HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Rosa glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. Synonym' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 122-260
most recent 4 JUL 20 SHOW ALL
Initial post 22 JUN 20 by Rosewild
I believe the year of publication "1809" for R. glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. Is erroneous. It should be "1806" as cited by the following authors:
Komarov / Yuzepchuk in Flora of the USSR Vol. X 1941 (see your HMF reference list)
Willmott, Ellen in The Genus Rosa 1910-14
Rehder, Alfred in Bibliography of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs 1949
Also other authors referencing other species that appeared in this same publication "Fl. Graec. Prodr. 1 (1806)" list the same date "1806".
So by the rule of priority, R. glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. (1806) was published earlier than R. pulverulenta M. Bieb. (1808) and so is the correct name for this species with R. pulverulenta in synonymy.
Reply #1 of 5 posted 3 JUL 20 by jedmar
HMF is a data base and not a botanical organisation. We reflect publications of botanists in the references. Checking the Global Plant List, IOPI, an others, we find Rosa pulverulenta M. Bieb as the accepted name and Rosa glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. as a synonym. The question of the publication date of "Flora Graecae Prodromus" and thus the precedence needs to be resolved by botanists first. As far as I can see in Biodiversity Heritage Library, Vol. I of this publication is from 1806, Vol. II from 1813. Rosa glutinosa was not mentioned in either volume. Possibly in the 6-volume "Flora Graeca Sibthorpiana", published 1806-1828. Will check tomorrow.
Reply #2 of 5 posted 3 JUL 20 by Rosewild
Thank you jedmar. And I add, you are a fine group of admins. too. This website and its operation is a marvel. Glad you're there!
Reply #3 of 5 posted 4 JUL 20 by jedmar
Thank you for your appreciative comments. With your interest in wild roses, why don't you join as admin? The pay is learning and fun!
Reply #4 of 5 posted 4 JUL 20 by jedmar
Rosa glutinosa was indeed mentioned in Vol. I of "Flora Graecae Prodromus" on p. 348. While this volume has a date of 1806, it was apparently published in 2 fascicles: up to p. 218 in October-November 1806, p. 219-442 in May-November 1809. So, 1809 seems correct for the publication, despite the date on the cover. This means that Bieberstein has indeed precedence with his R. pulverulenta. The plates were apparently prepared by John Sibthorp before his death in 1796, but published only later; the one for Rosa glutinosa (Pl. 482) only in 1825. It was a bit confusing as the Plate number was already mentioned in 1809!
See the info on the dates under the notes for the respective publications.
Reply #5 of 5 posted 4 JUL 20 by Rosewild
Wow! I did not know botanical literature could be so tricky, pretty naive of me. I'm certainly glad you know how to navigate it and I'm envious of that knowledge. Thanks for the invitation to join the admin. team but don't think I'm ready.
Discussion id : 116-493
most recent 1 MAY 19 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 MAY 19 by Michael Garhart
The following links have ranges for many sections of rose species confirmed by lab matching:

Glutinosa is included in it, but there is no record of subspecies included.
Discussion id : 111-904
most recent 2 JUL 18 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 2 JUL 18 by Tessie
Available from - High Country Gardens
Discussion id : 106-928
most recent 11 DEC 17 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 11 DEC 17 by Sambolingo
Available from - High Country Gardens
© 2024