One or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate !
-
-
|
This photo (and the other from the same garden) are for Mme. Lambard. This rose page is for Souv. de Mme. Lambard, a completely different Tea rose. They should be reassigned to Mme. Lambard.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
16 MAR 12 by
jedmar
|
Done, thank you! I really wonder whether 'Souvenir de Mme. Lambard' was not a misnomer for 'Mme Lambard'? If a different-coloured sport of 'Mme Lambard' had been found, would there not have been more in contemporary magazines? There is nothing except a mention in the catalogue of the supplier and in an advertisement.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you, Jedmar. I didn't want to just do it without someone else looking at it to make sure you agree. Often, as I know you're aware, finding information about these obscure roses is a real effort. I've been digging out the informaiton of the early Van Fleet and Schoener roses. Particularly for Schoener's material, that information is just not out there. Fortunately, there are some early registrations in old ARS annuals for some, but there are so many which just don't have any information available. Ironically, the breeding nursery for the named rose these photos were mis posted under also created several HPs I'm battling not being able to find information about.
|
REPLY
|
