1 Nov., 1902.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL, 349 
Jardins, 1874; Madame Lambard, 1879; Francesca Kruger, 1880; Etoile de 
Lyon, 1881; Edith Gifford and Souvenir de Thérése Levet, 1882; Madame de 
Watteville and Sunset, in 1883; The Bride, 1886; Ernest Metz, 1888 ; Medea, 
1891 ; Maman Cochet, 1892; Muriel Grahame, 1897 ; White Maman Cochet, 
1898 ; Mrs. Edward Mawley, 1900. 
The coveted distinction of the gold medal of the National Rose Society has 
been won by the following tea roses:—Souvenir de S.A. Prince, in 1889, this 
was raised by G. Prince, of Oxford, but is better known in Australia under the 
name of The Queen; Muriel Grahame, in 1896; Mrs. Edward Mawley, in 
1898 ; Sunrise, in 1899; and Mrs. B. R. Cant, in 1901. Mrs. B. R. Cant was 
raised by B. R. Cant and Sons, Sunrise by Piper, and the other two by A. 
Dickson and Sons. 
Last year our society drew up a list of the best twenty roses to grow in 
the neighbourhood of Brisbane, based upon a plebiscite of our rose-growing 
members. In this list the following true teas found places in the order 
following :—1, Maman Cochet; 2, Niphetos; 4, Souvenir de la Thérdése 
Levet; 5, Marie Van Houtte; 8, White Maman Cochet; 10, Perle des 
Jardins. The Noisette rose—Maréchal Neil—occupied third place. 
Varieties to Grow.—It must be remembered that we grow roses with 
different ends in view. One grower devotes his time to raising blooms of 
exhibition standard; another cares not so much for individual excellence of 
flower as to having his garden a mass of bloom; while a third prefers flowers 
for cutting for decorative purposes. Some varieties are valuable in all three 
directions, while others are pre-eminently so in only one. 
For exhibition we require roses whose chief characteristics are beauty and 
perfection of form, combined with size, brightness, and distinctiveness of 
colour. These qualities do not always go with vigour of growth and abundance 
of bloom. If they do, we have roses which deserve pre-eminence, but, 
unfortunately, a few splendid show varieties are only to be grown for show 
purposes. 
For garden decoration we are not so interested in the perfect elegance and 
symmetry of the individual flower. We require quantity rather than quality, 
with a healthy and vigorous habit of growth. 
If the desire be for the purpose of cutting for decorative purposes, either 
for personal wear or the adornment of our rooms, we are not so anxious for 
size. We are careful to secure flowers which are most attractive in the bud. 
We require beauty of form, brightness of colour, with as much as possible of 
that character too often neglected—namely, perfume. 
Freedom of bloom is a leading consideration, and white varieties are 
desirable. 
It is not often that all these qualities are combined in a single variety, and 
our estimation of the value of a variety must be largely influenced by the 
purposes for which we require it. 
It seems to me a great pity that our nurserymen in compiling their 
catalogues do not give us more of their own opinions in the matter of deserip- 
tion. Asa rule, the descriptions are only transcripts from those of the raisers, 
and describe the plants as they do when grown under glass. The condition of 
growth with us is entirely on a fresh basis. Hence, catalogue descriptions are 
frequently most misleading. 
A great deal might be said on this head, but it hardly comes within the 
scope of this paper. Suffice it is to say that catalogue language is peculiar, 
and requires to be read with understanding. 
Exhibition Varieties.—I use this term with very much diffidence. It does 
not mean that a rose which we class as an exhibition variety is only fit for such 
purpose, for we shall find that many of them are most valuable for’ other 
purposes. 
Beauty of form, with fair amount of size, is the point of perfection. Size 
without symmetry of form is valueless on the show table. There must be no 
25 
