|
|
'Rosa gallica var. plena Regel synonym' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
12 NOV 12 by
Vladimír Ježovič
|
Václav Větvička in his book Ruže (Roses), AVENTINUM, 2001 (ISBN 80-7151-183-8), on the page 88 writes :
Another names under which you can find this ancient cultural rose is Rosa rubra, Rosa gallica ´Maxima´ or Rosa provincialis. Seems it´s the oldest grown variety of Gallica risen in the Middle East. He prefered in Czech, name for Rosa gallica - keltská ruža (Celtic rose).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
6 NOV 12 by
Vladimír Ježovič
|
Rosa provincialis Mill. is synonymum for Rosa gallica L. ´Officinalis´ or Rosa gallica var. officinalis Ser., used by Krüssmann (1978, III., page 250), proven in France since 1310.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
10 NOV 12 by
 Patricia Routley
|
I am under the impression that province roses are centifolias and that provins roses are gallicas.
In Timber Press’ 1981 revised edition of Krussman’s 1974 book on page 77 under R. centifolia L. Krussman lists:
1629 In Parkinson, it is Red Province.
1733 Miller (for the first time?) changes “Province” into "Provence” and also gives it the Latin name of Rosa provincialis.
1753 Linnaeus gave it the name Rosa centifolia which has been retained.
1768 Miller describes the “Cabbage Rose” under the name of Rosa provincialis or Provence Rose since he regarded Linnaeus’ diagnosis (1753 & 1762) as unsatisfactory; his designation was accepted by a number of contemporary authorities.
1820 Lindley cleared up Miller’s mistake and from this point on the “Cabbage Rose” has been classified as Rosa centifolia, in accordance with Linnaeus.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
10 NOV 12 by
jedmar
|
Krüssmann is outdated:
- Dodoens (1557) lists the "3rd rose species" as Rose de Province / Provinsche Rosen / Leibfarbige Rosen (i.e. flesh-coloured roses).
- Tabernaemontana (1591) divides these into Rosa provincialis major and Rosa provincialis minor. Gerard in 1597 calls the former Province or Damask Rose / R. provincialis sive (or) damascena / Provencie Roose / R. incarnata / Leibfarbige Roose; the latter Lesser Damask Rose / R. provincialis minor. He also introduces the Holland or Province Rose / R. Hollandica sive (or) Batava / great Holland Rose / great Province Rose.
- Clusius (1601) calls this last "Centifolia Batavica"
- Parkinson (1629) has Rosa provincialis sive damascena / great double Holland or Damask rose / Centifolia Batavica incarnata, as well as Red Province /R. provincialis rubra / Batavica Centifolia rubra. Also: Damask Province Rose.
Centifolia is therefore a subset of what the early authors called the Province / Provincialis / Damask "species".
Coming to Gallicas:
- Dodoens (1557) divides these into 2 species: Rosa rubra / R. purpurea , and the darker Tuscany-type Roses brunatre de Provins / Roses de Provins / Provinsch Roses.
- the darker type becomes Rosa holosericea in Lobelius (1591), Velvet Rose in Tabernaemontana and Velvet rose / R holosericea / deep purple Province Rose in Gerard.
- the red (deep pink) Gallica is the 2nd race in Tabernaemontana: Roth Rose / R. rubra / R. Milesia / R. purpurae
- Gerard's 2nd race is red rose / R. rubra / Rose Franche / Rose de Provins.
- Rosenberg (1628) calls these, among other names, R. Gallis Provincialis
Our Gallicas descend not only from the "Provins"-type, but also from the darker "holosericea / Province" section, which would have been a Gallica/Damask hybrid.
The later confusion arised because Provins was set equal to Province, and Lindley's lumping together of Centifolia with Provincialis, Damascena with Belgica.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
10 NOV 12 by
Patricia Routley
|
Jedmar, we are so lucky to have you.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
14 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
I've bought this Rose (see photo's) at nursery "De Zeeuwse Rozentuin" as Rosa Gallica Officinalis. But I doubt it is that rose. The plant is too high: > 2m. The flowers have too many petals and the colour doesn't match!
Does some-one have a hunch?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
16 JUN 12 by
SteffenAlbrecht
|
For what's it worth, there is a rose rather similar to this one in the public rose garden in the Ohlsdorf cemetery here in Hamburg that's also labelled "Officinalis" and that confusingly doesn't look like my own Apothekerrose or the photographs in my rose books or here at HMF either. I can go back and bring pictures of this other rose, see if it's the same as yours ...
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
16 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
Thank You for Your help! Someone (HMF-Member Marnix) suggested that it possibly might be Tuscany.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
17 JUN 12 by
SteffenAlbrecht
|
This is my case. Obviously not the same rose as yours, but probably also a Gallica and certainly not Officinalis as the label states. What might this be?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
17 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
Maybe Tuscany Superb? (a hunch of mine, but I don't know)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
17 JUN 12 by
SteffenAlbrecht
|
At least fairly similar, although most photos for Tuscany Superb here at HMF show a rather simpler, more open and less bluish flower, possibly also with less petals than this one; and leaves that are both more serrated and more pointed. The buds are really similar though.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
18 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
I got a message after a while from the nursery, that provided me this rose. they explained there was made a mistake/a mix-up when dug out of storage! It is the Tuscany rose (not Superb!)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
18 JUN 12 by
SteffenAlbrecht
|
Interesting. Especially since it takes one a while to find out. But at least understandable that leaveless plants in a storage can be confused. For a public rose garden to mislabel a rose they actually see blossom each year is less understandable.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
18 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
Vielleicht daß Sie dies beim Vorstand des öffentlichen Parks/Ohlsdorfer Friedhofs melden?
Maybe, you might tell the responsible person at the cemetary/park.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
14 JUN 12 by
Jay-Jay
|
In Dutch this rose is called "De Apothekersroos".
|
REPLY
|
|
