HMF lists Rosa woodsii 'Kimberley' as a species/wild rose, but if it was truly a wild rose, the single quotes around 'Kimberley' usually designate a cultivated variety, not a true species. If it was a true species, wouldn't 'Kimberley' be latinized somehow? (e.g. Kimberleyii in italicized print). Or is this a rose that was found by Nicholls and introduced to the world? Or did Nicholls hybridize it or change it somehow so that it became a cultivar? Or is it a sport of the original R. woodsii? I'm so confused..... Thanks for any light that can be shed on this rose.
There is an article in the HMF Ezine discussing “How To Write a Rose Name” by Crenagh Elliott that may be useful. Crenagh states: “If there is a particular type of a species selected it may either have a latin descriptor added i.e. lutea yellow, alba white, plena double, etc. or a name in single quotes i.e. Rosa moyesii 'Geranium' or 'Lipstick' or 'Sealing Wax' all of which are colour selections from a species with a wide colour range.”
The University of British Columbia Botanical Garden page describes Kimberley as: Rosa woodsii subsp. Ultramontana ‘Kimberley’ Accession: 1989-0761 Origin: Canada Provenance: Wild
Kimberley has been propagated by Bylands Nursery in British Columbia and commonly is seen for sale at Canadian Tire Stores.
