490 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
November 29, 18D4. 
seems an unfortunate one, being likely to lead to confusion with 
C. maximum, from the specific name of the latter being the same 
as the varietal one of the plant under notice. So far as I can 
recollect the flowers of this new form are not so large as some 
seedlings I saw^ in the Rev. C. Wolley Dod’s garden about three 
years ago. They are, however, considerably larger than those of 
the ordinary form. 
Too soon, however, will there be but few flowers in bloom to 
tell of, and we must enjoy as long as we can those which brighten 
the garden. As I write the Sunflowers with their golden blossoms 
adorn the borders, contrasting well with the Michaelmas Daisies. 
Japan Anemones in white, rose, and red are very beautiful too. 
The Kniphofias, already spoken of, tower above most other plants 
in flower. Clumps of Meadow Saffrons and Crocuses, purple of 
various shades, white, blue, and lilac, open gaily to the sun, and 
entice the bees to their charming cups. The dainty little 
Cyclamen neapolitanum nestles at the foot of the rockery, its 
prettily marbled leaves and charming flowers rising through a 
carpet of one of the dwarfer Stonecrops. Chrysanthemums, such 
as Maud Pitcher and several of the Madame Desgranges type, are 
still fine, and late Poppies, St. John’s Worts, Scabiouses, Sweet 
Peas, and many others are in bloom. It seems as if Nature 
was making a last effort to give us delight ere the frost spirit 
destroys the tender flowers with his icy breath. Possibly before 
this appears blackened flowers and leaves may tell of this destruc¬ 
tion. Meanwhile we reap with joy the results of our work among 
the flowers, and know that no wintry days can drive from us the 
memory of their beauty and grace.—S. Arnott. 
[Owing to the pressure of the Chrysanthemum season the fore¬ 
going article has been unavoidably held over for several weeks.] 
Mr. Mawley’s Rose Analysis. 
Mr. Mawley says on page 166 that if anyone can suggest a “ more 
•common-sense way” of dealing with the "valuable statistics” he has 
collected he would be glad to adopt it. This I give almost verhatim et 
literatim as an extract from the letter in which he evidently reviews 
his work with the very greatest complaisancy. I demur to his figures 
mainly from the facts which he has divulged, whereby he acknowledges 
that he “ fixes them up ” as seems to himself most suitable, and that 
having previously obtained the true results, he then proceeds to 
"doctor” them according to his own fancy. If the facts and figures 
which he collected over this long series of years had been given 
simply, without alteration, or assertion that they required readjustment 
for scientific reasons, then they would have deserved, and no doubt 
received, general acceptation. But, strange to say, Mr. Mawley himself 
says, in so many words, that the figures which he calls "crude” work 
out in the long run the same results as those obtained by his elaborate, 
and what he considers, scientific plan. If the results be the same, may 
I ask what is the use of all this extra labour ? It rather seems to me to 
be converting unnecessarily a simple sum in common addition and 
division into an abstruse mathematical calculation. 
Mr. Mawley in his letter does not attempt to reply in the slightest 
degree to the various matters to which "Y. B. A. Z.” and I called 
special attention as misleading; he evidently thinks what he lays down 
to be absolutely unanswerable, convincing, and final, whereas it hardly 
touches on a single one of the many weak points in his table which 
were exposed. On them he is discreetly silent. 1 have therefore come 
to the conclusion that he hopes, under cover of a cloud of words, to 
conceal the fact that he has no good explanation to give, and has in 
truth given it up as a forlorn cause. 
Last spring I submitted to the principal rosarians of the kingdom 
a request for their opinion on the best eighteen Teas and twenty-four 
Hybrid Perpetuals, and I will now give the result of their votes side by 
side with a similar number from Mr. Mawley’s analysis. The lists were 
furnished by the following well known rosarians, all exhibitors 
Mr. E. M. Bethune 
Rev. H. A. Beraers 
Dr. Bndd 
Messrs. Gt. and W. H. Burcli 
Rev. E, R. Burnside 
Mr. J. Burrell 
Mr. B. R. Cant 
Mr. Frank < )ant 
Messrs A. Dickson & Sons 
Rev. A. Poster-Melliar 
Mr. W. .1. Grant 
Mr. A, Hill Gray 
Messrs. Harkness & Sons 
Rev. G. E. Jeans 
Mr. E. B. Lindsell 
Mr. H. V Machin 
Mr. Henry Merryweatlier 
Mr. George .Mount 
Mr 0. G. Orpea 
Mr. George Paul 
Mr. A. Prince 
Messrs. D. Prior <Sc Sons 
Mr. A. Slaughter 
Some voted on the H.P. list alone, and some on the Tea list; two of 
the lists (chose of Mr. George Paul and Mr. VV. J. Grant) were taken 
from the " Rosarian’s Year Book ” for 1891. The votes given for the best 
Roses by the experts, and the placing of those in Mr. Mawley’s analysis 
in several insiances approximate, but those I obtained are really the 
opinions of the voters, whereas those of Mr. Mawley (which he professes 
to have that value) are merely the placing by him of the flowers shown 
on one day in each of the years 1886 to 1894 in winning boxes by 
various people, and the figures which he obtained he acknowledges 
subsequently to have manipulated scientifically or by " glorified common 
sense.” 
Everyone has his opinion about what Roses he likes best and values 
most highly for exhibition, but if he has better flowers of other varieties 
in perfection on the day of a show, he shows the best flowers from his 
garden in preference to taking those he likes best, and which, inferen- 
tially, one may assume he has found usually most valuable for exhi¬ 
bition ; therefore I hold the real opinions of the great experts I name are 
of far more real value as a guide than an analysis framed on Mr. 
Mawley’s system, even with the halo of glory about it. 
Hybrid Perpetuals. 
Name and Votes Given by Expert 
Rosarians. 
Place in List. 
Votes. 
Mr. Mam'ley’s Analysis. 
Place in List. 
1st 
7ch 
9tU 
11th 
11th 
15th 
18th 
19:h 
20th 
2tth 
A. K. Williams 
Mrs. John Laing. 
.. .. 1 
Alfred Colomb 
Madame Gabr.el Luizet 
Charles Lefebvre 
La France.. .. .. 
Horace Vernet 
Ulrich Brunner . 
Madame Gabrie’ Luizet 
A. K. Williams. 
.. .. 5 
VMrs John Laing 
Marie Baumann . 
( Her Majesty 
Her Majtsty . 
.. .. 7 
j Marie Baumann 
Margaret Dickson. 
( S. M. Rodocanachi 
In 
Allred Colomb. 
( Ulrich Brunner 
-13 
Charles Lelebvre . 
.. .. 10 
( Gustave Piganeau 
Merveille de Lyon. 
.. .. 11 
< La France 
12 
Gustave Piganeau. 
(Merveille de Lyon 
Etienne Levet. 
Duke of Edinburgh 
11 
Baronets Roth.schild 
(DupuyJamain 
S. M. Rodooanachi. 
] Earl of Dufferin 
10 
Francois Miche.on. 
.. .. 16 
(Etienne Levet 
Dupuy .lamain. 
Comte de Raimbaud 
9 
Louis Van Houtte. 
.. .. 18 
Louis Van Houtte 
8 
Earl of Dufferin . 
/ Duchess of Bedford 
Marquise de Castellaue .. .. 
Fran(;ois Michelon 
Prince Arthur . 
j General Jacqueminot 
G(!iu6ral Jacqueminot .. .. 
t Pride of Waltham 
Ferdinand de Lesseps .. 
.. .. 23 
Dr. Andrv ) 
Horace Vernet. 
Duke of Wellington j 
Duke of Wellington .. 
Lady Mary Fitzwilliam ) 
6 
Camille Bi ruardm. 
.. .. 26 
Marie Finger 1 
Countess of Oxford ., 
. Prince Arthur ) 
Lady Mary Fitzwilliam 
In the foregoing lists it may be especially noticed that La France 
lost three votes in consequence of Mr. George Paul, Mr. B. R. Cant, and 
Mr. Foster-MelHar classing it as a Hybrid Tea, for that reason alone 
leaving it out of the list of best twenty-four H.P.s ; also that of the 
flowers named in Mr, Mawley’s analysis, the following are not placed by 
the experts who sent me their selections, v:z, Margaret Dickson, 
Baroness Rothschild, Marquise de Castellane, Ferdinand de Lesseps, 
Camille Bernardin, and Countess of Oxford. It will be noticed that 
Horace Vernet is placed by the experts amongst the best six, whereas in 
Mr. Mawley’s list it comes out No. 24 ! also that Duke of Edinburgh is 
left out of first twenty-eight in Mr. Mawley’s list. Your readers can 
amuse themselves by further examining the results actually obtained 
from the lists of some twenty rosarians and comparing them with the 
analysis which Mr. Mawley contends shows to • be their " opinions ”— 
one is fact and reality, bat the other seems to me a delusive conclusion 
reached by arbitrary manipulation, although originally based on a 
certain amount of truth. 
In the same way with Teas, which, being fewer in number, there is a 
more general agreement as to those best suited for exhibition. 
Lst 
Gth 
9th 
10th 
11th 
Itth 
16th 
Experts’ Opinions and Votes ; Roses 
Given alpuabeiicalia' wukre 
Equal. 
Place iu List. Votes. 
' Catherine Mermet A 
Comtesse de Nadaillac I 
Marie Van Houtte )• 18 
Souvenir d’Elise Vardon 
The Bride j 
Anna Olivier 
Hon. Edith Gifford 
, Innocente Pirola 
Mar6ohal Niel 
Ethel Brownlow 
Madame Ousin 
Ernest Metz 
Madame de 'Watteville 
, Marie Hoste 
Niphetos 
Souvenir d’un Ami j 
Cleopatra 
Francisca Kruger 
Rubens 
.Souvenir de S. A. Prince 
17 
16 
15 
14 
! 12 
10 
Mr. Mawley’s Analysis. 
Place in List. 
Catherine Mermet. 1 
Comtessede Kadaillac. 2 
The Bride. 3 
Innocente Pirola.. .. 4 
Souvenir d’un Ami . 5 
Marie Van Houtte. 6 
Souvenir d’Elise Vardon . 7 
Souvenir de S. A. Prince . 8 
Niphetos. 9 
Mar6chal Niel.10 
Madame de Watteville.11 
Madame Cusin.12 
Caroline Kuster .13 
Ernest Metz.14 
Ethel Brownlow .15 
Hon. Edith Gifford .16 
Madame Hos e .17 
Francisca Kruger.18 
Jean Ducher.19 
Madame Bravy .20 
In the foregoing the experts place Anna Olivier near the top, and 
also give a place to Rubens and Cleopatra, which Rosts Mr. Mawley’s 
analysis leaves out, conversely in his aualytis S. A. Prince is p’aced high 
by him, but low down by the experts ; the latter rosarians also ignore 
Caroline Kuster, Jean Ducher, and Madame Bravy as not worthy of being 
in the best twenty Roses named by them. The publication of these lists 
may lead others to notice points of some value, and lead to further 
criticism ; as your readers have the names of the voters given herewith 
they can place an absolute value on the results set forth by them. 
Comparison with Mr. Mawley’s analysis, and the letters published on this 
question, will possibly interest those who care to follow the discussion 
