HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalGarden
Listing
 
flodur
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 21 FEB SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 10 SEP 15 by Patricia Routley
HelpMeFind has two roses:

Carmoisine. LAPmiravi 1982. red HT. Louis Laperierre (who bred roses from circa 1950-1998)
Carmosine. LAPnev 1995. red HT. Robert Laperierre (who bred roses from circa 1992-2015)
This last rose. LAPnev apparently was in the Monza 2001 trials.

They almost sound as if they could be the same rose? Almost the same name, same class, same colour, same family of breeders.
Can anybody throw any light on these two roses? Or is anybody in touch with Robert Laperierre who may be able to help?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 20 FEB by flodur
Hi Patricia, The right name is 'Carmosine' (Lapmiravi), bred (1st sold) 1982, see catalogue 1982 p. 13. It was sold until 1989. The 2 other names (Carmoisine and Carmousine) cannot be found in any catalogue of Laperrière. If LAPnev was in the trial of Monza, it didn't enter the market. 'Carmousine' (probably misspelled) can still be found in India. I have now put all Laperrière catalogues online: roses.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Rosenkataloge#L_fr
Regards Rudolf
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 20 FEB by jedmar
Patricia, these two are not the same rose. If there are two distinct breeder codes, they are different. There is also more than a decade between the two. A typical case of recycling of market names.See Kordes for example, who recycle names quite frequently.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 20 FEB by flodur
That may be, but they never marketed the rose with the code LAPnev or the recycled name! Just look into their catalogues!
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 21 FEB by jedmar
Possible, but that is not relevant for a listing in HMF. We have many roses in our data base which were never commercialized.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 21 FEB by flodur
But than you should only list it under the code LAPnev and not with a name that never existed!
REPLY
most recent 14 FEB SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 22 JAN by flodur
From whome came the information: This rose was given to a family in Taiwan by a Japanese businessman..... The link you show leeds to S'Orrosa, but there is no info at all, just 2 photos!
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 14 FEB by jedmar
Here is a comment by member roseseek from May 2011: "Jack Lin reports: My friend, Kun Wang, found a rose grew in a family garden four or five summers ago in Ping Dong County, Taiwan. He noticed that specimen was a special old fashion rose. He got a permission to have some cuttings for propagations, but he forgot to take the photos of the mother plant. I wished he did that. He gave it a study name "Ping Dong Yue Ji", 'Yue Ji' means monthly.
He asked the house owner, an elder lady about the name of that rose and where it came from. She did not remember the name, but She remembered when she was a child (70 plus years ago), it was given by a Japanese businessman as a gift for her family. After Wang found that rose, someone also found another two of the same, but those two were bulldozed couple years ago due to road construction project.
So, the name means the "Monthly rose of Ping Dong County". You may find some of the other comments interesting.

Member Jack L posted on 30 Sep 2009: "Couple days ago I posted a found rose thread (below) in HRF for ID. The rose was found 5 summers ago in a home garden in Ping dong County, Taiwan. It was given a study name "ping dong Yue Ji".The property owner could not rememberthe name of the rose, but she remembered the plant was given by a Japanese bussinessman as a gift to her family 70 years ago."

Another statement by farmerduck NJ Z6b in Houzz from 2013: "Ping Dong Yue Ji" means "(Monthly) Rose from Ping Dong." There are a number of places called "Ping Dong," and my guess -- or rather pure speculation -- is that likely the rose is discovered in Ping Dong County in Taiwan or Ping Dong City in southern China's Fujian province. These are the two more well known Ping Dong counties.
REPLY
most recent 29 DEC SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 21 JUL 14 by flodur
'Joasine Hanet' im Handel und Fundrose "Glendora" sind wohl identische Rosen, aber nicht die 'Joasine Hanet', die Vibert 1847 gezüchtet hat. Denn laut The Rose Garden, 1848, S. 108 ist diese "purplish red" und laut Wesselhöft, Der Rosenfreund 1866, S. 149 "leuchtend purpurroth". Auch wenn "Identification as Joasine Hanet is accepted by the ARS". Ich schließe mich dann doch lieber den Zweifeln von "several expert rosarians" an. In Sangerhausen steht eine 'Joasine Hanet', die eher den frühen Farbbeschreibungen entspricht.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 29 DEC by petera
I have added an English translation of Flodur's comment as I think it should be available to more people.

'Joasine Hanet' in trade and the found rose "Glendora" are probably identical roses, but not the' Joasine Hanet 'that Vibert bred in 1847. Because according to The Rose Garden, 1848, p. 108, this is "purplish red" and according to Wesselhöft, Der Rosenfreund 1866, p. 149 "bright purple". Even if "Identification as Joasine Hanet is accepted by the ARS". I prefer to join the doubts of "several expert rosarians". In Sangerhausen there is a 'Joasine Hanet', which corresponds more to the early color descriptions.
REPLY
© 2021 HelpMeFind.com