HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournal 
kev
most recent 2 DEC 22 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 12 MAY 10 by kev
because of the flower size and other considerations this variety should be considered a polyantha or floribunda.it certainly isnt a large flowered rose.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 13 MAY 10 by Cass
You should address your concern to the American Rose Society's Registration Committee. LCl is the ARS class, and that's what HMF reports.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 2 DEC 22 by NewDawn
I agree that while it may be officially listed, its flowers are no more than an inch. Perhaps this was a translation issue. Perhaps a mention of flower size could be put on the front listing as many readers dont read the comments or even notice the different tabs. Just a suggestion. :)
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 2 DEC 22 by jedmar
The bloom size of 1.25" is there
REPLY
most recent 25 JUN 22 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 14 APR 10 by kev
the rose shown hers is that of a deep cerise pink not a light pink.either the description is wrong or the photo is incorrect.In this case, the photo is definately wrong.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 14 APR 10 by jedmar
The photo shows a mislabeled plant in one of the large rosaries. I believe the original 'Sans sépales' is extinct.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 25 JUN 22 by Callimarcio
The original 'Asepala' alias 'Sans Sépales' isn't extinct at all!
'Asepala' is well and fine under its true name at L'Haÿ.
In fact Jules Gravereaux added twice this variety in his collection:

First under the French name : 'Sans Sépales' (originally kept at L'Haÿ in the bed LXXV, B22), then mislabelled in the collections after him, during the 1990's and inexplicably by 'Brennus' (perhaps due to the extreme curators negligence at L'Haÿ).

Second under its Latin name 'Asepala' (bed LXXXI, B19), it came back indeed later through some exchanges with the USA during the late Gravereaux years.

The 'Sans Sépales' however has substituted 'Précoce' (Vibert, 1843) at L'Haÿ, as well other mosses (John Cranston, Rotrou, etc... due to heavy negligence). This problem can be also seen in the Loubert's collection.
In my opinion, after having diving deeply in archives and old collections, this is more the original 'Précoce' who's gone forever...
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 25 JUN 22 by Callimarcio
you're right, 'Sans Sépales' was mislabelled at L'Haÿ and was strangely replaced by the bengal 'Brennus' (Laffay, 1830). This mistake is still present at L'Haÿ and in the Loubert's collection.
REPLY
most recent 5 APR 21 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 15 MAR 10 by kev
again the picture here does not fit the rose described .the rose is a white/pale pink. the picture here is that of a bright rose pink type there are so many like this here. that i doubt the professional objectivity and research savy of those who built this site. to say the least i am disapointed.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Jeff Britt
I believe that the photo is one of a plant sold as or labeled as Madame Dubost. You will note on the description page that the roses photographed may have a different identity. HMF actually HELPS identify roses mislabeled in commerce or public gardens. There are many old 19th century roses in collection and commercial nurseries with incorrect names. Most people here recognize this. Just the same, until the plant is correctly identified, isn't it better to identify it as it is sold or seen? What else should we call the photographed rose? If you have any better ideas, please offer them. The point is to confuse as few people as possible while working to correctly identify old roses. And this site had done much to accomplish that.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Here here!

HMF is the most comprehensive and up to date collection of rose information ever assembled, most FREE to the public.

Many roses exist mis-labeled in old collections and arboretums as seems to be the case here.

We're all doing our best to make heads or tails of the information being presented. It is through the generous efforts of those donating time and energy that the site exists at all.

It's very easy to criticize and much more difficult to be constructive in terms of making the information presented as accurate as possible.

Much thanks to all involved.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Cass
Thanks for the votes of confidence. There's nothing like criticism to motivate us to find more old rose references. In this case, those references disclose a range of color descriptions from dark bright pink to pinkish white with bright pink center. Somehow, over time, those descriptions have been distilled to two words: "light pink." Two similar rose names further complicate the task. After reviewing contemporaneous sources, I do not share the the anonymous poster's certitude that the color of this rose is pale pink.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by jedmar
It seems that you have not fully understood the nature of HMF. Photos can be posted by every member, References by administrators. It happens that photos are not in line with the descriptions. This can be an indication that the rose in commerce or in gardens is incorrectly identified. The following process of comparison and discussion leads to better insights.

I also believe it would be more honest to have your criticisms posted under your name, and not anonymously.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 5 APR 21 by Michael Garhart
HMF is a volunteer system, which means you can also add insight. It improves year by year. When I first joined HMF, when it was new, the only other thing that existed were a few small online listings and places like bulbnrose. I joined HMF when it was new, and I have contributed to it every year. Many of us have. It's a mostly selfless act. You should too :D The more accurate, the better.
REPLY
most recent 8 JUN 19 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 20 APR 10 by Bruce Treloar
Available from - Glenorie Roses
brucetreloar@gmail.com
REPLY
Reply #1 of 12 posted 20 APR 10 by Patricia Routley
Are you sure of the veracity of this one Ozeboy? I thought only the climber was available in Australia.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 12 posted 23 APR 10 by kev
ozeboy is quiet correct here .the best source is our mr.rose himself David Ruston of Renmark who lists it and has it in his collection.his list is available online and is a great reference to have.kev.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 12 posted 25 APR 10 by Patricia Routley
Hello kev. I do see in David's 2003-2004 Collection listing, on p36 that he is listing 'Souvenir of Wootton' hybrid tea, 1888. However correspondence from Pat Toolan and Margaret Furness who have spent much time in David's garden helping him to prune etc, wrote to me in 2006: <i>"Once again we were stopped in our tracks by .....and yet again by a pillar rose labeled 'Souvenir of Wootton', but which appears to be its sport 'Climbing Wootton' circa 1897 HT from Butler/Craig – bright magenta red full blooms beckoning us from afar." </i>

Perhaps when someone is next at Renmark, they could confirm for you that the plant at David Ruston's garden is the 1897 climber, and not the 1888 bush.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 12 posted 24 APR 10 by Cass
It would be nice to see a photo of the rose.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 12 posted 15 APR 14 by Todd Kerr
we have the only souvenir de wootton in existance (that we know of) here in Baltimore, a cutting was sent to us from sangerhousen and the original plant there has since been destroyed. I will upload some photos but helpmefind has to approve of those and post them. our wootton is growing in a public garden and we have successfully rooted cuttings
REPLY
Reply #6 of 12 posted 18 APR 14 by Margaret Furness
The plant at Renmark has been hacked back to bush size. When we first saw it, it was behaving like a pillar rose.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 12 posted 23 AUG 14 by Margaret Furness
A plant at Renmark, grown from the original one on David Ruston's property, is definitely a climber. I'll photograph it when it's in flower.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 12 posted 24 AUG 14 by Patricia Routley
We look forward to seeing that Margaret.
Here is a rose which came to me as 'Souvenir of Wootton' and my provenance reads something like: Rustons-1; a lady-2; a man who budded it on to R. multiflora-3; a nursery who shipped it to WA-4; in 2009. To date it has not climbed, but in this garden I wouldn't place too much importance on that. I have listed it in my garden records as 'Climbing Wootton'. However, I am having difficulty in reconciling my rose with the photo of 'Clg. Wootton' in the Heritage Roses in Australia journal Winter 2006, page 58.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 12 posted 24 AUG 14 by Margaret Furness
I think we got a wrong'un the first time round from the same source, and had it re-budded. I'll have to wait till it flowers to double-check the one we have now. The original plant is still there, if needed.
REPLY
Reply #10 of 12 posted 24 AUG 14 by Patricia Routley
Re the photo of 'Clg. Wootton' in the Heritage Roses in Australia journal Winter 2006, page 58. It may have been the rose that was circulating as 'Argosy'?
REPLY
Reply #11 of 12 posted 25 AUG 14 by Margaret Furness
That issue is of course the one missing from my collection. But if it's the photo I posted on hmf under Cl Wootton, the plant wasn't / isn't growing among Clark roses. There are Clark roses growing isolated elsewhere at Ruston's, but that's as much as I can offer till flowering season.
14 Nov 2014: I missed the spring flush, but have posted a whole-plant photo to show that what we have in the HRIAI Collection is definitely a climber.
REPLY
Reply #12 of 12 posted 8 JUN 19 by Ms.Lefty
Todd - Fellow Baltimoron here! I'm wondering whether your Souvenir de Wooten is still alive and growing (at Cylburn, I assume), and whether you (or anybody else) been able to propagate it.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com