HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
Cass
most recent 26 MAR SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 20 OCT 07 by Margaret Furness
Where does the description of its having a button eye come from? The plant in circulation in Australia under this name doesn't; and the photo taken in another country looks to be the same.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 21 OCT 07 by Cass
I suspect it's a mistake. It's been removed. How "peach" are the blooms? Is orange pink an accurate color?
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 21 OCT 07 by Margaret Furness
Just pink. I know there is a question about whether what is circulating is the real Cicely Lascelles.
The description of Zara Hore-Ruthven also mentions a button eye, which doesn't fit with the rose by that name here.
22 October; looking at CL this morning, there is a slight orange tinge to the reverse of the petals until the flower is fully out.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 26 MAR by Patricia Routley
So, 14 years down the track, are there two ‘Cicely Lascelles’ around?
Nadene (March 25, 2021) and Margaret (March 20, 2013) have both added hip photos.
Member Give me caffeine in another comment has expressed surprise: “Those are highly unusual. It is actually forming hips there, or does the base of the flower just look like that?”

Member Smtysm(November 7, 2012) has added photos from one of these gardens (?)
Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden (St. Kilda Botanic Gardens) or the
Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden (Bulla)
which seems to have a narrow or bead-like receptacle. I wonder if this narrow receptacle can grow into the gigantea-type hip that I am seeing in Nadene and Margaret’s photos.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 26 MAR by Give me caffeine
When I said "highly unusual" I just meant that I'd never seen hips forming with that much of the rest of the flower still attached, so was wondering if they were hips or if they were just weird receptacles. In other words: unusual full stop, not necessarily unusual for CL (which I wouldn't have a clue about, not having ever seen CL IRL).
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 26 MAR by Patricia Routley
Me neither. But I am still intrigued between the receptacles of CIcely Lascelles at the Alister Clark Memorial Garden and the hips of Nadene and Margaret.
REPLY
most recent 21 FEB SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 11 OCT 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Looks like a typo for 'Carmosine'.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 8 posted 11 OCT 10 by Lyn G
Thanks, Robert.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 8 posted 11 OCT 10 by Cass
Modern Roses lists the name as Carmosine by L. Laperrière, but there is confusion.

Roseto Botanico Carla Fineschi lists a 1982 HT named Carmoisine by L. Laperrière. There may be two roses: Carmoisine by L. Laperrière (1982) and Carmosine by R. Laperrière (1995). We have very little information.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 8 posted 11 OCT 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Hopefully the Viraraghavans can enlighten us. I'll post this thread to their attention.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 8 posted 12 OCT 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Here is Girija's response.

"Its the Laperierre rose bred in 1982, a Hybrid Tea, codename Lepmiravi. It has been spelt differently in different catalogs etc."
REPLY
Reply #5 of 8 posted 12 OCT 10 by Cass
I don't know exactly what this means or if anything needs to be done in response.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 8 posted 12 OCT 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
It is confusing.

I interpret it to mean that LAPmiravi, aka 'Carmoisine', bred by Louis Laperrière (France, 1982) is the correct cultivar to use in Viraraghavan lineages, synonymous with 'Carmousine'.

'Carmosine' aka LAPnev by Robert Laperrière 1995 is apparently different rose.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 8 posted 12 OCT 10 by Lyn G
Cass.........

I merged the "mispelled" rose that I had added to the HMF database to complete the parentage of 'Remembering Cochet' with the 1982 Laperierre rose so that rose page will come up when the parentage is checked on RC. The 1982 rose has the correct breeder code of the rose identified by Girija and now, the parentage on the rose page matches the parentage published in the registration by the ARS. 'Carmousine' is now listed as a synonym of the rose by Laperierre.

Lyn
REPLY
Reply #8 of 8 posted 21 FEB by flodur
The correct name of the rose bred 1982 is Carmosine (Lapmiravi) - see the catalogues of Laperrière from 1982 to 1989 (No longer listed in the catalogues from 1990 until today)
REPLY
most recent 9 AUG 20 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 3 FEB 07 by HMF Admin
Creamy, pointed buds open to pure white, dainty blooms that flower profusely in unusual, cone-shaped, hydrangea-like clusters on a compact, rounded bush. The tiny, sparkling white petals set against dark green, glossy foliage grow quickly to become the perfect garden accent in mixed beds. Excellent vigor, reblooming and disease resistance.

Courtesy of William Wiebers - Jackson & Perkins Sales & Service
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 18 FEB 07 by Cass
What I'd really like to know from Jackson & Perkins is a classification for this rose. Shrub? Miniature? Mini-flora? Thanks!
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 16 APR 07 by Rosaholic's Southern California Garden
shrub, according to J & P's 2008 wholesale catalog
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 9 AUG 20 by Michael Garhart
It's a shrub, but it definitely has the gene for miniaturization. In essence, it's a miniature, perpetual-blooming, non-rambling version of Rosa wichurana.

It has absolutely no visual appeal beyond "cute", but it's a good rose on its own merit.
REPLY
most recent 20 JUL 20 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 25 FEB 05 by Henry
Although listed here as R. foliosa, it should be R. foliolosa (note the extra "lo").
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 2 MAY 10 by Unregistered Guest
My sources are telling me that R. Foliosa IS A SEPARATE species to R.Foliolosa, and the two should not be confused.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 3 MAY 10 by HMF Admin
Can you provide more details.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 3 MAY 10 by Unregistered Guest
Refer to this discussion today from the Rose Hybridizisers Association forum on how R.foliolosa should not be confused with R.foliosa:

http://www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=24614#27566
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 20 JUL 20 by Michael Garhart
I believe since RHA upgraded and that url changed, this is the current format of that thread:

www.rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24614&p=27566&hilit=foliosa#p27566
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 6 MAY 10 by Cass
Thanks. You're right. All the images posted here should be posted to Rosa foliolosa. This name is probably a synonym of a well-known European species.
REPLY
© 2021 HelpMeFind.com