|
|
One or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate !
-
-
Initial post
24 DEC 20 by
flodur
|
This is the Boursault from Shailer 1796
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
24 DEC 20 by
 jedmar
|
Andrews calls it Shailer's Province Rose, or Rosa gracilis
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
26 DEC 20 by
flodur
|
Look at the leaves and read the description in: Roses, or, A Monograph of The Genus Rosa, by Henry Charles Andrews 1805 or 1828 (2 different plates, but the same text!)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
27 DEC 20 by
jedmar
|
The 1805 and 1828 editions have both the same plate of Rosa gracilis. Can you post your different plate here please?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
27 DEC 20 by
jedmar
|
I have both editions. Text and plate are the same
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
27 DEC 20 by
flodur
|
Not in the two editions I have from Archiv.org
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
28 DEC 20 by
jedmar
|
I see what happened: In the 1805 edition, the plates follow the description. The different plate you have here is actually R. eglanteria multiplex. If you turn over the page with the description, you will find the plate of R. gracilis, which is the same as in 1828.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
28 DEC 20 by
flodur
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
27 DEC 20 by
jedmar
|
It seems to me that 'Shailer's Province' = Rosa gracilis Andr. and the Boursault 'Gracilis' are all the same rose. According to the 1851 Reference, Shailer states that he bred a number of seedlings from R. pendulina, which were then commercialized as 'Shailer's Province' by Lee. Subsequent authors have then described 'Gracilis' either as a hybrid provence or a Boursault.
|
REPLY
|
|
