|
|
'Rosy Morn' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
29 MAR 23 by
 Usami
|
well, parentage aside, would anyone know how this is "improved" from the original Cecile Brunner? Was it lacking anything really?
|
REPLY
|
|
The blossom's a bit larger, other than that, not much.
|
REPLY
|
|
Have a look at the list of roses with Improved in their name. Interesting how many of them have disappeared!
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes Margaret, these names are primarily a marketing ploy playing off the popularity of the varieties in question.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Is there anyone else who has trouble with believing that this is progeny of R. gigantea? Are there any other R. gigantea seedlings that stay to only one meter tall?? Sorry to appear skeptical, if not poorly informed, but it just doesn't seem to me to be very likely. That said, since there is no comment posted here raising any doubts about the stated parents, I guess no one else shares my skepticism.
|
REPLY
|
|
It was not uncommon for older hybridizers to simplify lineages or leave out a generation or two. Ralph Moore has been known to do this. My guess is there is a generation missing and that this cultivar is a self pollinated seedling of the cross as stated.
Remontant gigantea hybrids can stay in the 3' range as demonstrated by some of the early Teas. Mine is several years old, 4' tall and 3' wide with just a bit of shaping. FWIW
Robert
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
6 DEC 15 by
CybeRose
|
According to the patent application:
"It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the hybrid seedling Rosa gigantea, with Mme. Cecile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Karl. We've added that sentence to the patent section on the main page.
|
REPLY
|
|
Could we take another look at the parentage given for this rose please?
Some references do give the parentage as Dainty Bess x R. gigantea but the breeder said otherwise on the patent application when he wrote: "It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the HYBRID SEEDLING [my emphasis] Rosa gigantea, with Mme Cécile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
I understand this to mean that the pollen parent was a hybrid seedling with a lineage that included both R. gigantea and Cécile Brunner but was more complex than a simple cross of those two roses.
At the moment, the parentage given on HMF is Dainty Bess x R. gigantea. It seems that it should be Dainty Bess x R. gigantea seedling or Dainty Bess x hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Mlle Cécile Brunner in its lineage.
|
REPLY
|
|
Billy - I have added references and changed the parentage. Please take a look at the Note on the main page.
......and thank you for my own root plant. It is doing well and flowering now. I have planted it, just for fun, fairly near 'Mlle. Cecile Brunner' and, coincidentally, close to 'Mme. Abel Chatenay' whose colour it was said to be similar to.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks very much Patricia - that is much closer. Duehrsen didn't say the pollen parent was a simple cross of the two roses but rather, a hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Cecile Brunner included in the gene pool. He said Cecile Brunner was 'one of its earlier progenitors' so we know there were additional un-named roses in its lineage.
The notes you have added make this clear.
I am unsure of what the system allows you to put in the parentage field, and how you get around these instances when you know some, but not all, of the roses that have gone into making a new variety.
I'm so glad the rose is doing well for you. The ones here are too. I've found it a quietly determined rose for its first years - more and more exuberant as it becomes established.
I noticed that the date of introduction in the earliest references is given as 1947 and in later ones as 1948.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
I have tried to view the patent for Improved Cecile Brunner, with no luck. Is the patent number given on the main page correct.?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
CybeRose
|
Try this link:
https://patents.google.com/patent/USPP851
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
Very many thanks, Karl. It worked. I had tried all sorts of approaches before but did not get the result I wanted.
|
REPLY
|
|
