|
|
-
-
|
Very good characteristic shot, but might it be possible this (and the others which I've posted this comment to) photo is actually Nigel Hawthorne? From what the plants are like here in Southern California, this photo more closely resembles Nigel than it does Euphrates. Thanks for posting them! Kim
|
REPLY
|
|
Ok, Kim,
that might be the case - regarding the fact that on all other fotos of 'Euphrates' here at HMF the basal spot to the petals is much more pronounced than on mine. I shall check with the Sangerhausen head gardener next year.
On the other hand, on photos I got from 'Nigel Hawthorne', the petals have pointed tips, which cannot be identified on these "Euphrates"-photos. Clearly these two Roses are quite similar and sadly enough subject to the possibility of being mixed up.
Best, Josef
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Josef, when grown in close proximity, the two plants and flowers are so strikingly different, they can't be confused. I can well imagine how photographs can become mixed, as I've probably done MORE than my share! Nigel's foliage is much larger, heavier and "rugose" than Euphrates. The ovaries have the straight, sharp prickles Euphrates doesn't always exhibit. Nigel's petals are much larger, wider and heavier, also. The flowers are larger and it never demonstrated the ever present mildew which Euphrates seems to grasp closely to its breast and cling to as its cross to bear. There is also a much greater contrast between the "blotch" on Euphrates than on Nigel. From the petals, flower size and coloring, how heavy the foliage and wood are and the texture and size of the foliage, I would strongly suspect that particular plant to be Nigel Hawthorne. Euphrates just has never looked like that, at least no where I've ever grown or studied it.
No matter which it turns out to be, I sincerely appreciate your 'virtual rose garden' and the wonderful images you have so graciously shared with us all. Thank you! Kim
|
REPLY
|
|
