|
|
'Geschwinds Unermüdliche' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Since this is supposed to be a sibling of 'Gruss an Teplitz', and neither rose has any documented background of Rosa multiflora, it would seem to be misclassified as a hybrid multiflora.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
20 MAR 22 by
 StefanDC
|
From the references cited, it doesn't look like the word "multiflora" entered into the equation until the 1936 Rosenlexicon; is there an unlisted reference even earlier than the 1928 one that calls it this? It is also not listed that way in Modern Roses, which of course is the official checklist of the International Cultivar Registration Authority for roses. Even if it were actually introduced as a hybrid multiflora, that should clearly not be the only classification listed here, and it should be properly qualified.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 2 posted
21 MAR 22 by
jedmar
|
We added China and Hybrid China to the classes, analogue to 'Gruss an Teplitz'. 'Geschwinds Unermüdliche' was actually sold as a Hybrid Multiflora by Lambert, for whatever reason.
Regarding Modern Roses and ICRA for roses: Only new roses were registered at the ICRA roses by their breeder; definitely not Geschwind's or any before 1953. And currently the ICRA roses is peactically dead. Already in 1986 a paper of ISHS reported "Changing practices regarding the selection and use of rose names by the rose industry have made implementation of the present system difficult. The Registrar is additionally experiencing reluctance by the industry and it's trade organizations to cooperate with respect to the process of rose name registration as it currently exists. The rose industry is tending to deviate from established rules of nomenclature in favor of practices regarded as more beneficial to their business interests.". Meanwhile only US breeders are using this system, while large European breeders have dropped it fully as without value, in favour of patent and trademark protection.
|
REPLY
|
|
