HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Jocelyn Janon 
-
-
|
Tis is not a variety Massad
|
REPLY
|
|
Salut Dominique. C'est une rose de JP Ditiere?
|
REPLY
|
|
Salu, Jocelen
J'espère que tu vas bien;
Oui c'est une variété de Jean Pierre Dittiere comme son appellation commerciale l'indique avec les trois premières lettres.
|
REPLY
|
|
Coucou Dominique.
Je vais bien et j'espere que tu te portes bien aussi.
Je vais corriger cela.
Dis mois si il y a d'autres erreurs et je corrigerai.
Amities.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
18 SEP 20 by
jedmar
|
This may be the same as the 'Elégante' attributed to Laffay (ca. 1835).
|
REPLY
|
|
And / or 'Elegans' (Multiflora)?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
There is some question as to the correct parentage of 'Peace'. There is an article in the October 2005 ARS Magazine in which some data is missing/incorrect. Particularly the parentage listing, which has one of the parentheses missing. The missing parenthesis belongs immediately after the 'Souv. de Claudius Pernet', thus: ((George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)) X Margaret McGredy
I have always felt that such use of parentheses should be done this way (using a square paren. when multiples are needed) to avoid confusion:
[(George Dickson X Souvenir de Claudius Pernet) X (Joanna Hill X Charles P. Kilham)] X Margaret McGredy
You might also note a misspelling in the parentage, which I find very amusing: The pollen parent's name is spelled "Margaret McGreedy" in the ARS article!
In Alain Meilland's book Meilland: "A Life in Roses", Alain clearly states the parentage to be the same as it is listed in HMF:
Joanna Hill X (Charles P. Kilham X Margaret McGredy).
Surely Meilland would not have allowed an error of pedigree to be published? (Although the book was co-authored with someone else, and perhaps there was an error introduced inadvertently. Perhaps it was even intentional! Who knows. It is not unheard of for breeders to put other hybridizers "off the trail" by publishing misleading breeding data, though I cannot imagine why that would be warranted some 35 years after its introduction.) Yet clearly there are numerous references to the more complicated parentage, including the listing in MR10 (a resource that is not without its share of errors, admittedly). Perhaps Dr. Tommy Cairns can provide provenance for that listing?
I have Antonia Ridge's book, "For Love Of A Rose", which is referred to in the ARS article, and without reading the whole thing through, I cannot find any reference to exact parentage in her writings. (I have been saving the book for Winter reading, you see!) Perhaps the ARS author did not find this parentage listing is Ridge's book but gleaned the data from Modern Roses. This makes it more important to determine provenance of the ARS's data.
Which one is correct? I don't know for certain. Someone with a better source of information needs to submit their knowledge.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Paul. This is what HelpMeFind is all about. Collecting the expertise, and opinions, of people from around the world. That expertise can be the observation of a beginning rose gardener or the knowledge of an esteemed authority like Paul Barden. We are very grateful to have all levels of expertise contributing to HMF.
|
REPLY
|
|
We broached the subject with another of the rose community's noteworthy, Bill Grant, and he contacted Meilland. Speaking with his friend Jacques Mouchotte (in charge of all the hybridizing programs at the Cannet des Maures) he was told "The Modern Rose genealogy of Peace is perfectly correct, absolutely right. That's exactly what it is".
As such, we are updating HelpMeFind's parentage for 'Peace' but we share Paul Barden's wonderment of the erroneous listing in Alain Meilland's book.
P.S. Thanks Bill. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this rose stuff - you should consider writing books or giving lectures maybe.
|
REPLY
|
|
Grace,
The parentage listing currently presented here at HMF is the correct one:
Seed: [ George Dickson × Souvenir de Claudius Pernet ] × [ Joanna Hill × Charles P. Kilham ]
Pollen: Margaret McGredy
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
8 MAY 06 by
Unregistered Guest
Thank you so much. So the legend of an unknown seedling X Margaret Mcgredy can be scrapped. I also have a note from somewhere that Joanna Hill and Peace share the parentage of rose Michelle Meilland ?? Do you think Meilland Roses - or another site - would have a chart with the complete family? |
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
18 AUG 20 by
jedmar
|
Surprise, surprise! The page from Francis Meilland's notebook which allegedly shows the cross 3-35 of 'Peace' reported in the Meilland book states the parentage to be 'Joanna Hill' x seedling 103-32-A, which according to the book was 'Charles P. Kilham' x 'Margaret McGredy'. This used to be the parentage listed by HMF prior to 2005.
The only thorn in my side is that the notebook has originally pencilled cross 3-35 on June 3, 1935 as
'Joanna Hill' x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). This pollen parent is mentioned in a further cross above as no. 99.32 (non-repeating yellow large bloom). 2 such plants were budded. The notebook has then been modified to show 55 plants budded on June 15 with the cross 'Joanna Hill' x 103-32 A.
Was the original cross of June 3 discarded and the number replaced with a new idea on June 15? Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?
|
REPLY
|
|
"(...) Or the notebook doctored to tell the story in the book?"
Seriously ????????????... As if Peace is not already a story of its own.
If I can post the page (you could have cite me) on HMF, because I don't know where you read (127.7 x Dr. Eckener)
No magic... the cross was done partly 3rd of June and continued 15 of June (more flowers... more pollen)
Then the 1st notation was showing the cross of 103-32-A (if you can read the code... I'm amazed, because I can't and I have the notebook), and after was completed by the full number (Cross 1932 - Selected during spring 1935...nothing magic)
55 was the number of flowers hybridized, not plant budded, as in June 1935, the seedling 3-35-40 was just an idea in a young 22 years old French breeder notebook.
Seedling of the 3-35 cross (with the N°40 selection) will bloom for the 1st time in Spring 1936.
Please ask us when you have questions on our varieties, we will be delighted to help you
Matthias Meilland
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 9 posted
25 JAN 21 by
jedmar
|
Matthias, we can discuss it here. I was looking at a scan of this page which you had published earlier on fb. My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). 52 flowers were hybridized on June 3. The pollen sedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur"
Later this entry was modified with a stronger pencil:
- June 3 is now June 15
- 55 plants instead of 52
- the pollen parent was replaced by 103-32 A
Anyway: Joanna Hill x 103-32A is also not the complex parentage which was announced at a later stage.
|
REPLY
|
|
Jedmar,
"My point was that seedling 3-35 was originally pencilled as Joanna Hill x (127.7 x Dr. Eckener). "
- 127.7 cannot be a seedling number for us (We always use "cross number - year - seedling number"). I can "see"(1277 x Dr. Eckener) but it could have been the intended cross, as Francis was working on it during the winter. But still 1277 or 127.7 is not a number from us, so we might "read" something that we cannot understand.
"52 flowers were hybridized on June 3."
- I don't see 52 on it, only a 2 is clear.
"The pollen seedling was also used in cross no. 1-35 with the remark "non remontant jaune grosse fleur""
- Yes. and it is noted Yellow also on this cross.
" June 3 is now June 15"
- Because the page contains 3 other crosses made June 3 (traditionally, we start early June in Lyon), it is logic, but we don't see the 3 (but we see the 15 was added later). We can only assume.
- If you look, even the year date on 3-35 was rewritten...
"55 plants instead of 52"
- Not plants, (FL = Fleurs / Flowers) The 52 added in a ink pencil is the number of fruits harvested (52 fruits on 55 flowers)
My point was that we don't doctored Francis' notebook. This is the original notebook, but this notebook was written by a 22 years old, and it is not the only element to base the History of Peace ;)
Don't hesitate if you have any questions about it
Cheers
Matthias Meilland
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
"Paul" has a surname is incorrect.
Emmanuel-Maxime Buatois' necrology.
Le 13 août 1966, la ville de Dijon perdait son dernier rosiériste Emmanuel-Maxime Buatois. Né en 1896, il était le fils d’Emmanuel-Denis Buatois, lui-même rosiériste. Pépiniériste et horticulteur rue Ernest Petit, la passion d’E-M. Buatois était de créer des roses.
Jean-François Bazin « Roses et rosiéristes », Le Tout Dijon, FDijon, Clea, 2003, p. 81
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
5 NOV 20 by
jedmar
|
Emmanuel-Maxime it is, thank you! However, "Paul" might have been his calling name. I have seen several such cases in France where the real name wasn't used. In this case possibly because his father was also Emmanuel. In any case there is a riose named 'Paul Buatois'. Also the reference you cite assigns a number of roses we list for the last years of the father actually to the son. This needs some corraboraion and rework.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have made it "Emmanuel-Maxime aka Paul" for the time being.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
5 NOV 20 by
jedmar
|
Thanks! 'Gabriel Noyelle' fits to the son's breeding programnme, as the father has no Moss roses. Regarding 'Reveil Dijonnais' I am uncertain, as Pernetianas were more the father's domain. That would also apply to 'Marie Lavier' as he made crosses both with 'Souv. de Claudius Pernet' and 'Mme Edouard Herriot'. In that case would have been a seedling posthumously introduced by the son.
|
REPLY
|
|
Looks like Emmanuel-Maxime was called "Maxime" in the rose journals of the type.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
