|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
The description page for 'Alexander Hill Gray' says "sets no hips". I've always found mine sets hips (which hold seeds) fairly readily. I find this a bit puzzling.
|
REPLY
|
|
And this is exactly why comments like yours are so useful and what makes HMF so special. At some point in time, a permanent reference indicated otherwise and now we know that reference is in question based on your experience.
We need more people take the time to share their experience - Thanks !
|
REPLY
|
|
I certainly wouldn't discount that reference Admin. What we need is more of them to say if this rose does, or does not set hips. The fact that we show just one 1922 descendant indicates that it does not, and therefore there is a possibility that HubertG has received a rose other than 'Alexander Hill Gray'. Every reference is valuable.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 10 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
Thanks HMF Admin,
This site is a veritable commonwealth of rose knowledge; the more contributions the better.
Patricia, I have two bushes of AHG ordered from different nurseries maybe 5 years apart. They are both the same and both do set hips. They do look the same as other AHGs in Australia posted here (I've posted a few photos of mine too) This is a double rose but not what I'd call a full one and so they have normal looking reproductive parts and, if insects can get in, I can't see any reason (barring an odd ploidy) why it shouldn't set hips. That's why I thought the no hips reference was unusual. By the time AHG was introduced Teas were waning in popularity, so that is probably the likeliest reason it wasn't used much in breeding, in my opinion.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 10 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
There are in fact a couple of hips on Margaret Furness' photo here:
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.304447
|
REPLY
|
|
That is interesting HubertG. They are hard to see, but I do see them.
I suspect Margaret didn't note them as she has said in her more recent photo 315211 that her plant didn't set hips.
Unfortunately 'Alexander Hill Gray' never came my way, so I have no first-hand experience. How else can I help here?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 10 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
Best to wait for more comments on this topic, I'd say.
|
REPLY
|
|
Maybe it varies with how the weather has been. There's nothing on mine now that I would call a hip. It doesn't flower much in a dry summer.
|
REPLY
|
|
Do your 'Alexander Hill Gray' plants have prickles HubertG?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 10 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
No, it's virtually thornless. I took some photos this morning of a few hips on one of my AHGs, which I'll post later.
Its thornlessness was the reason I had previously questioned whether it might have in fact been Mme Derepas-Metrat, one of the other "Yellow Cochets", because that was nearly thornless according to references, and thornlessness is a rarity in early roses.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 10 posted
today by
HubertG
|
There were five hips on one of my plants this morning. I didn't check the other plant. The split hip is one I collected about April, showing the seeds. I do think the weather conditions play a part; AHG does tend to ball a bit, so if it doesn't open, it won't become fertilised.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Maybe..... That is most interesting HubertG. Thank you for that. (My mind pictures up a light reflecting the photo image on to a mirror, which is then re-reflected on to the plate, for the artist to draw.)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
today by
HubertG
|
Some of the drawings in the old catalogues do look very realistic and some just look almost fantastical.
I'll bear in mind in the future that the more naturalistic ones could very likely be drawn from photos (that Betten engraving of Francis Dubreuil springs to mind).
I'm not really familiar with printing procedures at that time, but If I find a useful website I can link it here.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
American Rose Annual vol. 1, p. 124 (1916)
Roses Hybridized by E. G. Hill
Robert Heller, T. 1911
|
REPLY
|
|
They began to call it a HT in later refs.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
From the Leedle Floral Co. 1914 Fall catalogue, page 34:
"Robert Heller - (Heller, 1911) (T.) Deep golden-yellow; a seedling from Perle des Jardins, deeper in color and stronger in growth. A constant summer bloomer, vigorous, thrifty and one of the most brilliant and beautifully formed yellow Roses yet introduced."
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks to you both. Hill or Heller I wonder. i note Karl's photo says introduced by Heller.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
today by
HubertG
|
'Robert Heller' seems to be named after the nurseryman's son, and seems to be a counterpart for the rose 'Jeanette Heller' named for his daughter. 'Jeanette Heller' of course is the rose involved in the infamous 'W.R.Smith' mixup debacle, and wasn't bred by Heller. By best guess is that 'Robert Heller' is a rose bred by Hill and Heller had (or again thought he had) the naming rights. Perhaps there is another named yellow rose by Hill which is the same as 'Robert Heller'.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This red rose, "Whatley Crescent", recently threw a sport from the base. The sporting bloom was pink, somewhat like 'Briarcliff' (which was a sport of Columbia). I apologise that I was running a bit too fast to stop and take a photo, but I am now wondering if the red "Whatley Crescent" could be 'Red Columbia', 1920.
Later edit. Probably not feasible because so far, I cannot find 'Red Columbia' entering Australia.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
Is 'Warrior' from Paul 1906 worth considering? It was a winter flowering tea-like HT.
|
REPLY
|
|
