HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Adam' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 80-764
most recent 28 SEP 14 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 28 SEP 14 by CybeRose
Gardening Illustrated 6: 330 (Sept 13, 1884)
Tea Rose Adam.—This is one of the most useful Roses in cultivation, and I venture to say that some of these days it will stand in the front rank of Roses grown more for the continuous supply of buds and flowers which they yield than for the decorative effect which they are capable of affording. My first acquaintance with this Rose was made on the Continent some years ago, where, in s. large establishment, the back wall of a Camellia house was devoted to Tea Roses, amongst which were some plants of Adam. All the kinds planted there did well, and gave a large amount of bloom, but there were periods when they were out of bloom with the exception of Adam, which always furnished a bud or two in times of need, and often caused the remark to be made that it was worth all the other varieties put together. It is, however, only fair to say that that favourite of the market growers, Niphetos, did not have a place there; but although Adam scarcely ranks so high as that popular kind, it comes next to it, and the two should always be found in company, forming, as they do, a good contrast as regards colour. I cannot think of two better kinds for a small greenhouse than these two Teas, and I am sure amateurs would find them more satisfactory than Maréchal Niel, which, glorious Rose though it is, is not so well fitted for small houses, and its flowering season is far too short for those who like to cut a Rose every few days through the spring, summer, and autumn months. Speaking of Tea Roses the other day to a friend, a large rower of them, he confirmed my good opinion of Adam, but considers it to be quite distinct from President. This is a matter of some importance, and a point which should be cleared up, as if there are two distinct Roses under the same name, it may be that the true Adam is often not obtainable, and that some disappointment may be the result, that is supposing the two kinds not to be equal in general good properties. What is the opinion of Rose growers in reference to this matter?
REPLY
Discussion id : 80-112
most recent 23 AUG 14 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 23 AUG 14 by CybeRose
The Garden 17: 398 (May 1, 1880)

President (sent out by Mr. W. Paul, of Waltham Cross, in 1860); growth moderate; colour, rose with salmon shade; flowers large, moderately full, much resembling Adam; Mr. Paul, the disseminator, states that this is an American variety, but I am unable to learn by whom it was originated.
REPLY
Discussion id : 53-887
most recent 1 MAY 11 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 1 MAY 11 by John Hook
Roseraie de L'Hay has a rose by the name of president that isn't remotely like the adam/Mme Berard clone
REPLY
Discussion id : 34-258
most recent 30 JUL 09 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 26 FEB 09 by billy teabag
Adding the list of roses I grow to My HMF the other day, I came up against a few dilemmas regarding roses that are in world-wide commerce under incorrect names and wondered whether we might have a conversation about how to find a way to acknowledge this in the HMF listings without causing more confusion.
Alphabetically first on my list, "Adam" is a perfect example.
The same rose is available widely under this name but it is not the original 'Adam' of 1838.
The range of colour and bloom form displayed by this rose over different seasons and conditions does make for confusion, but if anyone interested takes a look at Randy's excellent series of photos, you will see just how widely it can range.
'President' (Paul 1860) is not and was never the same as the original 'Adam', even though it did appear on lists of synonyms in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
The rose in commerce as Adam may be the real 'Mme Berard'. There is good circumstantial evidence to support this, including relative thornlessness and Dijon Tea features, but unless a reliably named plant of 'Mme Berard' with a continuous link to its name exists with which to compare "Not Adam", this remains an educated guess.

There are other cases where exactly the same misnamed rose is widely available in the rose world, like Francis Dubreuil and Triomphe du Luxembourg; and then there are the names like Mme de Tartas and Souvenir d'Un Ami that are attached to more than one variety and need an explanatory prefix or suffix - eg "Huntington Mme de Tartas"; "Mme de Tartas -Australian foundling".

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the problem of misnamed roses can be tackled with the least amount of confusion and disruption to growers and nurseries?
Billy
REPLY
Reply #1 of 13 posted 26 FEB 09 by cree
Hi Billy,
This is a very worthy discussion and I one that often gets me confused.
With my limited experience and working knowledge, I'll get the ball rolling.
Here are some ideas (Feel free to laugh out loud!)

For different roses with the same name. Have a page for each and the search engine would list them under the name they are sold under with a hyphen and the distinguishing ID.
For Example
Rose ABC- Australia.
Rose ABC- USA

For those roses that are incorrectly named but the proper ID is not known. Perhaps have the name as it is sold, but on the page have a conspicuous area state the roses in not correctly ID's. Much as you did in the Tea book.
Rose EFG
Incorrect ID, real identity of this rose in unknown. (or what have you)

When a rose is now correctly ID'd but still sold under the "Old" incorrect name.
This I see as the most tricky and perhaps the most important.
The goal should be to educate and promote the use of the correct name, which would over time lead to the end of the use of the incorrect name. Exactly how to do this is hard.

Maybe something could be done with the search engine that would tell you the name used is incorrect and lead you to the correct name and link. I am sure this would be a lot more complicated than this. For example the collected information would also have to be moved from the incorrect name page to the correct name page and an explanation of where it went. It could get very confusing if not well thought out..and I am glad I don't have to figure it out!
REPLY
Reply #2 of 13 posted 26 FEB 09 by billy teabag
Thanks Deb
You are right that they fall into those three broad groups.
Your suggestions are a really sensible and simple way to deal with many of these.

It's the shades of certainty; fact vs opinion that prove challenging, though I think we are gradually getting more used to the idea that uncertain identifications go hand in hand with old roses and that 'our' roses might not necessary be correctly identified.
With the very variable roses it takes a long time to know whether we are looking at different varieties or just different faces of the same rose. But as more people share their photographs and descriptions of their roses over the seasons - typical and untypical, warts and all - we all get to know them a little better - and some of the impostors reveal themselves as well.
B
REPLY
Reply #3 of 13 posted 26 FEB 09 by cree
Are not the shades of certainty, provided clearly stated as such, much better then a false belief?
Having references on HMF as meaningful as possible is what I believe we all want.

It's easy to problem solve when you really don't understand the complexities of the problem...I wish I could be more helpful.
Deb
REPLY
Reply #4 of 13 posted 26 FEB 09 by jedmar
This is a minefield! Up to now, clearly mislabeled roses had a note explaining that the rose in commerce is not the original. Then we had the case of Sombreuil, where the ARS ruled 'Mlle de Sombreuil' a Tea and equated it with La Biche in USA. This gave HMF the synonym La Biche (in commerce as), beside the proper La Biche. (Incidentally I am not so happy with the Mademoiselle bit, as early sources always seem to speak of 'Sombreuil).

The brackets solution was then again used for Park's Yellow and the currently distributed rose titled 'Parks' Yellow Tea-scented China (in commerce as)'. Moving nurseries and gardens was easy, as clearly no one has the real thing. However, some members' photos are still with the original. It would have been better if those members moved the pictures themselves, so that they became aware of the issue and the change.

Now come the difficult ones: Who has 'Monsieur Tillier' and who has 'Marie Nabonnand'?
Who has the real 'Dr. Grill' or 'Adam' or...? If there is a consensus that all Adams are incorrect, then the solution would be easy as with Parks. If not, members will continue posting their photos with the original 'Adam' and not with a 'Adam (in commerce as)'.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by Sandie Maclean
jedmar asked-"Now come the difficult ones: Who has 'Monsieur Tillier' and who has 'Marie Nabonnand'?"
My understanding is that 'Beales' Monsieur Tillier' is 'Marie Nabonnand'
'Marie Nabonnand' is also the rose sold in the USA as 'Noella Nabonnand'
The rose sold in Australia as 'Noella Nabonnand' is the correct one.
This information is gleaned from various sources on the internet and of course may be inaccurate.
REPLY
Reply #10 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by jedmar
Yes, you are right. But unless each listed garden owner responds, we cannot be sure who has which version and whether someone does not have the original 'Monsieur Tillier'. With nurseries, it is generally possible to identify via the photos on their websites, although there are cases where they use not their own photos.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by Cass
Yes, Billy, this is a conundrum! One idea would be for HMF to have a checkbox to explicitly note oft-questioned identities. In other words, while not taking a position on which nursery, if any, has the right 'Adam,' HMF could note that the identity of the rose in commerce as 'Adam' has been questioned (only expressed more succinctly and clearly). The problem is that the respected, best-informed questioners need to document their doubts, a sensitive task but one which you Teabags have addressed admirably for the Class you researched. HMF would need something more than one person's hunch to question an identity of a rose in commerce.

As for the confusion of Paul's 'President' with 'Adam,' that could be cleared up with 'President' entered as a separate name in HMF.

HMF is a fairly decently tool for identifying the situation where the same cultivar is masquerading around under several names. However, I don't see a database handling this any differently than noting the identity of the rose in commerce has been questioned. Again, the most respected questioners need to express their doubts, so HMF's notation is backed up by a reference.

Most nurseries and rose growers care very little for the details of rose identification. In fact, I would say most nurseries and rose growers resist corrected identities. The label says it is 'Rose X,' and to many, 'Rose X' it will be - forever. The ARS reported recently that the most popular exhibition rose in the past 10 years is...'Nicole.' The trouble is that the rose most widely in commerce for the past 20 years as 'Nicole' is really 'Hannah Gordon'.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by cree
Hi Cass,
The issue of where I should post my photos of some of roses, is area I really thinks needs to be addressed more completely. Souvenir d'un Ami is not the same rose as shown on the SduA page. I have others like this, such as MME de Tartas in Australia.

I know I have been instructed to post these rose and the others on My Garden page, but this does not make them searchable for those in Australia looking for information on our roses by their names. The pages do not indicate that the roses in Australia under these names are different roses. I know when I got mine, I thought the rose on HMF was what was getting, which is was not.

Is it possible to have a different page where the country is indicated for these and other roses in this same situation. Such as Souvenir d'un Ami-Australia, Souvenir d'un Ami-USA or something like this?
Or
Say on the Souvenir d'un Ami page that the rose sold under this name in Australia is not the same rose as shown and HMF does not acknowledge Souvenir d'un Ami in Australia on their web site?
Thanks,
Deb
REPLY
Reply #7 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by Cass
Deb, I appreciate your problem. For now, I would still post the photo under the name by which it is sold. I suggest you post a comment with your photo that explains the issue. Then the identity problem is documented and your intentions are clear. It also informs other rosarians who see the photo and comment. If the identity problem is ever sorted out, HMF would have enough information from your comment to assign your photo to the right rose name. For example, a comment might say:
Souvenir d'un Ami as sold in Australia by XYZ nursery. This rose seems to be different from the other(s) posted under this name.

This is only preliminary. I believe the teabags' book has a list of questionable identities. I will ask other HMF admins their opinions. Sometimes extra study names are an obstruction to research because they just sit in HMF with no documentation under an obscure name. As an example, search HMF for the word space _ not_space. You'll see many roses listed with their identities questioned...and they become orphans.
e.g. Captain Kidd - NOT
Caroubier - NOT
Bloomfield Dainty - NOT
Chamption of the World -NOT (two of those)
NOT Karl Herbst
White Bath - NOT

At least a rose posted under the name by which it was sold will attract the attention it needs to be acknowledged as a misidentified rose.

Cass
REPLY
Reply #8 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by billy teabag
Perhaps we could begin with the (quite short) list of Teas in commerce in Australia that are not the same as roses going under the same name elsewhere?
Cree's suggestion of creating a new entry with the country as a suffix to the name the rose is sold under is a good solution and enables photos and comments to be easily attached to the correct rose.
I can help with this if you like.

Could a start also be made on the more clear-cut cases [of misidentified Teas] dealing first with matters of fact - the roses that are well documented - and tackling the ones that are light on fact and heavy on opinion if and when we're feeling stronger?

Some of the misnamed roses are quite straightforward. The same rose is in commerce, and in important public collections under the same incorrect name world-wide. That they are misidentified is clear - detailed botanical descriptions from around the time of their introduction do not match those of the roses carrying the names today.
Their more recent discovery, provenance and lines of distribution are known and in some cases, there are published records of how they came to be misidentified.
I hope to have more time in the coming months to check the references on HMF and upload references that have not been added yet.
It's excellent that HMF has the references arranged chronologically. It enables us to begin at the earliest refs and see whether descriptions change over time. It also shows how derivative some of the references are.

You are right that HMF entries should not be changed on the basis of a hunch. But there is enough factual information out there to prove beyond doubt that some of our roses are misidentified. Proving the correct identity is a much harder task altogether.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 13 posted 27 FEB 09 by jedmar
Why not one step at a time? I would start with a list of the roses which you say are "straightforward". These can be discussed and a decision taken.
REPLY
Reply #12 of 13 posted 12 APR 09 by jedmar
The earliest mention of 'President' as a synonym of 'Adam' is from 1881, over 20 years after the introduction of the former! The synonymity seems to have been based on a statement by Joseph Schwartz, later in 1889 officialized by the Royal Horticultural Society. Clearly, this will not pass the test today: The people who knew the real 'Adam' and the real 'President' apparently thought they were similar, but never the same. The consequence for us would be to drop the synonym 'President' for 'Adam' and assign Henry Bennett's hybrid teas to the former. When we do that, there are no known descendants of 'Adam' before 1882, i.e. after 'President' was renamed 'Adam'. None in over 40 years! This probably means that the original 'Adam' was infertile (a triploid?), while 'President' was not, and that all descendants of 'Adam' could actually be descendants of 'President'.

'Adam' seems to have been pure light pink, while 'President' had a strong salmon shading. The two were also often compared to 'Souvenir d'un Ami' (another mystery rose); which seems to have been similar to 'Adam', but rather with a nodding habit.

'President' is said to be of American origin and a descendant of 'Caroline'. Any further information on this is most welcome.
REPLY
Reply #13 of 13 posted 30 JUL 09 by La Roseraie du Désert
As a nursery we have begun adding the provenence of the clones we grow, also when posting pictures on HMF we are doing the same. Although some of our Teas are of dubious naming ie Captain Philip Green, If we consider a rose distinct eneugh from other varieties we feel it warrants keeping it in production even if false, we need to be carefull before sending some of the misnamed to extinction. Provenence is one way to help to identify, maybe on some of the disputed clones something could be mentioned under the 'References' tab
REPLY
© 2017 HelpMeFind.com