394 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
October  31,  1901. 
for  a  moment  be  placed  on  the  same  level  with  such  grand 
creations  as  A.  K.  Williams,  Suzanne  M.  Rodocanachi, 
Alfred  Colomb,  Horace  Verr.et,  Charles  Lefebvre,  Victor 
Hugo,  and  the  like.  Then,  again,  such  pinks  as  Mrs.  John 
Laing,  Mrs.  R.  G.  Sharman-Crawford,  and  Madame  Gabriel 
Luizet  are  still  unsurpassed  in  their  different  shades. 
Turning  now  to  the  table  of  Teas  and  Noisettes,  it  may 
be  mentioned  in  passi  g  that  the  hot  and  dry  weather  of 
the  past  summer,  which  proved  so  trying  to  many  of 
the  H.P.’s  and  H.T.’s,  appeared  to  be  rather  welcomed 
than  otherwise  by  the  Teas.  At  all  events,  the  quality  of 
the  latter  at  the  Temple  Rose  Show  was  much  in  advance 
of  that  shown  in  the  classes  devoted  more  particularly  to 
Hybrid  Perpetuals  and  Hybrid  Teas.  In  glancing  at  the 
table  it  will  be  noticed  that  Catherine  Mermet  and  its 
white  sport,  The  Bride,  no  longer  head  the  list,  and  that 
the  places  they  have  occupied  for  so  many  years  past  have 
been  taken  by  Maman  Cochet  and  its  white  sport,  White 
Maman  Cochet.  At  the  last  exhibition  The  Bride  v  as 
staged  an  average  number  of  times,  but  not  so  Catherine 
Mermet,  which  only  o  ce  before  in  the  last  fifteen  years 
has  been  as  poorly  represented.  Among  other  sorts  which 
were  to  be  found  in  an  exceptionally  small  number  of 
stands  this  year  were  Souvenir  de  S.  A.  Prince,  Souvenir 
d’un  Ami,  Marie  Van  Houtte,  Hon.  Edith  Gifford,  and 
Anna  Olivier,  which  have  never  before  been  as  seldom 
gtaged,  while  Madame  Hoste  and  Niphetos  have  only  once 
before  appeared  in  as  few  boxes.  On  the  other  hand, 
Comtesse  de  Nadaillac  and  Innocente  Pirola  have  seldom 
before  in  the  same  fifteen  years  been  as  numerously 
represented. 
The  present  year  has  been  described  as  a  “  Maman 
Cochet  year.”  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  record  of  that 
sj:>lendid  variety  at  the  last  metropolitan  exhibition  of  the 
N.R.S.  has  never  before  been  even  approached  bv  any  other 
Rose  whatever.  That  any  variety  should  appear  in  more  than 
sixty  different  stands  is  a  feat  I  should  have  regarded  only 
last  year  as  almost  an  impossibility.  Consulering  the  ages 
of  the  two  varieties,  Maman  Cochet  and  White  Maman 
Cochet — the  one  eight  and  the  other  four  years  old — the 
performance  of  the  latter  is  equally,  if  not  still  more,  sur¬ 
prising.  That  any  new  Tea  should  four  years  after  its 
introduction  succeed  in  rising  to  the  secqnd  place  on  the 
list,  as  White  Maman  Cochet  has  done  this  year,  appears 
almost  incredible.  With  these  two  varieties  we  enter  upon 
a  new  type  of  Tea  Rose,  the  want  of  which  has  evidently 
been  long  felt — a  type  in  which,  not  only  is  the  plant  more 
vigorous,  but  the  flowers  larger  than  in  the  ordinary  run 
of  exhibition  Roses  in  this  section. 
The  newer  Teas — those  which  are  six  or  less  years  old — 
next  demand  our  attention.  In  the  present  analysis, 
although  only  three  in  number,  they  are  all  of  exceptional 
merit.  Muriel  Grahame,  a  pale  cream  member  of  the 
Catherine  Mermet  family,  was  sent  out  in  1896,  and  since 
last  year  has  risen  from  No.  17  to  No.  11.  White  Maman 
Cochet  is  a  superb  white  version  of  Maman  Cochet,  and 
was  first  distributed  in  1897.  Last  year  it  stood  at  No.  23, 
and  now  occupies  the  second  place  in  the  table,  and  it 
requires  no  great  foresight  to  predict  that  it  will  shortly 
be  at  the  top  of  the  list.  The  other  new  variety  is  Mrs. 
Edward  Mawley,  which  both  in  form  and  tint  is  quite 
distinct  from  all  the  other  pink  Tea  Roses.  Since  last 
year  it  has  risen  from  No.  23  to  No.  15,  and  when  more 
generally  grown  is  certain  shortly  to  occupy  a  still  higher 
position. 
I  now  for  the  first  time  introduce  into  this  analysis  a 
table  of  garden  Roses,  by  which  term  is  meant  those 
varieties  the  individual  flowers  of  which  are  not  sufficiently 
large  and  perfect  in  form  to  be  set  up  separately  in  boxes 
like  the  Roses  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  tables  of  exhibi¬ 
tion  Hybrid  Perpetuals  and  Hybrid  Teas,  and  of  exhibition 
Teas  and  Noisettes.  This  type  of  Rose  has  in  recent  years 
become  very  popular  in  gardens  on  account  of  the  freedom 
wich  which  many  sorts  included  in  it  flower,  and  also 
because  of  the  great  variety  of  tint  that  is  to  be  found  in 
them.  Unlike  the  so-called  “exhibition”  Roses,  this  class 
of  Rose  is  staged  at  the  shows  in  bunches,  and  a  very  charm¬ 
ing  appearance  do  the  stands  of  these  garden  Roses 
present.  In  the  following  table  the  varieties  are  arranged 
according  to  the  total  number  of  times  they  were  staged  in 
prizewinning  stands  at  the  last  two  metropolitan  exhibitions 
•  ■f  t  he  National  Rose  Society,  and  no  Rose  has  been  included 
which  was  not  exhibited  at  one  or  other  of  those  shows  three 
or  more  times. 
Garden  and  Decorative  Roses. 
Position  in 
Analysis. 
Name. 
Total  No.  of  Times 
Staged 
in  the  Two  Yf-ars. 
No.  of  Times 
Staged  in  1900. 
No  of  Times 
Staged  in  1901. 
1 
Gusiave  Itegis  (H.T.)  . 
22 
11 
11 
2 
Marquise  de  Salisbury  (H.T.)  . 
18 
9 
9 
3 
1  William  Allen  Richardson  (N) . 
17 
7 
10 
4 
j  Madame  Pernet  Ducher  (H.T.)  .... 
16 
8 
8 
4 
Rosa  macrantha  (S.)  . 
16 
8 
8 
6 
Turner’s  Crimson  Rambler  (Cl.  Poly.) 
14 
4 
10 
7 
Camoens  (H.T.)  . 
13 
6 
7 
7 
Madame  Chbdane  Guinoisseau  (T.).. 
13 
7 
6 
9 
Bardou  Job  (H.T.)  . " 
12 
6 
6 
10 
Alister  Stella  Gray  (N.) . 
11 
4 
7 
11 
L’ldeal  (T.)  . 
10 
4 
6 
11 
Madame  Falcot  (T.)  . 
10 
5 
5 
11 
Reine  Olga  de  Wurtemburg  (H.T.)  .. 
10 
6 
4 
11 
fciouveoir  de  Catherine  Guillot  (T.)  .. 
10 
3 
7 
l.S 
Paul’s  Carmine  Pillar  (S.) . 
9 
4 
5 
15 
The  Garland  (H.C.) . 
9 
3 
6 
17 
Claire  Jacquier  (Cl.  Poly.) . 
8 
4 
4 
18 
Anne  of  Geierstein  (Sweet  Brier) 
7 
4 
3 
18 
Laurette  Messimy  (C.)  . 
7 
5 
2 
18 
Ma  Capucine  (T.) . 
7 
5 
2 
18 
Mignonette  (Poly.)  . 
7 
4 
3 
18 
Papillon  (T.j  . 
7 
2 
5 
18 
Paul’s  Single  White  (S.) . 
7 
3 
4 
24 
Crested  Moss  (Moss)  . 
6 
3 
3 
24 
Hebe’s  Lip  (Sweet  Brier)  . 
6 
3 
3 
24 
Homdre  (T.)  . 
6 
1 
5 
24 
Perle  d’Or  (Poly) . 
6 
4 
2 
24 
Rosa  moschata  alba  (S.) . 
6 
3 
3- 
24 
Rosa  Mundi  (Damask)  . 
6 
4 
2 
30 
Brenda  (Sweet  Brier) . 
5 
5 
— 
30 
Madame  Pierre  Cochet  (T.)  . 
5 
1 
4 
30 
Meg  Merrilies  (Sweet  Brier)  . 
5 
4 
1 
30 
Red  Damask  (Damask) . 
5 
3 
2 
30 
Rosa  himalayica  (S.)  .  . 
5 
2 
3 
30 
Rosa  lucida  plena  (Hybrid  of  speoies) 
5 
2 
3 
36 
Dr.  Grill  (T.) . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Gloire  Lyonnaise  (H.T.) . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Griiss  an  Teplitz  (H.T.) . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Hel&ne  (Cl.  Poly.) . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Pink  Roamer  (Wich.) . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Rosa  Andersoni  IS.) . 
4 
3 
1 
36 
Rosa  Brunonis  (S.)  . 
4 
1 
3 
36 
Rosa  multiflora  grandiflora  (S.)  .... 
4 
3 
1 
44 
Bennett’s  Seedling  (Ayr.)  . 
3 
3 
— 
44 
Killarney  (H.T.)  . 
3 
— 
3 
44 
Madame  Jules  Grolez  (H.T.) . 
3 
— 
3 
44 
Rosa  Moschata  (S.)  . 
3 
3 
— 
In  the  above  list  will  be  found  ten  Hybrid  Teas,  nine 
Teas,  nine  Single-flowered  Roses,  three  Climbing  Polyantha, 
four  Hybrid  Sweet  Briers,  two  Noisettes,  two  Polvantha, 
two  Damasks,  one  Hybrid  China,  one  China,  one  Moss, 
one  Ayrshire,  one  Hybrid  of  species,  and  one  Wichuriana. 
The  most  noteworthy  features  are — (l)  The  great  pre¬ 
ponderance  of  Hybrid  Teas,  Teas,  and  Singles ;  (2)  the 
number  of  climbing  varieties  ;  (3)  the  very  small  number  of 
old-fashioned  Roses — in  fact,  only  Crested  Moss,  Rosa 
Mundi,  The  Garland,  Bennett’s  Seedling,  and  Rosa 
lucida  plena  find  places  in  the  list.  And  yet  one  of  the 
principal  objects  in  starting  classes  for  “  garden  ”  Roses 
years  ago  was  to  revive  the  cultivation  of  these  old 
favourites,  which  it  is  still  desirable  should  in  some  measure 
be  retained.  This  object  might  even  now  be  effected  if 
special  classes  were  set  apart  at  our  principal  Rose  exhibi¬ 
tions  for  either  Roses  sent  out  before  a  certain  date  or  for 
summer-flowering  Roses  only. 
In  bringing  this  analysis  to  a  conclusion,  I  wish  to- 
thank  those  kiud  friends  who  again  assisted  me  this  year 
in  taking  down  the  names  of  the  Roses  in  the  numerous 
prize  stands  at  the  Temple  Rose  Show. 
