One or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate !
-
-
|
This photo is not from the 1922 American Rose Annual. I own the book. It is not listed in the contents of plates. Nor could I find it when I went through the book page by page. Nor is it in the 1921 or 1923 annual. Perhaps it's from The Rose Annual of England?
|
REPLY
|
|
It's not in the list of illustrations in the 1922 Rose Annual.
|
REPLY
|
|
It might be R. hugonis from the 1916 American Rose Annual p32?
The photo was used in McFarland's 1937 Roses of the World in Colour p176 and labelled there Rosa multibracteata.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks, Darrell, Margaret and Patricia. I scanned the image some time ago and don't have access to my books as they are packed in the garage where I can't get to them. I don't have the 1916 ARS annual but do have the McFarland book. I posted a number of scanned images in an evening and probably mis labeled this one while labeling the bunch.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 6 posted
25 SEP 18 by
CybeRose
|
1920 ARA.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0EsPAQAAIAAJ&dq=Rosa%20multibracteata&pg=PA19-IA2#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 6 posted
30 JAN 20 by
CybeRose
|
I just uploaded the pic again without checking. Took it out, but will leave details here.
American Rose Annual, pp. 23-30 (1920)
Rose-Breeding Notes for 1919
DR. W. VAN FLEET
Of the newer species, R. bella and R. multibracteata are most enticing, the former for its dwarf habit and profusion of bright cherry-red blooms, and the latter for its fine, distinct foliage and graceful sprays of late-opening pink flowers. Both are shy seeders at Bell and reluctant to cross with other roses, but have matured some hybrid seeds.
|
REPLY
|
