|
|
'Roi des Pays-Bas' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Here are some other references for Roi des Pays-Bas:
The Rose Garden, William Paul, 1848, Sect. II, p. 30
Catalog Descriptif ... du Genre Rosa, Prevost fils, 1829, p. 69
The Book of Roses, C. F. Gore, 1838, p. 170
The Old Rose Adventurer, Brent C. Dickerson, 1999, p. 80
Dickerson, as well as Gore and Prevost are listing this rose as a damask.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
11 NOV 09 by
 jedmar
|
Actually, Prévost classifies 'Roi des Pays-Bas' as R. belgica, an ancient class which was thrown into the bag of R. damascena by Lindley; which are however centifolia-damascena hybrids with sometimes a bit gallica in them. The differences are explained quite well in Prévost's book. Boitard mostly copies from Prévost and Gore translates Boitard. Paul decided it was closer to centifolia.
Please also note that the synonyms listed by Prévost are in our data base as Gallicas according to Noisette.
Maybe we should re-introduce the old classes of R. belgica and R. provincialis.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
12 NOV 09 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Yes - I'm reminded of some words of Jack Harkness:
"Man can't really agree how to identify them, classify them or do anything else to wrap them up nice and neat. Linnaeus tried, and the botanists after him offer you anything from 120 to several thousand rose species, some so similar that the cynics claimed you could find three or four of them growing on the same plant."
(from 'Roses For a Million Years' - a convention lecture published in the Australian Rose Annual 1976, pp44-55 - this quote from p44.)
Billy - (borrowing a computer as mine is unwell)
|
REPLY
|
|
