\ rch 4, 1905 
fHE Gardening World 
MOTTO FOR THE WEEK: 
“Though stricken to the heart with winter’s cold the drooping tree revives.”— Longfellow. 
Veekly Prizes 
FOR 
Short Articles. 
Tlie Proprietors of The Gardening 'World < 
II ^ive a cash prize of Seven Shillings and < 
X PENCE FOR THE BEST PARAGRAPH, or SHORT > 
:TICLK, sent by readers during the week, and 
vo Shillings and Sixpence as a second , 
ze. The Editor’s judgment must lie con- J 
. ered final, and lie will lie at liberty to use <, 
v of the contributions sent in. The para- < 
jvph, or article, MUST not exceed one ; 
loin in length, but the value, rather than <, 
e length, of the article will be considered in c 
iking the award. Competitors may send in £ 
EMs OF NEWS or comments on news ; HINTS OF < 
iACTIC'AL interest to gardeners or growers of 
ants, fruits, or flowers ; successful methods of £ 
opagating plants usually considered difficult; ' 
CONTRIBUTIONS ON ANY SUBJECT COMING < 
ITHIN THE SPHERE OF GARDENING PROPER, $ 
;tters should lie addressed to The Editor, < 
arked “ Competition,” and posted not later c 
an Friday night to ensure insertion in the £ 
sue of ne xt week. _ ; 
The following Coloured 
Mates have appeared in 
*ecent numbers :— 
September 12.— SIX NEW DAFFODILS. '< 
October 3 — LILIUM AURATUM PLA- l 
YPHYLLUM SHIRLEY VAR. 
November 14.— ROSE MME. N. LEVA- 
ASSEUR. 
January 2.—HYBRID TEA-SCENTED 
OSE IRENE. 
January 30. — TUBEROUS BEGONIA 
lOUNTESS OF WARWICK. 
February 27.— A FINE STRAIN OF 
iLOXINIAS. 
April 2. — WISTARIA MULTIJUGA 
UJSSELLIANA. 
May 7 —CACTUS DAHLIA DAINTY. 
June 4.—CACTUS DAHLIA SPITFIRE. 
July 16.—ROSE LADY BATTERSEA. 
October 1 . — GEUM HELDREICHI 
'UPERBUM 
October 15."— ROSE HUGH DICKSON. 
Back numbers may be obtained from the 
ubluhers, price 2£d. post free. 
This week we present a Half-tone 
Plate oi 
ERICA MEDITERRANEA HYBRIDA. 
Next week we shall give a Half-tone 
Plate of 
ERIOSTEMON MYOPOROIDES. 
The first prize last week in the 
headers’ Competition was awarded to 
‘A. G. S„” for his article on “Vine 
Eyes,' 1 p. 160 ; and the second to “ Wm. 
Davidson,” for his article on “ Hardy 
’limbers,” p. 160. 
Views and Reviews. 
The Classification of Roses. 
The species of Rosa have always been very 
troublesome to botanists and horticulturists 
on account of the difficulty of distinguishing 
one form from another, and also the diffi¬ 
cult}’ experienced in classifying the numer¬ 
ous forms found in a wild state. While this 
is so, it may with equal truth be said that 
the classification of garden-raised forms of 
Roses lias given equal, if not more, diffi¬ 
culty on account of the intermixture of 
species by crossing. On this occasion, how¬ 
ever, we refer only to Roses which are found 
in a wild state. 
On February 16th a paper was read at 
the meeting of the Linnean Society entitled 
" A Revised Classification of Roses,” by Mr. 
John Gilbert Baker, F.R.S., F.L.S. He dealt 
with all the Roses known to science, first of 
all dividing them roughly into three groups : 
(1) species; (2) sub-species and varieties; 
and (3) the principal hybrids. Notwith¬ 
standing the enormous number of Roses that 
are known in the wild state, lie was able to 
reduce the primary speciek to sixty-nine. 
These lie classified under eleven groups which 
may be briefly diagnosed as follows : — 
1. Simplicifoliae, with simple exstipulat-e 
leaves, represented by R. simplicifolia. 
2. Systylae, with styles protruded beyond 
the disk as a united column, with such 
familiar types as R. arvensis and R. stylo-a. 
3. Banksianae, with free, deciduous, linear 
stipules, with R. Banksiae as the type. 
4. Bracteatae, with adnate stipules, 
having fruits and prickles in infrastipular 
pairs, with the Macartney Rose (R. brac- 
teata) as an example. 
5. Micro.phyllae, like the last, hut the fruit 
glabrous with a thick green pericarp. R. 
micropliylla would represent this type. 
6. Cinnamomeae, like the last, hut the 
fruits red and glabrous, with a thin pericarp. 
This type may be represented by R. cinna¬ 
mon! e a. 
7. Spinosissfmae, prickles very unequal, 
never in stipular pairs. The Scotch Rose 
(R. spinosissima) and its allies would repre¬ 
sent this. 
8. Gallicanae, like the last, but prickles 
slightly unequal with leaflets coriaceous and 
rugose. This group would he represented 
by the French Rose (R. gallica) and the 
numerous forms more or less related to it, 
including tlie Moss Rose, the Provence Rose, 
and the Cabbage Rose. 
!). Caninae, prickles equal, not in stipular 
pairs, leaves glabrous or slightly pubescent. 
Tlie Dog Rose (R. canina) is the type in this 
group. 
10. Villosae, like tlie last, hut leaves very 
hairy. This group would be represented by 
the two British species R. mollis and R. 
tomentosa. 
11. Rubiginosae, like the last, hut leaves 
very glandular beneath. One of the most 
familiar examples in this type is the Sweet 
Brier (R. rubiginosa). Two other British 
species that should he placed here are R. 
micrantha. and R. agrestis. 
The above would seem a veiy simple and 
feasible classification, but no doubt the man 
who is confronted with all the known species 
would have to exercise a considerable 
amount of examination and study before he 
could place the various forms under their 
proper headings. We think no doubt, how¬ 
ever, that Mr. Baker has been able to place 
all of the species very aptly and succinctly 
under those headings. He has been an 
ardent rosarian for a great many years, 
being the author of a “ Review of the British 
Roses,” and also a 2 Monograph of the 
British Roses,” dating back to 1-869. 
Tlie original species and varieties from 
which he was able to draw his conclusions 
were veiy largely collected in the north of 
England, while other specimens had been 
sent him from various quarters : he was thus 
able to get a large number of the more un¬ 
common British forms which are to be found 
chiefly if not solelyin the north of this island. 
We have also no doubt that the study of the 
British species was a great help towards his 
extensive knowledge with regard to Roses 
generally. 
In looking over the eleven groups of his 
revised classification, as given above, the 
reader will he able to note that six out of the 
eleven groups are represented by British 
Roses. It is true that R. cinnamomea is not 
a true British native, though recorded as 
having been more or less decidedly estab¬ 
lished in England. Making a slight compro¬ 
mise for this fact, it will be seen that the 
British Roses represent half of the groups. 
Wherever it lias been possible we have 
added samples of each of the above groups 
from British Roses and in other cases have 
given names of the best-known garden forms 
of each type. With these remarks we need 
not enter into detail with regard to all of 
the groups, but will refer to some of the less- 
known kinds. The first- group is represented 
by R. simplicifolia, a very dwarf Rose with 
a simple leaf and yellow flowers. It would 
