|
|
Darrell 
-
-
|
My dates under the photo R. molliissima are incorrect. I intended to give the dates for when Sowerby began his illustrations of the book and when completed. The date should be 1790-1814 --slip of the finger (though some sources give the completion date as 1813). Please correct this. thank you
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
19 NOV 21 by
jedmar
|
Darrell, if you click your photo, you will find an edit button at top right where you can make corrections to the text
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Brent gave some incorrect information under 'Souvenir de Christophe Cochet' in THE OLD ROSE ADVENTURER.
Christophe Cochet was the GRANDFATHER of Scipion Cochet and Pierre-Philemon FILS.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
4 NOV 21 by
jedmar
|
Yes, I think the genealogy under Cochet-Cochet is correct
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
4 NOV 21 by
Darrell
|
Christophe Cochet 1777-1819
Pierre-Philemon, his son 1796-1853
Pierre-Philemon fils 1823-1899
Scipion Cochet, brother of Pierre-Philemon fils 1833-1896
That makes Christophe the grandfather of Scipion and Pierre-Philemon FILS
That shows Brent Dickerson's statement in THE OLD ROSE ADVENTURER to be incorrect.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
4 NOV 21 by
jedmar
|
Agree. I meant the genealogy at HMF is correct.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Somewhere there's a genealogical error concerning the Verdiers. How can Eugene Verdier be the oldest son if he was born in 1827 and Charles Verdier was born in 1821? Furthermore, Charles was the second survivor of Victor Verdier's twelve children, so he must have been younger. It seems the birthdate of Charles is incorrect. (Trying to do good and accurate research can be trying.)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
3 NOV 21 by
jedmar
|
Yes, there is some confusion here. If Charles Verdier died 1893 at the age of 64, that would make him born 1829, not 1821. If Eugène is fils aîné = eldest son, then he must be older. 1827 and 1829 are the correct birth years.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Why, under 'Bougainville' in References, is Joyaux's commentary listed twice in a row? (Just curious about this curiosity.)
|
REPLY
|
|
The rose used to be on Bougainville's grave, but I asked Odile Masquelier to check when she mentioned it in an article, and it's no longer there. From the Journal of Heritage Roses in Australia summer 2011, 33.4, pp 26-30 (you can find it via Trove), reprinted in translation from Le Journal des Roses Anciennes en France, no. 16, Autumn 2010.
"Push hard, because it has rained", kindly observed the keeper, whom I knew and who had handed me the key of St. Peter’s cemetery in Montmartre. In this green and quiet haven, whose entrance is closed to the public, a few gravestones are still looked after and, on one of them, the inscription reads: “To the Memory of Louis-Antoine, Count de Bougainville, 1729 – 1811”. On each corner of that grave I reverently planted a rose of the ‘Bougainville’ variety¹ created in 1823 by my grandmother, daughter-in-law of Scipion Cochet (the famous ‘Maman Cochet’)".
The person thus speaking of the Admiral is none other than P Charles Cochet, nephew of the founder of the ‘Journal des Roses’, Scipion Cochet.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
1 NOV 21 by
Darrell
|
I don't understand the reply. Are you suggesting that part of what you quoted by the nephew or all that you wrote should or will take the place of the duplicated comment? It doesn't seem to answer my question.
Or that HMF will leave the redundant duplicate entry by Joyaux?
|
REPLY
|
|
I'll leave that to the administrators. I was just adding a point of interest, which incidentally disagrees with the info we have about who bred it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
1 NOV 21 by
jedmar
|
Sometimes an entry is duplicated when posting. Reasons unknown. Duplicate removed, thank you for the heads up!
|
REPLY
|
|
