HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Niphetos' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
8 OCT 16
|
* This post deleted by user *
|
|
|
Sangerhausen claims to have Niphetos and Mrs. Bert, and I get the impression they're pretty thorough with their roses. Does anyone know what they have to say about these two?
The old references don't really give enough information to distinguish between the two, and if some or most modern "Niphetos" are really Mrs. Bert then the newer references probably can't be trusted too much.
|
REPLY
|
|
Sangerhausen went through two world wars, so we can't expect their record-keeping to be perfect.
The Delete button is back to its old game of deleting the first post, not the requested one. It deleted:
Most roses sold in Australia as Niphetos or Cl Niphetos are considered to be either Mrs Herbert Stevens or Cl Mrs Herbert Stevens respectively. A rose which is either Devoniensis or the very similar "Mystery Cream Tea" was sold for a while as Niphetos, and may still be available under that name.
Mrs Herbert Stevens has dark brown mature stems. Billy Teabag points out that it has a tendency to chlorosis when it's hungry.
|
REPLY
|
|
No, but they might have an idea anyway.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have added a few more references to both 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens' and 'Niphetos'. The only references I can find to the colour of wood were 1993 wherein David Ruston said his wood was red; and 2008 Tea Roses. Old Roses for Warm gardens for 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens': "The mature branches are a very dark brown." There was a 1928 mention in 'Niphetos': "The young wood is green and is sometimes covered with rust-colored spots".
I have walked out and looked at my bush (?Mrs. Herbert Stevens Cl.') and find the young branches are green with a plum tinting. Certainly not as red as the tea roses normal spring red young-wood colour just metres away. The mature branches of my rose are certainly a dark brown and I have learnt the lesson well about careful pruning with this rose. It is very likely that this rose is in fact 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens', but I would like to see an older reference stating that 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens' had dark wood.
|
REPLY
|
|
What I'm really curious about is what the nurseries that claim to have both roses use to distinguish between them.
If they actually have some criteria, well and good. If they just assume they have two roses because that's how they were named when they got them, but can't actually tell the difference themselves, that would be a bit of a giveaway.
One thing the references did seem to agree on was that the real Niphetos had a stronger scent than Mrs. Bert.
|
REPLY
|
|
There is the possibility that one is Mrs HS and the other is the Devoniensis-family rose.
Thanks for adding the references Patricia.
|
REPLY
|
|
When bush A is down the back in the old section, 400 yards from the reticulated new section with Bush B, I should imagine it might be difficult for the nursery owner to actually stop and go from one to the other, peering with curiosity, when he has 45 orders to fill before 6pm to catch the delivery truck.
Having said that, we would all like a high standard from our nurseries.
Reminding myself of my recent article in the Heritage Roses in Australia journal, Vol 38, No. 2, page 31 ‘The Old-Rose Rich, Poor Nurseries’ wherein I suggested helping your local nursery, perhaps the next person calling in to Thomas could check out the similarities / differences in their two roses ‘Mrs. Herbert Stevens’ and ‘Niphetos’; let them know, and let us know too.
|
REPLY
|
|
Funny thing. I just checked T4R's cattledog and they don't have Niphetos listed. Mind you they don't list Marquise de Vivens either, and I know they have that. Makes me wonder what else they have stashed.
|
REPLY
|
|
Looking at old files, I see that "Bishop's Lodge Scented White', later identified positively as 'White Ensign', was at one stage mis-called 'Niphetos'.
|
REPLY
|
|
That's weird. White Ensign doesn't have the nodding habit at all. How would they get those mixed up?
|
REPLY
|
|
I have the impression there's a fair bit of wishful thinking in IDing found roses. Mea culpa: I don't want my foundlings to be identified, because they're less interesting that way...
|
REPLY
|
|
I think it would be more interesting to identify one that was thought to be lost. Marquise de Vivens being a good example. Just inventing new names for existing roses seems counterproductive to me. I'd rather know what it actually was.
|
REPLY
|
|
The study names are a temporary measure of course, and the double inverted commas clearly mark them as such. Unfortunately early descriptions are often too non-specific to allow definite identification, unless the rose has unique features. Marquise de Vivens doesn't look like anything else of the era, but there were many roses very similar to each other then, as now.
Apparently hmf lists 60,000-odd rose cultivars. I'm tempted to say what has been said of the Ten Commandments and the Haydn symphonies (don't ask me who by); "they are too many".
|
REPLY
|
|
"The study names are a temporary measure of course..."
Sure, but if some people don't want their foundlings identified (because they would then be less interesting) then the temporary names may become permanent. ;)
I agree that with thousands of roses in existence, things are very confusing already. What I was saying is that personally I'd prefer to reduce the amount of confusion rather than increasing it, even if this did mean that something I had found turned out to be common. I'm quite sure there will still be enough mystery and wonder left in life.
|
REPLY
|
|
For the current thinking on Tea rose names in Aus, see http://www.heritage.rose.org.au/hriai-tea-noisette-china-collection.
|
REPLY
|
|
That appears to be a dead link. There may be a problem with the website coding for that page.
|
REPLY
|
|
Try the home page heritage.rose.org.au, and then click on the Tea-Noisette-China Collection link at the bottom of the page. That should work.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yup, that one works.
Edit: It's not very enlightening though, since it's basically just a list of names without much context.
|
REPLY
|
|
But it tells you what incorrect names roses are being sold under, and which roses, while supposedly being sold here, are probably no longer in Australia. Or at least, not under the correct name.
|
REPLY
|
|
But the only content on that page is a pile of links to PDF's. The formatting of the PDF's is very dense and difficult to scan. It's basically a pile of gobbledegook, as far as the average person could tell. So there may be useful information in there, but very few people would be willing to subject themselves to wading through it all trying to make sense of it. The most likely reaction is to take a look and go "Meh", then close the page. Which is what I did. :D
In other words, the page fails to make things clear, and presumably making things clear is the whole point of it. Food for thought.
|
REPLY
|
|
I clicked on the first link, which is the plant list by classes of the HRIAI Collection at Renmark. I can read it clearly on my screen. Yes dense, but there is a lot of information to fit in.
The purpose of the list is to show what we have growing in the Collection. And it shows that we're trying to get the identification right. As a spin-off from that, it warns people when they're likely to be buying a pup.
|
REPLY
|
|
I can read it clearly on my screen too.
|
REPLY
|
|
Ah, the first one isn't too bad, but could still benefit greatly from better formatting. The one I looked at was "Renmark North Bed", which is pretty bad IMO.
"Yes dense, but there is a lot of information to fit in." - There is no relevant limit to the length of a PDF. If they need to fit a lot of information in, they should make it longer. This is part of basic typography, and it was invented because it makes things easy to read. I can read a database dump, but I wouldn't use that presentation if I was making something for people to use as a reference. It would be giving them a hard time for no benefit.
|
REPLY
|
|
The planting plans of the various beds are not meant as a reference or for reading on screen. They were put on the website for printing out by people planning to visit the Collection, to carry with them as they walk around it. In that context practicality, and therefore conciseness, matter.
|
REPLY
|
|
I was referring to the first one, which seems to have been meant as a reference. Not to worry though. If I want to use it, I'll just reformat the content to suit myself.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
