"We find commonly in the individual all the characters which distinguish the species to which it belongs from all other species in the vegetable kingdom."

M. Boitard accepts the first sentence, but repudiates the other, and places in its stead, "Each individual of which is capable of reproducing, by seed, fertile individuals, possessing one or more characters in common with the parent, and invariable in all."

In the Introduction to Lindley's "Rosarum Monographia" we find the following definition given :-" By species, I wish to be understood here to mean, an assemblage of individuals, differing in particular respects from the rest of the genus, but having more points of affinity among themselves than with others; their union being therefore natural."-Ros. Mon. Intro. p. 18.

"We assemble under the name of species," says Decandolle," all the individuals which bear sufficient resemblance to each other to lead us to believe that they have originally descended from a single being, or a couple of beings.-Physiologie Végétale, tome ii. p. 688.

Although not agreeing altogether in the views of M. Boitard, I would state my conviction, that most Botanists have been too ready in admitting, as species, plants of a genus so remarkable for its disposition to vary and if we adopt Decandolle's definition, I think that many of the so-called species are nothing more than hybrids, which, to use his words, "have originally descended from a single being, or a couple of beings." I have been led to this conclusion more particularly from observations in raising seedlings, among which it is not uncommon to find plants differing exceedingly from their parents. I think we may accept the second definition, because with an eye to that the genus was divided in the “Rosarum Monographia ;" and that the division there made has met the views of many subsequent writers, may be gathered from the extent of their extracts from that work.

But it is necessary to consider other questions, which the discussion of this invariably gives rise to. The tyro having satisfied himself as to what constitutes a species, we may suppose the next questions to be, What was the origin of the Floricultural Groups? what the real difference between these groups? and how may one be enabled to refer any variety brought before him to its proper position?

We need scarcely say that the Botanist's sphere of labour is widely different from the Florist's. The former collects and examines the productions of nature, arranging them in classes and orders; which he again divides into genera and species, pointing out their properties and uses. The Florist here takes up the work. Once in possession of species, he applies the art of culture, with the view of fashioning them to his own taste. Let us confine our remarks to the department of the Florist; and as varieties usually originate with him, we may presume that he is competent to answer the above questions.

Having the species, or varieties produced from species, at his command, he saves seed from them, which he sows; and from the proneness of Nature's offspring to

assume new forms and tints, hence arise individuals differing from their parents. These are commonly termed varieties; and he bestows names on such of them as he deems improvements on former kinds, and therefore worthy of public notice. But the Florist does more than this. He does not rest satisfied with the simple workings of nature. Her march is too slow for him. He strives to anticipate her. He brings together varieties of different species, and, hybridizing them, he effects new combinations-produces new races*; the individuals of which differ more widely in appearance, and which may eventually become so numerous, as to induce him to group them, that they may be the more readily comprehended. To accomplish this end, he seizes hold of external characters,-whether it be the colours of the flowers, as in Carnations, &c., or the general appearance of the plant, as in Roses,—and forms a system of arrangement of his own ;-not strictly botanical, perhaps, but popular and useful. Such is the origin of the Floricultural Groups. As to the differences between these groups, we shall point out, as we approach each one, the characters which distinguish it from all others.

Now, it will be tolerably evident, that, to be able to group varieties correctly, some practice among Roses, combined with previous study, is necessary. If an individual wish to become sufficiently acquainted with Roses to enable him to do this, I would say, let him first study the features of the species from which the Florist's groups have descended. Let the groups be considered next; then the varieties; which, though ever so variously hybridized, will for the most part be readily understood. A hybrid may sometimes be met with, whose place it may at first sight be difficult to determine; but in such case a second or third inspection, and a little reflection, usually solve the difficulty. To illustrate this remark, let us suppose the existence of a variety due to the hybridizing of a Damask with a Hybrid Provence Rose. The Hybrid Provence being a hybrid between the French and the Provence, such variety might partake of the nature of both these species, and also of the Damask parent. These are, on the authority of most Botanists, three distinct species. Well, supposing the features of each to be visible in the new variety, where is the place for such a hybrid? We would say, Is it sufficiently original in character to demand the formation of a new group? If so,

* M. Deslongchamps, in his work on the Rose, devotes considerable space to a discussion on the subject of raising Roses from seed, and especially in proving they vary from seed, without being hybridized. What practical man has any doubt on the subject? But with the same stroke he endeavours to establish that the so-called hybrids are not really such ;—have not been produced by the union of two distinct species, but by freaks of nature. In this, if he admits as distinct species those plants which most Botanists do, he appears to me to fail absolutely: and he admits that the authority of the French Rose growers, most of whom devote a great part of their time to the raising of seedlings, is against him. M. Vibert, one of the oldest and most distinguished cultivators in France, goes so far as to say that he obtained spotted Moss Roses by crossing the spotted varieties of the Rosa Gallica with the Moss kinds. The plants produced from this experiment partook unmistakeably of the characters of each parent, and differed from all pre-existing kinds. The Rosa Hardii is another case in point, raised from between R. berberiifolia and R. involucrata. Is there any mistake here?

this is the proper course to pursue; and it is thus that several new groups have of late years been added. The Hybrid Perpetuals, for instance, are of modern date; and it must be admitted by all, that for these hybrids a new group was necessary. But supposing this new individual to possess no very distinct features, then will not the characters of any one species or group predominate? Undoubtedly they will and the variety should be referred to that group to which the preponderance of similar external characters denote it most intimately to belong.

If we glance at the species from which the beautiful varieties which decorate our gardens have sprung, we find nearly all are natives of civilized countries, and have been for some years known and cultivated in Europe. This will account for the number of varieties we possess from them. It is probable that many other species, which are at present only known as species, will eventually give birth to esteemed garden kinds; that fresh groups will arise, possessed of distinct characters from those we already possess. If these anticipations be realized, what a genus will that of the Rose become! And are we not strengthened in this supposition by the appearance at the present time of numerous varieties raised from the Rosa RUBIFOLIA, which, till lately, was only known to us as embellishing with its pale red blossoms the prairies and forests of North America? There is no doubt some of the species are more disposed to improvement than others, but all are capable of it and I believe that, when our cultivators shall become tired of working upon the garden kinds they already possess, they will direct their attention to others of the species, and bring forth the treasures they are capable of producing. When we look at the species with single or semi-double flowers, which are the types of the present garden varieties, and compare them with those varieties, the contrast may well make us inquire-Have the latter really descended from these species? So greatly are they improved in form and texture of petal-increased also in size changed from single to double-and varied in colour to a remarkable degree-that I do not wonder at persons unacquainted with the effects of cultivation on the wild species, wishing to know the process of development before they accredit statements such as these. We may fairly presume, however, that such is their origin. But if so, how has such a change been wrought? We reply, Simply by a long course of careful and systematic culture. What was the Rose, comparatively speaking, fifty, or even thirty years since? There are, doubtless, some admirers of the genus who can glance retrospectively to the former period, and trace the gradual alteration from flimsy semi-double varieties, few blooming in the autumn, to the full bold flowers of the present day, so exquisite in colour, so symmetrical in form. In order to trace their descent, it is necessary to revert to the species, which we must suppose existing in a wild state. We know little of cultivation as pursued in remote ages; but may be justified in presuming that seeds of the Rose were sown, as well as those of other trees and plants. It is recorded that the Romans did this, but we now allude to times anterior to these. Now, supposing the seeds of the wild species to have been gathered and sown, Nature's stores thus opened, she would yield forth her treasures, here as elsewhere,

in rich abundance: the plants raised would produce flowers varying in colour, size, and degree of fulness. We may suppose the handsomest of these would be cherished most, and the probability is, seeds would be saved from such: hence we might expect to obtain a variety as before, and a further advance in beauty. So on from time to time, the improvement taking place so gradually as to fix the attention only of the curious in these matters; or if, at any period, a great advance had been made, it would not have been considered worthy of record in less civilized times, when the constant occurrence of important changes and stirring events kept men in a state of excitement, disquietude, and doubt. Ages might thus roll away, and the species be not marvellously changed from their primitive form, But following the stream of time, we reach the period when the raising of plants became a settled occupation: soon men turned their attention to the improvement of races; then the sexes of plants was generally acknowledged; and, finally, the effects of artificial fertilization were made known, and the art practised. The latter was indeed a grand stride in the path of improvement: by its pursuance, man stepped in to the aid of nature, and the results are strikingly visible.

Although departing from our subject, yet, to render this hypothesis more plausible, let us glance for a moment at analogous cases.

Let us turn to the Heartsease, or the Dahlia, whose progress from the species to the present state has been more rapid, and has fallen within the pale of more general observation.

It is well known that the beautiful garden varieties of the Heartsease are descended from the Viola tricolor and Viola lutea of Botanists, both species indigenous to Britain. They had long been grown in the borders of flower gardens, and the flowers had no doubt become varied in colour and size; but I believe it is not more than thirty years since Mr. Thompson, of Iver, first commenced their cultivation with the expectation of improving them. They were then, perhaps, not very far removed from the species. He collected several kinds, and saved seed from them promiscuously. From the plants thus raised, some were larger and handsomer than their parents: these he reserved, saving seed from such; and by continuing to reserve and save seed from the finest varieties, and by planting them in the most favourable soil, he materially improved them. He did not long work single-handed: other Florists joined him, and the results are now before us; -the flowers are changed from an irregular and indescribable form, and become quite circular. I do not know whether he adopted artificial fertilization in his course of practice, but others have done so.

Take another instance. The Dahlia, when first introduced to England, was single; the flowers had but one row of petals, the centre being occupied with a yellow disk; they resembled a single Aster. The first double Dahlias had long,

* In presuming thus far we are supported by natural occurrences. The flowers of the Dogrose in the hedges and woods vary in size and colour; and in the South of Europe some of the wild kinds have double flowers.

narrow, flat, pointed petals, and were very different in character from the present favourites. The Florist and Amateur disliked the pointed flat-petalled flowers, and they raised an ideal standard of perfection. All their endeavours were directed towards the attainment of this. Dahlias, said they, should not be flat flowers, but circular, forming half a ball: the petals should not be long and pointed, but short, rounded at the edge, and cupped. Now mark the change that has followed. The Dahlia has, so to speak, been remodelled.

So, doubtless, it has been with the Rose, though its development has been more gradual, has been spread over a greater extent of time, and has consequently been less marked than in the above cases. We must remember that the Rose is not a flower recently risen into favour, deriving its popularity from cultivators of the present day alone: it is of the highest antiquity; and the ancients having cherished it so much, we may presume they would bestow some pains on its cultivation. It is not then, I think, surprising, when we consider the length of time the Rose has been under cultivation, and how freely the numerous species of which it is composed intermix, it is not, I say, surprising, that the varieties are removed to a greater distance from the species than in either of the above-mentioned flowers. The Dahlias are the offspring of a single species; the Heartsease arose from two; but the Roses of our day claim no less than twenty species as their progenitors. Should we not expect, then, from a larger surface on which to build, and a greater quantity and choice of materials, added to which time almost unlimited, a superstructure to arise more grand, more varied, more perfect?

In grouping the varieties, I have endeavoured not to increase more than necessary the number of groups into which, on the authority of Rose cultivators, the Rose at present stands divided. It were easy to effect a different arrangement, and perhaps a better one; but it is questionable whether the improvement would be sufficient to compensate for the confusion that must necessarily arise from such a step. In one or two instances only have I therefore formed fresh groups; and where I have thought varieties to belong to other groups than those in which some cultivators place them, they will be removed to what appears to me a more correct position. To prevent confusion arising from this change, the names will be retained in their accustomed places, the reader being referred to the other groups for their description.

It was conceived that the Hybrid Perpetual Roses differed too widely to remain grouped as heretofore; witness, Clémentine Duval, Gloire de Rosomène, Louis Buonaparte, and Eliza Balcombe, being placed together. The original group of Hybrid Perpetuals will be now divided into four, of which the varieties just mentioned may be considered the types. There are one or two other like cases which will appear hereafter.

It is thought desirable, before proceeding further, to explain certain terms which it is found necessary to use in describing the varieties; and the first which present themselves are those relating to the size of the flowers. They are five, namely :