HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Rosa amurensis Crép.' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Is this the same as Rosa rugosa f. amurensis Maximowicz apud Debeaux in Act. Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, XXXI. 152 (Fl.Tché-foû, 57) (1876)
Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 11 posted
16 AUG 21 by
 jedmar
|
I am not sure. Crépin hasn't published a description (see other comments to this rose). Doesn't seem to be a rugosa. Do you have the 1876 description?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 11 posted
16 AUG 21 by
CybeRose
|
ROSA L.
51. R. rugosa Thumbg. Flor. jap. 213; Maxim. Prim. fl. amur. 101; Bunge Enum. chin. bor. no. 156; Sieb. et Zuccar. Flor. jap. 1, 66, tab. 28; Miquel Prol. fl. jap. 227; Franch. et Sav. Enum. pl. jap. no 556; R. Regeliana André (olim); sinica NAN-TSING-HÔA.
Forma amurensis Maxim. (loc. cit.).
« Suffrutex 2-3 pedalis, aculeatissimus, apice dense ramosus;
» floribus saturate roseis, odoratisque, subcorymbosis. »
Hab.: Falaises de la pointe du Tché-foû, et roches micaschisteuses au-dessus de Ki-tsen-sôo.— Fl. 14 juillet, fr. 16 août 1860.
Ar. géog.: Chine (Chan-tong et Pé-tché-ly in hortis culta).— Prov. de l'Amour. — Japon,
Obs.: Le Rosa rugosa, qui est la seule espèce de rosier que l'on trouve à l'état spontané au Tché-foû, se rapporte exactement à la forme décrite par M. Maximowicz sous le nom d'amurensis. Son inflorescence est souvent en pseudo-corymle (par l'avortement des rameaux), et dans cet état, il a été décrit fort mal à propos par André, comme espèce distincte, du nom de R. Regeliana.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 11 posted
16 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
Thank you. According to the Observation of Debeaux, the form amurensis described by Maximowicz is exactly the same as Rosa rugosa. The Catalogue of Life lists it as a synonym of Rosa rugosa Thunberg. Whether Crépin's Rosa amurensis was based on the same specimens is impossible to say.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 11 posted
17 AUG 21 by
CybeRose
|
Here is what Andre (1873) had to say about "exactly the same". First, he quoted Siebold and Zuccarini in Flora Japonica.
R. RUGOSA. Thunberg.
Plant under cultivation 4 to 6 ft. in height with erect port.
Leaflets mostly with 7 to 9 folioles.
Stipules very entire or obscurely serrated.
Flowers solitary.
Peduncles unarmed, or with prickles on lower portions only, pilose with pubescent pointed bracts.
Calyx with 5 spreading, pubescent, upright sepals compressing the fruit when ripe.
Corolla red, often white in cultivated specimens.
R. REGELIANA. Linden & Andre.
Plant 2 to 3 ft. in height at most half rambling.
Leaflets with at most 5 to 7 folioles on all specimens examined.
Stipules glaucescent beneath and irregularly dentate.
Flowers numerous, in magnificent terminal corymbs on vigorous branchlets.
Peduncles with numerous prickles on every part, and glaucescent dentate bracts.
Calyx with 5, 6, 8 reflexed, shining, prickly sepals, not inclining upwards or compressing the fruit.
Corolla poppy-red.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 11 posted
17 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
Debeaux thinks André was incorrect. His last sentence translates as "Its inflorescence is often pseudo-corymbe (by the termination of its branches), and in this state it has been described very badly by André, as a separate species, by the name of R. Regeliana.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 11 posted
20 AUG 21 by
CybeRose
|
Jedmar,
I'm not arguing, just trying to understand how two or three people can disagree so thoroughly.
For completeness, here is one more voice:
Primitiae florae Amurensis (1859)
Carl J. Maximowicz
p. 101
(257) 42. Rosa rugosa Thbg.—Mey. l. c. p. 32.—Bge. l. c. n. 156.
Hab. In der Küstenregion: Bai de Castries, an Wiesenrändern und in sonnigen Gebüschen, häufig, 22 Juli (flor.); am Cap Lazareff im Amurliman, selten, 3 Aug. (flor.); beim Dorfe Pronge an der Amurmündung, an Wiesenrändern, 6 Aug. 1854. 1854 (fr. immat.).
Planta litoralis 5-pedalis, ampla, ramosa, ramis validis spinosis, foliis majoribus, floribus saturate roseis odoratis amplis; amurensis 2-3-pedalis ramosissima aculeatissima foliis multo minoribus.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 11 posted
22 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
well, it's not two or three people, but two or three botanists! You get five views from three. LOL
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 11 posted
22 AUG 21 by
CybeRose
|
Very true!
Boulenger (1937) discussed the doubtful distinctions between R. blanda and R. cinnamomea.
"According to Crépin, the paired prickles are absent in R. blanda and this statement has been repeated in the synopsis recently provided by Ms. Erlanson, without referring to the var. geminata Schuette [subgeminata], which she had spoken of in a previous work (1925) on the Michigan Roses. But the experience I have gained of the genus Rosa made me doubt the absolute constancy of this nature and, as I expected, it did not take me long to find exceptions — I even identified seven cases among specimens determined as R. blanda by Crépin himself. While these are exceptions, yet we must not forget that R. cinnamomea, the type of Cinnamomeae of Crépin, with "prickles usually regularly paired" can show exceptions in reverse, both in Europe (1) and in Asia; such exceptions, on both sides, are likely to embarrass anyone seeking to identify isolated specimens whose origin is unknown, so we should not ignore them."
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 11 posted
23 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
The problem with most botanists' statements is that they based their descriptions on one or few herbarium specimens, i.e. negating inherent variability of a species. What is needed for roses, especially Asian species, is extensive field work in their natural habitats. The recent book by Wang Guoliang on Roses in China might have covered this lack, but unfortunately it is only available in Chinese.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 11 posted
23 AUG 21 by
CybeRose
|
Oh, yes. And even when they have the specimens, they may ignore their own collections, as Boulenger pointed out about Crépin.
And yet Crépin (July 1896) wrote:
"But in Rosa this is not the case. The species are represented in herbaria by fragments only, either in flower or in fruit, from which one cannot always obtain all the factors for a just conception. If it had been possible to represent the roses in collections, as has been the case with herbaceous plants, by entire individuals, that is to say by bushes, the recognition of the species would not be in so great uncertainty."
And somewhere, Erlanson mentioned two species that are easily distinguished in the field, but lose their distinctions when dried and pressed.
Erlanson did great service raising seedlings of wild species to get an idea of the variations inherent in the "normal" types. Also, some plants change form when grown in different habitats.
Edgar Anderson found it necessary to cultivate various strains of corn (maize) in at least three different places just to observe their phenotypic plasticity. This was necessary to show which traits were stable enough to be useful in classification.
|
REPLY
|
|
The leaf shape shown in Rosewild's photo # 2 differs from the shape of the leaves in photos # 4 and 5. Photo # 2 shows an elongated oval pointed shape; in photos # 4 and 5 we see a much more rounded leaf. Is that much variation in shape normal for this species?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
No description of Rosa amurensis, apparently was ever published. In François Crépin's Berlin herbarium is a wild rose collected by M. Maximowicz on the Amur River in Manchuria. Crepin cited this specimen when he wrote in the Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique, Vol. 14:6, 1875, he had labeled it Rosa amurensis. My plant of Rosa amurensis came from the U.C. Berkeley Botanic Garden in 1993. Further information about the U.C. Berkeley Botanic Garden provenance is in my "Journal" file at HMF account: "Rosewild"
It is closest to the rubiginosae group having glandular leaves,
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
3 JUL 20 by
jedmar
|
Thank you for the heads up! According to the Global Plant List, Rosa amurensis Crép. is considered a synonym of R. acicularis var. acicularis.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
3 JUL 20 by
Rosewild
|
Yes, François Crépin was writing about Rosa acicularis so why would he drop this Eglantine type into the pot? I grow both subspecies of acicularis, sayi and acicularis, from North America and China and the Rosa amurensis I have from UCBBG is definitely not an acicularis. Shouldn't it be great if someone local could access Crépin's Herbarium examine and photograph his amurensis! I rather thought he was digressing since he was referring to this Maximowicz specimen separately from the others under discussion as acicularis. Perhaps he was looking at a set of Maximowicz sheets and amurensis caught his attention, he put a name on it to remind himself to get back to it later. C'est la vie.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
3 JUL 20 by
jedmar
|
The Crépin herbarium is being digitalized. We may find his Rosa amurensis.
|
REPLY
|
|
The photos look like an odd caninae type. I can see traits of roses like Rosa pomifera and Rosa glutinosa in the photographs.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
