HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
most recent 13 OCT SHOW ALL
Initial post 10 JAN 16 by scvirginia
I wonder if anyone in Europe could find it convenient to compare "Barbara's Pasture Rose" with 'Mme Alice Dureau'? 'MAD' isn't available anywhere else, as far as I can tell.

The HMF photos seem similar to me, but it's the coincidence of both being described as a more vigorous 'La Reine' type that first caught my attention.

Reply #1 of 2 posted 11 JAN 16 by Patricia Routley
Does "Barbara's Pasture Rose" normally have those leafy foliated sepals? Does it normally set hips.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 13 OCT by Hardy
Barbara's Pasture Rose has fairly unexciting sepals along the lines of La Reine's. It sets hips, which also look like La Reine's, and contain a similar number of seeds. Having grown BPR alongside La Reine for a few years, I haven't found any clear way of distinguishing them, and suspect that BPR may be a robust clonal line of La Reine, rather than a different plant.
most recent 13 OCT HIDE POSTS
Initial post 12 OCT by Hardy
For years I wondered what could give this rose such pointy, un-fedtschenkoana leaflet shape, and such a strange growing habit. Then I grew out a bunch of Autumn Damask selfings, and while most look much like their parent, one looks quite a lot like Omar Khayyam. Stranger still, that selfing seems to be almost completely immune to blackspot. It amazes me that, after 3500 years, R. damascena's genetics still hold surprises.
Reply #1 of 1 posted 13 OCT by jedmar
I have read the article of Iwata et al. on the "Triparental origin of the Damask rose" and the inclusion of R. fedtschenkoana among the parents seems to me rather unscientific. Some sequences apparently correspond to R. fedtschenkoana. What is missing however is a comparison of the DNA of R. fedtschenkoana with other members of the R. webbiana group, to ascertain if they have common gene strands. Iwata was apparently intent on Hurst's theories and disregarded other options. I would have looked closely at e.g. R. beggeriana, habitat fits better with that of R. moschata and which is to date grown in Central Asia for decoration and hips. R. beggeriana has the same reblooming character as R. fedtschenkoana.
most recent 10 OCT SHOW ALL
Initial post 5 OCT 15 by Salix
It is interesting that the hips have the same shape as Fedtschenkoana. They all seem to contain 1 giant nut of a seed(achene).
Reply #1 of 1 posted 10 OCT by Hardy
I'm happy to say that the marginal female fertility is not very heritable. My AD seedlings have all been significantly better seed bearers than that, and one which looks for all the world like a selfing, eventually displayed one non-damascena trait; it developed spherical hips almost like a musk's, but bigger, with 5 or so achenes each. R. damascena cannot be expected to breed true, its mixture of gallica, musk and fedtschenkoana is going to recombine and express itself slightly differently almost every time, even in selfings. Pink Leda was also a good seed bearer for me, despite looking like a 100% pure damascena. So if anyone's interested in breeding Damasks, but finds the very low hip fertility of the oldest types to be a hinderance, cross them with anything, even themselves, and expect it to go away.
most recent 27 JUN SHOW ALL
Initial post 22 OCT 14 by Hardy
"The sixt kinde of Roses called Muske Roses, hath slender springs and shoots, the leaves and flowers be smaller than the other Roses, yet they grow up almost as high as the Damaske or Province Rose. The flowers be small and single, and sometimes double, of a white colour and pleasant savour, in proportion not much unlike the wild Roses, or Canell Roses...
The five first kinds of garden Roses do flower in May & June, & so do the wild Roses & the Eglentine : but the Muske Roses do flower in June, and againe in September, or thereabouts."

A New Herball (1543), by Rembert Dodoens, translated by Henrie Lyte, London printing of 1586, pp. 757-8
Reply #1 of 1 posted 27 JUN by CybeRose
This one from John Rea (1665) is not so old a reference, but he does mention that the leaves were "shining", which is not the case with what we have now.

Rosa moschata flore pleno
The double Musk Rose riseth very high with many green branches, and dark green shining leaves, armed with great sharp thorns, the flowers come forth on long foot-stalks at the ends of the branches, many together in a tuft, most of them flowering together, being small whitish or Cream-coloured Roses, not very double, the first row of leaves being much bigger than the rest, which are small, and stand loosly, not forming so fair a double flower as the ordinary white Rose. There is another of this kind that beareth single Roses, of much lesser esteem than this; the flowers of both are chiefly valued for their scent, which is sweet like unto Musk, from whence they took the name: commonly they flower in August, after all others are past, but their usual time is in September.

Two older notes:

John Gerard: The Herball, or, Generall Historie of Plantes (1597)
Single and double Muske Rose
"... divers branches: whereon do grow long leaves, smooth and shining, made up of leaves set upon a middle rib, like the other Roses."

John Parkinson: A Garden of Pleasant Flowers (1629)
18. Rosa Moschata simplex & multiplex.
The Muske Rose single and double.
"... having small darke greene leaves on them, not much bigger then the leaves of Eglantine: "

It is odd that in the 16th through 18th centuries, the Musk roses in England were autumnal with dark green, "shining" leaves. Thereafter, it seems, the whitish leaved types displaced the former, but retained the flowering habit.

ps. Herrmann (1762): "... dark-green, bright, smooth"
© 2019