HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Search PostsPosts By CategoryRecent Posts 
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
Discussion id : 128-321
most recent 30 JUN HIDE POSTS
Initial post 30 JUN by foxgloved
I found a large bushy rose growing in a ditch by a parking lot (near some other unkempt cultivated plants (cannas, tree aloe, bush aster). The rose bush was about 5x5x5 ft, maybe taller, with small canes with few to no thorns and small serrated leaves in sets of seven. Flowers were about 1.5 in diameter, in bunches of 10 or so, double, maybe 40 petals each, large yellow stamens. When I first noticed the flowers on May 19, they were all white. When I saw them again today, June 29, the flowers had partially turned pink. Any ideas what this might be? Location is Marin County, CA
Reply #1 of 5 posted 30 JUN by scvirginia
Possibly 'Iceberg'? I seem to recall reading that 'Iceberg' is widely planted in CA in commercial settings.
Reply #2 of 5 posted 30 JUN by Margaret Furness
I think we'd be struggling without photos. It will help if you can take a photo of the whole bush, one of flower/s, a side view of a bud, side view of prickles, photo of leaves, hips if any. Is it still flowering now?
When you go back in to your post, it will have developed a button to Add Photos.
Reply #3 of 5 posted 30 JUN by foxgloved
I tried to add photos, not sure if it worked. I’m on mobile, I’ll try again later from laptop. Thanks
Reply #4 of 5 posted 30 JUN by foxgloved
It does look similar to Iceberg, but I see no mention of the distinct pink fade.
Reply #5 of 5 posted 30 JUN by scvirginia
I don't grow 'Iceberg', but perhaps someone who does grow it in Northern CA or elsewhere can speak to whether it sometimes ages to pink.

I know that 'Iceberg' can sport sometimes, but that doesn't sound like what you're describing.
Discussion id : 123-939
most recent 19 NOV HIDE POSTS
Initial post 18 NOV by Ozoldroser
'Lady Medallist' - I had accepted that a plant I found and thought was 'Lady Medallist' was indeed this rose. Reading descriptions which say lighter reverse this evening has made me seriously question the identity now. Photos under this rose seem to have darker reverses too.
Reply #1 of 3 posted 18 NOV by HubertG
I've noticed quite a number of roses in older catalogues having the description of either a lighter or darker "reverse" than the other side of the petal, and when you look at photos or illustrations it's the opposite way. My initial impression was that perhaps the rose was incorrect too, but now I've just come to think that whoever wrote the description simply meant that the petal faces contrasted, and perhaps they had a different idea of what was the reverse and what was the front of a petal. After all, the inner face of an opening bud is, in a way, the "reverse" of a petal compared to when it's fully open when it's the "front". I suppose it can be a bit subjective. I couldn't tell you offhand the names of the roses where I've seen this type of confusing description but if I recall or come across them again I'll mention them here.
Reply #2 of 3 posted 18 NOV by Ozoldroser
Thank you HubertG
Reply #3 of 3 posted 19 NOV by HubertG
They were just my thoughts but you're welcome, Ozoldroser. Take a look at Billy Teabag's photo of a bud of 'Lady Medallist' from spring 2008 (photo id 103184). To my way of thinking the darker face of the petal is technically the reverse, but looking at this example it's also easy to imagine someone describing the reverse of the petal as being lighter. And as you know one catalogue description can be repeated verbatim ad infinitum.
The provenance of 'Lady Medallist' seems to be a pretty convincing one in my opinion.
Discussion id : 122-115
most recent 14 JUN 20 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 12 JUN 20 by Patricia Routley
I spent yesterday afternoon checking my rose listing on HelpMeFind. Deleted five and now I have a large list of sick’uns to actually go and physically check if they are alive or dead. This exercise prompted me to add the class of “Found Rose” to most of the Australian foundlings on HelpMeFind. I have realised that a list of foundlings will only come up when the class of “Found Rose” is also added to the class of Hybrid Tea, Noisette, Polyantha, etc. and in many cases, whilst I had added the known class, I had not added “Found Rose” as well. Anyway, I have fixed all the Australian ones that I can think of.

When asking Advanced Search for Australian Found Roses, the list is a great memory jogger for correct foundling names.

However..... there is now a niggle in my mind:
Whilst we always keep the “Study name” in the same file as the ‘bred name’, do we still keep the class of Found Rose in the case of when a rose has been identified, such as
‘Laure Davoust’ (“Abbandonata”);
‘Madame de Watteville’ (“Kombacy Marianne”).
‘Marquise de Vivens’ (“Mrs. Good’s Special Tea”)
Reply #1 of 2 posted 13 JUN 20 by Margaret Furness
It might depend on how certain the ID is. Occasionally an ID has been retracted, or rather more often, disputed.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 14 JUN 20 by Patricia Routley
Good point. I’ll leave them there,
Thanks Margaret.
Discussion id : 122-002
most recent 5 JUN 20 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 4 JUN 20 by Jon_in_Wessex
Would someone tell me how to register a name for a found rose? Thanks, Jon
Reply #1 of 2 posted 4 JUN 20 by Patricia Routley
I don’t believe you can register a foundling rose with the American Rose Society Jon.
But you can certainly list it with HelpMeFind. Just give us the “study name” so we may open a page for it, and then in the opened file, you can do another comment giving us the finer details. That way we will know where we got the info from.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 5 JUN 20 by Jon_in_Wessex
Thanks, Patricia, back to you soon!
© 2021