|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
Very nice. Pretty foliage too.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The 1919 newspaper interview with Clark says that 'Ruby Ring' is "from Stella". Looking at the photos here of 'Stella', I can well believe it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
8 days ago by
jedmar
|
Yes, and the timing is ok too: If 'Stella' was on or before introduced 1911.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The quoted parentage of R. gigantea x 'Mme. Martignier did not appear until 1993. It would be good to have an earlier reference.
I note the two 1st generation descendants, ‘Lorraine Lee’ and ‘Nancy Hayward’ but it would be good also to have photos of ‘Jessie Clark’s hips.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 6 posted
8 days ago by
HubertG
|
My 'Jessie Clark' was accidentally poisoned by the neigbours when it grew into their Murraya hedge. :-(
I still miss it, but I can confirm that every flower set a large round hip that was yellowish-orange when ripe. There were always lots of seeds inside and the germination rate was quite high. I don't have any surviving seedlings from that time, but recently I found an intact hip from a cross I made using 'Semperflorens' back in 2008, that had been left in a drawer, forgotten about until 2018 when I planted the seeds. The hip had essentially mummified. One seed germinated in late January this year which I still find rather amazing given its age. The seedling doesn't look like it will be repeat flowering at this stage. I don't think that I have any photos of the hips of 'Jessie Clark' but I'll look anyway.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks HubertG. I have added “Sets hips” to ‘Jessie Clark’.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 6 posted
8 days ago by
HubertG
|
Regarding early references to 'Mme. Martignier' being the pollen parent to 'Jessie Clark' - I seem to remember an article where Alister Clark wrote about visiting someone's garden (Editor Stewart's??) who still grew 'Mme. Martiginier', and Clark commenting that it was the grandparent to 'Lorraine Lee' via 'Jessie Clark' . I thought the reference was somewhere here, but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps it was in an old Australian Rose Annual. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 6 posted
8 days ago by
jedmar
|
Check the "Australian and New Zealand Rose Annual", 1928, p. 52. Google's snippet view states: Jessie Clark (Hyb. Gig.), Alister Clark, Vic. ... It is a cross between Gigantea and Madame Martignier, the result being the largest single Rose in cultivation.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 6 posted
8 days ago by
HubertG
|
Thanks Jedmar. I can't access it but it does confirm the parentage pretty early on.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have added the reference. It was from the 1931 Australian Rose Annual.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The parentage of seedling no. 4141 (confirmed in the 1955 reference to be 'Princeps') is given as a cross between 'Hadley' and R. gigantea in the 1938 and 1939 newspaper articles. This confirms the references, at the time of its introduction as 'Princeps', that it is a Hybrid Gigantea.
My observations from growing 'Princeps' is that apart from the large, elegant semi-double flower and climbing tendency there isn't much in its appearance of R.gigantea itself. Neither does the foliage shape show much Gigantea influence. However, in other respects this cross makes perfect sense. My 'Princeps' doesn't set hips, and this strongly suggests that it is a triploid which is what one would expect from crossing R. gigantea with a Hybrid Tea. Also, the velvety crimson colour and the beautiful, strong damask scent can be explained by 'Hadley' being one parent, and its spring-only flowering characteristic can be explained by having R. gigantea as the other parent.
It isn't very clear from the two newspaper references whether the cross is ('Hadley' x R. gigantea) or (R.gigantea x 'Hadley') but if I had to take an educated guess I would say 'Hadley' was the seed parent, simply because from a practical point of view it would have been easier to pollinate 'Hadley' with the pollen of Gigantea, rather than vice versa. Also the 1938 reference appears to have come from Clark himself, and the 1939 reference is a bit more vague.
I'd also add that Clark's description of it as 'straggling' is right on the mark for me although I don't give mine anything to climb on. It is a beautiful flower and perfume though and despite it only flowering once a year, I wouldn't want to be without it.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you HubertG. Valuable research as always. I have added the 1938 parentage, with a qualifying Note.
‘Hadley’ was also said to be a spindly rose, and my last plant of ‘Hadley’ has always been so.
Your observation that ‘Princeps’ doesn’t set hips is backed up by no descendants. Would its pollen have been fertile I wonder?
I have a very vague memory of a photo of Alister’s R. gigantea covered with little white bags after pollination, but I might be confusing myself.
(Later edit. I certainly was. The photo was of ‘Gustave Grunerwald’ from 1928, page 21.:
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
8 days ago by
HubertG
|
I used the pollen of 'Princeps' on a few crosses last spring which did take. One ('Lorraine Lee' x 'Princeps') contained 19 seeds, so presumably the pollen is good. None have germinated yet. I made this cross not realising at the time that R. gigantea was a parent of 'Princeps', so should anything result from this cross it will have Gigantea on both sides.
|
REPLY
|
|
