HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Search PostsPosts By CategoryRecent Posts 
Recent Questions, Answers and Comments
most recent today HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post today by Jay-Jay
I've once visited friends in Drayton Valley. And the first thing that comes in mind, when I remember my stay there is the air scented with rose-perfume and flowering clover. That scent was omnipotent. Have been at places fully covered with wild roses. Do not know which-one.... And took clover-honey back home, in my hand-luggage. But that caused some consternation when x-rayed, for the pots had metal rings and popped up like some home-made explosives. Home made? Yes, but only sweet and tasteful. The officer had a good laugh, when he saw the harmless content.

Isn't it hard to grow roses in zone 3b? Or are all Your roses suited for that job?
Nice photo's of Fall-colors of foliage You uploaded.
REPLY
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 5 days ago by CybeRose
Rose Listing Omission
[William Prince, 1825, listed this as Knight's Exuberant]
Knight's Exuberant / Rosa semperflorens minor

ROSES: or, A Monograph of the Genus Rosa, vol. 2 (1828)
H. C. Andrews

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

ROSA germinibus subrotundis, pedunculisque leviter hispidis: floribus atro-rubris, cum corollis refulgentibus: foliolis oblongis, acutis, marginibus serrulatis: petiolis aculeatis: caule glabro: spinis ramorum sparsis.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

ROSE with roundish seed-buds, and peduncles slightly hispid: flowers of a very dark red, with blossoms of a very bright colour: leaflets oblong, pointed, with serrulated margins: petioles prickly: stem smooth: spines of the branches scattered.

IN the summer of 1826 we first noticed this brilliant little shrub in the Nursery-ground of Mr. Knight; it was called Rosa exuberans, a common attribute of nearly half the genus, but which we should have retained, had it not been in all respects so well calculated to take its place as a minor species by the side of the R. semperflorens already figured.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 2 days ago by Patricia Routley
Thanks Karl. Added. Please check.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted yesterday by CybeRose
Patricia,
Thanks. And now it looks like 'Knight's Exuberant' is the same as 'Bengale Exubérant', at least in the name.
The contradictory statements on color -- Dark purple. [Dark red.] [Light pink.] -- are resolved when we see the picture of "Rosa exuberans". It was a chameleon rose.

I want to mention this:
Curtis's Botanical Magazine, vol. 42. t. 1762 (1815)
[Rosa semperflorens minima.]
Several varieties of the Rosa semperflorens, differing in size, colour, and scent, have, within these few years, found their way into the different collections about town, and have generally been represented as fresh importations from China; we believe, however, that most of them have been raised from seed here. Every experienced cultivator knows, that the varieties to be obtained in this way are endless.

This was a confusing time. The Napoleonic wars finally ended in June of 1815, and the gardeners on both sides of the Channel were anxious to learn what the others had been up to. And then came 1816, the year without summer, that created a need/excuse to get lots of new plants for the gardens.

So, the Bot. Mag. statement indicates that there were multiple crimson Chinas making the rounds of English gardens prior to 1815. By the mid-1820s, William Prince of Long Island attributed a bunch of crimson Chinas to Knight, and Andrews observed this "exuberans" at Knight's place. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but Knight was a likely suspect and was definitely credited with 'Animating', which seems to have been a cross between the Tea-scented and a crimson. It was already in Paris in 1817 -- both Boursault and Cels had it.

There are too many synonyms for 'Bengale Exubérant'. Prince (1825) had 'Knight's Exuberant' as well as 'atrapurpurea', 'atrorubens' and 'nigricans'. Prince also had Knight's Resplendent/Resplendens, which might have been read as 'Splendens'.

I'm still digging.
Karl
REPLY
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 25 FEB 16 by alex.m.
Does anyone know what the name mean?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 29 FEB 16 by John Hook
"Dancing lavender swallow wings or something like that I think?
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 1 MAR 16 by alex.m.
Thank you very much :-)!
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted yesterday by Mandy Luu
The purple swallow dancing.
REPLY
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 5 AUG 14 by flodur
'Baltimore Belle' repeats from August to October - you don't need an extra "repeat version"!
REPLY
Reply #1 of 11 posted 5 days ago by StefanDC
I would counter that you may then simply grow (or be more familiar with) the "repeat version" rather than the original--mine certainly has never shown the slightest inclination to flower after the main season, and most of the early descriptions indicated that it was only once-blooming. It is likely to have sported a repeat-flowering form long ago, given the smattering of descriptions referencing that behavior. Since there was no new name given to that version, the two have probably remained thoroughly mixed in commerce. I wish that mine would bloom more than once a year!

Also, I just noticed that while this entry is listed as "Baltimore Belle (repeat version)" in the list of search results, the tabs within the listing itself only say "Baltimore Belle". It should probably be updated so that all of the tabs say "Baltimore Belle (repeat version)".
REPLY
Reply #2 of 11 posted 4 days ago by flodur
Already 1866 Francis Parkman says: "It shows a tendency to bloom in autumn;" If your rose doesn't rebloom, you probably have 'Mrs. Hovey', that looks very similar, but blooms only once.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 11 posted 4 days ago by Margaret Furness
We need photos including ID-type details of a named plant of Mrs Hovey.
What is grown in Aus as Baltimore Belle and offered by Roses Loubert (see their website) is different from what is / are grown in the US. I no longer have access to a plant. Patricia, do you have photos of yours?
REPLY
Reply #4 of 11 posted 3 days ago by Patricia Routley
I have “Not Baltimore Belle” (provenance Mistydowns-1; MF-2;) growing right next to “Lewes Kell”. The blooms are similar, but “Lewes Kell”s black thorns are evident, whilst “Not Baltimore Belle” seems to have brownish thorns. I will see later today, if I have any photos to add. There is a Jan 28, 2014 photo of mine in the “Lewes Kell” file which shows a bit of autumn blooming.

Later edit: Unfortunately I do not have ‘Felicite-Perpetue’ to compare, but I note that the Mitcham Cemetery has both “Lewes Kell” and ‘Felicite-Perpetue’ so you South Australian girls would have already compared, and found they were different. From vague memory, it was the way the petals were arranged.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 11 posted 3 days ago by flodur
Here you may find detailed photos of all parts of my reblooming BB plus photos from Sangerhausen (reblooming), Loubert and L'Haÿ (probably different and only once blooming). http://roses.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Baltimore_Belle
Plus links to all references starting from 1842 to 1866, plus some later ones.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 11 posted 3 days ago by StefanDC
Thank you for posting a link to your excellent Wiki on your plant! I would say from your photos that your Sangerhausen clone appears identical (or nearly so--I can't see any differences that might not be explained by soil and climate) to the once-blooming U.S. 'Baltimore Belle', other than the repeat flowers. As you note there, the repeat flowers you are seeing there do look a bit different from the main season flush, and if one were to only look at them, one might reasonably conclude that it was not the same variety. Arguably, it is now something else, just as 'New Dawn' was with respect to 'Dr. W. Van Fleet'.

I would say that yours looks very much like a true reblooming sport of 'Baltimore Belle', which was not originally repeat-blooming and still isn't, a fact that is supported by the oldest descriptive references (including the ones you have listed). The non-repeating U.S. plant doesn't need to be 'Mrs. Hovey' to explain this situation, and given that the postulated parentage for the Pierce hybrids at the time was R. setigera crossed with 'Maiden's Blush', I would expect them to look quite different in a number of ways despite of any superficial similarities of flower. The U.S. 'Baltimore Belle' is without a doubt a result of crossing between R. setigera and an early noisette, consistent with the reported origins of the Feast hybrids.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 11 posted 3 days ago by StefanDC
It appears to me that the references that mention 'Baltimore Belle' as a once-bloomer outnumber those that indicate it blooming repeatedly by a healthy margin; the earliest references, closer to the date of origin and less likely to be affected by occurrences like sporting or mislabeling, indicate it bloomed only once. So does Modern Roses. In fact, I would point out that another of Feast's R. setigera hybrids introduced at about the same time as 'Baltimore Belle' was specifically named 'Perpetual Pink' because of its repeat bloom. Also, the references that directly compared 'Baltimore Belle' with the similar-looking 'Mrs. Hovey' never hinted that one bloomed repeatedly while the other didn't. They were contrasted only by the reportedly greater hardiness of 'Mrs. Hovey', which may stem from the fact that Pierce's hybrids were thought to be from crosses with 'Maiden's Blush', while Feast's were considered likely to be hybrids with noisette roses.

Plants of 'Baltimore Belle' in the United States are generally all the same very well-known clone, and since it has been grown here relatively continuously (and widely) since its introduction, it seems unlikely that it would have been so easily supplanted by a different variety. Photos from plants in Europe and Australia do not appear to be the same variety as the U.S. one, and in fact, there seem to be several different roses in Europe masquerading as 'Baltimore Belle'. My plant, and all others I have seen, bear unmistakable hallmarks of a hybrid with an early noisette--that is consistent with the reported parentage. Such crosses between once-blooming roses and repeat-blooming varieties are known to occasionally sport to repeat-blooming forms, so there is no reason to suppose it shouldn't have happened to 'Baltimore Belle', even by 1866 (or earlier). Consider the case of 'Dr. W. Van Fleet' with respect to its sport 'New Dawn', if you will.

With the exception of just one variety, 'Pride of Washington', all of Joshua Pierce's roses appear to be lost today, and do not seem to have been grown (at least, not correctly identified) for many decades. Not even illustrations of them are in evidence, only descriptions. I have looked long and hard for them, even scouring his old home (only finding a sprig of 'Russelliana' and a double white multiflora rambler there), so I would be thrilled to find any! Even 'Pride of Washington' probably teeters on the brink of extinction and might vanish if it isn't propagated and distributed soon. Suffice it to say, no one alive today knows quite what the other Joshua Pierce varieties looked like.

I will say that your two photos of repeating 'Baltimore Belle' under that variety's "normal" HMF entry do look convincingly like hybrids of R. setigera, but your plant does not look quite identical to the standard U.S. version. I would have a hard time speculating further without seeing or knowing more, but since there were other "prairie rose" hybrids, there is also a good chance that your plant is something other than the repeat blooming 'Baltimore Belle' sport. More photos would be a good place to start in exploring this situation further!
REPLY
Reply #8 of 11 posted 2 days ago by flodur
I have added some more photos from the University Garden of Trieste. This plant does not rebloom. I don't believe in a sport - why did Parkman not mention this, when he described BB in 1866 as "shows a tendency to bloom in the autumn" (My rose has more or less flowers in autumn, depending of the weather!). The cross with a Noisette brings the genes for reblooming. And Robert Buist already 1844 speaks of "expect (roses from this group) blooming at least three or four times during the season.". Looking at the leaves, the two groups of BB are different. Gravereaux descripes the leaves as "bramble-like" https://collections-roseraie.valdemarne.fr/index.php?metier=varietes&action=fiche_document&id=1041&varid=251 - page 193
And we find differences in the parfum - my rose has a strong scent, the once blooming ones are described as medium.
Could you please take a lot of detailed photos of all parts of the rose in June/July - leaves, young and ripe, spines, branches, buds, blooms from all sides in different stages. Thats the only way to compare by photos - the best way is of course to have two blooming branches of both types, but then you must come to Germany ... !
REPLY
Reply #9 of 11 posted 2 days ago by StefanDC
Thank you for continuing this interesting debate! Yes, I will definitely try to take a good spread of photos for you in the coming growing season. I think you will see that ours is extremely similar to, and possibly not visibly distinguishable from, your repeating version. However, the Trieste plant you have posted clearly does not even have R. setigera in its background and looks nothing like 'Baltimore Belle' (it looks more like something based in R. sempervirens, more like 'Felicite et Perpetue'.) The rugose, "bramble-like" foliage of R. setigera is very distinctive, and of course it is the reason for the synonym "Rosa rubifolia"; I grow and am very familiar with the species itself (which is native to the U.S., of course.) It is normally possible to see the influence of R. setigera's foliage in its descendants through at least several generations of breeding.

The American 'Baltimore Belle' is strongly fragrant. I would describe the fragrance as roughly same as other early noisette varieties like 'Champneys' Pink Cluster' or 'Blush Noisette', but lacking the spicy musk note from R. moschata (coming from the stamens rather than the petals, and only usually in the morning) that some of the early noisettes still possess.

As for the genetics of repeat bloom, typically, when you cross a once-blooming species with a repeat-bloomer, the genetic factor that prevents repeat bloom is dominant in the seedling (which would typically be heterozygous for repeat bloom). In some roses resulting from such a cross, especially diploids, "sporting" to a repeat-blooming form is a well-documented phenomenon. It may not be so much a change in the genes present as it is a change in their expression, or some similar phenomenon; the gene or genes that normally enforce once-blooming may become silenced or partially silenced. This has occurred so frequently in roses and is so widely accepted that the idea doesn't need to be defended here--it happens, that is clear, whether or not we understand precisely what the underlying molecular mechanisms are in each case. However, propagating such a "sport" will often maintain its differentiating characteristics in a stable manner, leading to a new cultivar, while propagating the original will maintain its characteristics. Their DNA may be indistinguishable but they behave differently because of changes in gene expression.

With respect to Buist's comment about the possibility of repeat bloom in R. setigera descendants, you need to understand the full context for that sentence and what he actually meant. Speaking directly about Feast's new varieties ('Baltimore Belle', 'Pink Perpetual'/'Perpetual Michigan', etc.), he says the following: "These roses [of Feast's] will form parents to be impregnated with the more fragrant blooming sorts, such as Bourbon, Tea, Bengal and Noisette. We may therefore expect from them a progeny perfectly hardy, and blooming at least three or four times during the season." The key here is that he is talking about using Feast's hybrids, and not merely the species itself, to cross with the repeat-blooming classes to produce a repeat-blooming generation of seedlings. He is absolutely correct about this; while Feast's roses either didn't repeat or did so reluctantly (see Buist's comments about 'Perpetual Michigan'/'Pink Perpetual'), based on their background they should at least carry the gene for repeat bloom. In the next generation of crosses with repeat-blooming varieties, it would be perfectly normal to expect a certain percentage of repeat-blooming offspring. Even without a detailed understanding of genetics, that much was already understood by some early rose breeders. At the end of Buist's R. setigera section (near the bottom of page 29) he then transitions to his next topic with this sentence: "Having briefly disposed of the tribes of Climbing Roses that bloom only once in the season, a few hints on their general culture will be in place."
REPLY
Reply #10 of 11 posted yesterday by flodur
Thanks in advance for the photos you will take! I'll do the same!
Concerning the fragrance I was wondering why most references just said fragrant or nearly scentless. But that is a problem with our noses and often a question of daytime. I agree with your description of the scent, I described it as a parfum with some fruit. I'll try to be more precise this summer.
The only thing I can't understand, why did Francis Parkman 1866 and 1871 describe it as reblooming without saying that that was new against the original plant.
If HMF changes the description of both rose versions, I'll upload some photos of my reblooming version. For the reblooming version the data should be: 1866 or before, sport of BB, described by Parkman.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 11 posted yesterday by StefanDC
It's hard to know for certain, but I would at least be willing to speculate that Parkman was writing mostly about his own experience with the plant. Parkman may have had a clone that repeated somewhat under his growing conditions, but without a large body of literature about it or places to see the rose growing in other gardens, it would be only natural to suppose that his plant was behaving in a manner consistent with the variety in general. After all, Parkman's book was published only 23 years after the plant's introduction, at a time when travel was also more limited (also, this just after the end of the U.S. Civil War!).

In terms of the actual substance of what he wrote, it might be worth considering that Parkman also does not exactly say that the variety bloomed reliably in the autumn, but rather that it had just a tendency to do so. He clearly distinguished it from the "autumnal roses" that were more reliable in that characteristic of blooming by saying that "a trifle more of the Noisette blood infused into it would, no doubt, make it a true autumnal rose." By this he is referring to using the plant for breeding just as Buist had done, saying that by crossing it with another noisette, a breeder could obtain a truly remontant variety.
REPLY
© 2019 HelpMeFind.com