|
|
'Roi des Pays-Bas' rose Reviews & Comments
HelpMeFind's future is in your hands - Please do not take this unique resource for granted.
Your support of HelpMeFind is urgently needed. HelpMeFind, like all websites, needs funding to survive. We have set a premium-membership yearly subscription amount as low as possible to make user-community funding viable.
We are grateful to the many members who have signed up so far, but the number of premium-membership members remains too small for us to sustain the current support and development level. If you value HelpMeFind and want to see it continue we need your support too.
Yearly membership is only $2.00 per month and adds a host of additional features, and numerous planned enhancements, to take full advantage of the power and convenience of HelpMeFind. Click here to start your premium membership..
We of course also welcome donations of any amount. Click here to make a donation. Donations of $24 or more receive a thank-you gift of a 1-year premium membership.
As far as we have come, we feel HelpMeFind is still in its infancy. With your support we have so much more to accomplish.
-
-
Initial post
10 NOV 09 by
Marita Protte
|
Here are some other references for Roi des Pays-Bas:
The Rose Garden, William Paul, 1848, Sect. II, p. 30
Catalog Descriptif ... du Genre Rosa, Prevost fils, 1829, p. 69
The Book of Roses, C. F. Gore, 1838, p. 170
The Old Rose Adventurer, Brent C. Dickerson, 1999, p. 80
Dickerson, as well as Gore and Prevost are listing this rose as a damask.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
11 NOV 09 by
 HMF AdminReply
#2 of 3 posted
11 NOV 09 by
jedmar
|
Actually, Prévost classifies 'Roi des Pays-Bas' as R. belgica, an ancient class which was thrown into the bag of R. damascena by Lindley; which are however centifolia-damascena hybrids with sometimes a bit gallica in them. The differences are explained quite well in Prévost's book. Boitard mostly copies from Prévost and Gore translates Boitard. Paul decided it was closer to centifolia.
Please also note that the synonyms listed by Prévost are in our data base as Gallicas according to Noisette.
Maybe we should re-introduce the old classes of R. belgica and R. provincialis.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
12 NOV 09 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Yes - I'm reminded of some words of Jack Harkness:
"Man can't really agree how to identify them, classify them or do anything else to wrap them up nice and neat. Linnaeus tried, and the botanists after him offer you anything from 120 to several thousand rose species, some so similar that the cynics claimed you could find three or four of them growing on the same plant."
(from 'Roses For a Million Years' - a convention lecture published in the Australian Rose Annual 1976, pp44-55 - this quote from p44.)
Billy - (borrowing a computer as mine is unwell)
|
REPLY
|
|
