HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
"Charleston Graveyard" rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 72-155
most recent 31 JUL 16 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 4 JUN 13 by Gartenjockels kleine gaerten
did anyone compare ever charleston graveyard with the china/bengale louis-philippe? i see some similarities in growth and fragrance.
15-aug-2013: extremely vigorous and floriferous.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 30 JUL 16 by Susu's garden
Yes. Pat Henry at Roses Unlimited confirmed to me in 2014 that she now believes it is Louis Phillipe.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 31 JUL 16 by Patricia Routley
I was hoping another Administrator might take some action on this one......however.
Would you like me to merge "Charleston Graveyard" with 'Louis-Philippe' (china, Guérin, 1834), or at the very least, put a notation on the "Charleston Graveyard" page as to what it is thought to be?
Patricia
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 31 JUL 16 by Susu's garden
Absolutely. Thank you very much. Susan
REPLY
Discussion id : 91-417
most recent 11 MAR 16 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 9 MAR 16 by scvirginia
I inadvertently added a duplicate record for this rose; however I see that the earlier record treats 'Président d'Olbecque' as a synonym for 'Louis Phillippe', probably because Ellwanger decided the flowers were too-much-alike.

William Paul describes these rather differently in 'The Rose Garden', editions 1848 through 1881:
14. Louis Philippe; flowers dark crimson, the edges of the centre petals almost white, of medium size, full; form, globular. Raised at Angers.
16. President d'Olbecque; flowers cherry-red; form, cupped. Free and good.

I can't figure how to delete this record, and perhaps it should be separate from 'Louis Phillippe' anyway?

Thanks for any assistance,
Virginia
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 10 MAR 16 by Patricia Routley
I've merged the two 'President d'Olbecque' files Virginia. Theoretically the system should alert you that there is already an existing file. I have no idea whether there should be two separate files for 'President d'Olbecque' and 'Louis-Philippe', so have left them as one.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 10 MAR 16 by jedmar
I think we need to separate into 2 different files: My first thought was that the name 'Louis Philippe' could have been changed to 'Président d'Olbecque' after the revolution in February 1848 which deposed King Louis Philippe of France and sent him to exile, establishing (again) a Republic. However, both names continued to be listed separately in catalogues with distinct descriptions until the mid 1880s.

The first mention of synonmity appears in the 1886 "Rosen-Zeitung" in a 3-page letter to the Editors. It is quite shocking to read on what feeble base later authors accepted a long list of roses as being synonymous. Judge for yourself:
"I find in the article "Reduction of Rose Novelties" by Baron Palm, Stuttgart, in No. 5 of Rosenzeitung the wish expressed to list all synonyms of Rose varieties. As in my opinion such process should be the basis of reduction of not only the novelties, but of rose varities at all, as then , if only partly, the vast number of these would be decreased, so I allow myself to send to the esteemed editors a Directory of Rose Synonyms which I wrote about 1 1/2 years ago and which was published last year in "Ogradnik Polsko", the publication of the Warsaw Horticulture.
In this, with same introductory remarks, I had already at the time highlighted that the same does not claim to be infallible or complete, as I personally, although I am a nurseryman by profession, did not have the possiblity to compare independently, as the necessary material is only inadequately available with us; rather I wanted to stimulate with this Directory those nurserymen and roselovers who have sufficient material in their hands, or who at least know where they could search the essentially necessary material, to secure synonyms.
Finally, I will repeat again, that this Directory can only be the start of a Basis, on which it could be gradually possible, to carry out the so urgently needed and difficult to carry out task of Review iof Rose varieties, and I ask at the same time for indulgence for the surely not missing incorrectness and gaps in my compilation. For some sorts, I have allowed myself, to indicate the quaestonability of synonyms by question marks.
With the wish, that my work will not be seen as for nothing, signs himself....E Durst, Warsaw. "

On occasion of the "Congrès des Rosiériste" in Orléans, Léon Chenault published an article in the February 1898 issue of "Journal des Roses" (pp. 21-23) synonyms, citing mix-ups at nurseries (sounds familiar). In the "Rosen-Zeitung" of April 1896, a 1 1/2 page list of synonyms had already been published on the same premise.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 10 MAR 16 by scvirginia
I agree. The fad for declaring synoymous any roses with "too-much-alike" flowers has muddied the waters so that it isn't easy to tell which roses were reintroduced to commerce and so actually were synonymous.

Aside from disagreeing with the premise of too-much-alike roses, a further difficulty is that from this distance, it's hard to say if two roses were declared alike because they really were similar, or if distinct roses were confused in commerce and the writer was judging two of the same variety of roses, sold under different names.

Another difficulty is that the so-called synonymity was judged using flowers, not plants, so plants of very different habits, etc. might be called synonymous for exhibition purposes.

Crimson Chinas are especially hard to ID because they can vary with gardening conditions, so trying to tease out which name goes with which rose is made even trickier when multiple varieties share the same record.

Virginia
REPLY
Reply #6 of 5 posted 11 MAR 16 by billy teabag
"I agree. The fad for declaring synoymous any roses with "too-much-alike" flowers has muddied the waters so that it isn't easy to tell which roses were reintroduced to commerce and so actually were synonymous.

Aside from disagreeing with the premise of too-much-alike roses, a further difficulty is that from this distance, it's hard to say if two roses were declared alike because they really were similar, or if distinct roses were confused in commerce and the writer was judging two of the same variety of roses, sold under different names.

Another difficulty is that the so-called synonymity was judged using flowers, not plants, so plants of very different habits, etc. might be called synonymous for exhibition purposes."


Agree 100%!
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 10 MAR 16 by scvirginia
Thanks. It is strange that I wasn't alerted to the other record if that's a built-in failsafe.

I did notice that the 1906 'Nomenclature de tous les noms' has 4 different roses named 'Louis Philippe': a China, a Tea, a Gallica and a Portland...

The synonymity they suggest of 'Crown' with 'Louis Philippe' has to do with their both being bright pink Tea Roses, so I doubt they should be sharing a record with Crimson Chinas... what do you think? There is already a separate record for Cels Tea Rose, so perhaps the 'Crown' synonymity should move there?

The issue is further confused by Ellwanger saying that the Crimson China 'Louis P' was synonymous with 'Couronne des Pourpres' AKA 'Purple Crown'...

Virginia
REPLY
Discussion id : 90-991
most recent 18 FEB 16 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 18 FEB 16 by kysusan
ARS 8.9
REPLY
Discussion id : 72-533
most recent 24 JUN 13 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 24 JUN 13 by AquaEyes
Per the paper linked below (in Table 4, beginning on the paper's page 28), this rose is triploid. I am cross-posting this comment on all others mentioned which do not already have their ploidies mentioned in their descriptions.

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2009-12-7450/SOULES-THESIS.pdf?sequence=2

:-)

~Christopher
REPLY
© 2018 HelpMeFind.com