HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Billy Boiler' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 67-356
most recent 7 OCT 12 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 7 OCT 12 by Unregistered Guest
Available from - Mistydowns
Discussion id : 58-235
most recent 28 OCT 11 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 28 OCT 11 by Patricia Routley
I have just found the 1930 American Rose Annual reference in which Alister Clark says 'Billy Boiler' was a pillar rose bred from 'Black Boy '. He gave a different version in the 1939 reference, but I think we had better now change the seed parent of 'Billy Boiler' from 'Oskar Cordel' to 'Black Boy'.
Discussion id : 37-502
most recent 28 JUN 09 SHOW ALL
Initial post 24 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman
Perhaps not an error, perhaps literary license. Where is the information used by Charles Quest-Ritson to qualify this rose as issue of 'Blackboy'? The 'Register of Australian Bred Roses' does not mention this, and if Quest-Riston is so sure, is 'Blackboy' seed or pollen parent, or both?
Reply #1 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by Patricia Routley
Well, I don't think that 'Black Boy' was the seed parent of 'Billy Boiler', because Alister himself told us of the seed parent in the 1939 reference.

I wonder where the current rose in commerce sprang from? It was last advertised by T. G. Stewart in 1941 and disappeared until John Nieuwesteeg listed it in 1997, cautiously warning us that his variety may be incorrectly named.
Reply #2 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman
Patricia, Can you please show me the 1939 statement that 'Black Boy' is mother of 'Billy Boiler'. The only 1939 reference I see is to do with Peter Lambert's demise' What have I missed?
Reply #4 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by Patricia Routley
I will try to be clearer. What I should have said was:
"Well, I don't think that 'Black Boy' was the seed parent of 'Billy Boiler', because Alister himself told us of the seed parent [...from Oscar Cordell [sic] I got Billy Boiler] in the 1939 reference."
You were on the right track, Laurie, wth that obituary for Peter Lambert.

But now we have the 1936 "Rosenlexikon" reference to 'Black Boy' as the seed parent. This explains where Charles Quest-Ritson got his reference from and should keep the billy boiling. Thanks for that Jedmar.
Reply #3 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by jedmar
Jäger in his "Rosenlexikon" (1936) states that 'Billy Boiler' is a seedling of 'Black Boy'. I have added this to the references. He must have an earlier source.
Reply #5 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman
Are we left with two conflicting pieces of evidence? Alister (he is being quoted?) says he got 'Billy Boiler' from 'Oskar Kordel'. To me this says that 'Oskar Kordel' is the seed parent of 'Billy Boiler'. The alternative of Jäger (is this a direct quote?) to me is less believable for one, reference to "a seedling of" does not imply a seedling from, but perhaps a seedling "of" a cross involving 'Black Boy'. Can 'Oskar Kordel' x 'Black Boy' not be deduced from the above?
Reply #6 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by jedmar
I was just going to suggest Black Boy x Oskar Cordel. Jäger actually writes "Black Boy x ?", which in his notation means "seedling of Black Boy" with 'Black Boy' being the seed parent. I think Alister Clark's statement does not preclude he was referring to 'Oskar Cordel' being the pollen parent. I would have rather thought that the climber was used as the seed parent, but it seems both roses were successful seed and pollen parents.

Again, Jäger must have his information from some contemporary account. More will surely come up!
Reply #7 of 12 posted 25 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman
Interesting. A clash of opinions. In deference to your argument, I checked your profile and found nothing. I am unable therefore to consider what practical experience you bring as reliable elements in your arguments. For example, it is a given that "which in his notation" is redundant, "'Black Boy' x" definitely indicates 'Black Boy as seed parent. Saying it does not make it a truth. But who do you believe? When the breeder himself declares (1939), "it ('Billy Boiler') came from 'Oskar Kordel', there can be no doubt that the latter is the mother. In most if not all breeding circles, an issue comes "from the mother", and" by the father". Choose to disagree, but that's the way it is.

"I think Alister Clark's statement does not preclude he was referring to 'Oskar Cordel' being the pollen parent."
Reply #8 of 12 posted 27 JUN 09 by Lyn G

Just a note: It's perfectly OK to question a reference on HMF. There are a lot of roses in the database that have conflicting information about a given rose. However, it is not HMF's role to correct a printed reference. I suggest you contact the author, if possible, and/or the publisher. The advantage HMF has over printed references is that we can update information very quickly while printed material is static.

Questioning the credentials of site users trying to address your issues is "off-point" and will not get you the information you are seeking in your original question or any resolution that results in a change on the site.

We do encourage site users to help us correct any errors they may find in the database, with appropriate references. Please feel free to continue sending in your comments. The general rule on the site is that if a REFERENCE is in a publication and is available to public scrutiny, then they will be put up as a REFRENCE on the rose page. Without the availability of public access to a reference, any information provided by a site user is placed under the COMMENTS tab on the rose page.

With Regards,

PS. Since you are interested in linage, you might think of subscribing to the HMF Premimium Membership program to have access to the linage reports that are a special part of HMF. Hours of very sophistacted programming has gone into creating this wonderful and incredibly valuable feature.

We look forward to your becoming a Premium Member and your continued support.
Reply #9 of 12 posted 27 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman

Perhaps you are referring to lineage? We seem to have reached an age where the armchair experts via the internet, have full access to express their opinions at the expense of fact. If you have written a book, you are an instant expert. You may never have turned a sod, but you are an expert.

The experts Lyn, are those who have worked the fields with rose-growing as their livelihood, and who don't necessarily have a way with words, or the time to sit and contemplate their navels, or to swap myths. Your site is a rich opportunity for the "wannabes" to get their names in print. There are dozens of so-called rose experts who may be good photographers, or experts in seeking the truth. but who use the rose as a means to an end, not a creation of Nature.

Without cyberspace, where would your site be? It would be non-existant. It is easy access to anybody with an opinion that muddies the waters. Anybody and everybody can express an opinion, fact or fiction, but be careful not to ask for their credentials. If they've been published, they are credible. Practical experience, and working with roses for 50 years counts for nothing. It is almost enough to drive me to complete the book that half-written, languishes in several folders in my computer.

I maintain the List of Australian Bred roses for the National Rose Society of Australia, which works hard to be a reliable reference point for the rose-growing public. I attempt to perform my duties diligently with complete regard to fact. It is increasingly galling to see parentage stated as fact, or with a qualified "believed to be" or an "assumed to be", coming up in Modern Roses. The problem with assumptions and beliefs is that, that is all they are, and I am concerned, as a conscientious custodian working for the integrity of our knowledge of roses, that as the lyrics of a well known song state - " ......Be careful of what you do 'cause the lie becomes the truth. O, O, O, Billy Jean ........." You know how it goes?

I thank you for the offer to become a Premium Member. I do not have the time to become embroiled in fruitless conversations with people who are more interested in and expressing their own opinion, without regard to the experience of another. In the past fifteen years I have had that experience, and it only takes one instance of "armchair hypothesis" for me to drop the ball. I thank Patricia Routley for the salient piece of information that nails the lid on 'Billy Boiler'. But that's only an opinion from an uncredentialled contributor, but substantial enough for me to include 'Oscar Kordel' x 'Black Boy' as parentage of 'Billy Boiler', even with the understanding that the record keeping of Alister Clark was deficient in some quarters.
Reply #11 of 12 posted 27 JUN 09 by HMF Admin
"Perhaps you are referring to lineage".

Lyn well demonstrated her professionalism with an accurate and very courteous reply to your post. You in turn took the opportunity to use a minor spelling error to rudely retort with a childish insult followed by many paragraphs of self aggrandizement.

Personal attacks are not tolerated on HMF. Please apologize or find an alternate website to abuse.

HelpMeFind co-founder
Reply #12 of 12 posted 28 JUN 09 by Laurie Newman
I do apologise unreservedly to you Lyn, if you took offence at my remarks. They were not intended to be hurtful, or to be taken personally. The correct use of English will always to be respected, as is accurate reporting, and not the reverse.
Reply #13 of 12 posted 28 JUN 09 by cree
"non-existant" is nonexistent e not a and no hyphen.
© 2018