HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
-
-
Initial post
11 JAN 18 by
NikosR
|
Does anybody know if there is a structure beneath this rose or it is standalone?
|
REPLY
|
|
There might have been a tree once, but if so, it has been swallowed.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 14 posted
22 JAN 18 by
NikosR
|
Thanks. Any idea how old this might be?
|
REPLY
|
|
Or if this bush is 'La Mortola' or R. brunonii? We still have photos of this bush in both files.
|
REPLY
|
|
It was labelled R. brunonii when I photographed it a few years ago and the blooms and foliage seemed of normal R. brunonii size. The 'La Mortola' I saw in Regents Park had significantly larger individual blooms and larger leaflets.
|
REPLY
|
|
According to Grahame Stuart Thomas, Climbing Roses Old and New: ...large pure white flowers in good clusters, the petals having distinctly mucronate apieces;...
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for that Andrew. You might have just nailed it.
The 1843 ref for R. brunonii says petals "rounded approaching obcordate" which I read as ...blunt heart-shaped.
Graham Stuart Thomas says of La Mortola "petals having distinctly mucronate apices" which I read as ...petals with tiny pointed tips.
|
REPLY
|
|
From Stern's Botanical Latin.
Mucronatus (Mucronate): abruptly terminated by a hard short point.
You can clearly see this on one of the pictures from billy teabag.
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.310678
|
REPLY
|
|
Some of the petals on the close-up view of the Mt Lofty plant appear to have peaks, others not. I'll transfer both photos to R brunonii.
|
REPLY
|
|
And some of the pictures posted as Brunonii have pointy petals too:
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.267270
A lot of the pictures seem to have mixtures mucronate and obcordate petals often on the same flower. Perhaps both types are muddled or G. S. T. is mistaken.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have added to, slightly, the 1969 reference for 'La Mortola'. Mr. Thomas (who was selling 'La Mortola' at Sunningdale Nurseries) said that R. brunonii "varies" and 'La Mortola' was "an ideal garden form". Not much to go on, but Billy has said (above) 'La Mortola' had "significantly larger individual blooms and larger leaflets". I am not sure if there are any public gardens growing both R. brunonii and 'La Mortola' within a reasonable distance, but photos showing an average leaf from both, and an average bloom from both would be interesting.
|
REPLY
|
|
I was under the impression that 'La Mortola' was a more tender form of brunonii or as stated in the profile hybrid moschata. My only experience with brunonii is at an employer's garden in Devon where it grew tolerably well on a cold and damp north facing wall. 'La Mortola' would not grow here it would need warmer drier conditions, especially in the summer, like experienced at Villa Hanbury or as in billy tea bag's photographs, Regent's Park London. I don't believe it would grow well in my garden, the winters would be fine but the summer would not have sufficient warmth or dryness. Incidentally, it is slightly confusing that on the profile it says "Hybrid Moschata, Species / Wild" but further down, "Hybrid of r. brunonii"
|
REPLY
|
|
I do not have the knowledge to do anything about that classification. Perhaps others can?
|
REPLY
|
|
I grew my plant from Ron Duncan's plant that I was told was Himalayan Musk. 1999 I think from my cutting bed plans. I see I tried cuttings of Rosa brunonii from Hahndorf Cottage Garden when HRIA pruned his roses in 2000 ( run by Alan Campbell back then before he became the gardener at The Cedars) and from Ron Duncan again 1.8.01 of Himalayan Musk. It was when Phillip Robinson and Gregg Lowery visited that they said it was 'La Mortola'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Pat - when you're next in London in summer, it would be good if you could check out what Regents Park has as 'La Mortola' as I think you would be the only one to judge whether your rose is the same.
All the nurseries over here offered R. brunonii as R. moschata or Himalayan Musk when I first started growing roses and those names persist in gardens from that time.
GST tried to correct the error when he realised it couldn't be R. moschata but by then it was in public and private gardens and nurseries all over the world under the other names.
Definitely one of the old chestnuts.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
4 JAN 18 by
NikosR
|
Nevada produces mostly smaller light pink blooms during the warmer months in my zone 9b Med climate while during the cooler months it produces its signature large white blooms.
|
REPLY
|
|
Same as in my garden, similar climate.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
How can one remove spent blooms without deadheading? I wonder..
|
REPLY
|
|
Try a leaf blower, It works quite well on roses and camellias too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 13 posted
2 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
It doesn't work if one wants to encourage re-bloom..
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 13 posted
2 DEC 17 by
 Jay-Jay
|
Try this: Look up deadheading in the Glossary in the left column. There You might find the answer to Your question. And look at the photo's tab too: http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/gl.php?n=297&tab=36
Pluck the spent flower like an apple (with stem) at the right place, where there is a weak point, and the flower-stem thickens and later on forms cork when rejecting/getting rid of the spent flower or hip.
And take a look this picture of Étoile de Hollande Cl. as an example.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 13 posted
15 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
I'm well aware of this. How does that answer my orginal question which is in reference to the details in the rose entry? How can one remove spent blooms without deadheading one way or the other? In my book removing spent blooms = deadheading
|
REPLY
|
|
I guess the description means deadhead (remove what might make a hip) - blasting dead petals with a leaf-blower might not do that.
|
REPLY
|
|
The leaf-blower will only remove dead petals, I think the only way to remove what might make a hip is to do so as Jay-Jay wrote, that is by hand.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 13 posted
15 DEC 17 by
Jay-Jay
|
Cutting the whole plant to the ground? ;-)
Maybe Your question isn't clear to the reader.
You might explain/describe what You mean or want to.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 13 posted
15 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
The entry for this particular rose mentions amongst other things: 'Remove spent blooms to encourage re-bloom... ...Do not dead head'. I suggest one can't have one's cake and eat it too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 13 posted
15 DEC 17 by
Jay-Jay
|
Oh, now I understand... those lines/advices contradict each-other.
This would be an issue for the administrator, c.q. Patricia Routley.
|
REPLY
|
|
c.q.? I am but one of the, admittedly very few, administrators Jay-Jay.
I don't grow this rose and more's the pity.....so I have added a few more references to find out. There are two U.K. references which say there is some autumn repeat, so perhaps if one did dead-head, it might produce more of an autumn crop. It apparently doesn't repeat as a rule. I have removed the "Remove spent blooms to encourage rebloom" line.
Taking a clue from the 2000 reference, as it is a very thorny rose perhaps our description might need some extra words - No need to dead head unless you have chain mesh skin.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's interesting that the various references contradict each other, some say not recurrent or does not reflower whilst others say good second crop or another goodly flush. Perhaps it has something to do with growing conditions or cultivation? And good luck with deadheading a rose that grows 3.5m x 3.5m however you decide to do it!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 13 posted
16 DEC 17 by
Jay-Jay
|
In Dutch it means A or B. I meant an administrator and maybe in this case Patricia.
I apologize for the misunderstanding of the English meaning of c.q..
|
REPLY
|
|
Andrew - Am grinning.
Jay-Jay - I can't speak/read a word of Dutch so you are way ahead of me.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
14 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
This rose was introduced 2017 by Peter Beales nursery and ,most probably, was not bred by Peter Beales himself. This is in reference to the 'bred by' field in your entry.
https://www.classicroses.co.uk/roses/new-roses-for-2017.html
|
REPLY
|
|
As you say, most probably, was not bred by Peter himself. But as the nursery says "unique to Peter Beales", for the moment, we will leave the breeder as is because if it was unique, it may have been bred by him. We've added the intro date. Thanks NikosR. Let us know if you find any new information.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think it was bred by Beales as they have in recent years taken up breeding their own roses to compete with Austins. The breeders code for this rose is 'Beajoker', which tends to imply it was bred by Beales.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 6 posted
15 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
(Hi Marlorena I'm 'nikthegreek')
BEAxx code has been used for breadings by the late Amanda Beales and maybe other Peter Beales Roses (the company) introductions. To my knowledge (and that of HMF database) it has not been used for any Peter Beales (the man) breedings. Let's not confuse the man with the nursery.
If this rose was bred before 2013 then it was most probably bred by Amanda Beales. I have no information about who, if any, is breeding Peter Beales Roses introductions since Amanda's death. My understanding is that the only current connecton of PBR to the Beales family, since Richard Beales left the company, is only Peter Beales' legacy. PBR is owned by 'corporate investors' now and was run by Ken March last time I checked. Unfortunately for old rose lovers they keep dropping more roses from their inventory every year because, quoting Mr. March, they need to be a viable business they cannot afford to be a museum..
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Nik, - I thought that might be you...
Just to say that I didn't mean to claim that Peter Beales [the man himself], bred the rose, but rather ''whoever does the breeding at his nursery'', as opposed to say breeders like Heather and Colin Horner, who've bred roses like 'Leah Tutu' 'Dunham Massey' and 'Gisela's Delight', all introduced by Beales but not bred by them.
Who can say with certainty if it was bred by Amanda herself, or not?... also released at the same time was 'Papworth's Pride', which has the code 'Beamelon', so presumably one could assume that was also bred by Amanda, although it's shown on HMF as bred by Peter Beales.
Incidentally, the 'Margaret Greville' rose was commissioned by the National Trust at Polesden Lacey, and they were given 3 roses from Beales nursery from which to choose to be named after Mrs Greville, and they chose this particular one. I don't know what happened to the other two, or who bred those. Well, one of the others was most likely what has been named 'Papworth's Pride' I suppose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 6 posted
15 DEC 17 by
NikosR
|
If this rose was bred before 2013, it was most probably hybridized by Amanda Beales rather than Peter Beales. Amanda was the hybridizer responsible for many PBR introductions of recent years.
https://www.hortweek.com/director-amanda-beales-dies-aged-45-long-illness/ornamentals/article/1207639
|
REPLY
|
|
Peter died January 26, 2013. Amanda died August 12, 2013.
The point about the BEAxx code being used by Amanda (and not by Peter) certainly suggests it was bred by Amanda and so I have changed the breeder to Amanda.
Many thanks NikosR
|
REPLY
|
|
|
