October  8,  1896. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
343 
from  the  table  of  comparative  results  from  which  I  am  obtaining 
these  particulars,  it  is  better  shown  in  a  cool  than  in  a  warm 
season.  A.  K.  Williams  may  also  be  relied  upon,  and  considering 
that  it  is  an  early  variety,  its  records  are  marvellously  consistent, 
ranging  in  the  eleven  years  only  between  25  and  40.  Marie 
Baumann,  which  is  more  than  thirty  years  old,  although  badly 
shown  this  year,  shows  no  sign  whatever  of  decreasing  favour — 
indeed,  1894  was  its  record  year.  Her  Majesty  flowers  late  in  the 
season,  and  consequently  was  greatly  favoured  at  this  year’s 
exhibition,  as  well  as  in  1895. 
Next  on  the  list  comes  another  British  Rose,  Marchioness  of 
Londonderry,  the  doings  of  which,  as  one  of  the  newer  Roses,  will 
be  referred  to  a  little  later  on.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  Roses 
deteriorate  in  size  and  quality  as  years  proceed ;  but  Alfred 
Colomb,  like  its  sister  Marie  Baumann,  is  certainly  an  exception 
to  this  rule,  if  rule  it  be,  which  I  very  much  doubt,  for  it  is  at 
the  present  time  as  frequently  staged  by  exhibitors  as  it  was  ten 
years  ago.  The  writer  in  the  “Garden”  previously  referred  to 
states  that  there  were  as  many  as  170  blooms  of  it  this  year  at  the 
Crystal  Palace.  No  doubt  the  past  season  may  have  favoured  this 
variety,  as  it  is  rather  late  in  flowering.  Merveille  de  Lyon  since 
1886  has,  with  one  exception,  taken  the  lead  of  all  the  other  white, 
or  nearly  white  H.P.’s  ;  but  in  the  present  analysis  it  has  to  give 
way  to  a  variety  more  than  ten  years  its  junior — Marchioness  of 
Londonderry.  Whether  their  present  respective  positions  will  be 
maintained  remains  to  be  seen.  Be  this  as  it  may,  what  is  still 
wanted  is  a  white  Hybrid  Perpetual  of  as  high  class  quality  as  we 
have  now  in  the  pinks  and  crimsons.  When  such  a  Rose  does . 
appear,  it  will  undoubtedly  take  as  high  a  place  in  the  table  as  j 
John  Walker  has  done  in  the  Show  Dahlia  analysis.  Charles  ' 
Lefebvre,  although  rather  older  than  any  Rose  yet  mentioned, 
stands  at  the  head  of  all  the  dark  crimsons.  Ita  records  vary 
considerably  from  year  to  year,  or  it  would  take  an  even  higher 
place  than  it  does  in  the  analysis.  We  have  now  reached  the 
twelfth  variety  in  the  list — Gustave  Piganeau,  a  Rose  of  moderate 
i  growth,  but  very  dependable  as  an  exhibition  flower.  It  was  not 
generally  grown  until  after  1892,  but  at  three  out  of  the  four 
exhibitions  held  since  then  it  has  been  largely  and  consistently 
represented. 
Next  comes  that  glowing  rose-coloured  variety  Suzanne  Marie 
Rodocanachi,  to  give  it  ita  full  title  ;  or  as  Mr.  B.  R.  Cant,  no 
doubt  for  some  good  reason,  spells  it  this  year  in  his  catalogue, 
“  Radocanachi.”  By  the  way,  he  also  altera  the  date  of  its 
introduction  from  1883  to  1880,  as  well  aa  the  name  of  the  raiser, 
from  Leveque  to  E.  Verdier.  Be  this  aa  it  may,  all  rosarians  will 
agree  with  Mr.  Foster-Melliar  when  he  expresses  the  opinion  in 
“  The  Book  of  the  Rose  ”  that  this  charming  H.P.  is  “  worthy  of  a 
!  name  more  suitable  to  British  tongues  and  pencils.”  It  is  now  a 
matter  of  history  that  this  fine  variety  would  have  been  entirely 
lost  to  fame  but  for  the  timely  rescue  of  Mr.  T.  W.  Girdlestone. 
This,  however,  does  not  entirely  account  for  the  fact  that  only  at 
the  last  three  exhibitions  has  this  Rose  taken  anything  like  the 
position  it  is  entitled  to.  If  shown  aa  well  next  year  as  this  ils 
position  in  the  table  will  be  still  further  improved.  Did  time 
and  space  permit  I  might  in  this  way  go  right  through  the  whole 
table,  mentioning  in  turn  the  doings  and  characteristics  of  each 
Rose,  as  revealed  by  what  I  may  term  my  “  working  ”  tables. 
As  might  have  been  anticipated,  the  varieties  which  were 
unusually  well  represented  this  year  at  “  the  National  ”  were 
generally  late-flowering  kinds.  Her  Majesty  and  S.  M.  Rodo- 
canacbi  were  to  be  seen  in  more  stands  than  at  any  previous 
show,  with  the  exception  of  that  of  1895.  Gustave  Piganeau 
scored  its  best  record.  B.ironess  Rothschild,  although  sent  out  as 
far  back  as  1867,  and  notwithstanding  the  many  pink  competitors 
which  have  arisen  since  then,  has  only  once  before  been  as  often 
shown,  and  that  was  as  recently  as  1894.  Earl  of  Dufferin  also 
appeared  in  grand  force.  On  the  other  hand,  the  most  noteworthy 
Roses  which  were  poorly  exhibited  were  Madame  G.  Luizet,  La 
France,  A.  K.  Williams,  Marie  Baumann,  and  Charles  Lefebvre. 
The  steady  increase  in  the  number  of  new  Roses  in  this  section 
TEAS  OR  NOISETTES. 
j  Position  in  Present 
Analysis. 
Average  Number  of 
Times  Shown. 
i 
No.  of  Times  Shown 
in  1896  in  True 
Relative  Proportion 
to  the  Average,  j 
Name. 
Date  of 
Introduction.  , 
Raiser’s 
or 
Introducer’s 
Name. 
Colour. 
1 
41-4 
48 
Catherine  Mermet  . 
1869 
Guillot  . 
Light  rosy  flesh 
2 
39  2 
43 
The  Bride  . 
1885 
May . 
White,  tinged  lemon 
3 
37-7 
39 
Comtesse  de  Nadaillac . 
1871 
GuRlot  . 
Rosy  flesh  and  apricot 
4 
368 
35 
Innocente  Pirola  . 
1878 
Madame  D  jcher  . 
Creamy  white 
5 
30  0 
SO 
Maman  Cocbet . 
1893 
Cocbet  . 
Pale  pink,  shaded  salmon 
6 
29  4 
22 
Marie  Van  Houtte  . 
1871 
Ducher  . 
Lemon  yellow,  edged  rose 
7 
28  5 
13 
Souvenir  d’Elise  Vardon . . 
1854 
Marest . 
Cream,  tinted  rose 
8 
28-4 
19 
Souvenir  d’un  Ami  . 
1846 
Belot  Defou^dre  . 
Pale  rose 
<> 
27  5 
33 
Ernest  Metz  . 
1888 
Guillot  . 
Salmon,  tinted  rose 
10 
27-0 
24 
Souvenir  de  S.  A.  Prince . 
1889 
Prince . 
Pure  white 
11 
26-6 
26 
Niphetos,... . 
1844 
Bougere  . 
Pure  white 
12 
25-6 
28 
Madame  Hoste . 
1887 
Gnillot  . 
Pale  lemon  yellow 
13 
251 
33 
Madame  Cusin . 
1881 
Guillot  . 
Violet  rose,  yellow  base 
14 
24-9 
14 
Mai(§chal  Niel  (N.)  . 
1864 
Pradel . 
Deep  bright  golden  yellow 
15 
24-6 
22 
Madame  de  Waitevilie  . 
1883- 
Guillot  . 
Cream,  bordered  rose 
16 
22  1 
17 
Caroline  Kuster  (n.)  . 
1872 
Pernet . 
Lemon  yellow 
17 
21-8 
21 
Honourable  Edith  Gifford  . 
1882 
Guillot  . 
White,  centre  flesh 
18 
21'1 
17 
Francisca  Kiiiger . . . 
1879 
Nabonnand  . 
Coppery  yellow,  shaded  peach 
19 
21-0 
17 
Ethel  Brownlow  . 
1887 
A.  Dickson  &  Sons  ... 
Rosy  flesh,  shaded  yellow 
20 
180 
8 
Jean  Ducher . 
1874 
Madame  Ducher  . 
Salmon  yellow,  shaded  peach 
21 
16*8 
16 
Anna  Olivier . 
1872 
Ducher  . 
Pale  buff,  flushed 
22 
15-9 
2 
Madame  Bravy . 
1848 
Guillot  . 
White,  flushed  pale  pink 
23 
13  8 
19 
Princess  of  Wales . 
1882 
Bennett  . . 
Rosy  yellow 
24 
129 
6 
Rubens  . 
1859 
Robert . 
White,  shaded  creamy  rose 
25 
121 
5 
Madame  Lambard  . 
1877 
Lacharme  . 
Salmon,  shaded  rose 
26 
10-4 
6 
Etoile  de  Lyon . 
1881 
Guillot  . 
Deep  lemon 
27 
9  0 
7 
Cleopatra  . 
1889 
Bennett  . 
Creamy  flesh,  shaded  rose 
28 
80 
8 
Bridesmaid . 
1893 
May . 
Blight  pink 
29 
61 
5 
Devoniensis  . 
1838 
Foster . 
Creamy  white,  blush  centre 
30 
52 
2 
La  Boule  d’Or  . 
1860 
Margottin  . 
Golden  yellow,  outer  petals  paler 
31 
5  0 
Souvenir  de  Paul  Neyron  . 
1871 
Levet  . 
Creamy  white,  tinted  rose 
