Should 'Thomasville Lamarque' be merged with 'Lamarque' and treated as a synonym of 'Lamarque' Or should it be retained as a foundling "Thomasville Lamarque" and have the breeder deleted.
They do seem to be two separate roses. I had hoped to grow both, along with Brightside Cream, for comparison, but had to move to a much colder climate, where Noisettes won't survive the winters.
H. B. Ellwanger, the American author and rosarian, gave a list of what he was pleased to term too much alike roses. This, mind you, at the turn of the 20th century! Among the too much alikes, he listed "Lamarque and Jeanne d'Arc". That last would clearly not be the Noisette shrub which is at present known as Jeanne d'Arc. I have wondered if one of the two slightly different Lamarques might not be the original Jeanne d'Arc. Sheer speculation, of course. Also in the mix, so to speak, are some interesting, Lamarque-like foundlings, Brightside Cream, the Florez St. House Eater, and one other also found in Texas. I don't know if anyone has ever tried growing them all side by side. A huge wall would be needed.
After comparing this to 'Etendard de Jeanne d'Arc' (Origin L'Hay) for some time now I think 'Nasturana' may be correct, no difference between the two except the l'Hay clone is sickly
This rose is what I would expect 'Etendard de Jeanne d'Arc' to look like., cluster flowered somewhat climbing and a strong affinity to Gloire de Dijon. Unfortunately I have 'Etendard de Jeanne d'Arc' (ex L'Hay) from Loubert which seems probably correct this behaves like many of the Gloire de Dijon offspring, ie it's sickly with no vigor, unlike TL.
