HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Double Moss Rose' Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 105-083
most recent 27 AUG HIDE POSTS
Initial post 26 AUG by flodur
This is not a reference!

"Modern Roses 10
Book (Apr 1993) Page(s) 104.

Communis Moss, pale rose, ('Centifolia Muscosa'; 'Common Moss'; 'Mousseau Ancien'; 'Old Pink Moss'; 'Pink Moss'; R. centifolia muscosa); Appeared in southern France about 1696"

Who does say this? Where can I find this reference of 1696?
Reply #1 of 6 posted 26 AUG by Patricia Routley
C. C. Hurst. See 1971 reference.
1596 is being quoted by the 1911 and 1914 references.
Reply #2 of 6 posted 26 AUG by flodur
Thanks Patricia, I have seen these references, but none gives a reference for 1696 or about 1696, they just claim. (I don't have the Hurst & Dickson's).
Reply #3 of 6 posted 27 AUG by Patricia Routley
You don't need to have them. HelpMeFind has them for all to see. I have all on my bookshelves and have double checked them.
The 1914 Dicksons cat has "Raiser and Date of Introduction 1596". The contributing administrator has modified this to [Introduced by 1596. ]

The 1911 reference is exact as we have it.

Hurst's work was reprinted by Graham Thomas. See The Graham Stuart Thomas Rose Book, page 328 for more.
Reply #4 of 6 posted 27 AUG by flodur
Sorry Patricia, I have no problem to believe that you quoted correctly. I would like to know the reference of the year 1696 or 1596. Do these authors say where they found these years or just claim it? The oldest reference I found is from 1699 (Elias Peinen, Hortus Bosianus).
Reply #5 of 6 posted 27 AUG by Patricia Routley
I understand that - but thank you.
The two authors just claim it, with no explanation.
One of these days you might share the 1699 reference with HelpMeFind.
Reply #7 of 6 posted 27 AUG by flodur
Hi Patricia, I have the Hurst in my computer together with hundreds of rose books and articles, just forgot it....!
He refers to "Gerard, The Herball, or, Generall historie of plantes /gathered by John Gerarde of London, master in chirurgerie, 1597", page 1085. But as he says, the 'Velvet Rose' described in the book, has nothing to do with 'Muscosa'.
I think we have to refer to "Hortus Bosianus, 1699". That is what Hurst says:
"... a circumstantial account of the existence of the Moss Rose in the south of France, at Carcassonne, as far back as 1696, and this appears to be the earliest date mentioned for the existence of the Moss Rose."
Discussion id : 103-828
most recent 1 AUG 17 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 AUG 17 by Sambolingo
Available from - Old Market Farm
Discussion id : 19-471
most recent 14 JUN 07 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 11 JUN 07 by Giuseppe's Rose Garden
The name 'Common Centifolia' for the Moss Rose is incorrrect. The 'Common Centifolia' is an unmossed variety, synonymous to 'Cabbage Rose'.

Reply #1 of 1 posted 14 JUN 07 by jedmar
Thank you for your comment. we made the corrections.
Discussion id : 19-470
most recent 11 JUN 07 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 11 JUN 07 by Giuseppe's Rose Garden
The synonym 'Single Moss Rose' for this rose is incorrect. The 'Single Moss Rose' is a distinct soirt of the 'Common Moss Rose' or 'Old Pink Moss', which itself is fully double flowered.

© 2018