HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Mademoiselle de Sombreuil' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
The study name "George Washington Richardson" should probably be added to synonyms for 'Mlle. de Sombreuil', as its identity appears to be pretty certain.
It was found on the grave of George Washington Richardson, a Northern California blacksmith who died, age 32, in 1896.
|
REPLY
|
|
Has anybody grown "George Washington Richardson" alongside "Huntington La Biche" or "La Biche (In commerce as)"?
|
REPLY
|
|
No. There is little distribution for George Washington Richardson. But everyone here who knows both roses recognizes them as identical.
|
REPLY
|
|
I suspect that we may end up with many foundling roses in the 'Mlle de Sombreuil' file one day. Whilst HelpMeFind does tell us which name the photographer has selected when the photo is opened, it is not immediately obvious at first glance. I think it will be valuable to have the photos edited with the name of the rose, (or foundling name, whichever is relevant). Would the photographers please insert names for the photos in this file and then I will feel happy to merge "George Washington Richardson". I have added the names to the "George Washington Richardson" file, but it is peak spring here and my garden calls.
|
REPLY
|
|
The only photos I am aware of are mine. But I'm not quite sure what I need to do.
Let it rest until you are at a less-busy time! Here, I'm just praying that cooler weather will continue. The plants seem to think it will.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Jeri. I was probably not clear in my comment. I will rephrase by asking:
Are there any photos in the 'Mlle de Sombreuil' file which were the rose once known as:
• "Huntington La Biche"
• "La Biche (In commerce as)"
If so, which ones please? I believe the "study name" should be included in the photo's description.
|
REPLY
|
|
Oh, I see. Likely all of them, since it is STILL in commerce as 'La Biche' despite the fact that most authorities are now in agreement that the rose which was at the Huntington as 'La Biche' is in actual fact 'Mlle. de Sombreuil'.
Let me take a look at the various photos and give you a better answer.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
When one clicks on Sombreuil (LCl, Unknown circa 1880) this rose pops up???
And Huntingdon la Biche too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
3 JUN 17 by
 jedmar
|
Jay-jay, what is your question? When I click on the LCl Sombreuil I only get the Climber = Colonoila White, not the Tea by Robert. "Huntington la Biche" was the Name of a found rose which was identified as 'Mlle de Sombreuil'.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
3 JUN 17 by
Jay-Jay
|
As I wrote, every time I click on the name of that rose (Sombreuil (LCl, Unknown circa 1880)) when searching, 3 or more different roses pop-up. And sometimes colonial white.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
4 JUN 17 by
jedmar
|
All roses with the Name Sombreuil should pop up - I get 5 different.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Available from - Kurinda Rose Nursery
|
REPLY
|
|
I think this would be "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn" - see Patricia's and Billy's opinions below, that it's not a Tea and therefore unlikely to be Mlle de Sombreuil. But an excellent rose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
5 JAN 14 by
Tessie
|
"La Biche was the flawed identification that came from the Huntington Library Rose Garden for a rose discovered by Phillip Robinson. He disagreed with John MacGregor’s ID and set about proving his own conclusion as to the identity of the rose, which he has shown is almost certainly Mlle. de Sombreuil. Phillip confirmed his identification by seeing Mademoiselle de Sombreuil in l'Hay des Roses."
This is a very strong statement that HMF has posted on the description page for Mlle de Sombreuil. Much information is left out however. It indicates Phillip Robinson "set about proving his own conclusion as to the identity of the rose, which he has shown is almost certainly Mlle. de Sombreuil." It doesn't say how he did this, or to whom he proved it. No date, no citation whatsoever. If this proof is so conclusive, shouldn't it be shown here on HMF or at the very least cited? If it is not, then it seems questionable for HMF to have the statement, "which he has shown is almost certainly Mlle. de Sombreuil."
As long as proof of identification has not been provided on HMF, might it not be a good idea to either list the Vintage origin found rose as precisely that, a found rose, simply "in commerce as" Mlle de Sombreuil, or even as Vintage Mlle de Sombreuil?
The rose in commerce as Mlle de Sombreuil in the USA may not be the same rose in commerce as Mlle de Sombreuil elsewhere in the world. Sangerhausen, l'Hay, and Tete d'Or are all growing a rose identified as the tea Mlle de Sombreuil. Are they all identical? If not, which one (or ones, if any) is the correct one? Given those questions, this statement, "Phillip confirmed his identification by seeing Mademoiselle de Sombreuil in l'Hay des Roses" does not seem to stand up to much scrutiny, nor be something that should appear on the description page for the rose on HMF as definitive. There is too much doubt. Saying a person has seen a rose growing in another (and very distant) garden seems fairly weak as a means of identification. What is left out is important--did he grow the found rose side-by-side with the rose from l'Hay to compare them? Was a DNA comparison done, in the same manner as was done for the found rose Maggie (by the University of Montreal) to confirm her identity as Mme. Eugène E. Marlitt?
In this day and age, with all the scientific tests available, it seems premature to give a firm identification to a rose without either doing these tests or if they've been done, making the results public.
Melissa
|
REPLY
|
|
I don't know how precisely ID can be confirmed for a rose- eg could you be sure one rose was the same as another, or could it be a sport? The major problems with DNA testing are the cost, and the philosophical aspects of spending money on what is pretty trivial, really.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 10 posted
6 JAN 14 by
jedmar
|
I completely agree with your viewpoint. The note in HMF seems to have been added in 2006 after the ARS "ruled" that the rose known in USA as 'La Biche, is in fact 'Mlle de Sombreuil'. There is an article explaining the reasoning, which I have copied for my files and which unfortunately I cannot currently access from overseas, but to my view, their reasoning would never have stood up to a critical scientific analysis. In the following, I planted the US 'Mlle de Sombreuil' ex Vintage with ones from Sangerhausen and Tete d'Or and they were all different over a couple of years. At L'Hay, I have only seen the old 'Colonial White', labeled as 'Mlle de Sombreuil', so I do not know where the rose which led to the identification stands.
|
REPLY
|
|
Phillip is first and foremost a gardener and I am sure his budget was reasonably limited. I too am just a gardener and there is no way I could employ DNA to help confirm my foundlings. But it will never stop me from trying to identify my own many foundlings through the literature and HelpMefind. That is a major part of the fun and fascination of old roses. I like to share my findings, but do know that I often make foot-in-mouth blunders. Sometimes, blundering around is the only way forward.
I know Phillip looked closely at the tiny characteristics of a plant , consulted the old literature, and then, with this rose, made his findings public (in his Vintage Gardens 2000 catalogue, page 66). I know also that he saw the Australian foundling “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn” in 2006 and thought that it may be ‘Mlle de Sombreuil’.
As far as I can see, there may be three distinct roses being called ‘Mlle de Sombreuil’ or ‘Thé Sombreuil’:
1. Sangerhausen clone. Same as Tete d’Or and L’Hay clone
2. USA clone (syn “Huntington La Biche”). Provenance: Robinson found-1; Vintage-2; Huntington-3; Antique Rose Emporium-4; Chamblee’s-5; )
3. Australian clone “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn”*
I am not sure where the European clone [?] “Merete Stenbock” fits in.
I won’t muddy the waters by even mentioning the climber ‘Sombreuil’ (Colonial White). Or the noisette ‘La Biche’.
*I saw briefly the original “Carlesruhe Maria Bruhn” on November 5, 2012 and it did not seem a tea to me. It looked an early HT or HP. Very thick stems, with an upright stance of the blooms. Some pink on reverse, opening pale pink, ageing white. Fairly thornless. Very long prickles underneath the rachis and the stipule was long and adnate. I could only just see very fine glands on the edge of the stipules. It had a very leaden look to the leaves. The leaf edge was very forward-pointing serrate, not at all dentate. Flowers were usually in clusters of three. A long receptacle, not narrowing very much at the top.
|
REPLY
|
|
I note that the Vintage Gardens version is described as semi-climbing in the southern US. The few plants I know in Aus, of "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn", don't climb.
|
REPLY
|
|
Where did you note this please Margaret?
|
REPLY
|
|
Cass's comment on photo Id: 141173.
|
REPLY
|
|
Oh yes, I see now.
HEIGHT
I wonder if that “semi-climber” was the same rose with the rounded receptacle pictured in Cass’s photo 76704.
One also needs to look at Cass’ photo 47447 wherein she says Phillip’s “is not a climber”
FOLIAGE
Also in Cass’ photo 47447 - it had “dark green foliage”.
That foliage description could align with my notation for “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn”of “a very leaden look to the leaves”.
RECEPTACLE
Apparently the Sangerhausen clone has an elongated and compressed-sided (cup?) receptacle. See Marcir’s photo 76753.
I noted “a long receptacle, not narrowing very much at the top” receptacle on “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn”
This is dreadful commenting on a rose I do not have and I am now going to leave it to those who do. It seems that some identifying photos of “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn” showing receptacle and thorns would certainly help cement Phillip’s thoughts that the Australian foundling “Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn” may be the same as the Sangerhausen clone and therefore……… may be ‘Mlle de Sombreuil’.
|
REPLY
|
|
I'd agree with the leaden cast to the foliage of "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn". There are bud pics and a few prickles visible on my photos posted under Mlle de Sombreuil, with "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn" noted - Cree's photos and any others from Aus would be of the same clone. I'll take more pics on Friday.
|
REPLY
|
|
“Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn” has been growing here for a few years now and, after a slow start and a few setbacks, is settling in nicely. It probably has some Tea rose in its breeding, but I wouldn't class it as a Tea. The habit, inflorescence, foliage all suggest something sturdier. I think of it as belonging with roses like 'Souvenir de la Malmaison' and 'Souvenir de St Anne's'. In a reticulated garden, otherwise mostly left to its own devices, it has started producing long canes.
I'll check my photos and post pics of receptacle and inflorescence and the growth habit in our garden if there are any useful ones.
Would it be possible to make a separate entry for "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn"?
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes. It seems an important old rose.
Would those who know "Carlsruhe Maria Bruhn" , please comment on any botanical details at all and we'll add them to the main page.
Some photos of "Carlesruhe Maria Bruhn" will need to be moved out of the 'Sombrieul' file.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
