|
|
'La Pyramidale' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
About 'Pallidior'
Just to tell you that :
The roses (simple and semi-double) 'Pallidior' are known with this name at least from the begining of the XVIIe century in continental Europe. Thus they have not been obtained by Du Pont in France nor in Holland around 1800.
They are Gallicas, not centifolias.
Regards,
Daniel
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
16 JUN 11 by
 jedmar
|
We have listed both Gallica and Centifolia as classification. You can see from the References that Prévost lists 'Porcelaine' syn. 'Pallidior' as Rosa provincialis, different than Rosa gallica. The very old Velvet Rose (Rosa rubra pallidior, Holoserica) is also listed as Rosa provincialis or Rosa centifolia.
We are dealing here with a classification which early in the 19th century did not have a clear-cut separation into Gallica and Centifolia, but had different class names for their hybrids, and their hybrids with Rosa damascena.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for your answer.
This is because you have included all the synonyms mentioned by Nicolas Joseph Prévost from its 1829 catalogue that I decided to send you a message. This is not because Prévost and myself were borne in the same town Rouen, capital of Normandy, but because of the quality of his reference work !
N° 256 Pallidior is classified by Prévost in the "XXVIe espèce. Rosa pronvincialis. Rosier de Provence." Note that he includes (page 84) this "species" in the "Roses de Provins" with 2 others : "Provins (sensus stricto) et Galliques". These 3 "species" are now called Gallica roses.
During many centuries, Damas, Gallicas, and Centifolias were also called Provence roses. Thus, Provence is not a synonym of centifolia. Prévost does not include 'Pallidior' in the Centofolias.
Indeed, 'Pallidior' during the Renaissance was already recognized as a Rubra rose (Linné changed the name to Gallica rose) and was called 'Rosa rubra pallidior' by the famous Bauhin brothers, i.e. Rosa gallica 'Pallidior'. Thus, since the Renaissance to nowadays, 'Pallidior' has never been considered as a centifolia rose.
If you go to the pages 51 and 86 of its catalogue, you will see that Prévost established clear-cut separations between these families of roses.
I hope this can help.
Daniel
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
17 JUN 11 by
jedmar
|
Yes, I have read his classifications. I have been tracking rose classifications since the 16th century and have seen that they do not quite fit into our strict Damask / Gallica / Centifolia separation, but have intermediate groups. If you could check 'Holoserica' on this site, you will see that various
English sources from 1797-1811 considered it a centifolia, while today we would probably say Velvet Rose = Maheca = Gallica. The class shown therefore has both groups, in order to indicate the ambiguity.
|
REPLY
|
|
The problem with part of the botanical English litterature is that credit has often been given to the work of John Gerard who is now clearly recognized as a plagiarist, dishonnest and incompetent (see Anna Pavord The naming of Names. London. 2007).
Such confusions were not made on the Continent. Holosericas, (and 'Pallidior') were not classified as Centifolias.
|
REPLY
|
|
