Bonjour,
Obviously Odoratas have played an important role in the history of the rose. One main reason is there ease to blomm several times during the season. Thus, the rose described here as "once-blomming in spring or summer" cannot be R odorata. Beautiful, looks like, but is not an Odorata.

Fascinated by there history, I have tried to know when odoratas, like odorata fragrans (according to Redouté) was called Hume's blush T-SC ? It is said here that this name was given by the 2 English introducers in England Hume and Colvill. I have not been abble to confirm this point and failed to find its use before Hurst has published his papers on roses. Same remarks for the 3 others so called "studs".
So, I would appreciate very much to know if some friends of Hmf have found the use of these terms between the years 1808 and 1930-40 !
Kindly,
Daniel

Available from - vivaio La campanella

There are a number of myths and fallacies associated with this rose, and it is important to note the description provided for Hume's Blush in the Botanical Register, Vol. X, Plate 804, (published 1824 by James Ridgway, London). Edwards clearly states that Hume's Blush was introduced to Britain in 1809 by Sir Abraham Hume, who raised it from seed (which was the fashion of the day) and released the plant to the public. It is therefore possible that more than one seed was raised and released under the general name of "Hume's Blush", which could account for discrepancies seen today. I have read many accounts that claim Hume imported his Hume's Blush as a live plant from India, but this appears to be incorrect.

It is also interesting to note that early discrepancies existed in the descriptions and iillustrations of Hume's Blush. For example, Plate 804 in Edwards' Botanical Register shows many discrepancies with Redoute’s illustration, although they are admittedly very similar plants and said to be the same rose. The first thing we notice is that the bud characters are quite different. Redoute’s illustration shows a distinctly swollen and articulated receptacle where the pedical joins the bud. However in Edward's illustration this globular and articulated receptacle is completely absent. Also we see that the rose in Plate 804 depicts numerous erect hairs on the pedicels, petioles, and rachis; however Redoute’s rose is by contrast completely smooth (glabrous). We can only conclude then that these two roses were not the same rose.

I have long held the belief that there never was one "Hume's Blush", but actually several similar clones that Hume had raised from seed and released under this name. There will of course be some people who will take Redoute's illustration as final, but I believe the reality is far more complex.