|
|
-
-
Initial post
20 SEP 17 by
Hortus
|
Parentage: ´Proschwitzer Schloßrose´ X hybrid from the Wichuriana group (Rambler) by Hans-Peter Bethke (Germany).
Here Photo of pollen parent "Weiße von Saxdorf" (work name):
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
29 MAR 17 by
Hortus
|
Rosa nanothamnus is only referred to as a synonym to Rosa giraldii in "Catalog of Life".
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/a23ab7e47e9975a7793f4d13789145e5/synonym/c67a6e247499a0ed6825664bc6185c8e
Would not it be appropriate to combine the data on both taxa with HMF?
I would also suggest separating the sterile hybrid form from the Europa Rosarium Sangerhausen / Germany and recording it separately.
|
REPLY
|
|
Some of the pictures of this rose look far taller than the 15 to 50 centimetres in the description.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
30 MAR 17 by
 jedmar
|
Rosa nanothamnus Boulenger has been listed as a subform of Rosa giraldii by Brumme & Gladis in the "Wildrosenverzeichnis" of the Rosarium Sangerhausen (p. 95). While we have listed this as a synonym, this publication gives no explanations on why this (and other) regrouping(s) was(were) made, which is a significant deficiency from a botanical viewpoint. It is quite possible that the Brumme & Gladis attributions will be questioned.
Furthermore, there are other varieties of Rosa giraldii, the type being Rosa giraldii var. giraldiii. Therefore it is better to Keep Rosa nanothamnus and Rosa giraldii separate.
|
REPLY
|
|
I see, the whole description is some what confusing, it says "White, near white or white blend Species" then further down says "pink". All the photographs show plants with strong pink coloured flowers.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
30 MAR 17 by
jedmar
|
The original description by Boulenger says "petals pink or white". The ARS colour classes are not always reliable, but are cited here. We have modified HMF's description to pink and white, too, thank you. Please also see the comment by Hortus, that the plant in Sangerhausen is actually a sterile hybrid. It is a general problem that wild roses in many Botanical Gardens are not the type, but some sort of seedlings. We cannot sort this out at HMF, but only show photos from different sites (and hope that some botanist will make a publication on the subject one day).
|
REPLY
|
|
It is a very unusual and interesting rose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Flora Taurico-Caucasica: Supplementum, tome 3, p. 339 (1819)
Bieberstein
974 ROSA ferox
R. germinibus subglobosis pedunculis petiolisque hispidis, caule hispido: aculeis copiusis sparsis, primariis validis curvis basi dilatato-incrassatis, foliolis subrotundo-ovatis subtus glanduloso rubignosis, grosse serratis: serraturis glanduloso-serrulatis. Marsch. cent, plant, rar. rossic. 1. t. 37. Laurent. Rosae 42. Aiton kew. ed. 2. P. 3. p. 268.
R. provincialis. Flor. taur. cauc. n. 974. (exclusis synonymis.)
R. horrida. Catal. hort. gorenk. a. 1812. p. 66. Besser catal. hort. crem. a. 1816. p. 117.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wxAoAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Flora%20taurico-caucasica%22&pg=PA339#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
8 FEB 17 by
Hortus
|
Rosa biebersteinii Lindl. is Synonym for Rosa turcica :
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/3ae1751b4dd38c59fe75a8274468aa93/synonym/1f48766a4b125d02e616d4e121188bb3
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
9 FEB 17 by
CybeRose
|
It seems that Bieberstein had a rather vague notion of this species. He cited Lawrance's R. ferox (supposedly R. rugosa), as well as the other two.
Karl
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
A nice-one and friendly looking seedling this: MX 13
|
REPLY
|
|
