-
-
Initial post
27 DEC 17 by
 JJS
|
Since this is indeed Rosa arvensis, it better be moved to Rosa arvensis.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 7 posted
28 DEC 17 by
jedmar
|
Actually this is a plate (no. 2054) related to the description of the Ayrshire Rose in Curtis's Botanical Magazine in 1819. When the description says Rosa arvensis, β. The Ayrshire Rose, it is to be understood as that the author considers Rosa arvensis as the Type (which is then α), and the Ayrshire Rose (β) as a variety of Rosa arvensis. Please have a look at the text under References.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 7 posted
28 DEC 17 by
JJS
|
I understand your point, but don't think it is as clear cut as you present it here.
According to Sabine (see below), the rose in the figure was drawn after a real Rosa arvensis from the gardens of Joseph Banks, but confused with the Ayrshire rose. Rosa arvensis β refers to (as far as I understand) Joseph Woods, “A Synopsis of the British Species of Rosa”, Transactions of the Linnean Society, vol. 12, pages 159-234, 1818.
Was the mysterious Ayrshire rose just Rosa arvensis, as Dr. Sims suggests?
Not according to Neill (1819) who gives a lengthy description to point out the differences with Rosa arvensis.
Not according to Lindley (1820) who thought it was just Rosa sempervirens.
Not according to Sabine (1820) who actually claims to know the Ayrshire and who recalls that the Ayrshire rose came from Scotland and was planted in Joseph Banks garden in 1811. He explicitly states that the figure in Curtis' Botanical Magazine is NOT the Ayrshire rose. Sabine differentiates the Ayrshire from both arvensis and sempervirens, but ends up with the possibility that it is a variety of sempervirens, thus coining the name Rosa sempervirens capreolata.
In contrast, the Ayrshire rose had already been described by the French botanist Nicholas Charles Seringe as a variety of arvensis:
There is a reference in De Candolle (DC), 1825, as variety ε of R. arvensis Huds:
ε. Ayreshirea (Ser. mss.) aculeis tennibus acutissimis, foliolis ovatis argutè serrates subconcoloribus tennibus, pedunculis glanduloso-hispidis vel rogosis. Culta in hort. Brit. Sub nomine Ayreshire-Rose. R. capreolata Neil Edimb. phil. journ. n. 3. p. 102 ? (v.s. ex hort. Banks).”
Note De Candolle's reference to Seringe’s manuscript (Ser. mss). I find it impossible to obtain the “Decades des Roses Desséchées”, not even from the Swiss national library (Seringe lived in Switzerland). Seringe, in other works refers to the first five “Decades” (from 1804/05) and writes some corrections and comments to them. The final “Decades” are supposed to be from 1818, but whether they ever appeared in print or just remained a (now lost) manuscript is unclear to me.
So, was Sabine wrong? To me it seems that he was the person best informed to decide about the correctness of the figure, and he decided against it. But whether the Ayrshire rose was a variety of arvensis or of sempervirens will probably always remain a mystery.
|
REPLY
|
|
I find it amusing that I posted this illustration in both the Ayrshire Rose and R. arvensis records, and in both instances it was considered to belong to the other category.
Because Sabine said this was R. arvensis, I added it there. Because the plate said it was an Ayrshire Rose, I added it here. The illustration was flagged in both locales, poor thing.
I certainly agree that what early writers meant when discussing these roses will probably always remain a mystery.
Happy New Year,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 7 posted
30 DEC 17 by
JJS
|
I cannot see why it should not be a Rosa arvensis, and I still think it belongs there. The subsequent discussion of the photeunder R. arvensis also seems to accept it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 7 posted
30 DEC 17 by
jedmar
|
Virginia, your description of the picture is quite correct: This is the "Illustration of Rosa arvensis, β. The Ayrshire Rose from Curtis's Botanical Magazine", so it should stay under the Ayrshire Rose, where it belongs.
Whether the drawing is a good one is another matter. Reading through the detailed descriptions of Neill and Sabine, the differences between R. arvensis and the Ayrshire rose (as far as to characteristics which can be seen on the drawing) are said by Sabine to be:
- R. arvensis: 7 leaflets, often single
- Ayrshire Rose: 5-7 leaflets, often in 3s, red falcate prickles on young shoots
Based on these characteristics, it is more the Ayrshire Rose than R. arvensis. However, Sabine also says that the drawing has the leaflets rugose and pale underneath; the sepals not reflexed, without pinnae, and that the germen are without setae; which he says are all characteristics of R. arvensis.
I would rather presume that the draughtsman wasn't exact. Or maybe the plant was not a pure Ayrshire, but a seedling from the nurseries of Sims - he says it was sold as the Ayrshire for years.
Let us find and upload other drawings of the Ayrshire Rose, or show comparative photos of R. arvensis and presumed Ayrshires, before we start moving pictures around. There are now only 4 Pictures on this page, of which 3 are qualified as being erroneous, and the fourth, my habit photo from Loubert's garden, I would not eat my hat stating that this is the correct R. capreolata, knowing how BL planted all with the names he received them with.
We have had other cases on HMF where old drawings have been questioned. We have placed them both with the original name and to another listing which we agreed was more correct - with explanations.
|
REPLY
|
|
Jedmar, I agree that it's quite likely that the Ayrshire and Arvensis roses were confused early on, making it tricky to find illustrations that are definitely one or the other. From what I've read, there was disagreement about what was a "pure" Ayrshire, and some additional confusion between R. arvensis and R. sempervirens. It was a messy time for rose nomenclature.
JJS, this illustration is posted to the R. arvensis record. I posted it there because of Sabine's commentary. However, the plate is clearly labeled as an illustration of the Ayrshire Rose, and so it belongs with the historical record of the Ayrshire Rose.
My own theory is that 'arvensis' (of the fields) was used as a description for various wild-growing roses (individually or as a class), and it probably took some time to sort out which "field rose" should be designated as the species Rosa arvensis in the exclusive, precise botanical sense.
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 7 posted
1 JAN 18 by
JJS
|
Virginia and jedmar,
Happy New Year!
We agree that more study is needed, so I guess it's fair enough not to change anything just yet.
A part of the confusion is that the entry about the Ayrshire rose (description, photos, and references) seems to refer both to the Ayrshire rose in commerce and to the original Ayrshire rose from 1768/9. I suppose we agree that those are two different roses (even though Peter Beales writes about the "original Double (sic) Ayrshire of 1768" and claims that 'his' 'Janet B. Wood' is a rediscovery of the original!).
jedmar: Sometime, perhaps, you may want to split the Ayrshire into an "in commerce" and a "lost(?)" entry.
If the current entry is meant to refer to the rose in commerce, then the photos of the semi-double roses can stay of course.
I cannot refrain from two more comments:
1.
Sabine (1820): R. arvensis: 5-7 leaflets
De Candolle (1825): R. arvensis: 5-7 leaflets
Woods (1818): R. arvensis: 5 leaflets
Mary Lawrence (1799): R. arvensis: 5 leaflets
Redoute & Thory (1817): R. arvensis: 5-7 leaflets
Lindley (1830): R. arvensis: 5-7 leaflets
2.
Francois Joyaux, in "Nouvelle enceclopedie des Roses anciennes" writes: “Peut être s’agissait-il en fait d’un hybride entre Rosa arvensis et Rosa sempervirens, ce que semblent confirmer de recherches récentes”.
(Perhaps it was actually a hybrid between Rosa arvensis and Rosa sempervirens, which seems to confirm recent research).
It would be nice to know which recent research he refers to.
|
REPLY
|
|
