HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
billy teabag
most recent 30 AUG HIDE POSTS
Initial post 30 AUG by billy teabag
HMF currently gives 1898 as the year of introduction, when a glance at the references shows that it was referenced in 1897.
This is a common discrepancy - roses produced by Continental breeders appearing in lists of new roses in French publications in one year, and in English publications the following year.
Reply #1 of 2 posted 30 AUG by jedmar
Thank you, corrected! This also happens when original entries are not modified when new information appears.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 30 AUG by billy teabag
Thank you!
most recent 13 AUG SHOW ALL
Initial post 9 AUG by Give me caffeine
Have just uploaded two shots of my bush (/rose/l.php?l=21.371029 and /rose/l.php?l=21.371030) and a thought occurred to me.

My bush is still small after several years, around 800 mm (30 inches) in height. IIRC there seem to be two variants of 'Lady Roberts': one of which is a large bush like the parent 'Anna Olivier', and the other being a small bush like mine.

There has also been speculation that 'Lady Roberts' does not really exist, and is merely part of the natural colour variation of 'Anna Olivier'. However, if this is the case then surely there would also be examples of 'Anna Olivier' forming small bushes of 1.2 metres or less, instead of its usual 2.5-3 metres.

I'm not aware of anyone ever reporting small examples of 'Anna Olivier', which leads me to think that at least some examples of 'Lady Roberts' cannot just be part of the natural colour range of 'Anna Olivier'.

Has anyone else had thoughts about this?
Reply #1 of 15 posted 10 AUG by HubertG
Many years ago I remember a plant of 'Lady Roberts' in the Rumsey Rose Garden at Parramatta Park in Sydney that was not even knee-high. It was the smallest plant in that bed of Teas and I assume they were all planted at the same time. If I recall correctly I think I had doubts at the time as to whether it was the correct variety. I might have a photo somewhere. Perhaps there was and is a 'Lady Roberts' impostor.
Reply #2 of 15 posted 10 AUG by Give me caffeine
All my other Teas planted at the same time, in the same conditions, have grown like typical Teas. Basically, they're monsters. 'Lady Roberts' is the only exception, and it's not being held back by soil or climate. So if it really was 'Anna Olivier' I would expect it to be a monster too.
Reply #3 of 15 posted 10 AUG by Margaret Furness
The small one is known as "NZ Lady Roberts"; or "Stiff Lady Roberts". The first time I mentioned it in the HRIA Journal, as one of the mislabelled Teas, I thought it couldn't be a sport of Anna Olivier. Since then some of the Tea Book authors have pointed out that it is similar enough to be a sport or seedling of Anna O, but it is clearly different from the other Lady Roberts, which may just be an unstable colour variation of Anna O (but I've found it harder to strike from cuttings).
Reply #4 of 15 posted 10 AUG by HubertG
The foliage in GiveMeCaffeine's photos looks different to the other photos of 'Anna Oliver' and 'Lady Roberts'. I don't know how typical that is but it looks glossier and has a more holly-like curve to the leaf edges.
Reply #5 of 15 posted 10 AUG by billy teabag
I am not satisfied that the foundling "Stiff Lady Roberts" is the 'Anna Olivier' sport 'Lady Roberts'. There are some similarities but there are also differences. On the other hand, venerable plants of 'Lady Roberts' that have never lost their identity tend to be indistinguishable from 'Anna Olivier' - both capable of producing blooms that range widely - and wildly - in colour, from very pale to very deep. It seems more likely to me that 'Lady Roberts' was not a true sport but an attempt to capture the deepest, most intense shades in the colour range of 'Anna Olivier'.
Reply #6 of 15 posted 10 AUG by Give me caffeine
Ok, that makes sense. So we have an imposter (the small one) and everything else is 'Anna Olivier'. Are there any clues as to the real identity of the imposter?

Edit: I can see I'm going to have to get AO as well.
Reply #7 of 15 posted 11 AUG by billy teabag
Just my opinion GMC.
AO is a wonderful Rose and I don’t think you would ever regret adding it to your garden. The foliage is so clean and the blooms are gorgeous, whatever colour they choose.
And you will be able to compare them closely with eye, hand, brain and nose.

I tried to find a possible identity among the teas and heavily tea-influenced early HTs in that colour range but was seriously stymied by the lack of useful descriptive detail in the literature. There were a lot of ‘I wonder whether it might be….’s but never enough detail to go further.
Reply #8 of 15 posted 11 AUG by HubertG
I wonder whether it might be ... 'Margaret Horton', 1921, from Hicks?
Reply #9 of 15 posted 11 AUG by scvirginia
A rose I was wondering about is 'Rev. F Page-Roberts'. The coloring seems similar, the name has 'Roberts' in it, and it's a short, compact, not-very-vigorous plant. Also, it's a Dickson rose, and they seem to do well Down Under.
Reply #10 of 15 posted 11 AUG by Margaret Furness
That's an intriguing idea.
My "Stiff Lady Roberts" came from Ross Roses (as LR), but that and the Thomas for Roses clone might have been originally sourced from Ruston's.
The bush photo from Araluen shows a darker outer surface to the petals.
GMC's photos might be better moved to the "Stiff Lady Roberts" file.
We may not have a named Rev F Page-Roberts in Australia for comparison.
Reply #11 of 15 posted 11 AUG by scvirginia
Actually, I was confusing 'Rev F. Page-Roberts' (raised by Benjamin Cant) with 'Dorothy Page-Roberts', which is a Dickson rose.

But even if it's not a Dickson rose, it still seems like it could be a contender.
Reply #13 of 15 posted 11 AUG by Give me caffeine
I looked at the photos for 'the Rev'. It appears to have darker reverses on the petals, which my bush does not have.
Reply #14 of 15 posted 12 AUG by scvirginia
It probably isn't the same, but there are several references from the 20th century discussing how 'Rev F. Page-Roberts' needed careful propagation, because otherwise the two-tone effect would diminish/deteriorate.
Reply #12 of 15 posted 11 AUG by Give me caffeine
I didn't know there was a "Stiff Lady Roberts" file. I'm fine with the shots being moved if people think that's a good idea. I could also change my "Plants Grown" to match.
Reply #15 of 15 posted 13 AUG by Give me caffeine
I have just moved my two photos over to "Stiff Lady Roberts".
Have also updated the garden listing to the correct name.
most recent 3 JUL HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 JUL by Patricia Routley
Responding further to member GHS69 and Margaret Furness.

Thanks Margaret. I am not so sure about burnout, but after a bout of influenza for both of us, I knew I had to take more rest. It has actually been wonderful and I have read, rested, got out into my garden, thoroughly overhauled the garage shelving, thrown out enormous amounts of junk in the garage, bought new lamps, and looked at re-curtaining the whole house. After 5-ish hours a day consistently from 2006 to 2021 on HelpMeFind, this return to a normal retirement at the age of 80 has been most welcome. I know my husband Rob, at 92, also is appreciative.
I am feeling most guilty that there are areas that I could still help on this site. However the eyesight is not as good these days, and I cannot cope with the numerous glitches and very slow speeds on a satellite internet service. It is time for me to stop.
It has been exhilerating, and a fascinating journey with HelpMeFind and I am deeply grateful to the website owners who allowed me to contribute to the history of the Australian rose scene on this incredible website. Sharing rose research is in this way has been rewarding and I do recommend it to others. My fond regards to all the rosarians I have met on HelpMeFind.
Reply #1 of 8 posted 1 JUL by Kathy Strong's Del Cerro Garden
Thank you Patricia. Your work, now and over the years, is much appreciated.
Reply #2 of 8 posted 1 JUL by Marlorena
Patricia, very best wishes to you and your husband. You will be greatly missed..
Reply #3 of 8 posted 1 JUL by jedmar
Patricia, you have been warning, but I cannot believe it! We worked so well together. It has been a great journey. Please look in from time to time!
Reply #4 of 8 posted 1 JUL by Andrew from Dolton
You are a true rosarian.
Reply #5 of 8 posted 1 JUL by Give me caffeine
Just saw this. Best wishes for your "normal" retirement, Patricia. It's been a pleasure to get to know you. And thank you for all your work over the years. You've been a great asset to this site.
Reply #6 of 8 posted 2 JUL by Patricia Routley
Thank you Kathy, Marlorena, Andrew and Give Me Caffeine. Your kind words are much appreciated.
And dear Jedmar - of course I will be looking in. The love of roses and their history does not suddenly dissipate. My maiden surname actually included the word ‘rose’, so it is ingrained.
Reply #7 of 8 posted 2 JUL by HubertG
Patricia, I don't know what to say. I hope you might be able to find some sort of happy middle ground with contributing lesser hours. However if this is really what you want, I wish you all the best and sincerely thank you for your truly immense contribution to HMF.
Reply #8 of 8 posted 3 JUL by billy teabag
Thank you Patricia. Such a contribution. Thank you.
most recent 19 JUN SHOW ALL
Initial post 1 JUN 09 by Patricia Routley
I have a bush 'Devoniensis' on its own roots from Zephyr Brook Heritage Rose Garden 7-48 in Pinjarra, WA, taken as a cutting in 2000.

Two metres to the west I have another bush which eventually turned out to be the bush 'Devoniensis' from Hill Farm, given to me in 2004 by Natalee Kuser and which is on Fortuniana rootstock. Both these roses are about knee height.

'Climbing Devoniensis' which I found in Dave Fowler's garden in Yornup is a further three metres on to the west.

I cannot understand Helpmefind's notation of "thornless - or almost" for the bush 'Devoniensis' (unless my two bushes are incorrectly named). If the true 'Devoniensis' bush was thornless (and the first reference to refer to it as "few prickles" was in 1936 - 98 years after its birth), how on earth did a thornless tea rose produce such a thorny rigid climber. In both my bushes and the climber these are strong thorns, almost welded to the canes, but so much more evident in the climber.

Wandering (or wondering) on - how did a very slow-to-take-off (a decade?) bush sport a climber which almost leaps out of the ground.

(I think the HMF height for the bush needs adjusting as it the same 10' to 12' as shown for the climber.)
Reply #1 of 5 posted 1 JUN 09 by jedmar
I think we can disregard the "few prickles". This description refers to a plant in Sangerhausen in 1936, which is no longer there. Both of the older drawings of Devoniensis show hooked prickles.

Where I am uncertain is whether Devoniensis Clg. is really a sport of Devoniensis. The bloom colour is just not the same. Are we sure we have the same Devoniensis all over the world? Maybe we could have some other details posted for both for comparison.
Reply #2 of 5 posted 1 JUN 09 by billy teabag
The climbing form of 'Devoniensis' is identical to the shrub in all but vigour and habit, so it sounds as though there might be more than one rose going under the name 'Devoniensis'. That said, it's worth keeping an eye on the suspect rose for a few years. Leaving aside the blooms, how does it compare, feature by feature, with the climbing form?

The blooms of 'Devoniensis' do vary in fullness from season to season, but both shrub and climber have blooms that go through the same range of form and colour, and they have the same leaves and purplish-red new growth and glandular pedicels. The portrait in Henry Curtis' 'Beauties of the Rose' is a pretty good likeness and captures the posture of the buds very well.
Right from the start, the climber has impressive prickles that are - as Patricia noted - so hard to dislodge they seem to be welded to the stems. For us, the shrub had less prickles when young but as the plant aged it became pricklier.

I've found the shrub form to be very slow to establish. The plant in our garden grew so slowly for its first eight years that I worried about its constitution. In its early years it made a sparse, awkward plant, barely 3' (approx 1 metre) high and didn't put much new wood on each year. It was definitely the runt of the Teas here. Despite that, it still produced intermittent crops of gorgeous blooms from that scrawny frame.
After its eighth year it seemed to change gear and began to grow much more strongly and now it takes conscientious picking and trimming to keep it to reasonable bounds. It's one of the healthiest roses in the garden and repeats its bloom so quickly that it's rarely without a crop of buds and flowers.

Impressively large old Devoniensis 'trees' (like the one in Jeri's picture) are seen in old gardens and cemeteries and there's been some speculation re whether they can possibly be the shrub form or whether the forms in commerce have lost vigour. Watching our shrub over 15 years, I don't think it's a case of diminishing vigour - just that the shrub form of 'Devoniensis' has an especially long childhood and adolescence and if you're prepared to wait for a decade (in the right climate), the mature shrub is really something special.

2 photos attached - all blooms are from the same plant - shrub form of Devoniensis.
Reply #3 of 5 posted 21 OCT 19 by scvirginia
I am only now seeing your pertinent question now about whether all plants of 'Devoniensis' are the same worldwide. There was some discussion on the Antique Roses forum about 4-5 years ago about this question, and I don't know if anything was decided for certain, but it does seem possible that there may be two different roses being sold in the U.S. as 'Devoniensis'.

I don't think it's possible to read the entire thread without being a Houzz member (which I no longer am), but parts are visible:

Both roses have similarly colored flowers (cream with yellow and pink shadings), dark green foliage, and reddish/ purplish canes/ new growth. One rose has larger leaflets, and looks more tea-like, and the other has smaller, glossier leaflets, and seemed HT-like. I believe that they are both very fragrant.

I doubt anything was proven decisively, and i is possible that there is only one clone that grows differently in different conditions. Even if there are two different roses, I'm guessing they have enough in common that someone could grow both, and not think to compare them closely.

If there really are two different 'Devoniensis' roses being sold in the U.S., I wonder if that error could have occurred in other countries also via imports from North America or independently. Devoniensis was introduced almost 200 years ago, so that's plenty of time for more than one "confused in commerce" situation.

Reply #4 of 5 posted 22 OCT 19 by jedmar
In Europe, 'Devoniensis Clg' is often 'Souvenir de la Malmaison Clg'.
Reply #5 of 5 posted 19 JUN by Hamanasu
Over the years, I have had a Devoniensis (bush) from La Roseraie Du Desert, a climber from Trevor White Roses, and another bush from Loubert. Except for vigour, I have never noticed any difference. The blooms and scent were the same on all plants. But it's true that I have seen some pics in other European nurseries' catalogues that look suspiciously like SdM.
© 2021