, as I think it is clear; but although it may 
satisfy some, it cannot others. He concludes by saying the materials 
are “the most reliable ever collected together”; but on what is the 
whole analysis founded ?—the experience of the winning boxes at one 
show in each year. Does this fact warrant the statement that this 
placing of the Roses by himself “represents the opinions of a large 
number of rosarians?” I cannot see how it does. It merely shows 
they had certain Roses at their best on that one particular day. I 
perfectly agree with him that a common-sense way is the only fair and 
reasonable mode of dealing with statistics; but last year I was told that 
scientific reasoning and meteorological causes should also he most 
carefully taken into account. Between the two versions of how wc 
should proceed in analyses I am left somewhat in a quandary.— 
Charles J, Grahame. 
I HAVE read and re-read Mr. Mawley’s reply on page 423, and must 
confess that I feel only more and more mystified. The fault lies in 
myself, no doubt. Mr. Mawley asks us to imagine him with all the 
labels in the winning stands for the past nine years, over 16,000 ; 
then from “ this huge pile of labels I pick out all those having La 
France.” I cannot; I have a far greater respect for Mr. Mawley’s 
capacities than to picture anything of the kind. Having finished 
and tabulated the results of a year, say 1893, surely he does not make 
a printer’s pie of them, add them to the previous years, stir the 
mixture, and then when 1894 returns come in and are counted, serve 
them in the same way; and yet how can he otherwise make 320 La 
France, and others? On the contrary, I picture him after making 
his record for the year keeping that for reference. 
Then I come to explanation No. 1. Surely this is a very arbitrary 
method of settling the position. Because Captain Christy has for the 
last five years been exhibited far less frequently than in the first four, 
therefore its position is calculated from the past five, so that although a 
Rose has been exhibited during each of the nine years, only the smaller 
entries are taken into the average. On the other hand, in the case of 
the newer varieties, as for example Margaret Dickson, exhibited five 
times in 1893 and twenty-five times this year, the 1893 amount is set on 
one side and only the number taken in 1894 put into the analysis. Here 
is a snub for the old Roses and a pat on the back for the new aspirants. 
Both old and new are in false positions, if I am correct in my 
suppositions. 
Point No. 2. Every Rose grower knows that certain seasons affect 
certain Roses. This point seems to deal with these exceptional times, 
but when specially favourable it deals by eliminating it altogether, 
“ So when Senateur de Vaisse had a season equal to its wants, and likely 
to give it a lift, lo ! down come the scissors and the year’s record is cut 
away entirely. Now it seems to me that amongst the Teas the past 
season has been specially favourable to the Hon. E. Gifford ; it seems to 
have been exhibited in the prize stands as frequently as Catherine 
Mermet, the leading Tea, but I should think very few exhibitors would 
consider it as lapproaching the latter as an exhibition variety, whilst 
there are numbers of Teas, The Bride, Marie Van Houtte, Ethel Brownlow, 
Madame Hoste and others that for exhibition I should place far above 
it. Will Mr. Mawley kindly say whether this thirty-eight of this year 
was excluded in taking the average ? 
This point No. 2 seems to prove to me that the analysis does not 
bring out the best exhibition Roses, but best wear and tear Roses. 
Point 3 is really mixed up with point 1; it seems to me to greatly 
favour the newer Roses, and to place some of them higher than they arc 
entitled to. Sir R. Hill appears to me a case in point, possibly also 
Duke of Fife. Point 4 is beyond me—I fail to understand it—and 
according to Mr. Mawley’s account it is of no moment, as count the figures 
as they are, or as corrected, the average conveniently works out the 
same. Mr. Mawley can certainly, if my surmises are correct, justly 
claim that “ no hard and fast rules whatever have been laid down ; ” 
personally I cannot help thinking it would be fairer if they had. 
I go back now to the analysis on page 333. Mr. Mawley says at 
starting, “ The total number of Rose blooms tabulated for the purpose 
of this analysis amounts altogether to over 16,000.” I presume this 
meant from 1886 to 1894 inclusive, and he finishes hia paragraph thus— 
“ I may, however, state that at the last National show the names of 
1222 H.P.’s and 661 Teas and Noisettes were taken down, or 1883 
in all.” 
Well, of course, I have no means of judging the correctness of these 
numbers, and I trust I may not be considered captious, seeing that the 
whole position of the various Roses depends on figures, which I have 
already shown, I fancy, are rather arbitrarily dealt with, if I say I cannot 
understand this number. The Teas and Noisettes are the smaller 
amount. If I show my doubts as to the correctness in them it is 
sufficient. My only means of calculation are these—I understand that 
these 661 Teas constitute all the Roses that were to be found in the 
winning stands alone at the Palace. I now take the schedule of prizes, 
and take class 27, twenty-four varieties, as there are three prizes, which 
I presume were all won ; the three stands amount to seventy-two Roses ; 
class 28, in the same way, to fifty-four Roses. 
I am in doubt how Mr. Mawley treats the trebles. Does he consider 
that in all treble classes each treble is a unit, and counted as such ? if 
not, a certain number—limited, I allow—receive extra marks. I have 
calculated these as units, and this brings the nurserymen’s Teas to 180. 
Thus I have gone through the schedule, treating the trebles as units, 
and omitting altogether the classes where the stand is composed of 
blooms of one variety—viz., classes 33, 39, 41 (which excludes the 
country districts, and is therefore exceptional), 42 and following classes, 
and I make the total of Tea and Noisette Roses come to 492. If the 
trebles are calculated as three that would bring the number to 768 ; but 
I am at a loss to get at the number 661, and unless these numbers are 
correct, this error, coupled with the arbitrary manner of dealing with 
each separate Rose, must greatly lessen the value of the whole analysis 
—as a guide.—Y. 13. A. Z. 
[Space is at Mr. Mawley’s disposal for such further explanations and 
elucidations as he may desire to give.] 
