|
'Spotless Gold' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
14 MAR 18 by
Rob Byrnes
Given the parentage description on the main page ('Spotless Gold' was an F3 selection from ‘Goldilocks‘ X R. rugosa), should the parentage be listed as:
((‘Goldilocks‘ X R. rugosa) x unk) x unk
Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
16 MAR 18 by
Patricia Routley
I don't know. Not up with my F3's. Do you mean: Seed: (Goldilocks x R. Rugosa) x unknown. pollen: unknown.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
16 MAR 18 by
Rob Byrnes
Hi Patricia. That would represent an F3 to me.
Rob
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
16 MAR 18 by
Patricia Routley
I'll take your word for it. Thanks Rob. Corrected.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
16 MAR 18 by
Rob Byrnes
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
StefanDC
Hi Rob, the formula you give implies an uncontrolled open pollination scenario, which is not what Semeniuk meant by F3. It should denote controlled selfing, so the fully written out parentage looks more like:
{['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)] x ['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)]} x ['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)]
Stefan
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
Rob Byrnes
Thank you for the correction Stefan!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
StefanDC
No problem! I should have added that it may not have been "selfing"; it is also possible that sibling crosses were employed (the paper wasn't entirely clear on that point), although it wouldn't affect the formula.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
Rob Byrnes
It's a shame that the Spotless Series aren't available today.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
19 MAR 18 by
Kim Rupert
I wish this rose would resurface. The last plant of it I knew of was at the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden. Alas, it is no longer there. Imagine the fun you could have playing with this!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
17 JUL 15 by
Michael Garhart
Wow, amazing. I had always wondered about these, and finally a real photo!
|
REPLY
|
|