October  20,  1 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE 
could  be  wished,  being  not  only  fine  and  bright,  but  also  only 
moderately  warm. 
As  might  have  been  anticipated,  with  such  a  backward  season, 
the  Hybrid  Perpetuals  and  Hybrid  Teas  which  were  best  represented 
at  that  exhibition  were  as  a  rule  the  earlier  flowering  sorts.  The 
variety  most  frequently  to  be  seen  in  the  prize  stands  was  Caroline 
Testout,  followed  in  the  order  given  by  La  France,  Mrs.  R.  G. 
Sharman-Crawford,  Mrs.  W.  J.  Grant,  A.  K.  Williams,  and  Captain 
Hayward.  The  following  sorts  were  also  greatly  in  evidence; 
indeed,  goin^  back  in  the  case  of  those  varieties  which  will  allow 
of  our  doing  so,  the  full  thirteen  years,  never  before  have  they  been 
ns  often  staged  ds  they  were  this  year  —  viz.,  Gustave  Piganeau, 
Duke  of  Wellington,  Margaret  Dickson,  White  Lady,  Jeannie 
Dickson,  and  Viscountess  Folkestone.  That  grand  dark  Rose,  Horace 
Vernet,  was  also  finely  shown,  while  Dupuy  Jamain  had  the  best 
record  for  five  years,  Duke  of  Edinburgh  and  Lady  Mary  Fitzwllliam 
for  ten  years,  General  Jacqueminot  for  six  years,  and  Dr.  Andry  for 
-seven  years. 
But  there  is  as  usual  a  reverse  side  to  this  pleasing  picture,  for  the 
backward  season,  while  favouring  most  of  the  early  varieties,  was  of 
course  just  as  unfavourable  to  those  which  are  late  flowering.  Some 
few  of  the  early  and  midseason  ones  were,  however,  also  indifferently 
shown.  For  instance,  Mrs.  John  Laing,  the  leading  Rose  on  the  list, 
has  at  no  previous  show  been  as  seldom  staged  as  it  was  this  year. 
Moreover,  twelve  other  varieties  bad  better  records,  whereas  at  the 
preceding  six  exhibitions  no  other  Rose  in  the  table  could  show  as 
good  a  one.  That  refined  light  H.P.  Madame  Gabriel  Luizet, 
although  one  of  the  earliest  to  flower,  was  also  very  indifferently 
represented,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  Marie  Baumann,  a  midseason 
variety.  But  the  greatest  sufferers  were  of  course  the  late-flowering 
-sorts,  such  as  Pier  Majesty,  Alfred  Colomb,  Earl  of  Dufferin,  and 
Merveille  de  Lyon,  all  of  which  bad  poorer  records  than  at  any 
previous  exhibition. 
We  come  now  to  the  comparatively  new  PI.P.’s  and  H.T.’s — those 
A  NR  COTTAGE  GARDEN  Eti. 
sent  out  during  the  last  five  years.  Of  the  1893  varieties  both 
Captain  Hayward  and  Marquise  Pitta  were  shown  about  twice  as 
frequently  as  in  the  previous  year.  But  Marchioness  of  Londonderry, 
being  a  la^e  variety,  had  no  chance  at  all  this  year  of  displaying  its 
capabilities.  If  this  variety  were  only  a  more  pleasing  shade  of  white 
it  would  be  a  universal  favourite  with  exhibitors;  Indeed,  a  really 
good  white  H.P.  would  be  as  warmly  welcomed  as  John  Walker  has 
been  among  the  Show  Dahlias.  Marchioness  of  Downshire,  first  dis¬ 
tributed  in  189P,  has  not  as  yet  improved  on  its  last  year’s  form.  But 
Mrs.  R.  G.  Sharman-Crawford,  another  pink  H.P.  of  the  same  year, 
was  splendidly  represented;  in  fact,  only  one  other  Rose  in  this 
section  (Caroline  Testout)  was  more  frequently  staged.  If  this  be 
true  of  Mrs.  Sharman-Crawford,  what  can  we  say  respecting  Mrs. 
W.  J.  Grant,  which,  although  only  distributed  in  1895,  was  shown  in 
but  three  fewer  prize  stands,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  record  rises 
to  the  fourth  place  in  the  analysis  ?  There  is  no  other  Rose  I  know 
of  except  Mrs.  John  Laing  that  has  ever  performed  such  a  feat  as 
this  in  so  short  a  time.  Helen  Keller,  another  1895  variety,  has  also 
distinguished  itself  by  rising  from  No.  33  to  No.  14,  having  been  nearly 
tv  ice  as  o.ten  staged  this  year  as  last,  flic  rem  lining  new  Rose  in 
the  table  is  Tom  Wood,  only  sent  out  in  1896,  which  on  its  first 
appearance  was  set  up  in  nearly  a  dozen  prize  stmds.  Further  par 
ticulars  respecting  the  foregoing  and  other  new  varieties  and  their 
respective  merits,  will  be  found  under  the  heading  of  “  The  Newer 
Roses  Audit.” 
Of  the  seventy-one  varieties  on  the  list  of  II. P.’s  and  H.T.'s, 
there  are,  I  find,  six  which  may  be  described  as  white,  or  nearly  white, 
sixteen  as  some  shade  of  pink,  fifteen  as  medium  reds,  twenty-two  as 
crimson,  and  twelve  as  dark  crimson  or  maroon  Roses. 
There  are  now  plenty,  if  not  almost  too  many,  pink  sorts,  and 
quite  enough  medium  reds  and  crimson  Hybrid  Perpetuals.  What, 
however,  is  still  wanted  is  a  first-class  white,  and  also  a  first-class 
maroon  H.P.  There  is  one  white  H.T.  which  appears  to  have  been 
hitherto  somewhat  overlooked  by  exhibitors,  but  which  was  so 
TEAR  AND  NOISETTES. 
Position  in  Present 
Analysis. 
Average  Number  of 
Times  Shown. 
No.  of  Times  Shown 
in  1898  in  True 
Relative  Proportion 
to  the  Average. 
Name. 
1  late  of 
Introduction. 
Raiser’s 
or 
Introducer’s 
Name. 
Colour. 
1 
39-8 
33 
Catherine  Mermet  . 
1869 
Guillot  v . 
Light  rosy  flesh 
2 
38-9 
34 
The  Bride  . 
1885 
May . . 
White,  tinged  lemon 
3 
34-0 
23 
Romtesse  de  Nadaillac . 
1871 
Guillot  . 
Peach,  shaded  apricot 
4 
33-1 
15 
Innocente  Pirola  . 
1878 
Madame  Ducher  . 
Creamy  white 
5 
28-9 
25 
Madame  Cusin  . 
1881 
Guillot  . 
Violet  rose,  yellow  base 
6 
28-3 
39 
Souvenir  de  S.  A.  Prince . 
1889 
Prince . 
Pure  white 
7 
27-8 
28 
Marie  Van  Houtte  . 
1871 
Ducher  . 
Lemon  yellow,  edged  rose 
8 
27-0 
22 
Maman  Cochet  . 
1893 
Cochet  . 
Deep  flesh,  suffused  bright  rose 
9 
26-8 
28 
Madame  Iloste  . 
•  1887 
Guillot  . 
Pale  lemon  yellow 
10 
26-1 
27 
Souvenir  d’un  Ami  . . . 
1846 
Belot-Defougere  . 
Pale  rose 
11 
25-4 
24 
Souvenir  d’Elise  Vardon . 
1854 
Marest  . 
Cream,  tinted  rose 
12 
23-7 
15 
Ernest  Metz  . 
1888 
Guillot  . 
Salmon,  tinted  rose 
.13 
23-6 
26 
Honourable  Edith  Gifford  . 
1882 
Guillot  . 
White,  centre  flesh 
13 
23-6 
15 
Madame  de  Watteville . 
1883 
Guillot  . 
Cream,  bordered  rose 
15 
22-0 
26 
Mareehal  Niel  (N.)  . 
1864 
Pradel  . 
Deep  bright  golden  vellow 
.3  6 
20-6 
13 
Niphetos . 
1844 
Bougere  . . . 
White 
17 
198 
19 
Caroline  Kuster  (n.)  . 
1872 
Pernet . 
Lemon  yellow 
18 
19-5 
14 
Medea . . 
1891 
W.  Paul  &  Son  . 
Lemon  yellow 
19 
17-2 
3 
Ethel  Brownlow  . 
1887 
A.  Dickson  &  Sons  ... 
Rosy  flesh,  shaded  yellow 
20 
16-8 
6 
Francisca  Kruger . 
1879 
Nabonnana  . . 
Coppery  yellow  shaded  peach 
21 
16  5 
19 
Anna  Olivier . 
1872 
Ducher  . 
Pale  buff,  flushed 
<22 
16-0 
15 
Jean  Ducher . 
1874 
Madame  Ducher  . 
Salmon  yellow,  shaded  peach 
23 
14-9 
10 
Princess  of  Wales  . 
1882 
Bennett  . 
Rosy  yellow 
24 
13  5 
10 
Madame  Bravy . 
1848 
Guillot  . 
White,  flushed  pale  pink 
25 
11*3 
23 
Rubens  . 
1859 
Robert  . 
White,  shaded  creamy  rose 
•-*26 
11-0 
11 
Muriel  Grahame  . 
1896 
A.  Dickson  &  Sons  ... 
Pale  cream,  flushed  rose 
27 
10-3 
14 
Bridesmaid . 
1893 
May . 
Bright  pink 
28 
99 
16 
Cleopatra  .  . 
1889 
Bennett  . 
Creamy  flesh,  shaded  rose 
29 
8*9 
0 
Etoile  de  Lyon  . 
1881 
Guillot  . 
Deep  lemon 
30 
6-5 
5 
Madame  Lambard  . 
1877 
Lacharme  . 
Salmon,  shaded  rose 
31 
5-3 
8 
Devoniensis  . 
1838 
Foster  . 
Creamy  white,  blush  centre 
*  A  new  variety  whose  position  is  dependent  on  its  record  for  the  1898  show  only, 
