•December 6,1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICUL'LURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
517 
theless a remarkable oversight, that Mr. Lindsell has not already been 
placed on that list. Without undue comparison I can safely say that 
with one exception he stands head and shoulders over every name on 
that list as our greatest rosarian. Both Mr. Lindsell and Mr. Machin’s 
personal and social qualities entitle them to the honour, and their 
status as amongst the greatest of representative English amateur 
■rosarians undoubtedly gives them a claim to the highest position in the 
gift of the Committee of the Society and of the members thereof. I 
shall be much surprised if the meeting does not unanimously appoint 
them. 
Judging of Koses. 
I see that the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society has decided 
or proposes to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject, and 
that Mr. Charles E. Shea, a member of the R.H.S. Council, will be the 
Chairman. No better inquiry and no better Chairman could be made. 
The present rules on judging Roses, of which subject I may claim to 
have some knowledge, are not quite satisfactory. At present the 
accepted arrangement and rules framed by the National Rose Society 
are :— 
1, Three points given for the best blooms, and two and one for 
inferior flowers. 
2, A point to be taken off for every case of decided badness. 
Then the definitions are given— 
1, A good Rose—the highest type is one having form, size, brightness, 
substance, and good foliage. 
2, A bad Rose—faulty shape, confused or split centre, faded colour, 
being undersized or oversized. 
“ Form ” means good shape and abundant petals ; “ size " speaks for 
itself; “ brightness ” and “ freshness ” require no explanation. 
It would seem to many who are not expert that these points and 
definitions are as clear as can be, and that no possible error or 
disagreement can arise, but we who go frequently to Rose shows and 
judge them know that great divergence of opinions exist on these 
subjects, and that in consequence much dissatisfaction at results 
frequently arise. 
The opinions of rosarians as to what is fresh, what is undersized, and 
what is coarse are very much opposed. I know one rosarian of great 
experience who almost invariably cuts his flowers in a state that I should 
call stale, and allows them thereby frequently to become coarse ; others 
cut them young and lose a point for size. Some judges overlook the 
point of freshness if there be size, and some overlook all defects if there 
be size. The principal remedy that suggests itself to my mind is an 
alteration in the number of points which should be given. If six points 
or five points were to be the maximum instead of three, then all minor 
questions could be more closely examined and appraised. Now it is 
either 3, 2, 1, or 0, or even — 1 ; whereas if a higher plane was arranged 
there would be a fair margin for good, indifferent, and poor flowers. 
I trust that Mr. Shea, than whom there is no one his superior to act 
as chairman over an inquiry of this sort, will go thoroughly with his 
■Committee into this question, and that the National Rose Society will 
adopt the alterations the Royal Horticultural Society’s Committee may 
suggest. It will not be one day too soon.— Chaeles J. Geahame, 
Me. Mawley's Rose Analysis. 
Nothing like nailing the colours to the mast. So thinks “ E. M.” 
(page 466). Certainly he has a right to his own opinion, but after 
asking for special points, and obtaining them, he might reply. Surely 
Mr. Grahame and myself deserved some answer to our arguments. Well, 
“ Silence is golden.” 
Mr. Grahame’s election (page 490) would have the Roses more 
divided if he had obtained the best six, second best six, and next twelve, 
but any way it is in my opinion a far safer guide than this analysis—a 
manufactured analysis. What more can be said ? The finishing touch 
which ludicrously points out the absurdity of sifting averages by Mr. 
Mawley’s method is added by “ W. R. Raillem.” It seems to me to take 
the very pith and heart out of Mr. Mawley’s plan.—Y. B. A. Z. 
Me. Geahame has made an admirable defence of Mr. Mawley’s 
invaluable analysis in collating the two lists in the last issue of the 
Journal of Horticulture, from which it appears that in Mr. Mawley’s 
list of the best twenty-eight Hybrid Perpetuals the varieties are 
identical with those selected by Mr. Grahame’s “electors,” except in 
half a dozen instances, and in the two lists of the best twenty Teas the 
varieties are identical except in three instances. It is obvious, there¬ 
fore, that the great bulk of expert opinion supports Mr. Mawley’s 
analysis. 
The differences in the two lists of Hybrid Perpetuals may practically 
be reduced to four ; as one list gives Countess of Oxford, and the other 
gives the sport from it. Pride of Waltham, two varieties that are 
identical in every respect except the shade of colour ; and further it is 
improbable that the experts would have omitted all mention of 
Margaret Dickson had they had any experience of so charming a variety 
at the time of making their selection ; and if they had been dropping out 
another light to make room for it, they would very likely have left 
out Marie Finger, which, by the way, hardly seems wanted in a box 
with Pride of Waltham. How any exhibitor could afford to dispense 
with Marquise de Castellane or Baroness Rothschild, I cannot in the 
least understand, while Camille Bernardin is one of the most reliable of 
reds, easier to get good than Dr. Andry. Of course everybody is in love 
with the colour of Duke of Edinburgh, and in a fancy selection most 
people would give the variety as one of the best, probably recalling some 
occasion on which they had seen or had grown a flower in perfection ; 
but how often is it exhibited in that desirable state? I believe I grow 
more plants of Duke of Edinburgh than of any other Hybrid Perpetual, 
but yet I cannot recall any bloom of the variety that has afforded me 
any particular pleasure since I grew it as a maiden. Much the same 
my be said of Comte de Raimbaud, which is very unreliable and only 
good in “its year,” and also of Duchess of Bedford, which, though 
affording a charming flower as a maiden, makes but a weakly little cut¬ 
back, and both varieties I have finally thrown away. 
The omission by the “ experts ” of Caroline Kuster, at once the most 
vigorous and free-blooming of the entire class, and a variety of which 
large and well-formed flowers are the rule rather than the exception, 
strikes me as very astonishing, the more so as Anna Oliyier, charming 
as it is in colour, is by no means easy to get “ heavy ” enough for 
exhibition. The other two variations, involving only the last two 
varieties in each list, might be allowed to pair off together ; there is not 
much difference from any point of view. Rubens is the more charming 
flower ; Madame Bravy the easier to get “ big Jean Ducher, in a fine 
season, one of the best of all Teas ; Cleopatra, judging from the last, 
better in a cool summer. 
Anyone who has had much to do with statistics knows how misleading 
“ absolute averages ” are. “ W. R. Raillem ” (page 491) cites the case 
of a cricketer, and the instance is happily chosen. I have not this year’s 
first-class averages at hand, but Wisden’s Almanack for 1893 lies before 
me, and in the list of amateur batting averages I see five names appear 
above those of Messrs. W. G. Grace and A. E. Stoddart ; but does any¬ 
body imagine for a moment that the two last named would not, never¬ 
theless, be the two first “ choices ” in selecting an eleven of gentlemen 
versus players ? Again, in the corresponding list of professional bowling 
averages, Parris and Abel are at the top ; yet I fancy that Mr. Grahame 
would not like to see his county Committee leave out Lockwood or 
Richardson in order to rely upon “the guv’nor” as a trundler ? 
Instances could be multiplied in infinitum from statistics and averages 
of almost every kind that have ever teen compiled ; but they are all of 
a pattern, so I have taken the cricket averages which “ W. R. Raillem ” 
suggests. 
It is undeniable that rosarians generally are greatly indebted to Mr. 
Mawley for the valuable analyses and tables that involve so much labour 
and pains, and their value cannot but be enhanced by Mr. Grahame’s 
demonstration of their practical coincidence with the collated evidence 
of experts.—T. W. Giedlestonb. 
Such letters as those of Mr. Grahame (page 490) and “ W. R.Raillem” 
(page 491) in your last week’s issue are certainly entitled to notice from 
me, as some proof is for tbe first time advanced in them in support of 
the contentions of the writers. I, therefore, willingly withdraw my 
notice of retirement from the discussion in order to reply to them. 
“W. R. Raillem” objects to the heading “average number of times 
shown.” Well, as regards the majority of the varieties, as I have before 
stated, the averages given in the tables are the arithmetical means 
which he contends should in all cases be given. But, of course, for the 
others this heading, unless taken as it should be, in conjunction with the 
explanations I have from time to time given, would not be as clearly 
understood as it should be. His illustrations about school attendances 
and cricketers’ averages are not to my mind quite on the same lines as 
tabulating Roses in an analysis. In the one case the actual figures are 
imperative, whereas in the other what is really wanted are not so much 
the actual data as results which are fairly comparable inter so. In 
other words, averages which will place the Roses in their truest relative 
positions. 
I am well aware that to those who have first been in the habit of 
dealing with statistics of this nature it appears little short of criminal to 
leave out a single figure ; but it must be remembered that these figures 
of mine and my method of computation were last year submitted to an 
expert in such matters, and only the other day I consulted another 
whose life has been spent in discussing statistics of various kinds. His 
opinion was that the system I had adopted was perfectly legitimate, and 
as far as he could judge without seeing the figures themselves, the best 
when dealing with statistics of this kind in which only tolerably close 
approximations could be looked for. 
He instanced, as supporting one of my corrections, the fact that the 
average death rates for certain diseases would be misleading if a ten- 
years average were in all cases strictly adhered to. But what surprised 
me most, after the hours I have lately spent in explaining these Rose 
analyses to your readers, was the ready way in which he comprehended 
the whole thing, each point being understood and commented on as soon 
as stated. 
After all, are these corrections of mine, even allowing they be out of 
place, to use no stronger term, so very dreadful ? In order to ascertain 
how far they influence the positions of the first twenty-four Hybrid 
Perpetuals in my analysis I have calculated their averages both ways, 
and find that eighteen out of that number would either rise or fall less 
than three places. Five come out the same, seven differ by one place, 
and the remaining six by two places. 
Mr. Grahame compares my analysis with his recent Rose election. I 
have done the same, or rather compared his list with mine, with the 
following results :—Of the twenty-eight H.P.’s in his list only six fail 
to find places among the first twenty-eight in mine. They are as 
follows—Duke of Edinburgh, which is only one place below my twenty- 
eight; Comte Raimbaud, which has an average of only 8 7, and has 
