HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
-
-
|
Trying to identify a 5 petal white rose with heart shaped petals, yellow stamens and pistils, and rounded leaflets (7). Lax habit like a rambler. Probably a very common species type but I just can't think of a name, and 24 pages are the result of a search. Suggestions?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 6 posted
7 APR 22 by
 Lee H.
|
Based on the leaf shape, I’ll venture ‘Rosa bracteata’.
|
REPLY
|
|
Blossom looks correct for bracteata as well.
|
REPLY
|
|
Bracteata repeats, and suckers viciously. Does that fit with your rose?
The buds are distinctive.
It's on my Never Again list.
|
REPLY
|
|
We're on the same page Margaret.
It took me years to finally kill out rooted segments that kept regenerating.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 6 posted
8 APR 22 by
Duchesse
|
It's on public property up a dirt road at Lake Barambah at Moffatdale in QLD. Went to visit this morning. confirmed by woolly hips/blossom remains. seems to be an original bush near the front of someone's property, and then 5 more bushes within 50 metres. All beasts at least 3 m x 3m. The birds are loving it in there. We have alot of blue wrens around, if they have shelter.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 6 posted
8 APR 22 by
Duchesse
-
-
|
Rose listing omission: "Garden of St Erth", polyantha, found by Tommy Garnett on the land now owned by Diggers Club in Victoria, Australia. Petals white with a medium pink border, fading to white. Flowers in clusters. Leaves light green. Low-growing. I think it has been in commerce in Australia in the past.
I have photos to post.
|
REPLY
|
|
Added, thanks Margaret. I cannot find a reference which confirms it was found by Tommy Garnett. It seems likely, but HelpMeFind works from references. Jennie O’Brien-Lutton first mentioned it to me in 2007 so that was the date I have used for the moment.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I found a large bushy rose growing in a ditch by a parking lot (near some other unkempt cultivated plants (cannas, tree aloe, bush aster). The rose bush was about 5x5x5 ft, maybe taller, with small canes with few to no thorns and small serrated leaves in sets of seven. Flowers were about 1.5 in diameter, in bunches of 10 or so, double, maybe 40 petals each, large yellow stamens. When I first noticed the flowers on May 19, they were all white. When I saw them again today, June 29, the flowers had partially turned pink. Any ideas what this might be? Location is Marin County, CA
|
REPLY
|
|
Possibly 'Iceberg'? I seem to recall reading that 'Iceberg' is widely planted in CA in commercial settings.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think we'd be struggling without photos. It will help if you can take a photo of the whole bush, one of flower/s, a side view of a bud, side view of prickles, photo of leaves, hips if any. Is it still flowering now?
When you go back in to your post, it will have developed a button to Add Photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
I tried to add photos, not sure if it worked. I’m on mobile, I’ll try again later from laptop. Thanks
|
REPLY
|
|
It does look similar to Iceberg, but I see no mention of the distinct pink fade.
|
REPLY
|
|
I don't grow 'Iceberg', but perhaps someone who does grow it in Northern CA or elsewhere can speak to whether it sometimes ages to pink.
I know that 'Iceberg' can sport sometimes, but that doesn't sound like what you're describing.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
'Lady Medallist' - I had accepted that a plant I found and thought was 'Lady Medallist' was indeed this rose. Reading descriptions which say lighter reverse this evening has made me seriously question the identity now. Photos under this rose seem to have darker reverses too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
18 NOV 20 by
HubertG
|
I've noticed quite a number of roses in older catalogues having the description of either a lighter or darker "reverse" than the other side of the petal, and when you look at photos or illustrations it's the opposite way. My initial impression was that perhaps the rose was incorrect too, but now I've just come to think that whoever wrote the description simply meant that the petal faces contrasted, and perhaps they had a different idea of what was the reverse and what was the front of a petal. After all, the inner face of an opening bud is, in a way, the "reverse" of a petal compared to when it's fully open when it's the "front". I suppose it can be a bit subjective. I couldn't tell you offhand the names of the roses where I've seen this type of confusing description but if I recall or come across them again I'll mention them here.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
19 NOV 20 by
HubertG
|
They were just my thoughts but you're welcome, Ozoldroser. Take a look at Billy Teabag's photo of a bud of 'Lady Medallist' from spring 2008 (photo id 103184). To my way of thinking the darker face of the petal is technically the reverse, but looking at this example it's also easy to imagine someone describing the reverse of the petal as being lighter. And as you know one catalogue description can be repeated verbatim ad infinitum.
The provenance of 'Lady Medallist' seems to be a pretty convincing one in my opinion.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
