546 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
December  21,  1899. 
Constitution  op  Rose  Soils. 
AAjeatly  printed  report  of  the  results  of  an  analysis  of  soils  in 
which  famous  exhibition  Roses  have  been,  and  no  doubt  will  be, 
grown,  has  been  sent  to  us.  The  investigation  was  undertaken  on  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Alexander  Hill  Gray,  the  great  amateur  rosarian  of 
Beaulieu,  near  Bath,  who  gave  a  generous  donation  lor  the  purpose. 
The  National  Rose  Society  thereupon  appointed  a  sub-committee,  and, 
as  a  consequence,  Dr.  Bernard  Dyer  was  requested  to  carry  out  analyses 
of  soil  taken  from  the  Rose  grounds  of  well-known  successful  growers 
at  Cheshunt,  Colchester,  Ilitchin,  and  Oxford.  The  report  of  the 
analyst,  though  it  does  not  disclose  the  presence  of  any  chemical 
constituents  in  noteworthy  abundance  to  account  for  the  production 
of  superior  blooms,  will  be  of  interest  to  many  Rose  growers.  It 
would  seem  that  both  Dr.  Dyer  and  Mr.  J.  J.  Willis  mainly  attribute 
the  splendour  of  the  Roses  grown  in  the  localities  specified  to  the 
physical  condition  of  the  soils,  including  good  natural  or  artificial 
drainage,  with  suitable  climatal  surroundings.  No  small  part  of  the 
success  of  the  leading  exhibitors  of  Roses  is,  we  suspect,  the  result  of 
attention  to  various  details  in  management,  and  having  a  large  number 
of  blooms  to  choose  from  when  the  time  of  trial  comes.  Details  of  the 
investigation  will  be  found  in  the  report,  which,  with  deductions,  are 
compressed  into  some  twenty  pages,  enclosed  in  stiff  covers,  and 
obtainable  by  non-members  of  the  N.R.S.  for  “  twelve  stamps  ” 
(penny  ones,  we  presume),  from  the  Rev.  H.  H.  D'Ombrain,  West- 
well  Yicarage,  Ashford,  Kent;  or  Edward  Mawley,  Esq.,  Rosebank, 
Berkhamsted,  Herts. '  A  racy  correspondent  has  more  to  say  on  the 
report.  • 
Analysis  of  Rose  Soils. 
During  the  past  season  the  National  Rose  Society  has  undertaken 
an  investigation  and  analysis  of  certain  noted  Rose  soils,  which  has 
been  awaited  with  great  interest  by  enthusiastic  rosarians.  The 
result  has  lately  been  published  in  a  little  pamphlet,  which  may  be 
obtained  by  non-members  from  the  Secretaries  of  the  Society. 
The  project  was  to  take  samples,  with  all  due  precautions,  from 
about  half  a  dozen  of  the  most  noted  Rose  grounds,  and  then  to 
submit  them  to  the  chemical  research  and  analysis  of  high  auihority, 
and  finally  to  compare  them  with  each  other  and  with  the  known 
average  formulas  of  average  soils,  and  see  if  science  could  tell  us  by 
these  means  what  there  is  in  these,  or  any  of  these,  soils  which  makes 
them  produce  such  very  fine  Roses. 
The  places  chosen  were  the  three  well-known  nurseries  at 
Colchester,  Mr.  G.  Paul’s  at  Cheshunt,  Mr.  Prince’s  at  Longworth, 
and  Messrs.  Harkness  and  Mr.  Lindsell’s  at  Hitchin.  I  regret  that 
Herefordshire  (say  Ledbury)  was  not  represented,  not  only  because 
it  is  certainly  one  of  the  best  Rose  soils,  but  also  because  it  seems  (but 
I  dare  not  say  more  than  *‘ seems,”  after  reading  the  report)  to  be 
different  in  nature  and  composition  from  most  average  soils.  The 
samples  were  taken  from  under  grass  paths,  so  as  to  be  as  free  as 
possible  from  all  the  influences  of  cultivation  and  manuring. 
As  to  the  result,  I  write  entirely  as  “the  man  in  the  street.”  Not 
only  had  I  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,  but  I  know  just  next  to 
nothing  of  chemistry  or  chemical  analysis,  any  more  than  (very  likely 
less  than)  an  ordinary  gardener.  Still,  I  am  just  one  of  those,  I 
suppose,  lor  whom  the  project  was  undertaken  and  the  report  written. 
I  gather,  then,  from  the  well  written  and  lucid  introduction,  as  well  as 
from  the  report  itself,  that  the  experiment  was  a  failure  in  so  far  that 
it  could  not,  apparently,  (ell  us  what  we  wanted  to  know — and  yet 
not  absolutely  a  failure  in  that  the  fact  that  chemical  analysis  cannot 
tell  us  this  at  present  is  in  itself  worth  knowing. 
It  is  at  the  very  outset,  at  the  report  as  to  the  mechanical  condi¬ 
tion  of  these  soils,  that  I,  as  representing  and  speaking  for  ordinary 
gardeners,  am  most  staggered.  All  of  them,  we  are  told,  with  the 
doubtful  exception  of  the  Cheshunt  soil,  are  “sandy  loams  1”  63  per 
cent,  of  the  Colchester  soil  is  “  clean  sand  !  ”  Though  clay  apparently 
predominates  in  the  Cheshunt  soil,  this  is  not  really  due  to  clay,  but 
to  the  fineness  of  the  sand.  It  (the  Cheshunt  soil)  “  probably  in  wet 
weather  would  almost  be  mistaken  for  a  clay  soil ;  ”  the  inference  is 
that  Colchester  soil,  which  has  nearly  double  the  quantity  of  sand, 
could  not  “  in  wet  weather  be  mistaken  for  a  clay  soil !  ”  Whereat  I, 
after  tearing  my  hair  a  little,  could  only  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  eminent  analyst  does  not  speak  the  same  language  as  “the  man 
in  the  street.”  At  first  1  pictured  myself  taking  him,  after  a  good 
thunderstorm  in  July,  up  and  down  the  rows  of  Mr.  B.  R.  Cant’s 
Roses,  having  previously  assured  him  that  he  need  not  change  his 
thin  patent  leather  boots  for  such  a  sandy  soil,  and  comforting  him 
every  now  and  then  with  the  words,  “  sandy  loam,”  “  63  per  cent,  of 
sand,”  “  can’t  mistake  this  for  clay  soil,”  and  so  on.  Then  I  thought 
there  must  be  some  mistake;  and  finally  I  came  to  the  conclusion — 
which  I  suppose  is  the  right  one — that  I,  and  surely  a  good  many 
more,  do  not  know  what  sand  is. 
As  regards  the  chemical  analysis,  I  gather'  that  the  only  soil 
which  contained  anything  in  a  proportion  above  the  normal,  was  Mr. 
Prince’s  at  Longworth,  that  here  the  unusual  point  was  more  readily 
available  phosphoric  acid  than  is  common.  The  analyst  suggests  that 
this  may  have  arisen  from  manure,  or  appeared  to  have  done  so  ; 
but  I  believe  good  precautions  were  taken.  As  a  final  result,  we  can 
only  allude  to  mechanical  condition  and  cultivation  and  drainage  of 
the  soil,  with  air  and  climate,  any  or  all  of  these  rather  than  chemical 
ingredients  in  the  soil — as  the  answer  to  the  question  which  we  wanted 
to  know. 
But  now  I  would  like  to  draw  attention  to  a  matter  alluded  to  in 
the  able  introduction.  The  writer  well  says  that  it  is  the  petals  of 
our  Roses  that  we  are  interested  in — we  want  to  know  what  they,  by 
themselves,  are  made  of,  and  what  especial  chemical  ingredient  will 
feed  them.  Dr.  Wolff’s  analysis  of  the  ashes  of  the  Rose  is  quoted 
from  the  “Rosarian’s  Year  Book”  of  1889,  and  he  there  gives  analysis 
of  the  ashes  of  the  roots,  the  wood,  the  leaves,  and  the  flowers. 
Now,  what  does  he  mean  by  “  the  flowers  ?.”  If  he  means  not 
only  the  petals,  but  pistil  and  stamens,  calyx  and  seed  vessel,  it  is 
plain  that  the  seed  vessel  would  bulk  as  large  as  the  petals  in  Ash, 
and  yet  we  do  not  care  about  the  seed  vessel,  all  we  are  interested  in 
is  the  petals.  For,  if  you  come  to  think  of  it,  the  petals  are  the 
Rose — according  to  their  number,  length,  stoutness,  and  colour,  is  it  a 
full,  large,  lasting,  well-coloured  Rose.  When  you  look  at  a  grand 
Rose  bloom  you  look  at  the  petals  alone. 
We  must  remember  the  petals  are  only  a  by-product  of  the  Rose; 
its  care  is  for  the  seed  vessel,  which  we  do  not  care  about.  We  want 
to  get  the  plant,  as  we  have  done  to  a  great  extent,  to  leave  its 
natural  course  and  give  itself  up  to  the  production  of  petals,  and  the 
first  step  to  this  result,  as  it  seems  to  me,  and  as  Professor  Church  has 
suggested  in  this  introductory  chapter,  is  to  get  as  complete  as 
possible  an  analysis  of  the  petals  of  a  Rose  alone. — W.  R.  Raillem. 
HARDY  PEAT-LOYING  SHRUBS. 
In  this  section,  as  in  the  case  of  spring  flowering  shrubs  generally, 
we  find  comparatively  few  natural  orders  represented  to  any  great 
extent.  In  the  present  case  the  large  majority  belong  to  Ericaceae, 
which,  in  the  case  of  shrubs  generally,  shares  with  Rosaceae  and 
Leguminosse  the  distinction  of  producing  by  far  the  greater  portion  of 
first-rate  flowering  plants.  The  representatives  of  the  latter  two 
orders  we  find  will  thrive  in  almost  any  soil,  provided  it  is  fairly  good 
and  well  worked;  the  members  of  the  former  order,  however,  are 
more  fastidious.  With  few  exceptions  they  absolutely  refuse  to  grow 
in  soil  containing  lime,  and  many  will  do  little  or  no  good  if  planted 
in  loam  of  the  very  best  quality. 
In  those  places,  however,  that  are  favoured  with  a  well-drained 
peaty  soil  the  members  of  this  order  will  be  found  perfectly  at  home, 
and  will  amply  repay  the  trouble  anyone  goes  to  m  getting  together  a 
representative  collection.  In  the  other  two  orders  mentioned  we  find 
a  large  number  of  showy  indispensable  plants,  but  for  brilliant 
colouring  and  magnificent  displays  of  blossoms  from  many  of  the 
larger  members,  and  the  number  of  choice,  free  flowering,  and  inter¬ 
esting  plants  in  the  ranks  of  their  smaller-growing  relatives,  Ericaceae 
cannot  be  equalled. 
Roughly  speaking,  about  200  species  belonging  to  this  family  are 
perfectly  hardy  in  the  southern  counties;  for  the  north  these  might  be 
reduced  by  fifty.  Add  to  these  the  large  number  of  botanical  and 
garden  varieties  of  such  genera  as  Rhododendron,  Erica,  Calluna,  and 
others,  and  quite  a  formidable  number  is  compiled.  Of  this  total 
some  would  not  find  favour  outside  a  scientific  collection ;  others  are 
too  well  known  to  need  more  than  a  passing  glance,  the  garden 
varieties,  again,  being  too  numerous  to  warrant  a  selection.  All  those 
mentioned  below  are  first-rate,  and  worthy  of  cultivation  in  any  garden 
where  this  class  thrives,  especially  when  in  vigorous  growth  and 
producing  trusses  and  flowers  of  the  finest  quality  (see  fig.  95). 
Taking  the  smaller  genera  first,  Kalmia  stands  out  conspicuously. 
Three  species  and  a  number  of  varieties  are  to  be  obtained.  K.  latifolia, 
with  its  large  Laurel-like  leaves  and  fine  heads  of  pinkish  white 
flowers;  the  dwarfer  angustifolia — or,  better  still,  its  varieties  rosea 
and  rubra — makes  a  charming  picture;  while  glauca  is  an  attractive 
little  bush  when  covered  with  its  rosy  flowers.  All  are  North 
American,  and  flower  in  late  spring. 
Zenobia  speciosa  is  always  welcome,  or,  if  obtainable,  its  variety 
pulverulenta.  The  latter  has  glaucous  foliage,  which  is  almost  as 
handsome  as  its  pretty  waxy  white  blossoms. 
Among  the  Pieris  we  have  floribunda  with  short  upright  racemes, 
and  japonica  with  large  drooping  panicles  of  white  flowers,  while  in 
