In order to correct some misconceptions on the part of the author of the following, Canon Girdlestone, we give it entire from the Garden:

"There has been a good deal of discussion lately as to the identity (or otherwise) of the so-called Hybrid Tea American Beauty with a French Hybrid Perpetual of some ten years' standing. The question was first mooted in the May issue of the Journal des Roses, by Fr. Harms, of Hamburgh, in an article written to prove that American Beauty was nothing more nor less than H. P. Madame Ferdinand Jamain (Ledechaux, 1875). An indignant denial of the charge was naturally expected from America, but instead of this there seems to be a tendency to admit the truth of Fr. Harms' statement, and also to defend the proceeding of distributing an old rose as something new.

" Mr. D. M. Dunning, in an article on the subject in the current number of the Gardeners' Monthly, says: 'That the prominent florists in Washington who are thoroughly conversant with the circumstances of its (American Beauty's) reputed origin there, have, ever since its introduction, had very grave doubts as to its being an American seedling;' and the editor of the Gardeners' Monthly, commenting on Mr. Dun-ning's article, says: ' Suppose it (American Beauty) was an old rose, no one knew that it had any merit. We hold that a man who discovers a new merit is as much entitled to reward as one who discovers a new rose.' From all which it seems reasonable to suppose that American Beauty is only Madame Ferdinand Jamain re-edited, and the whole matter is well summed up by Mr. D. M. Dunning when he says, 'The discovery of its excellent forcing qualities was undoubtedly the principal cause of its rapid introduction into this country (America), as, aside from its superb fragrance, it is not to many people an attractive rose.' That is the worst of it, for it is absolutely immaterial to growers in this country whether it be really Madame Ferdinand Jamain or truly American Beauty; whether it be an old Hybrid Perpetual or a new Hybrid Tea; whether, in fact, it be a fresh seedling, or an old variety so long discarded that it could be safely brought forward again without much risk of being immediately recognized; for, whatever it may be called, the fact, unfortunately, remains that it is one of the least attractive roses in existence.

Of a dreary purplish color, almost entirely lacking in form or finish, and with only a moderate habit of growth, its one good quality of fragrance does not redeem it from being almost the ugliest rose in cultivation. Already certain nurserymen have been heard suggesting that at least the name should be changed from American Beauty to the Yankee Beast, and as it obviously will never be grown in this country, it is not very material whether it be really a novelty or a revival. If it is Madame Ferdinand Jamain, it is easy to see why that variety was so promptly discarded; if it is a new seedling, it will not on that account remain in cultivation. It may be useful as a rose to force under glass, because W. F. Bennett, which will do nothing out of doors, is said to be valuable for that purpose (although it has never been our good fortune to see attractive blooms even of that variety), but out of doors Madame American Ferdinand Beauty Jamain is utterly worthless.

"The following remark, with which Mr. D. M. Dunning concludes his article, shall serve as a peg on which shortly to hang a few notes on a subject which has been receiving a good deal of attention of late years: 'Have we not already many roses with excellent qualities slumbering among the ranks of the discarded? Would it not be profitable to expend a portion of the time and energy now so freely given to the production of new varieties towards investigating the merits of some of the old?'

"Although public opinion is seldom wrong in its ultimate estimate of merit, yet there are two excuses for trying to upset the verdict of our predecessors in certain cases; first, that many roses that flourish in one locality or country do nothing in another, and that, therefore, if they have not been widely tried, they may possibly never have had a fair chance; secondly, that as the bases upon which the merits of flowers have been estimated are liable to change, there may survive, among discarded varieties, some roses which, by existing canons of taste, would prove highly desirable. Thus, while it cannot reasonably be expected that among roses which growers generally have decided to be worthless there will be found many of great beauty or value, still it is not impossible that a few may be shown to deserve a better position than has ever been allowed them".

So far as we know, there has been no tendency to admit the truth of Mr. Harms' statement, except on the ground of courtesy to Mr. Harms. For our part, we have our doubts of the identity of the two, but no one will want to indignantly deny till the exact comparison is made. No one has ever stated that it was a seedling. There has been no attempt to create the impression that it was. That it was simply found growing without a name in a Washington garden has been publicly announced from the first.

It is evident that Canon Girdlestone wholly misconceives the points at issue. He argues that it will never be popular as an out-of-door rose. No one here ever said it would be.

But the undisputed fact is, that it not only will be, but actually is, one of the most popular of roses in America for cutting purposes in winter, and that it promises to long continue so.

The verdict of our predecessors on this point has never been taken.

Surely Mr. Girdlestone can see the difference.

We learn by Fr. Harms, of Hamburg, in the latest number of Mollers Gardeners' Zeitung, Erfurt, Germany, that this is an old French rose. The florists of our country should, as soon as possible, take notice of this fact. How did this rose come into the trade, and by whom under this wrong name?

If it was no swindle, but a mistake from ignorance, we should correct it as soon as possible.

Its real name is Madame Ferdinand Jamain, and was raised by Ledechaux, 1875. Mr. Fr. Harms in Hamburg states that he propagated this rose a short time after its appearance en masse, but could not find any market for it on account of its cherry red color which found no admirers in that time. When this old maiden was made young again like many others (La Reine, Beauty of Glazenwood, Celine Forestier, etc.,) and our Yankee Garden Barnums praised it to the world, the best rose connoisseur, Fr. Harms, was taken in by our Yanks and they sold him 200 plants. But, seeing it flower, the true gardener found out the fraud, and he advertises stock and propagation at no price in Germany at this time.

So much for our honest propagators and dealers.

Evansville, Ind.

Mr. Jean Sisley says that two eminent rose growers near him, have grown this and Madame Ferdinand Jamain, and can find no difference. They are sure of their identity.