HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
most recent 26 APR 17 SHOW ALL
Initial post 28 JUN 09 by John Moody
I am lucky to have found a 40 year old bush that I got budwood from and had it budded onto multiflora rootstock by Steven Singer at Wisconsin Roses. My "new" "old" Peace bushes are wonderful. The blooms are large and colorful, slightly fragrant, and grow very vigorously. I do have to spray them for blackspot on occasion, but that is a small price to pay for such a beautiful rose with such an important history in rosedom. My Peace bushes are much better than the modern Peace offerings are as they have not been cloned to death. With every generation of cloning the clone loses just a teeny bit of it's original makeup--degrading if you will. I am glad to have some that are not cloned to death like the modern ones are.
Reply #1 of 35 posted 16 SEP 11 by Deandra
I don't think that's how that works at all. When a rose grows, its cells divide. Any time you see a new stem on the plant, millions of cells have cloned themselves over and over. That's what DNA is built to do. When you grow a new rose from a cutting, the individual cells don't realize they've been severed from the parent plant. They do the same thing they've always done, which is divide and grow. The number of times you've repeated this process on an individual plant makes no difference.

Of course, some plants are just healthier than others, even with the same genetic makeup, due to innumerable factors. That doesn't mean there's any kind of degredation going on. While it's possible, it's just as likely that the 40-year-old bush could have sported too.
Reply #4 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by John Moody
Sorrry Deandra, I have to respectfully disagree. After hundreds of clonings, there is a definite degradation in the quality of the resulting clones in each generation. It doesn't matter whether it is animal or plant or whatever.
I distinctly remember the scientists reporting on the resuting offspring of the sheep they were cloning some 15-20 years ago that the vigor, health, reproductive ability, lifespan, fetus viability, etc...decreased with each succeeding clone generation to the point that it became impossible to contnue the cloning. I can't recall how many generations it took, but it wasn't that far from the original animal--say 6 or 8 I think..
I think plants are more stable, but I will guarantee you that if you compare any rose such as my "old" Peace to any modern cloned plant there is a huge difference in the quality.
I have seen too many instances of other old roses to prove to me that it is true as well. My rose mentor has a very old white floribunda Ivory Fashion he got the first year it was released in the 50's I fell in love with at first sight. I finally located the rose from two different sources in 2005 and ordered one from each. Neither plant have the vigor, floriferousness, health, etc..that his "original" stll does even at 60 years of age. They just don't have the same glow even though they are obviously the same rose and it was quite disappointing. And, while his plant still sets hips at the drop of a hat, my two bushes were nearly impossible to get to set seed at all.
Reply #5 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
Much has been written about degradation in rose propagation. J.H. Nicholas wrote in "A Rose Odyssey" back about 1937, that the Hybrid Perpetuals had been "ruined" in the US through improper bud selection. He continued that selection of immature buds on vigorous growth had led to generations of plants which "ran to blind wood" with little bloom. He wrote that visiting the grandson's of the introducer of General Jacqueminot nursery, he encountered field rows of "General Jack" performing like Hybrid Teas, flowering repeatedly, created through proper bud selection. He stated material had been secured and the Jackson & Perkins stock of General Jack would soon be created from this "improved stock".

Tom Liggett, a former nurseryman in San Jose, Ca. has stated for years roses with strong Foetida ties hate cold, dry storage. He claims it devitalizes the plants and that many of them never recover. I have seen nursery rows of Angel Face, Sterling Silver and Peace in Wasco, Ca which grew like the introduction descriptions described. The ARS annual description of Sterling Silver is of a 4' - 5' bush with up to 5" flowers. I've seen that twice. Once on a very early introduction plant purchased by a friend of Barney Gardner's in Los Banos, CA which had been in place for over 35 years when I saw it. The other time was in the fields in Wasco. They CAN be created, but the storage type used by the industry weakens the plants and they usually don't receive the appropriate culture to recover.

I'd sought strong plants of Peace for years in vain. Nothing like the six foot bushes I'd so often read of. Clair Martin, retired Curator of Roses at The Huntington Library, told me many years ago that Peace hated Southern California. He said that it is beautiful in the Pacific Northwest, but a dog here in our desert climates. He said what Tom had said before, that roses of this type of breeding (strong Foetida influence) HATE hard pruning. Like Tea roses, they need to hold on to as much of the thick, older wood as they can to break dormancy each spring and produce the plants and flowers we expect.

When my youngest sister and her husband bought their house, Peace was a rose they liked and wanted. We scoured every nursery to find two which had more than one or two canes and which exhibited the thickness of wood I expected from it. They were planted along their front walk and I was the only one to prune them for several years. Taking to heart the advice I had been given, I only removed spent flowers at their points of abscission, the joint where a spent flower or ripe hip normally falls off. I gently thinned the plants when needed, allowing them to retain as much wood and foliage as possible. Those two bushes are six feet tall each year and they are not the climbing sport. Permitting them to keep the wood and all the foliage they desired, built the plants back into the vigor they had initially. The blooms on those plants are frequently 5" and look just like the catalog shots pictured decades ago.

Yes, I do believe some genetic deterioration occurs after so many generations of asexual propagation. But, from what I've experienced, experimenting with them for many years, I firmly believe much of what we encounter is due to inappropriate culture, from the distribution level all the way to the whack and slash pruning practiced in so many gardens.
Reply #6 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by CarolynB
I'm confused -- Do roses ever actually get cloned like sheep? I thought propagation of commercial rose varieties was always by cuttings. Do successive generations of cuttings also reduce plant vitality over time? Just curious.
Reply #7 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
Well, you could say they get cloned like sheep in a way. Propagation has long been primarily by budding/grafting to a compatible root stock. Specialty and mini rose nurseries in this country primarily used rooted cuttings. Tissue culture has been and is used on a far more limited basis. I haven't researched the literature to be able to definitively answer your deterioration question accurately, but from experience, if a rose variety has been reproduced for a century or more and continues to be vigorous, vital and productive; if its appearance agrees with historic illustrations and descriptions, can you honestly consider it inferior or degraded?

Writers in the Nineteenth Century wrote of the "older varieties playing out", degrading, because of observed increases in disease susceptibility and apparent increased lack of vigor. What wasn't considered was the air quality and how it improved. When many of these roses were selected and distributed, heating oils and coal were high sulfur, producing a nightly sulfurous rain, bathing cities and the roses in them, in a fungicidal dew or rain. As newer sources of coal and oil were discovered and put into use, lower levels of sulfur came with them. Is it accurate to say that roses which were vigorous, healthy and productive with a regular sulfur bath, are "degraded" or "played out" when they succumb to fungal attacks then their fungicidal baths are stopped? Are your roses "genetically degraded" when you stop spraying chemicals?

There are many examples of roses which were vigorous, vital and productive when introduced, but which now, seem pale examples of what they were previously. When what you do to, how you grow, particular roses can significantly alter their performance and encourage them to perform and look as they did when originally introduced, can you honestly call them "genetically degraded"?

Another potential to consider is, how much of what was written, how roses were described, was due to definitions and tastes of the writers and rose growers of the time? Looking at a pale yellow Tea rose through "1900 eyes", the shade of yellow may well have seemed brilliant, "sunny" to the observer. What they had, what they grew were not strong, saturated yellows and often, any increase in pigment was heralded as a break through. Observe the same variety with Twenty-first Century eyes and the description changes dramatically. Edwardian descriptions of "dazzling scarlet" appear muddy, burgundy to cerise to eyes of our time.

Just as you need to take the time, culture and societal values into consideration when reading older literature of any kind, to be able to understand what the motives and statements were of the writer, in order to truly understand what earlier rose writers actually saw, you need background about what the roses actually were. Without that, it is very easy to make the claims of "degraded" and "played out". There may well be some, but I seriously doubt to the extent claimed and shown due to various other factors.
Reply #8 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Jay-Jay
Vegetative reproduction of plants by cuttings, grafts, roots, layers, slips, suckers and buds are clones too! Because normally they have exactly the same genes! Unless there is a more or less spontaneous mutation (sport).
Reply #9 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
Yes sir, they are "clones". My point was to explain that they are vegetatively propagated as well as cloned through tissue culture, like members if the animal kingdom are.
Reply #10 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Jay-Jay
Kim, i was writing this reply 4 hours ago, before You reacted, but I got unexpected visitors ringing at my door. They stayed for several hours, so I posted this reply before I saw You had already reacted. (I didn't want to correct Your reaction)
I will follow next season the mentioned method of (not) pruning Peace/Chicago Peace.
Reply #12 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
No problem Jay Jay, I usually get interrupted by two dogs demanding attention or an outside break! LOL!
Reply #11 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Deandra
When a sheep gets cloned, its genetic material is inserted in an egg cell in a fairly complex and totally artificial process, and it then goes through the full gestation and birth process. Cloning a rose is much more like dividing a clump of perennials. You're splitting a single plant into two plants, both of which continue to grow. In an animal, such a process would be more like being able to cut a leg off of a sheep and having that leg regrow the whole animal. With plant cloning, unlike with animals, there's no clear generational divide--both the donor plant and the cutting become separate organisms, but they share the same genes.

Rooting a new cutting or budding it to rootstock isn't any more likely to cause genetic degradation than having an own-root rose killed down to its roots and regrow all of its canes. These are all processes that plant tissue is designed to handle.
Reply #13 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by John Moody
Before I found the mother bush to my current Peace bushes--the "old" ones and a daughter also propagated on multiflora from my first bush from the original mother bush, I grew several modern versions of the Peace rose on different rootstocks, own-root, and from different sources. None of the many versions I tried were satisafactory. None were vigorous growing, never getting over 3' to 4' tall tops and were blackspot prone from the first of Spring until the last glimmer of autumn. Also, the flowers were usually small, a washed out cream with very light hints of pink at best, short-lived, and in short very unimpressive. Nothing like the flowers I remembered from my childhood in my mothers yard.
I was awestruck when I first saw the mother bush of my current Peace roses in my neighbors yard and had to do a double take to convince myself that they were indeed actual Peace roses as the flowers and bush as a whole were so stunning--and large!. When the neighbor told me how old the bush was it made sense to me. My bushes with the same care I gave the "modern" versions reach 6' and the flowers are 1"-2" bigger and the yellow and pink are so much more saturated there is no comparison. As well, the disease resistance difference is remarkably different. My Peace bushes may still get a small amount of BS but never come close to complete defoliation like every modern version I tried to grow did if left unsprayed for even two cycles.
There just is no comparison between the two versions of the Peace rose I have grown.
The same goes for the Ivory Fashion floribunda. the modern versions just were not as good as the older "younger" version I have now.
I will stand behind what I see what I see with my own eyes over 15 years of serious rose growing. And, if given the opportunity, always try to get an older version of a rose if at all possible over a more modern clone when there is a substantial difference in the age of the variety.'
Reply #14 of 35 posted 20 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
I'm not discounting your experiences, John. What I would find extremely interesting would be seeing what "improvements" in the newer versions of the older roses you've grown might be accomplished by selective culture. Not permitting the plant to flower until it has achieved the amount of growth necessary for it to perform as expected; not pruning it heavily or severely; allowing it to maintain all the wood needed for it to "resurrect" into what it once was. I honestly believe many of the devitalized plants can be brought back to something approaching their former glories, but most often aren't given the chance.
Reply #15 of 35 posted 27 SEP 11 by John Moody
Kim I pretty much treat my young roses the same way. I will generally prune off most flower buds early on allowing only one or two to confirm plant identity. When I prune the buds off I take very little of the plant off. I just cut down to the first set of true leaves to the stem and foliage growth is left to grow as it desires. I try to do this the first two years as I am a firm believer that the plant must establish the root system and the top growth must mature as much as possible to support the blooming to take place later on.
The third year I start to let the bush bloom a bit more but still prune off about half of them especially on the heavier blooming roses like the grandifloras, floribundas, and even some of the mini-flora's and mini's.
I also tend to disbud the sidebuds on the grandi's and such to only let the terminal buds continue to bloom as I fee that takes away some of the blooming "burden" from the bush as wel through the first three years.
After that, I pretty much let hte rose bloom as Ma Nature intended unless I have a specific intention in mind for a spray in which case I would disbud the terminal bud and let all the side buds then boom to produce the spray. I have found this does make for a more vigorus flowering spray with larger blooms in the spray if the terminal bud is pruned off very early in the formation of the spray. I have generally found that it makes for better flowers for pollinating if I intend to use them for hybridyzing. That little bit of extra size and flower makes for better hip setting asa bigger flowers generally yield more and larger seeds in the hip the work with. To me this makes a lot of sense and the little extra diligence is well rewarded.
Any thoughts from you on this, Kim?
Reply #16 of 35 posted 27 SEP 11 by Kim Rupert
Hi John, perhaps in your climate, not permitting them to flower is beneficial. I only provide that type of culture to weak growers or those I wish to really push quickly. During that time, I don't permit them to flower at all, pinching out the buds as they form, but leaving every leaf and all possible wood on the plant instead of trimming to the first set of leaves. I figure anything that could count as "leaf surface", including the "bracts" generally found below the peduncle probably aid in creating food.

Our climates are quite different. It would be rather interesting observing what the climate differences could make with that culture.
Reply #17 of 35 posted 10 NOV 11 by Pongracz
I am no where near an expert on this, but has anyone thought about the difference in root stocks also being a possible problem in quality. Grafting the same rose onto 2 different root stocks has produced different results for us, one was noticeably better than the other.
Root stock choices seem to change over the years and one or the other falls in and out of favor. Perhaps this also has something to do with the perceived decline.
We have 6 foot Peace roses with hand sized flowers, I guess we are lucky in some way with climate, pruning or who knows. In fact most of our roses grow well past the sizes listed for them. You should see our Rotkappchen monster!
Just a thought, great conversation I stumbled onto a bit late in the game, but I learned much!
Thanks, Celeste
Reply #18 of 35 posted 10 NOV 11 by Kim Rupert
Hi Celeste, absolutely. Root stock can make a tremendous difference, as can the lack of a suitable stock. No matter what kind of roots it's grown on, pushing the plant by giving it all it needs with good culture, preventing it from flowering by keeping the buds pinched off so it puts its energy into growth instead of flowering, can greatly improve the plant. Every plant, not matter what type, is genetically programmed to attain a certain size, "mature", before it produces flowers, just as animals, including humans, must mature to a certain age, size and condition, before they reproduce. Flowering is ovulation, hip set is pregnancy. You don't permit fruit trees to set their first full crop until they are mature enough, nor do you allow your animals to reproduce until they are sufficiently mature. Disbudding to prevent flowering is much the same thing. You encourage the plant to mature, develop the size, hence the appropriate food production ability and storage, before it attempts to continuously ovulate in the effort to set seed to reproduce itself. We most often remove the spent flowers to prevent seed set to keep it flowering. By pushing the plant to grow instead of flowering you can more quickly experience the expected flowering performance than you would by permitting it to flower as early or as heavily as it otherwise would. With some, it is necessary to maintain the variety. With some others, it permits you to receive the expected performance earlier than you would otherwise. With many, the treatment is usually unnecessary as they possess the vigor needed to do what you expect. The choice is yours and is often dependant upon how the rose is performing in your soil and climate, with your culture and what you expect from it.
Reply #19 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by John Moody
I totally agree with you Kim. What you say makes so much sense.
I think there are differences among even the same type of rootstock. I have purchased some grafted plants from a vendor on multiflora just the past three years and have been absolutely amazed at the size and quality of the bareroots i have received from them. Their performance the first year has been outstanding far outperforming other roses I have recieved from many other vendors that I have purchased roses grafted on multiflora as well. Some I have been purchasing multiflora grafted roses from for years. This past Spring I took a good look and even took photos of the roots of the different shipments and there is a distinct difference in the structure of the roots between the multiflora roots between them. The bigger, better bareroots have so many more of the smaller feeder and hairlike roots growing on them they almost look like an afro haircut (LOL--best description I could think of) compared to the other examples of multiflora roots from all the other vendors I got roses from--four others to be exact. I am sure the difference in performance is the existance of those other feeder and hair roots that easily take up moisture and nutrients so much easier and efficiently than the others. This gives the bareroot such a boost compared to the others. The success rate of the bareroots from the "other vendor" is phenomenol compared to the other offerings. I still have good success even with the others as I think I have the process down pretty pat, but comparitively the better root system is head and shoulders better than the others.
One of these years I am going to get the nerve up to try a couple of fortuniana grafted roses here and protect the heck out of them the first few years during the winter. Of course first I will plant them very deep when I put them in the bed and plant them in a place where they get good protection from wind etc..but still get good sun. I'd like to get a variety that I have plants on multiflora and maybe even on own-roots as well just to compare the differences given the same exact care in the same basic location.
Reply #20 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Kim Rupert
John, your description of the superior root systems on the preferred multiflora stocks mirrors what I've frequently found with seedlings. Those which are vigorous and healthy almost always have extensive root systems under them, complete with numerous, fine feeder roots. The weaklings, and those which have terrible disease issues nearly always have virtually no root system under them. Perhaps they'd make good budded varieties, but I never explore that avenue. If they can't grow good roots by themselves, I certainly don't want to breed other roses from them.
Reply #21 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by John Moody
Well, I think more breeders should think like you Kim. We should concentrate on breeding good roses that don't have to be grafted in order to be a vigorous growing and healthy rose.
I think this particular though has found a particular rootstock strain that is particularly vigorous and large and I would almost say it is not multiflora but something else new or different entirely though they advertise that all their stock is grown on multiflora rootstock. But,it certainly doesn't look like most of the other vendors rootstocks I get and the differences in growth and vigor are very obvious from the start.
While I probably can't come out and say who it is, they are relatively new to the market and from Canada. That should be enough of a hint to guess who it is.
Reply #22 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Kim Rupert
It's probably multiflora, John. There are many variations of each species, whether they are seedlings or mutations and many have been selected for this or that "benefit" over the accepted type used. Some are thornless, some very thorny; some have more vigorous root systems than others, I'm sure. Perhaps, the "good ones" you're getting are seedling grown instead of cutting grown? Anything is possible, including their having found a particularly vigorous type upon which to base their production.

Thanks, but honestly, many breeders do think of own root production as the better, "greener" method of raising new roses. Ralph Moore thought that way his entire breeding career, all 70+ years of it. Now that own root is the more cost effective method of production, those remaining in business are thinking that way. Conard Pyle is producing many of their new roses that way and are actively selecting new varieties for own root production. It's happening!
Reply #23 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Jay-Jay
I would like to mention, that when You grow rootstock in common (grafted/budded or not), they produce more rootlets/roothairs in sandy/peaty humus-rich, or potting soils, than in heavy clay, silt, or loess.
Reply #24 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Kim Rupert
Good point, Jay Jay. What the roots are grown in can make a great deal of difference. Start with a type with a great system to begin with and you have a winner!
Reply #25 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Jay-Jay
That's right Kim, I agree.
Every soil, or method of gardening needs its own type of rootstock, when you want a budded example of a rose. In the Netherlands around the town of Winschoten (yes from the Rosarium and the beautiful, dark-red, good smelling, rose with the same name), a variety of rootstock is produced in such numbers, that they are shipped around the world!.....
The soil is peaty/sandy.
Kloosterhuis (nursery) is one of them; You might see the varieties grown on their website or at:
Reply #26 of 35 posted 13 DEC 11 by Kim Rupert
I'm glad you brought up the thought, Jay Jay. At least with my seedlings, by the time they reach their final cull, they've all been grown in the same potting soil so their results are uniform.
Reply #36 of 35 posted 26 APR 17 by StrawChicago Alkaline clay 5a
Fantastic observation (Jay Jay). THANK YOU !!
Reply #37 of 35 posted 26 APR 17 by Jay-Jay
You're welcome!
Reply #27 of 35 posted 30 APR 13 by Benaminh
Hi Deandra, while your premise is intellectually correct, the results are somewhat different in practice. For example, orchids (cattleyas specifically) are commonly propagated via meristem cloning in sterile lab conditions. This allows mass propagation at an affordable price; however, this has also resulted in increased sports (good and bad) and loss of vigor or performance in some varieties. It may be argued whether these are direct links to genetic destabilization, but it has created a two tier system in the market. The most expensive orchids ($150-$500) are usually obtained from divisions with a documented provenance hopefully tracing back to the original mother plant. Since cattleyas grow slowly before obtaining enough size for division, and orchidists tend to be stingy, these divisions aren't many generations removed. Of course, this has also created another problem, as hobbyists age and pass, their collections face uncertain futures, and many heirloom mother plants are lost. Getting back to roses: Devoniensis, Gloire de Dijon, and David Austin's Heritage are some varieties that come to my mind when discussing demonstrated degradation due to, in my opinion, "over-propagation." I believe in science and the scientific method, but sometimes, not all factors can be accounted for.
Reply #28 of 35 posted 6 MAY 13 by floridaskies
I just wanted to interject that the reasons for sheep clones not being viable are very different than animals. There a lot of mechanisms involved here and that is simply flat out wrong. Saying that animal vs plant its all the same is just very wrong thinking.

The degradation of certain cultivars seems to be a result of multiple/latent viruses. Malcom Manners has cleaned up many of the cultivars that were said to have "degraded" and the now bloom as they did in pictures many years before. These have only been researched and well understoon in the last decade or so, so citing sources back many years before really doesn't seem relevant.
Reply #29 of 35 posted 9 MAY 13 by GoldenAge
I've been very curious about Dr Manners' cleaned-up cultivars. Vintage stated that their Marechal Niel was a virus-free clone from Dr Manners. I never managed to get it and didn't order a custom root soon enough. When I asked another grower, she said the health of his plants might also have to do with the root stock. It all sounds so interesting, I wonder what the case is.

I'm pretty new to all of this, and I came across the topic of degradation recently when trying to figure out where to post a photo of Devoniensis. My roses are older varieties on own-root. But if I'm understanding correctly, this topic of degradation can apply to any rose (or plant) no matter the era or means of reproduction? Choosing to propagate a sport occurs, so can propagating a cutting of a weaker stem happen by accident and lead to weaker clones?
Reply #31 of 35 posted 9 MAY 13 by Kim Rupert
I also found it quite interesting hearing Dr. Manners state in his GROTW presentation that many older roses which had "lost vigor", regained it after being treated to remove the RMV they were infected with. There ARE degenerative sports (mutations) as well as deleterious effects from the various viruses which comprise Rose Mosaic Virus. Who knows which is the case with a particular rose, unless it is treated?

Due to the method the US rose industry produced their product for most of the past century, it was very easy (and fast) for a variety to pick up multiple types of viruses, both RMV as well as many others. It's entirely possible the "degrading" of rose varieties which has so often been attributed to "over propagation", was, to a large part, due to stacked viral infections over powering the rose's immune system. It's also entirely possible by eliminating the infections possible through the treatment process, the genetic immunity of the roses so treated have been permitted to function properly, producing plants more the quality in vigor and performance the old descriptions indicate. The only logical explanation for the "over propagation" claims would be stacked and intensified viral load types.

Yes, "over propagation" claims can be made about any rose which appears to have become weaker or less productive compared to the original descriptions. You have to be careful there aren't other explanations for the 'change'. Early writers praised many of the Hybrid Perpetual and Bourbon roses because of their wonderful performance in gardens of the time. As the Nineteenth Century progressed, many were found to have "degenerated" and the "over propagation" explanation was frequently used. However, something else completely unrelated to the actual roses themselves was happening. High sulfur oils and coals were used for power and heat, releasing sulfur, a very good fungicide, into the air where it would combine with the fog, dew and rains, then bathe the roses (and everything else!) nightly with a sulfur bath. As lower sulfur fuel sources were discovered and pressed into use, suddenly the old "tried and true favorites" began suffering from fungal issues. "Over propagation" was often blamed as the culprit.

And, yes, like isolating a mutation or sport, if a degenerative mutation which results in a reduction in vigor is isolated through any method of propagation, it can result in a degenerated line or strain of the particular rose. Similar things have happened. Angel Face, Circus and French Lace (the ones I know about) had mutated to more vigorous forms with significantly degraded flower colors. All three were "muddier", "dirtier" colored than the originals. All three were also more vigorous, producing greater quantities of buds available for production. Since these degraded growths were more vigorous, those selecting material for propagation were naturally drawn to collect them for use. I haven't read of complaints about the inferior coloring in any French Lace or Circus lines in many years, but I do still see examples of the degraded Angel Face in gardens and stores. Peace mutated to a miniature (Baby Peace). It's possible there were partial mutations along the way which were propagated in the effort to isolate the miniature form. Some of those could well have resulted in plants which were genetically smaller and perhaps, weaker. Mutations are not always an "on or off" situation. Often, they occur along a continuum, resulting in plants which express the mutation to varying degrees.
Reply #30 of 35 posted 9 MAY 13 by Jay-Jay
As for worthfull fruitraces, that are infected with virusses, grafts are made of that cultivar on rootstocks in a heated greenhouse and the graft outgrows the virus, for that grows slower than the wood.
Then fresh material of the tops is used to graft onto another rootstock or cuttings are rooted... and lo and behold, the new fruittree is free of virusses.
From that virusfree tree, budwood and grafts are taken and that is regularly checked for virusses. See:
...and use a translator to understand the matter written in Dutch.
Reply #32 of 35 posted 10 MAY 13 by GoldenAge
I was amazed when I read the earlier mention of the effects of sulfur in the 19th century! So fascinating!

It makes sense now too that in selecting for one trait like vigor, another trait like flower quality can suffer. I guess that goes back to the traits being in the eye of the beholder, era, priorities, etc.

Thank you Kim, for mentioning Dr Manners' presentation, it led me to an ARS article discussing some of his work. [] It mentions the use of heat treatment, the same method the Dutch article mentions for treating fruits? I didn't know there is a cure for RMV. But if it's only heat treatment, which sounds like something that isn't a weekend chore for a home gardener, then it makes sense. I wonder if it makes a difference to root cuttings from the most vigorous, newer parts of my plants. Now I'm looking at my roses wondering if they have stacked viruses holding them back.

Reply #33 of 35 posted 10 MAY 13 by Kim Rupert
You're welcome Brigid. It is entirely possible "stacked viruses" could be holding any of our roses back. Climate change; micro climates; changes in human pollution; stacked viruses could all significantly affect the roses' immunities. Kim
Reply #34 of 35 posted 19 MAY 13 by Benaminh
Speaking of propagation degradation. I ordered three plants of Intermezzo from Vintage last year. Now, this Gray Pearl seedling isn't a big grower to begin with, but two of the plants are thriving under high culture, while the third is twiggy and stagnant. All three are from the same order and being grown under the same location and conditions. It's a very strange phenomenon to compare the huge discrepancies in vigor between those plants. Granted, three isn't a large enough sample size to base any theories on, but I can't help but wonder if the weak grower is due to the original location on the mother plant that the cutting was taken from? .
Reply #35 of 35 posted 19 MAY 13 by Kim Rupert
That is possible, but just as possible, something prevented that cutting from forming a vigorous root system. Perhaps it dried out more than the others? It's common to see some cuttings from a batch taken from the same plant fail to thrive. Why? There are probably a multitude of reasons. Figuring out the exact reason is often virtually impossible.
most recent 11 FEB 14 SHOW ALL
Initial post 25 JUN 13 by Pongracz
Rose Listing Omission

Árpád-házi Szent Kinga

Name: Árpád-házi Szent Kinga
Breeder: Márk, Hungary
Year: Unknown
Type: floribunda
Color: light pink
Flower type: very double
Parentage: Szent Margit x Szent Margit
size: 60 cm
Reply #1 of 1 posted 11 FEB 14 by Patricia Routley
'Árpád-házi Szent Kinga' now added. Apologies that these slipped through the floorboards for a while. We hope that you will add photos and more information on these roses as it comes to hand.
Thank you again.
most recent 11 FEB 14 SHOW ALL
Initial post 25 JUN 13 by Pongracz
Rose Listing Omission


breeder: Márk, Hungary
year: unknown
type: hybrid tea
color: dark crimson
parents: Szováta x Gilda
Reply #1 of 1 posted 11 FEB 14 by Patricia Routley
'Görgény' now added. We are unsure which 'Gilda' was the pollen parent, and have temporarily listed the 1887 Geschwind's 'Gilda'. Do you have other information?
Gilda (floribunda, Pearce, 1987)
Gilda (hybrid multiflora, Geschwind,1887)
Gilda (hybrid tea, Towill, 1936)
most recent 11 FEB 14 SHOW ALL
Initial post 25 JUN 13 by Pongracz
Rose Listing Omission

Diószegi Sámuel emléke

Breeder: Márk, Hungary
Year: 1994
Type: floribunda
color: lemon yellow
flower type: semi-double
fragrance: none to mild
leaves: glossy, mid-green
parents: Domokos János emléke x Sutter's Gold
size: 100-110 cm
Reply #1 of 1 posted 11 FEB 14 by Patricia Routley
'Diószegi Sámuel emléke' now listed. Thank you.
© 2022