HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
 
Hardy
most recent 18 APR SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 14 NOV 14 by Hardy
Some crosses between invasive species scare me a little...
Does this rose show signs of being a yard eater?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 18 APR by Jeri Jennings
Might.

It will become a massive plant, and it can sucker. Do you need a burglar deterrent?
REPLY
most recent 6 JAN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 3 AUG 16 by Hardy
This rose has been subject to two rounds of DNA testing that I know of, with interesting results. The 2006 paper, 'Characterization and Genetic Relationships of Wild Species and Old Garden Roses Based on Microsatellite Analysis,' placed it in a cluster with Centifolias, rather than Albas or Damasks. The dataset used for a 2016 paper, 'Nineteenth century French rose (Rosa sp.) germplasm shows a shift over time from a European to an Asian genetic background,' found that it had genetic markers in common with a group comprised almost entirely of rubiginosa hybrids, bred by Dupont, Vibert and Lord Penzance. Thus, it may not be a Damask with canina influence through an Alba cross, as traditionally supposed, but rather a centifolia with some (section canina) eglantine mixed in.

I had always wondered about Petite Lisette's distinctive foliage, with leaflets which are not very characteristic of any of the early garden rose classes, being relatively small, unusually shaped, and strangely shiny, yet with a release date that would seem to preclude most foreign imports. Now, looking at it and my eglantine, it makes complete sense, and I'm aghast that I never contemplated such an obvious possibility. I suppose if there's a moral to this, it might be that old roses are often more complex hybrids than we give them credit for, and that when something looks odd, like unexpectedly shiny foliage, or a peculiar lack of thorns, we might want to consider European species roses, which were everywhere, and as well loved by bees as any garden rose.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 9 posted 3 AUG 16 by Patricia Routley
In Western Australia I am growing two bushes which time has proved to be the same rose. I have recorded them as being 'Petite de Hollande' (and noted that someone suggested 'Spong' at one time). They both came to me as cuttings in 2001 - one from Carol Mansfield came as 'Petite de Hollande'; and the other from Donna Broun came as 'Petite Lisette'. I have never really done any research on them, but will see what photographs I have later in the day.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 9 posted 3 AUG 16 by Hardy
Hedgerow Rose posted a good shot of the foliage here, showing the shape, coloration, and size of leaflets, but not their sheen, at http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.245438 Maybe that will help you figure out which one you have.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 9 posted 4 AUG 16 by Patricia Routley
Thank you Hardy. This is the rose that came as 'Petite Lisette'. Nothing at all shiny about the leaf at all. Quite matte from my photos it seems. Checking both this rose and and R. eglantine today, not even the hint of a rose leaf in sight.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 9 posted 4 AUG 16 by Hardy
Your rose does look a lot like a normal centifolia.

Here's one I just took of my Petite Lisette's foliage, for purposes of showing the sheen, and the light (un-Alba) coloration.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 9 posted 5 AUG 16 by Patricia Routley
I would hazard a guess and say that neither your rose, nor mine, might be the original 'Petite Lisette'. The 1829 reference says acuminate (narrowing to a sharp point) leaflets. Your leaflets appear to be oblong, oval, and a couple are quite orbicular.
The reference goes on to say the ovary (receptacle?) is glabrous (smooth) and glaucous (white) at the top, and the blooms age almost to white.
My blooms are small, pink, and I have never noted them fading to white.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 9 posted 5 AUG 16 by Hardy
I think this may be a case of uncertain translation. Brent Dickerson (The Old Rose Adventurer, p. 157) translated 'pointues' as 'pointed,' which would distinguish it from Damasks and Centifolias which have quite blunt foliage, but isn't as clearly specific as 'acuminate.' My knowledge of early 19th century botanical French is negligible, so I can't present a well informed argument for either possibility.

My alleged Petite Lisette conforms to the rest of the description.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 9 posted 5 AUG 16 by Patricia Routley
Or could that have meant the folioles are pointed? I have adjusted that reference as best I can but my knowledge of ANY other language is negligible too - a matter of much regret for me at this stage of my life,
REPLY
Reply #8 of 9 posted 6 AUG 16 by Hardy
To try and help resolve this, I went through Prevost's catalogue looking at how he described leaf shape. I noticed that he never used technical terms for the tips of the leaves, such as acuminate (in modern French, 'acuminé'), though he used a full range of botanical adjectives for their overall shape. He used 'pointues' 14 times, always referring to the tips of leaflets, several of which were otherwise elliptical, oblong or ovate. (He did not use it with lanceolate leaflets, where the point would be implied by the leaflet shape.) He said that some had leaflets which were acute or 'pointues,' and that others might be obtuse or 'pointues.'

I was left with an impression that when he says leaflets are 'pointues,' it encompassed what we would now call acuminate, apiculate, caudate, cuspidate and mucronate, which terms may not have existed in 1829. I'm liking Dickerson's use of 'pointed,' which has the benefit of being the translation in ordinary, non-technical French, because there is no single technical term which covers those five sorts of leaflet tips, so 'pointed' may be as close as one can get. None of Prevost's other descriptions of roses with 'pointues' leaflets have been entered and translated on HMF, so I'm happy to say that there are no other entries where this translation question might apply.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 9 posted 6 JAN by jedmar
I have added a number of additional references to 'Petite Lisette', as I suspect the rose in commerce today is not the original alba-damask hybrid of Vibert. There is no evidence that 'Petite Lisette' was actually in commerce or gardens from late 1830s to 1955, when Graham Stuart Thomas mentions it again. Was this one of the roses which were "identified" by Arthur Wyatt? Gravereaux did not have it in l'Haÿ in 1902, which usually is a sign that it was not available at the time. It was also not in Sangerhausen in 1936.
REPLY
most recent 2 JAN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 25 FEB 04 by Anonymous-797
The thumbnails of Rose du Roi feature two early painting and two photos; the photos, supposedly of the same rose are completely different.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 12 APR 11 by Hardy
I only noticed one old painting of the rose, Redoute's, in the thumbnails, but if you look at the thorns in that painting, something doesn't fit. Either the painting's off, or the thorny RdR of 1823 has been replaced by something a little different. Two of its color sports have supposedly survived, and both are thornier, but the identity of both of those are also disputed.

Rose du Roi of commerce is a fine rose, though, whatever its identity.

<update, five years later>

I noticed that the thorny rose painted by Redoute was labelled Quatre Saisons Lelieur originally, but then marked as Crimson Perpetual before being uploaded by an anonymous poster here. Quatre Saisons Lelieur is a synonym for La Moderne, which is quite similar to Autumn Damask, and unrelated to Rose du Roi, aside from both being Damask Perpetuals associated with the Comte de Lelieur. This same confusion seems to have crept into descriptions of the rose as early as 1837. My own "Rose du Roi of commerce" is now in bloom, and of six flowers I examined, two had five sepals, three had six, and one had seven! Buist's 'The Rose Manual' (1844) and Cranston's 'Cultural Directions for the Rose' (1877) said Rose du Roi was a very good producer of seed, and mine has very large, oblong, purple-tinged hips on it (1.25" long and 3/4" across), and they still have a couple of months to grow before they'll be ripe. By Damask standards, they're enormous. Like the 1873 description, it has no prickles under the petioles, which is unusual.

I believe the "of commerce" label probably dates from Philip Robinson's 2007 article in Rosa Mundi, where he said that the rose in commerce in America was obtained from Kordes circa 1954, and that he'd "grown this rose for a number of years and had no reason to suspect that it was not the true variety." Then he obtained a rose identified as Panachee de Lyon, which did not appear identical (aside from bloom color) to what he grew as Rose du Roi, and concluded that the Panachee was authentic and the Rose du Roi was not. The alleged Panachee eventually produced a red sport, which Vintage Gardens sold as "Rose du Roi, original." Like him, I've grown the rose of commerce for years, and had no reason to doubt that it was either Rose du Roi or Mogador. I've yet to see his Panachee or its redder sport, but until such a time as I do, I'm unready to discount the idea that the rose in commerce is, if not Rose du Roi or Mogador, perhaps Louis Philippe, a seedling of Rose du Roi. Six sepals is just too unusual, and some of Rose du Roi's seedlings inherited it, as some did its prolific seed production.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 2 JAN by Plazbo
"Six sepals is just too unusual, and some of Rose du Roi's seedlings inherited it, as some did its prolific seed production."

I'm inclined to think it's not as uncommon as is believed, it's just something not often paid attention to. As someone who dabbles with breeding I saw the 6 sepal trait and wondered what would happen if crossing it with the crested trait (and still working towards that goal).

As it stands I've seen 6+ sepal instances on Lorraine Lee, Paul Neyron, Man of Steel, Typhoon (or whatever was sold here in Australia as Typhoon), seedlings from Typhoon, selfings of George Best (which are balanced, 3 smooth, 3 leafy on both sides). I wouldn't be surprised if there's others just in my garden, I don't notice it until hips form...flowers are too distracting :P
REPLY
most recent 13 OCT 19 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.

Thanks,
Virginia
REPLY
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
Reply #2 of 2 posted 13 OCT 19 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.
REPLY
© 2020 HelpMeFind.com