466 
JOURNAL OF HORTIGULTUUE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
November 22,1894. 
The Rose Analysis. 
By a most stupid oversight on my part I have (page 415) questioned 
the accuracy of Mr. Mawlej’s figures as to the number of Teas at the 
Crystal Palace. Calculating, as I did, only the Tea classes, it was 
impossible for me to arrive at the same number as Mr. Mawley, seeing 
that many Teas were exhibited in the other classes, and I apologise most 
sincerely for questioning this point. I may go further, and say I have 
now been through the whole schedule. Hybrid Perpetuals and Teas, and 
on totalling up those classes I considered admissible, I came to the exact 
number named by Mr. Mawley—viz., 1883. The accuracy, therefore, of 
these figures I cannot impeach, and regret my attempt to do so. The 
earlier part of my remarks, in which I find myself in perfect unison 
with Mr. C. J. Grahame, remains, and it seems to me to mar the results 
of the analysis considerably.—Y. B. A. Z. 
Me. Grahame (page 445) says that “Mr. Mawley has no need to 
apologise for a possibility of his explanation not being clear, as I think 
it is clear.” This I am very glad to hear, as I have already gone over 
the same ground three times in almost similar words. I am also 
pleased to find that he “ perfectly agrees with me that the common sense 
way is the only fair and reasonable mode of oealing with statistics.” If 
it be correct that true science is only “ glorified common sense,” then it 
must also, I conclude, be to a certain extent a scientific method of 
treating them. At all events I have yet to learn that because a method 
is simple it ceases to be scientific. 
In preparing these analyses my only object has been to give your 
readers the best and most practical results obtainable from the valuable 
statistics that I have collected; If any of them can suggest a better or 
more common sense way of treating them, I shall only too glad to 
adopt it. If the figures at my disposal wlien tabulated showed them¬ 
selves irregular and inconsistent, which they certainly are far from 
doing, I should be the last person in the world to apply any corrections 
whatever to them, and should simply give the crude results in every 
case for what they were worth. 
This brings me to the reasons why I consider the last Rose analysis 
so satisfactory. In the first place many of the figures tabulated are 
surprisingly uniform, considering the variety of seasons and the 
changing dates of the exhibitions. Take for instance the records of one 
H.P, near the top of the table, two lower down, and one towards 
the bottom :—A. K. Williams, 39, 35, 34, 30, 37, 36, 40, 25, 32 ; Horace 
Vernet, 19, 11, 18, 14, 16, 12, 16, 26, 16 ; Prince Arthur, 17, 16, 18, 8, 19, 
19, 18, 16, 18 ; Comte Raimbaud, 6, 7, 14, 6, 7, 7, 9, 14, 8. It would 
almost seem as if the prizewinners had each year been guided 
beforehand by the analysis as to what particular sorts they should place 
in their stands. 
Then, again, looking down the column of averages these will be seen 
to fall by almost imperceptible gradations from the maximum, 45'5, to 
the minimum, 5'0. This would appear to show that, unlike most 
tables of the kind, the positions of the inferior varieties are given as 
accurately as those of the leading kinds. In future all brackets will 
be dispensed with, so that the decline will then become still more 
gradual. A friend has kindly suggested that in order to efiiect this, 
where the averages come out alike they should be carried to two or 
more decimal points instead of one in order to separate them, and this 
appears to me a capital way out of the difficulty, if such a small matter 
as this can be so styled. 
A good deal has been said about the statistics being obtained at only 
one show in each year, and I, too, at one time thought that this would 
to a great extent upset the results. I was, however, a good deal com¬ 
forted to find that when I compared the averages obtained at one of the 
N.R.S’s northern exhibitions some years ago with those tabulated for 
the metropolitan show, the relative positions of most varieties were 
very little altered. An epitome of the results appeared in the Journal of 
Horticulture at the time, but I forget in what year. 
A few days ago it occurred to me that I might further test my last 
analysis by comparing the results for some of the older varieties which 
are still as popular with exhibitors as ever with another analysis which 
came out in the Journal of Horticulture in 1884. For the preparation 
of this analysis all the leading gardening papers for the previous eight 
years had been searched for reports of Rose shows held all over the 
country, and the Roses in every complete prize stand were noted down 
and afterwards tabulated—8350 Roses in all. Of the first twelve of 
these established H.P.’s, in my last analysis only two, Dupuy Jamain 
and Louis Van Houtte, are absent from the first twelve in that'for 1884. 
Then as to the first twelve Teas in the 1894 table, only Madame Bravy 
and Anna Olivier fail to find places in that for 1884. 
Here are a few striking examples, the numbers showing their relative 
positions in the two sets of tables. 
Hybrid ri!RPETUALs. isnt 
La France.. . 2 
A. K. Williams. 3 
Marie Baumann .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 
Charles Lcfetvre.. .. ,. ,, .. ,. fi 
F. Micheloa .. .. .. .. ,, ,, ,, 9 
188-1 
1 
3 
2 
7 
10 
Teas and Noisettes. 
Catherine Mermet . 
Marie Van Houtte . 
Souvenir d’Blise. 
Niphetos. 
Caroline Kuster. 
Jean D usher . 
1894 
1 
5 
6 
7 
9 
10 
1884 
3 
4 
6 
5 
10 
7 
If these agreements are only concidences, they are certainly the most 
remarkable 1 have ever met with. 
In order to show that I have tested the practical value of the 1884 
analysis, I may state that when I moved to Berkhamsted in 1885 I took 
this analysis as my sole guide in selecting varieties for my new garden. 
This plan has proved so satisfactory that I can confidently recommend 
any exhibitor who may be starting Rose growing in a new locality to be 
guided in his selection by the most recent of these analyses—that for 
1894. He will, of course, afterwards find as I did that a few of the 
varieties selected are unsuitable for his particular soil and climate ; but 
that would from the necessity of the case follow when commencing or 
recommencing in any untried position. 
The one weak point in these analyses, as I have often before pointed 
out, are the newer Roses, on account of the scantiness of their records. 
In order to deal with these more satisfactorily in future tables, a Rose 
friend has suggested that I should mark each with an asterisk, as show¬ 
ing the different footing on which it stands as compared with the 
established varieties. This, I think, is a very good idea. I propose also 
obtaining next year from our leading rosarians data which will enable 
me to append a short table, showing more clearly than can be gathered 
from the analysis itself the relative merits of these newer kinds. 
The only remarks I need make on two letters which appeared in your 
last issue are the following :—The average for Ethel Brownlow is for 
two, and not three years, as stated by Mr. Grahame. Then, in reply to 
“ y. B. A. Z.,” I may explain that trebles are always counted as units. 
The error into which he has fallen as regards the number of Tea Roses 
tabulated, is that he has forgotten the many blooms of these staged in 
the mixed classes. 
I have now given every explanation that can reasonably be required 
of any writer, also my reasons for considering that the most recent 
tables give as close approximations as can be hoped for in an investiga¬ 
tion of this nature, and therefore, as far as my own part in it is con¬ 
cerned, this discussion may be considered as closed.—E. M., Berhhamsted. 
[We have always been satisfied that Mr. Mawley has only one object 
in view in these tabulations—namely, in producing a digest that shall 
be interesting and useful to growers of Roses. For this reason, neither 
he nor ourselves have objected to fair criticism, knowing, as we do, that 
critics may prove the best of helpers in pointing out defects and 
suggesting improvements, with the same objects in view as Mr. Mawley 
and ourselves. We are obliged to all who have aided, and may farther 
assist, in making Mr. Mawley’s analyses acceptable to many readers 
of the Journal of Horticulture.'\ 
RIPENED WOOD. 
I SHOULD like to correct one rather important error appearing in my 
last letter, doubtless due to bad writing; 425 hours represents the 
difference between the 1893 and 1894 sunshine records occurring during 
a period of ten months (January 1st to October 31st) not “two months,” 
as printed. 
Having taken up my pen I cannot lay it down again without 
noticing Mr. Hiam’s paragraph (page 449), virtually endorsing as it does 
the views I have been persistently pressing in your columns for months 
past. I am, however, inclined to go even further than he, and ascribe 
the failure of the Strawberry crop to the same cause as that of the 
Apple, and not to frost. Indeed, long before the cold snap in May most 
varieties showed only too plainly they had never recovered from the 
previous summer’s drying and roasting process; their constitutions being 
evidently enfeebled by that very ripening of “the wood” (1) which so 
greatly rejoiced “ E. K.’s ” heart, and las a result their blooms came 
weakly or unfertile.—A Sceptic. 
In penning my question to your correspondent “ Sceptic ” I was 
anxious to ascertain wnether he belonged to the gardening world or not. 
“ Sceptic’s ” answer fully justify my doubt on the subject. He does 
not, and therefore I must compliment him on the admirable way he has 
turned exterior into interior. He says his mealy bug tale shows how 
careful employers should be to see that they are not imposed upon. 
“ E. K.” says an employer once said to him, “ I know a gardener’s work 
is never done, and I consider it is never paid for.” 
I prefer an ounce of practice to a ton of theory. On page 444 “ Sceptic ” 
says, “ It is the nature of both Pears and Plums to give heavy crops at 
rare intervals, and this year is one of those rare intervals.” This 
remark appears to me delusive ; for will “ Sceptic ” venture to assert 
that if last summer had been cold and comparatively sunless we should 
have had the heavy crop that the sun-ripened wood of last season has 
produced? Again, he asks. What has given the high flavour to Pears 
this year? The answer of practical men is very simple—viz., the well- 
ripened wood of 1893 and the early summer of 1894. His cultural 
knowledge of the Stephanotis must of necessity be very limited, for 
without the well-ripened wood of the preceding year it is useless to 
expect flowers from the succeeding young growth. This applies with 
more force to Vines, for unless the wood is fully ripened—matured—a 
weak break and poor bunches will be the result. May I suggest that 
if “ Sceptic ” had spent half the time in practical cultivation that he 
