HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
"Le Grand Capitaine - rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I feel it is time for some clarification. Le Grand Capitaine and Eugene de Beauharnais are two distinct varieties. Confusion arises as evidently some people maybe selling one identified as the other. In our nursery they represent themselves to be distinct from each other. and are sold as such.
This is not different than any other case of mislabeling of which some are human error and others intentional. This also follows the "identity" of found roses. Some are accurately identified and others are labeled as " thought to be". Unless comparing side by side ,the entire plant ,it can be difficult to accurately compare all attributes. To look at photographs and make judgement is a risky proposition at best.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Here in Florida this has a strong fragrance, even in the hot summer months.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The rose sold as 'Eugene des Beauharnais' is the same as what's sold under this name. Either way, the rose is strongly scented, not mildly scented. Also, there seems to be another file on here for 'Le Grande Capitain' -- shouldn't the two be merged?
http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.3771
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes Christopher, they should. I have merged
‘Le Grande Capitain’, file no. 3771 (and deleting the e from Grande as it seemed incorrect) with
‘Grand Capitaine’, file no. 58,463.
I have left both names as synonyms.
Then there is the foundling rose
“Le Grand Capitaine”, file no. 58,462 which I haven’t touched.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
30 MAR 19 by
 AquaEyes
|
This seems to be the foundling entry, and in any case, they're all the same rose. Thank you for the efforts.
I wonder if all these "Le Grand...." files should be merged with 'Eugene des Beauharnais', but that EdB be in double-quotes to denote that while the rose is known by this name, it's not the original. I'm not so sure it isn't the original, but that seems to be the consensus. Further discussion would be nice.
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
Christopher, in the “Le Grand Capitaine”, foundling file no. 58,462 file, Vinttage say “ Sold and portrayed elsewhere as a lost China, Eugène de Beauharnais, which it is not.”
It really is most unfortunate that the “foundling” was given the same name as the ‘actual rose’. For the moment I am going to add (found rose) to the appropriate file.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
31 MAR 19 by
AquaEyes
|
I think the story went that a rose was found, and matched to the name 'Eugene des Beauharnais'. Later sleuthing found that to be incorrect, and the rose was actually 'Le Grand Capitaine' (however it's spelled). So, it is a "found" rose, but it wasn't given a "found" name -- it was matched to its presumed correct name, and 'Eugene des Beauharnais' was deemed an incorrect attribution.
I think the reasoning behind dismissing 'Eugene des Beauharnais' is that that rose was called a China, but this rose is really more of a small twiggy Bourbon. My personal issue with that is that back in the day, a small twiggy repeat-blooming rose like this would have been called a China, even if it was obvious it had Bourbon ancestry. A similar situation exists with 'Hermosa'. So just because it's not a pure China to our eyes doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been called a China back then. But perhaps there were other differences that led to this conclusion.
So now the same rose -- found unnamed -- is sold as 'Eugene des Beauharnais' (it's presumed incorrect attribution) and 'Le Grand Capitaine' (however it's spelled, it's presumed correct attribution).
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Christopher. So now I am going to merge
"Le Grand Capitaine - (found rose)” file no. 58,462 with
‘Le Grand Capitaine’, file no. 58,463
and then delete the found rose name so that we are just left with
‘Grand Capitaine (syn Le Grand Capitaine’)
I will delete the class of China and add into the class section, Found Rose.
The description of the found rose will appear alongside the original rose, and on reading the refs for the original, I can’t see anythIng wrong with that. Sorry to appear so dumb, but as a rule I hate to merge a foundling on the say-so of just one person and it is quite difficult to undo a merge later if it is incorrect.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The Gardeners' Chronicle. Feb. 18, 1843. p. 100
THE ROSE GARDEN.—No. IV.
“Z”
One of the best, and nearly the first, raised from the type [Gloire de Rosamene], is well known as Le grand Capitaine, with flowers of equal brilliancy, but more double than those of its parent. It is to be regretted that it has not the same peculiar luxuriance of habit; but this we have in an eminent degree in Enfant d'Ajaccio, lately raised at Lyons, having flowers nearly or quite double, with the fine laciniated foliage and robust habit of Gloire de Rosamene, and, above all, possessed of fragrance in a high degree.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
