This rose has been subject to two rounds of DNA testing that I know of, with interesting results. The 2006 paper, 'Characterization and Genetic Relationships of Wild Species and Old Garden Roses Based on Microsatellite Analysis,' placed it in a cluster with Centifolias, rather than Albas or Damasks. The dataset used for a 2016 paper, 'Nineteenth century French rose (Rosa sp.) germplasm shows a shift over time from a European to an Asian genetic background,' found that it had genetic markers in common with a group comprised almost entirely of rubiginosa hybrids, bred by Dupont, Vibert and Lord Penzance. Thus, it may not be a Damask with canina influence through an Alba cross, as traditionally supposed, but rather a centifolia with some (section canina) eglantine mixed in.

I had always wondered about Petite Lisette's distinctive foliage, with leaflets which are not very characteristic of any of the early garden rose classes, being relatively small, unusually shaped, and strangely shiny, yet with a release date that would seem to preclude most foreign imports. Now, looking at it and my eglantine, it makes complete sense, and I'm aghast that I never contemplated such an obvious possibility. I suppose if there's a moral to this, it might be that old roses are often more complex hybrids than we give them credit for, and that when something looks odd, like unexpectedly shiny foliage, or a peculiar lack of thorns, we might want to consider European species roses, which were everywhere, and as well loved by bees as any garden rose.