|
|
Rockhill 
-
-
|
Is there anyone else who has trouble with believing that this is progeny of R. gigantea? Are there any other R. gigantea seedlings that stay to only one meter tall?? Sorry to appear skeptical, if not poorly informed, but it just doesn't seem to me to be very likely. That said, since there is no comment posted here raising any doubts about the stated parents, I guess no one else shares my skepticism.
|
REPLY
|
|
It was not uncommon for older hybridizers to simplify lineages or leave out a generation or two. Ralph Moore has been known to do this. My guess is there is a generation missing and that this cultivar is a self pollinated seedling of the cross as stated.
Remontant gigantea hybrids can stay in the 3' range as demonstrated by some of the early Teas. Mine is several years old, 4' tall and 3' wide with just a bit of shaping. FWIW
Robert
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
6 DEC 15 by
CybeRose
|
According to the patent application:
"It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the hybrid seedling Rosa gigantea, with Mme. Cecile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Karl. We've added that sentence to the patent section on the main page.
|
REPLY
|
|
Could we take another look at the parentage given for this rose please?
Some references do give the parentage as Dainty Bess x R. gigantea but the breeder said otherwise on the patent application when he wrote: "It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the HYBRID SEEDLING [my emphasis] Rosa gigantea, with Mme Cécile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
I understand this to mean that the pollen parent was a hybrid seedling with a lineage that included both R. gigantea and Cécile Brunner but was more complex than a simple cross of those two roses.
At the moment, the parentage given on HMF is Dainty Bess x R. gigantea. It seems that it should be Dainty Bess x R. gigantea seedling or Dainty Bess x hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Mlle Cécile Brunner in its lineage.
|
REPLY
|
|
Billy - I have added references and changed the parentage. Please take a look at the Note on the main page.
......and thank you for my own root plant. It is doing well and flowering now. I have planted it, just for fun, fairly near 'Mlle. Cecile Brunner' and, coincidentally, close to 'Mme. Abel Chatenay' whose colour it was said to be similar to.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks very much Patricia - that is much closer. Duehrsen didn't say the pollen parent was a simple cross of the two roses but rather, a hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Cecile Brunner included in the gene pool. He said Cecile Brunner was 'one of its earlier progenitors' so we know there were additional un-named roses in its lineage.
The notes you have added make this clear.
I am unsure of what the system allows you to put in the parentage field, and how you get around these instances when you know some, but not all, of the roses that have gone into making a new variety.
I'm so glad the rose is doing well for you. The ones here are too. I've found it a quietly determined rose for its first years - more and more exuberant as it becomes established.
I noticed that the date of introduction in the earliest references is given as 1947 and in later ones as 1948.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
I have tried to view the patent for Improved Cecile Brunner, with no luck. Is the patent number given on the main page correct.?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
CybeRose
|
Try this link:
https://patents.google.com/patent/USPP851
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
Very many thanks, Karl. It worked. I had tried all sorts of approaches before but did not get the result I wanted.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I've a strong suspicion that Bermuda spice is this rose
|
REPLY
|
|
Has it been determined that "Bermuda Spice" is 'Caroline'?
|
REPLY
|
|
I beleive it is, but that is only my opinion.
|
REPLY
|
|
I'm intrigued by Guillot's statement that 'Caroline' was an ancient variety edited (?) by Guérin in 1835. ["Caroline est une très ancienne variété éditée par Guérin en 1835": quoted from Journal des Roses Magazine (1910) Page(s) 137.]
Would you assume from that that 'Caroline' was a sport of an older rose? I'm not sure how to interpret Guillot's use of the term 'éditée' here...
Thanks,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
I would say the translation is "Caroline is a very old variety introduced by Guérin in 1835" and from that I wouldn't assume a sport. Although he was responsible for the introduction, no mention of the breeder was indicated here.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 7 posted
3 MAY 20 by
Rockhill
|
Edité in French can mean published and when applied to a rose, it is probably equivalent to released or put into commerce.
|
REPLY
|
|
I grow "Spice" and I agree !
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Some of the later descriptions of the Tea Belle Emilie seem to be of the Gallica of the same name. Check against the translation of the earliest description of the Tea and you will see a difference in fullness, colour and shape of flower.
|
REPLY
|
|
Which ones please Rockhill?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
14 OCT 19 by
Rockhill
|
I was thinking of the references that refer to Belle Emilie being very full and flat when open whereas the earlier descriptions says it is semi-full or semi-double and cup-shaped or expanded when open. Look at the Rosenlexicon entry and two other German references.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
14 OCT 19 by
jedmar
|
One problem could be that 'Belle Emilie' and 'Thérèse Stravius' were originally distinct Teas or Chinas. It seems that Paul was the first to list them as synonyms, 20 years after they were obtained. They were possibly similar, but a bit different and then got confused in the nurseries.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 4 posted
14 OCT 19 by
Rockhill
|
That's a possibility. There seem to have been several gallicas called Belle Emilie in the past - one of which at least is extinct. Have a look at what Joyaux says about Belle Emilie in his book on gallicas - La Rose de France. It would be good to sort out the confusion that reigns about roses of this name today.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Months ago now, I sent a donation of $50 US to give me premium membership but this has not yet been shown in My Account. I would really like to access lineage files.
Hillary Merrifield Rockhill
|
REPLY
|
|
The star next to your member name properly indicates you are a premium member (thank you!) so something else is at play. Let's start with a specific example so the support group can attempt to replicate the exact issue. Please provide an example of a rose you were not able to view lineage for.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
10 OCT 19 by
Rockhill
|
Thank you for your reply. I had not seen a star alongside my name until just now and yes - I am able to access the lineage files.
|
REPLY
|
|
Had you not been able to view lineage until recently ? Please contact the sales dept so they can review the details and adjust your premium membership expiration date.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 4 posted
11 OCT 19 by
Rockhill
|
My records show that the donation of $50 US was made through Paypal on 30th August, 2019. I will note in my 2020 diary that the next donation is due on that date.
I am very appreciative of the work HMFdoes and find it a useful research tool.
Hillary Merrifield Rockhill
|
REPLY
|
|
