HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
most recent 30 AUG SHOW ALL
Initial post 11 JUL 15 by scvirginia
Shouldn't the discoverer of this sport be listed as Jan Spek Nurseries? It is given as a discovery of Jan Spek in early references, but credited to 'De Ruiter' on the description page.
Reply #1 of 3 posted 11 JUL 15 by Patricia Routley
Having 'Miss Edith Cavell' in my garden, this has puzzled me too. I suspect that it may have been found by Meiderwyk in the nursery rows of De Ruiter and introduced by Spek. But that is all guesswork, which is not good enough. Who was Meiderwyk? Perhaps only old Dutch catalogues can help sort this one out.
Reply #2 of 3 posted 12 JUL 15 by scvirginia
The 1978 reference from Harkness' book explains it, though if Harkness is correct that the discovery of 'Miss Edith Cavell' led to de Ruiter's later success, it's puzzling that he wasn't credited with the discovery from the beginning? Possibly de Ruiter was working in Spek's nursery at the time of the discovery? De Ruiter Innovations is now a large rose-growing company, presumably founded by the same Gerrit de Ruiter that Harkness spoke to? But who or what or where is Meiderwyk?

I also wonder if Harkness' speculation that de Ruiter could have produced 80,000 clones of 'Miss Edith' in 3 years was later reported as fact? I did see a mention in 'Polyantha Roses-- the History and the Romance' that de Ruiter himself claimed to have produced 80,000 plants in a year and a half, but don't know if Harkness' guess was reported as fact, or if there was an independent source in which de Ruiter stated how many plants he was able to propagate between the sport's discovery in August of 1914 and its introduction by Spek in autumn of 1917.

Who in wartime Europe would have been buying 80,000 polyanthas, I wonder?

Reply #3 of 3 posted 30 AUG by jedmar
Would like to take up this thread again as a riddle for our Dutch friends: We have two listings for 'Miss Edith Cavell', one from Meiderwyk (int. by Jan Spek Nurseries 1917), a second by Gerrit de Ruiter (discovered August 1914 according to his 1955 article). Both are scarlet sports from 'Orléans Rose' and impossible to distinguish from their photos. My conjecture: they are one and the same. Some additional info:
- Meiderwyk or better Meiderwijk is a family name which can be found in Waddingxveen, a community neighbouring Boskoop, where the Jan Spek Nurseries are located.
- Gerrit de Ruiter was born 1892 in Waddingxveen and only moved to Hazerswoude in the mid 1920s.
- The first mention de Ruyter as discoverer is by Jäger in "Rosenlexikon" (1936), who gives a date of 1932. Jäger gives a longer description for the Meiderwyk rose (1917) and states it is at Sangerhausen. Later authors, incl. "Modern Roses" take up the de Ruiter discovery and combine it with the Jan Spek introduction of 1917.

The 1955 story by Gerrit de Ruiter is a bit suspect for me as after 'Miss Edith Cavell' in 1917 there is a gap of 9 years before the next roses ('Locarno', 'Golden Salmon') are introduced by him.
Does someone have access to Dutch nursery catalogues or horticultural magazines of the the period 1917-32? then we could see whether Spek or de Ruiter were the main propagators of 'Miss Edith Cavell'. Jan Spek also introduced in 1920 'Ideal', a sport from 'Miss Edith Cavell'
most recent 18 JUL SHOW ALL
Initial post 23 NOV 14 by scvirginia

I see in the description page for "Natchitoches Noisette" that the height is 3- 15', but other sources say 3- 5', and I suspect that 15' is a typo. I did see someone mention in the HMF Comments section that a Zone 8b Texas "NN" is 6', so perhaps 3-6' would be a better height range?

Reply #1 of 3 posted 24 NOV 14 by Patricia Routley
Thanks Virginia. Changed to 3-6'.
Reply #2 of 3 posted 18 JUL by mmanners
In Florida, on 'Fortuniana' roots, 8 feet would not be uncommon at all.
Reply #3 of 3 posted 18 JUL by Patricia Routley
8 feet it is. Thank you Malcolm.
most recent 9 JUN SHOW ALL
Initial post 29 JUN 18 by scvirginia
Photos of this plant were moved from 'Madame Carnot' to 'Carnot', a purple-pink Tea, but they look like the HT 'Madame Cunisset-Carnot', and I think they should be moved there.

Reply #1 of 4 posted 17 OCT 18 by Gartenjockels kleine gaerten
definitely NOT mme carnot (tea) indeed.
Reply #2 of 4 posted 17 OCT 18 by Patricia Routley
So Gartenjockels kleine gaerten, do you have a problem in moving your photos? Would you like us to do it for you?
Reply #3 of 4 posted 6 JAN 19 by Gartenjockels kleine gaerten
Reply #4 of 4 posted 9 JUN by kai-eric
madame carnot of antique emporium doesn't match madame cunisset carnot as presumed by some of us. datasheet at the official website of the rosery of val-de-marne (france) clearly show another rose.
most recent 9 JUN SHOW ALL
Initial post 9 MAY 10 by Cass
This rose is identical to the rose in commerce under the name of 'Trovyn de Tronchère.' I believe that the two are identical, that neither is a Tea, and that both are Hybrid Teas. See my photos of the petals, filaments and anthers. Petal count is identical. Both are scentless.
Reply #1 of 13 posted 1 JUN by jennifer
Hi. I don't know if you'll see this so many years later...Did you mean Hovyn de Tronchere? Because you are correct, it does look like "LMF". I think my found rose, which matches all photos on HMF of Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, looks like the photos of Hovyn.

My "LMF" was found 20 years ago growing on my newly-purchased property in an area that had been long-neglected. My house was built in 1947 and I understand the original owner had an amazing garden. My rose is more upright, 3.5 feet tall and is nearly scentless. LMF is supposed to be a weak grower by all accounts and was reported to be very fragrant. I wouldn't call my rose a weak grower, at all and maybe has the lightest tea scent when the weather is warm. Most full plant pictures on HMF do not show a weak growing bush. Others have reported no or a very light fragrance on their LMF. I just don't think the rose being sold as LMF is LMF for these 2 reasons. I want it to be because it is sad to me when we lose a rose, I try to imagine a fragrance, but alas it is very light.

My secret hope was that my rose was the long-lost My Maryland as John Cook's nursery was several miles from my home. My Maryland was supposed to be scented, too and from the watercolor photo posted on HMF, a brighter pink than my rose. I have Mrs. Wakefield Christie Miller and she matches all HMF photos.
Reply #2 of 13 posted 2 JUN by Patricia Routley
This file really needs separating into two files:
‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ - which I believe is extinct. See 2019 reference

“Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”
Syn. “Whittle Light Pink Tea”. (presuming these two roses are the same)

It is a big job when one looks at all the photos that need to be moved. To date, I have never had the time to tackle it
Reply #3 of 13 posted 2 JUN by jennifer
I also do not think the rose currently being sold/grown as LMF is true. I know that catalogs often exaggerate the strength of a rose's fragrance, buy to say this rose has a strong fragrance would be completely untrue. I'm always asking visitors to my garden to smell it and they get little to nothing. I did have a visitor once say the fragrance was strong, but he is a contrarian, so he must be ignored. ha ha
Reply #4 of 13 posted 3 JUN by Patricia Routley
There is a confusing Note on the main page which says:
"Whittle Light Pink Tea" is a study name for this rose, which APPEARED in the collection of The Huntington.
Then there is the 2001 reference:
Whittle Light-Pink Tea ('Lady Mary Fitzwilliam?) Tea. Found Angel's Camp Prot. Cemetery...

I recall being shown a rose in a cemetery in 2006 when it was called the Whittle-Beyer (Cass’ photo spelling) or Whittle-Byer (Mashamcl’s photo spelling.
Can we presume the “Whittle Light-Pink Tea” is the same as the “Whittle-B[whatever]” rose?
Reply #7 of 13 posted 6 JUN by scvirginia
It is useful to remember that detection of fragrance varies quite a bit from person to person, and also varies for individuals according to time of day, temperature, windiness, age of bloom, etc. Also some fragrances need to be smelled by putting one's nose near the bloom, but others 'waft', and you need to stand a little ways away from the flower to allow the scent to reach your nose.

I think most experts recommend warm, still mornings as the best time to try to detect rose fragrances.

I have allergies, so picking up rose fragrances only happens occasionally.
Reply #5 of 13 posted 3 JUN by scvirginia
I am puzzled by the note on the description page saying there was a note that 'Lady Alice' was given as a synonym. By whom, I wonder?

And I have to say that when I saw that, I was already thinking these photos look very much like the illustrations and photos of 'Lady Alice Stanley'. Any thoughts?
Reply #6 of 13 posted 6 JUN by Patricia Routley
The files are now separated into
‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’. and
“Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”

‘Lady Alice’ was referenced in 1936 by Rosenlexikon.

I think ‘Lady Alice Stanley’ seems to have a deeper-coloured center than “Lady Mary Fitzwilliam - in commerce as”.
Besides, Peter Beales published a photo of 'Lady Alice Stanley' In his booklet Edwardian Roses 1979
as well as the Money-Beales version of ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam in his booklet Late Victorian Roses.
Both he and the photographer, Keith Money would have known they were different.
Reply #10 of 13 posted 8 JUN by jennifer
Thank you! That task must surely have taken some time.
Reply #11 of 13 posted 8 JUN by Patricia Routley
It did Jennifer. But only because I went about it the long way, and I hadn’t opened my eyes to realise there was a much shorter way to move the references.
Somewhere I have seen a hint, or presumption, of an identification name. It was a lady’s name and I have searched everything twice and cannot now find it.
Reply #12 of 13 posted 9 JUN by scvirginia
Nice work creating separate records, Patricia!

Do we have an approximate date for "Whittle"? Can't be later than or earlier than dates? Some of the HMF photos of 'Comtesse Vandal' look similar, although some do not...
Reply #13 of 13 posted 9 JUN by Patricia Routley
Thanks Virginia. Now all we have to do is keep our eyes open for a no-fragranced, no hipped, upright beauty.
Reply #8 of 13 posted 6 JUN by HubertG
Virginia, I found this in an 1894 Australian newspaper (The Broadford Courier & Reedy Creek Times, 14 Sep, page 5):

"Synonymous Roses.

At a meeting of the committee of the British National Rose Society, held recently, the regulation
relating to synonymous roses, and binding on all affiliated societies, was altered to read as follows:-- "The following roses which are bracketed together are considered synonymous, and must not be shown in the same stand. For instance, Grand Mogul must not he shown in the same stand as Jean Soupert:"

It then goes on to list 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam' and 'Lady Alice' bracketed together.

So it seems to have originated as an exhibition regulation.
Reply #9 of 13 posted 6 JUN by scvirginia
So it seems that 'Lady Alice' was either not a stable sport of 'LMF', or the difference was too subtle for exhibition boxes.

© 2020