HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Recent Questions, Answers and Comments
-
-
|
Rose Listing Omission
Rosa microcarpa Retz.
A. J. Retzius in Phytographische Blätter pp. 40-41 (1803)
ROSA microcarpa caule petiolisque aculeatis, calycibus integerrimis glandulosis, pedunculis inermibus, germinibus ovatis nudis,
Radix haud repens.
Caules quinquepedales, stricti, aculeati.
Aculei recurvi substipulares et sparsi.
Petioli subtus dense aculeati, subvillosi, stipulis minutis serrulatis glandulosis.
Folia septena foliolis undique serrulatis, supra rugosa, subtus villosula, ovata.
Pedunculi tri-quadriflori, mudi, inermes,
Bractea sub quovis pedicello ovato-acuminata , serrulato-glandulosa, rarius trifida.
Pedicelli nudi, gabri, bibracteati, bracteis latis acuminatis.
Germen ovato-oblongum, nudum, glabrum.
Calycina folia parce glandulis pedicellatis aspersa, integerrima, petalis breviora, tribus apice parum dilatatis.
Petala rosea , sere biloba, grate odora.
Fructus ruber, parvus, ovato-oblongus, colo angustato.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
4 days ago by
 jedmar
|
This is also a synonym of Rosa cymosa Tratt.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
4 days ago by
CybeRose
|
Jedmar,
Rosa microcarpa Lindl. = R. cymosa Tratt.
Retzius had a different species in mind. Trattinnick (1823) thought Retzius' microcarpa was a form of R. canina: "b) R. microcarpa Retz, sorte nil nisi canina?"
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
3 days ago by
jedmar
|
Did he? I was checking on IOPI and GBIF. In this case needs more Research. Kew, The Plant List and the Encylopedia of Life say it is a synonym of Rosa glabrifolia C. A. Mey. ex Rupr.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
3 days ago by
CybeRose
|
Strictly speaking, Trattinnick reported that Sprengel thought R. microcarpa Retz. was akin to canina. Sprengel also (apparently) thought R. laxa Retz. was akin to R. cinnamomeae.
I haven't found Sprengel, yet. I did find Herrmann (1762), if you're interested.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/Ehret/Herrmann1762.html
I just found Sprengel (1820), but have not had a chance to read it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QRQAAAAAQAAJ&dq=editions%3AscxUnTpXfbIC&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q&f=false
The discussion of R. laxa and R. microcarpa Retz. is on 254-255
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
2 days ago by
jedmar
|
I have added the Translation of Sprengel's text, but it doesn't really help. The work of these earlier botanists is very often outdated. We need to look at when and by whom the synonymity of R. microcarpa Retz with R. glabrifolia C.Mey was postulated. That will be probably the latest knowledge.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
Karl, under Rosa glabrifolia is now the the text of Carl Anton Meyer on Rosa cinnamomea. He lists a number of species, including R. microcarpa Retz which are only slightly different from each other - maybe just transitions and not distinct species.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
yesterday by
CybeRose
|
Jedmar,
I do wish botanists would not use such trivial names that are bound to be duplicated by someone, somewhere.
Handbuch der Laubholz-Benenung (1903) lists Rosa microcarpa Hort. under R. cinnamomea dahurica C. A. Meyer. Is this the R. microcarpa of Retz.?
Back in the day, Erlanson had a heck of a time sorting out the synonyms and redundancies among the North American roses. She saw bushes that had branches corresponding to multiple species. And self-seedlings of some wild selections turned up numerous distinct varieties, species, subspecies ... judging from published descriptions.
Several years ago I was excited to learn that Rosa obtusiuscula had been discovered just over 20 miles from where I was living at the time. Then I read that Erlanson had raised a duplicate of the "species" from seeds of R. palustris.
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
today by
jedmar
|
Yes, some botanists are a pain.... Somewhere I read that there are two schools: the Separators and the Groupers. The Separators define new species based on small distinctions and add their name to it. Reading that they often base their naming on a single or few specimens, I tend to agree with the Groupers. The natural variation can easily comprise a few such "species". We need for Roses also someone like Hong De-Yuan, who analysed peonies in their natural habitat and found a great variation of morphological characteristics in the same species.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
... correct is ´Istropolitana´. The word "Istropolitana" is taken from the ancient Greek name for Bratislava (Slovakia), Istropolis, which means "Danube City".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Istropolitana
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Just am writing an article about the 15 best slovak roses, and one from is ´Tolstoj´. It seems growing good near the sea, too. Nice pics!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
6 MAR 10 by
kev
|
the picture shown for this rose must be the incorrect one as it has pink buds and the rose is yellow
|
REPLY
|
|
There are some on Google Images, if anyone wants to see what type of yellow it is.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
