HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
most recent 7 days ago HIDE POSTS
Initial post 10 days ago by lbuzzell
Is there a way I can look up roses by whether or not they bear ornamental hips?

Reply #1 of 21 posted 10 days ago by Jay-Jay
This author wrote two books about "nature-near" roses and has a lot of info in them about hips:
Will post some more URL's in oncoming replies...
Reply #2 of 21 posted 10 days ago by Jay-Jay
From the second book:
Reply #3 of 21 posted 10 days ago by Jay-Jay
From his first book:

A very long URL, but very informative, how the book's lay-out is.
Reply #4 of 21 posted 9 days ago by Jay-Jay
To HMF administrators:
It would indeed be nice, if this would be part of advanced search... and a description for different forms/types of hips. Whether they have moss, glands, or prickles.... etc. etc.
Reply #5 of 21 posted 9 days ago by lbuzzell
Many thanks and I second the idea of adding this to the advanced search!
Reply #6 of 21 posted 8 days ago by scvirginia
It is already possible to search; from 'Advanced Search', choose 'Growing'. Scroll down to 'Growing Notes Selection', and choose 'Produces decorative hips' (5th choice from the bottom).

Best regards,
Reply #7 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
You're right Virginia, but that's a very crude tool. I meant a more sophisticated-one.
When one searches for decorative hips, lots and lots of roses pop-up. But whether the hips those roses produce are particularly attractive and or special is not clear.

Most roses produce hips and all hips are decorative in my humble opinion.
Comparing to the number of flower-photo's, the hip-photo's are a minority... if they are at all present for that rose.
Reply #8 of 21 posted 8 days ago by scvirginia
Since most rose references don't describe- or even mention- hips, this is a case where users can help by leaving info that furthers the scope of rose descriptions. HMF volunteers assemble these descriptions from references + user comments and photos. I don't doubt that there are plenty of rose records that ought to have an indication that the hips are attractive, but don't.

I agree that photos of hips will be the most useful tool if you want to decide how special or decorative a rose's hips are; beauty being in the eye of the beholder. I would also like to see more photos of hips, and other plant details that can help with identification.

Reply #9 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
Hear, hear!
Reply #10 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
And hips don't just look pretty they can be a great help in identifying different varieties and species too.
Reply #11 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
And during the last sting of Winter, the birds found them interesting too, to eat.
They didn't seem to care about which color or form.
Reply #13 of 21 posted 8 days ago by scvirginia
So there's a timely reminder to take those photos of your rose hips before the birds eat them!
Reply #15 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
I already often photograph hips and prickles/stems of roses.
I really like those of Scharlachglut (they are nicely formed and big too) and those of Splendens are worth mentioning.
Reply #12 of 21 posted 8 days ago by lbuzzell
Hips also have culinary uses and as far as I know there's nowhere on the internet that assesses rose hips for taste. All I could find is that R. rugosa seems to be recognized by many people has having the tastiest hips. Unfortunately R. rugosa doesn't do well in our Mediterranean climate. Iceberg, Bonica, Old Blush, heritage climbing tea rose Madame Berard all provide hips in our garden. Mme Berard's hips are the largest by far, like little apples.
Reply #14 of 21 posted 8 days ago by scvirginia
You might find this information to be of interest. Apparently R. californica has tasty hips, and should do well in your Med climate:
There are related discussions at the same (searchable) forum.

Reply #16 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Jay-Jay only Rosa virginiana hips don't seem to be eaten by the birds. They are so bullet hard they almost hang on until flowering time.
My mother destroyed my milk teeth with rose hip syrup and Ribena (black current syrup) that was given to infants in their bottles in the late 1960's recommended as "health" foods!
Last year I crystallised Rosa canina hips and used them to decorate my Christmas cake I was going to take a picture but it had already started to be eaten before I realised and it was too late.
Reply #17 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
I grow that rose in our garden, but was never tempted to eat the hips, for they are prickly.
The hips of the Chestnut-rose taste like pine-apple.
Reply #18 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Rosa roxburghii hips never go any colour with me other than green. They often all fall off the plant altogether often in the space of two or three days.
Reply #19 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Jay-Jay
Take a look at this photo, the accompanying text and the comments:
Reply #20 of 21 posted 8 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Oh that's interesting. I will definitely see what mine smell like this year. Last year we had two hard frosts at the end of April, that did massive amounts of damage to commercial orchards and vine yards and stopped my Rosa roxburghii from flowering so no hips. In China apparently they are made into wine.
Reply #21 of 21 posted 7 days ago by lbuzzell
Many thanks, Virginia!
most recent 1 JAN SHOW ALL
Initial post 27 DEC by JJS
Since this is indeed Rosa arvensis, it better be moved to Rosa arvensis.
Reply #1 of 7 posted 28 DEC 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 #2 of 7 posted 28 DEC 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 #3 of 7 posted 28 DEC by scvirginia
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,
Reply #4 of 7 posted 30 DEC 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 #5 of 7 posted 30 DEC 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 #6 of 7 posted 31 DEC by scvirginia
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.

Reply #7 of 7 posted 1 JAN 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:
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

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.
most recent 30 NOV HIDE POSTS
Initial post 30 NOV by scvirginia
I know that many of the Spinosissimas have attractive autumn foliage, but I see no photos of this rose showing fall foliage. Is that not one of its attractions, or is it just an oversight that there aren't any photos at HMF?

most recent 9 NOV SHOW ALL
Initial post 7 AUG 13 by Patricia Routley
'Horace Vernet' was a crimson-carmine or deep red rose. This seems too pink.
Reply #1 of 2 posted 9 AUG 13 by Museo Giardino della Rosa Antica
Seems that the original Horace Vernet was velvetly red, but now the rose sold under this name is pink.
See the thread in the member comment section.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 9 NOV by scvirginia
Is it possible that this is a photo of the pink Gallica 'Horace Vernet'? If it is definitely a Hybrid Perpetual, perhaps it could be 'Joseph Vernet'?

© 2018