HOME SITE AND GROWTH HABITS
Deep in a hedge of lilacs and snowberries, spreading and suckering into the grassy edge of the meadow, grows a rare and sometimes lovely dwarf rose. This rose has survived for many years and is remembered in the Golly family as, “The little wild rose.”
Joseph Golly and his wife came from the Finger Lakes region of New York to Lee, New York (near Rome) in 1751; cleared the land; built a log cabin, and had a large productive farm. Now the land has been without a house for over fifty years, with only the shrubs, the old Gallicas and this little rose to mark the site of the old family homestead.
This dwarf rose grows in the open from one to one and a half feet tall, becoming a sturdy, wiry, shrubby bush as wide as it is high.
In our garden, in an eight foot by twelve foot bed established three years ago, it is growing vigorously. The soil is light and sandy, but limestone, superphosphate, potash, manure and humus have been added to encourage new growth and conserve moisture.
For three years this rose has bloomed when the Gallicas are on the wane, usually reaching the peak during the first two weeks in July, with light occasional bloom to frost. In the summer of 1953, prolonged drought and high temperatures delayed the height of bloom until rain and cooler weather occurred in August. When frost came in October there were still many buds. The following summer, bloom started the last week in June, with a prolific display of perfect blossoms for three weeks. Then came humid weather and hot sun which blasted buds and blossoms. Very light scattered bloom occurred on new shoots through an August drought.
Experience shows that weather conditions are very important in determining the amount, quality and length of bloom, because the flowers and buds have an unfortunate tendency to blast. However, when the weather is clear and cool with adequate rainfall, freedom from blasting may be expected.
During the blooming period, the clusters of three to six buds rarely have more than one full blown rose plus a bud or two unfolding or showing color. Blooming both singly and in clusters, on tips and laterals of both old and new wood, the light pink bud opens slowly. Guard petals unfold, but the center remains in tight bud formation for several days. When fully open, the flat double blossoms, one to two inches in diameter, reveal yellow stamens in a compact center of very small deep pink petals. The larger outer petals are a lustrous pale pink. In very cool weather the rose deepens in color and the pleasing contrast of color is absent.
New shoots are a light green, darkening to brown often streaked with red. Old wood is a dark gray black. The needle-like, straight infrastipular prickles are light red and translucent. Bristles are absent from both new and old wood. The narrow stipules are without glands and have short, pointed diverging tips. The petioles have weak, short prickles on the underside. There are five to seven leaves. When seven leaves are present the two next to the stipule are very small. The leaves are oval, pointed, simply serrated, slightly shiny and smooth. The foliage is free from leaf spot and mildew. It is not particularly attractive to insects. The peduncle is covered with short, stiff hairs which gives it a mossy appearance. The narrow, tapering, pointed sepals extend and converge beyond the shapely bud. The sepals are setose on the outside; inner surfaces have a white cottony finish. No fruit is set. The receptacle is filled with protruding styles, which are covered with soft gray hairs. The sepals reflex and adhere.
The foliage commences to turn red during August, and the leaves fall in October. As the days grow colder, wood of new growth colors red. The neat, trim bushes have withstood a temperature of twenty degrees below zero, without damage.
CLASSIFICATION
The study and growing of this rose started here during the spring of 1951. Since then specimens have been sent to a number of interested rosarians, botanists, professors, and the American Rose Society for culture and study. The consensus of opinion is that it is a double form of Rosa carolina.
The reports are as follows:
Professor E. B. Risely, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, N. H.
“Taxonomically the plant more nearly resembles the collective description of the species complex Rosa carolina, L. than it does Rosa virginiana, Mill. as clearly defined by the foremost student of our native species of roses, Eileen W. Erlanson Macfarlane.” (Ref. Erlanson, E. W. “Experimental Data for a Revision of the North American Wild Roses.” Bot. Gaz. 96: 252-3, 1934)
Dr. Bayard Long, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa,
“To the best of my knowledge, I can assure you that this rose is perfectly characteristic of Rosa carolina except that the flowers are doubled, exactly as diagnosed by Dr. Best and described.”
Mr. Roy E. Shepherd, Route 1, Medina, Ohio.
“To the best of my knowledge this rose may be Rosa carolina flore plena, although it differs slightly from the type Rosa carolina in characteristics (other than bloom). The resemblance to the type is, however, as close and comparable to the resemblance of Rosa suffulta flore plena to Rosa suffulta and Rosa virginiana plena to Rosa virginiana.”
Prof. S. Hamblin, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass.
“Rosa carolina plena seems to be Rosa carolina in foliage. Leaves are slightly darker green above and paler below than Rosa carolina wild in fields here, but the prickles and stipules are identical with wild form. Leaves not as shiny as on Rosa virginiana.”
Dr. Donald Wyman, The Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
“I have examined the plant and flowers and think it must be a variety of Rosa carolina.”
Reports on Growth Habits
Prof. E. B. Riseley, Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, N. H.
Planted 4/52 “Blooms and performs same as report from Taberg, N. Y.”
Dr. Bayard Long, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa.
Planted 4/54 “Excellent foliage but buds blasted.”
Mr. Roy E. Shepherd, Medina, Ohio
Planted 8/51 Prolific bloom in June thru early July of 1954.
Dr. Donald Wyman, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
Planted 9/52 Bloomed early August in 1953-thru to frost. Bloomed late June and July in 1954.
Prof. G. Buck, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa
Planted 10/52 “Did not survive dry hot summer.”
F. L. Skinner, Dropmore, Canada
Planted 10/52 “Did not surive.”
Mrs. Jack Randle, Beaverton, Oregon
Planted 11/52 (clay soil) Poor blooms in dry July of 1954; fair blooms in August after rain; clean foliage.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The nomenclature of the genus Rosa is both confused and confusing. Early botanists and horticulturists often renamed previously named roses, claimed new species without sufficient cause, and failed to identify correctly previously described species. One result of this disorderly nomenclature is that frequently a species has been known by numerous names that now are considered to be synonymous.
In regard to the treatment of synonyms, the rules of botanical nomenclature prescribe that, subject to certain exceptions, the name recognized as authentic shall be the first one published with a description of the species or variety concerned. In the case of the rose under discussion, the accepted species name is Rosa carolina, Linnaeus (1762). Its synonyms that are relevant to the history of its double form are: R. humilis, R. Parviflora, and R. pensylvania.
In 1785, the American botanist Humphrey Marshall (1) described a rose that he called R. humilis or Dwarf Pennsylvania Rose, and a double flowered form to which he gave the name R. pensylvania plena Double Pensylvania Rose. Four years later, Ehrhart (2) gave the name R. parviflora to an herbarium specimen that he described, and noted that its native land was said to be Carolina. Ehrhart also listed R. parviflora plena, which he remarked was the same as R. parviflora, but with double flowers. This double form Ehrhart had seen growing in Hanover, Germany.
Double flowered varieties were illustrated by Lawrance (3) under the names of R. Carolina A. Double Pensylvania Rose, and R. Carolina B. Double Burnet Leaved Rose. Similar terminology was used by Andrews ( 4) who made drawings from nursery plants of double flowered varieties under the titles of R. Pennsylvania; Var. flore plena, Pennsylvanian Rose; Double-flowered Variety, and R. Caroliniana; Var. flore plena, Great Burnet-leaved Carolina Rose; Double-flowered Variety. Andrews (5) also figured two double garden variations under R. Caroliniana Varietates. An illustration of R. parviflora plena was made by the renowned Redouté (6).
Lindley (7) considered Lawrance’s Double Pensylvanian Rose and Ehrhart’s R. parviflora plena to be synonymous, and remarked that it “is by far the handsomest of the North American species, and does not yield in beauty to the most splendid varieties of gallica. Its elegant unexpanding blossoms of the most delicate pink and its dwarf compact habit have made it an universal favorite. . . . . “ Andrews (8) said that the double Pennsylvanian Rose “is a most desirable variety, as it continues in bloom all the summer; and is amongst those few that do not retire until late in autumn. It is of a dwarf growth, inclinable to spread, and sometimes almost creep upon the ground. In dry weather the sun frequently extracts so much of the color from the outer petals as to leave them almost bleached, which gives a comparatively richer appearance to the center. It then bears some resemblance in its flowers to the larger Pompone Rose.”
Trattinick (9) gave the name R. carolina conglobata to Andrews’ R caroliniana flore plena. He remarked that there was very little difference between the single or double forms of R. carolina, Andrews’ Rosa pennsylvanica, and Ehrhart’s R. parviflora. Rosa carolina of the gardens, he said (10), was often call the American burnet leaved rose.
Following the work of Andrews in 1828, no further reference has been found to the double Carolina rose except that of Best ( 11) who listed without description, R. humilis var. plena, Best. Specimens of this rose are in the herbarium of The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (12), labeled: R. humilis, Marsh. Forma plena, Kingwood, N. J., 6/13/89. G. N. Best.
Based on the text and illustrations cited above, it is the author’s opinion that Marshall’s Rosa pennsylvanica plena, Ehrhart’s Rosa parviflora plena, Lawrence’s Rosa carolina A and B., Andrew’s Rosa pennsylvanica var. flore plena, and Rosa caroliniana var. flore plena, and Trattinick’s Rosa carolina conglobata are all part of the species complex Rosa carolina L., to which the rose described also belongs.
It seems strange that a variety of a species so well known and so frequently described in the latter part of the eighteenth and first part of the nineteenth centuries, subsequently was lost sight of, not even being noted in the present day annals of botany.
No double flowered variety of Rosa carolina is cited in the available literature, including rose monographs, American botanical works, and Rehder’s Bibliography ( 1949). In view of the rediscovery of the plant, and of this nomenclatural situation, the new combination of Rosa carolina var plena (Marshall) Doris Lynes has been made and published in Baileya, Vol. 3 (1955). This was based on Rosa pennsylvanica plena Marshall, published by him in his Arbustum Americanum, p. 136, 1785.
REFERENCES
1. Marshall, H., Arbustum Americanum, 136 (1785).
2. Ehrhart, F., Beitrage zur Naturkunde, 4, 21 (1789).
3. Lawrence, M., A Collection of Roses from Nature, Plates 3 and 66 (1799).
4. Andrews, H. C., Roses, 2, Plates 102 and 104 (1828).
5. Andrews, H. C., Ibid., Plate 105.
6. Redouté, P. J., and Thory, C. A., Les Roses, 2, Plate pop, p, 73 (1821).
7. Lindsey, J., Rosarum Monographia, 20 (1820).
8. Andrews, H. C., op. cit., opposite Plate 102.
9. Trattinick, L., Rosacearum Monographia, 156 (1823).
10. Trattinick, L., idid., 155.
11. Best, G. N., J. Trenton Natural History Soc., 2, 1 (1889).
12. Private communication from B. Long.
