(1981)  Page(s) 194.  
 
'ORMISTON ROY' ( Shrub ) . S. G. A. Doorenbos, The Hague. Second generation hybrid from R. pimpinellifolia x 'Allard' -Small bright green leaves on a thorny bush. Flowers single, bright yellow, about 2 in. across, followed by large rounded dark maroon heps on similarly coloured pedicels. Its chief claim to fame is as a parent to 'Golden Wings' (q.v.). 4 ft. Early summer. Heavy fragrance. A.M. 1955. 

(1981)  Page(s) 152.  
 
The rose known as 'Canary Bird', although sparsely armed except on strong growths, clearly belongs to R. xanthina f. spontanea and is the commonest representative of the species in gardens. It makes a fine arching shrub to about 5 ft high, bearing canary-yellow flowers about 2 in. wide in late May or early June but, like R. hugonis, is subject to die-back if grafted.

(1981)  Page(s) 107.  
 
Lists Cooper's Burmese as a cultivar of Rosa laevigata; questions the characterization of 'Cooper's Burmese' as a form or hybrid of Rosa gigantea and instead suggests that it was a seedling of unknown parentage that most closely resembles Rosa laevigata. Detailed explanation of Roland Cooper's collection and distribution of seed from which 'Cooper's Burmese' was grown. Preserved specimens of plants grown from the same batch of seed that produced 'Cooper's Burmese' have been re-examined and shown to be Rosa laevigata.

(1981)  Page(s) 178.  
 
Coryana

(1981)  
 
p120 R. multiflora x R. gallica (or hybrid of R. gallica) – The rose ‘De La Grifferaie’ once much used as a stock, shows the influence of both the suggested parents, see further on p178. Very similar to this is ‘Byzantina’, the Constantinople rose, which Dieck found in Bulgaria and put into commerce (Gartenflora, 1889, p159). The Belgian authority Crepin identified the Constantinople rose as R. multiflora x R. gallica, a parentage that Dieck found hard to accept, on the grounds that the rose had reached Bulgaria too early – by the 1820s – for R. multiflora to be a possible parent. It is, however, by no means impossible that cultivars of R. multiflora had reached the gardens of s. W. Asia from China at an early date…..

p178. ‘De la Grifferaie’ (Shrub), Vibert, 1846. Fully double flowers borne in small clusters reminiscent of many of the old Gallica roses; magenta-cerise, fading to lilac-white and deliciously scented. It is a vigorous plant achieving 6 ft. Stems stout and almost unarmed; leaves broad, dark green and rounded. The stipules are much frayed, which suggests that R. multiflora was one parent, the other presumably being one of the old French roses. It has for long been known as R. multiflora ‘De la Grifferaie’ in the nursery trade and was at one time used as an understock; it is tough and long-lived and its presence in old gardens usually indicates that it has survived the rose budded onto it.

(1981)  Page(s) 61-62.  
 
.....Under var. nastarana Christ mentioned the 'Gul e Rescht' or Rescht rose, a garden rose of Iran which is an obvious hybrid, with small, double red flowers, strongly pinnated sepals and toothed stipules. It bears some resemblance to the Constantinople rose (R. byzantina Dieck), which Crépin judged to be a hybrid between R. gallica and R. multiflora. The second of the two roses introduced by Paul as R. Pissardii seems to be similar to the Rescht rose.

(1981)  Page(s) 125.  
 
R. x hardii Cels Flowers two inches across, yellow petals with an orange spot at the base of each. Hardy made several crosses of R. persica and other roses. Hardii was the only one distributed to nurseries and was described by Cel Frères with a colored plate in 1835.

(1981)  
 
p115 'Hillieri', described on p 185, is a seedling of R. moyesii; it is sometimes placed under R. x pruhoniciana Schneid., the name given to a supposed hybrid between R. moyesii and R. willmottiae; but 'Hillieri' is unlikely to be of that parentage.

p185. 'Hillieri' (Shrub). Hillier & Sons, Winchester, 1924. A seedling of R. moyesii. Of very open growth, wide spreading, with small leaves. Flowers single, in clusters, of intense maroon-red; a wonderful sight when seen with the sun shining through them, against the green foliage and blue sky. A few of the flowers develop large flagon-shaped heps. 10 ft. Early summer.

(1981)  
 
R. incarnata Mill. R. alba var. incarnata (Mill.) Pers.; R. carnea Dum.-Cours.; R. provincialis var. incarnata (Mill.) Martyn – There has been much confusion over the name R. incarnata. As used by some pre-Linnaean botanists, it, or the plural Rosae incarnatae, meant what is now known as R. damascena, while some French botanists of the last century took Miller’s R. incarnata to be a form of R. gallica with sparsely armed branches and glandular-compound leaflets. A comparison of authentic herbarium specimens shows, however, that Miller’s R. incarnata is identical to the ‘Cuisse de Nymphe’ of French gardens. The English name for this – ‘Maiden’s Blush’ – is sometimes attributed to William Hanbury, who has a charming passage about it in his Compleat Body of Gardening (1770-1). In fact, Miller himself used it in the 1752 edition of his Dictionary.
The Maiden’s Blush differs from R. alba in the colour of the flowers, the almost unarmed stems, the more numerous leaflets (mostly seven), and the presence of numerous needle-like eglandular prickles on the flowering branchlets below the bracts. It is almost certainly the same as the R. incarnata of Parkinson and a very old rose.
Miller was apparently unacquainted with the ‘Great Maiden’s Blush’ (R. alba var. regalis Thory), which is now commoner in gardens. But it is listed in Weston’s Flora Anglicana (1775) as ‘Great Maiden’s Blush Rose’, with R. incarnata major as the Latin name.
The R. incarnata of Bot. Mag., t. 7035, is not Miller’s but a form of R. gallica.

(1981)  Page(s) 109-110.  
 
R. 'Macrantha' [Note: cultivar notation, not species notation] R. macrantha Hort, not Desportes; R. waitziana var. macrantha Rehd., in part [includes long description of the rose, including where it is illustrated, e.g. Willmott, Genus Rosa; large, spreading shrub, sparse prickles, 3-5 leaflets, single pink flowers about 3 inches wide, red hips with persistent sepals]
'Macrantha' shows the influence of R. gallica and could be a seedling of some garden hybrid with that species in its make-up. Canon Ellacombe was growing it ... by 1888, and thirteen years later is was figured in Revue Horticole... with a description ... by Mottet, on which the account in Willmott's The Genus Rosa, is largely based. Mottet assumed, like most later authors, that this rose was R. macrantha Desportes (for which see below), though in fact it is very different....R. 'Macrantha' (of gardens) is one of the most beautiful of single roses. Being of lax habit it needs support if to be grown upright, but makes a useful ground-cover, especially on banks.
R. macrantha Desportes [Note: this is one of two purported species roses named Rosa macrantha]. R. canina var. grandiflora Thory in Redouté Les Roses, Vol. III, p. 75, t.;  R. canina fulgens Lemeunier ex Thory; R. macrantha var. lemeunieri Franch. - This rose, at least according to the received version, was found by the French rosarian Lemeunier growing in a hedge near La Flèchein the department of Sarthe. He sent a plant (probably by propagation) to the Luxembourg garden, where it flowered in 1822. It was portrayed by Redouté in the same year under the name R. canina var. Grandiflora Thory, and given specific rank by Desportes in 1838... Desportes' own description, although agreeing with Thory's, was based partly on a specimen identified as 'Avessé, Martigné, (Goupil).' The explanation appears to be that this specimen came from the garden of Lemeunier's friend and fellow rosarian Goupil, of the Chateau de Martigné, Avessé, and was one of the former's propagations from the original plant (Gentil, Roses indigènes de Sarthe (1897) pp.66-75). In this work Gentil voices the suspicion that the La Flèche plant was not in fact spontaneous but actually raised by Lemeunier himself, and accuses him and Desportes of inflating the flora of Sarthe with garden plants. Lemeunier is known to have raised roses from seed.... In the Kew Herbarium there is a specimen of R. canina grandiflora Thory collected in the Luxembourg garden in 1829. From this and from the original description and portrait, it is plain that this rose and the 'Macrantha' of gardens are not the same. The true R. macrantha of Desportes shows no obvious influence of R. gallica, having strong, uniform hooked prickles. The leaves have the rachis hairy beneath; leaflets five or seven, with whitish undersides; sepals with long expanded tips. and flowers of a vivid rose. The buds, according to Thory, were covered before expansion with a glaucous bloom, which can also be seen on the herbarium specimen.
Subsequently, Desportes himself found a rose near La Fléche which he identified as R. macrantha and still another, also referred to as R. macrantha, was found near the neighbouring town of Angers and transported to the Botanic Garden there. Specimens from these roses were distributed to various herbaria as R. macrantha and are probably responsible for the belief that R. macrantha is a hybrid between R. gallica and R. canina, since, unlike the true R. macrantha [Desportes], they showed the influence of both species in their armature. It is tempting to suppose that the 'Macrantha' of gardens descends from the Angers plant, which might have been propagated and distributed by one of the many local nurseries. But Boreau, the Director of the garden, gives a description of the Angers plant in his Flore du Centre de la France...and further details are provided by Crépin ...(Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg., Vol 8 (1869), p. 285) [Note: R. macrantha Boreau is this version of R. macrantha.]. From these it is evident that the 'Macrantha' of gardens is an altogether different plant, whose origin remains obscure.