-
-
|
Unfortunately, it turns out the branches not yet in bloom had quite suddenly died. Apparently something this rose is suffering from at times. What a pity; these branches were full of buds.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 12 posted
24 MAY 15 by
 Jay-Jay
|
I've heard that R. hugonis is known for this die-back of mature canes/branches.
I think Kim Rupert told me once about that issue, but I might be mistaken.
|
REPLY
|
|
The German Wikipedia entry for this rose says so. ("Gelegentlich sterben Astpartien völlig ab, da die Chinesische Gold-Rose etwas anfällig für die Valsakrankheit (Befall mit der Schlauchpilzart Valsaria insitiva) ist.") There is no entry in the English Wikipedia, and surprisingly the HMF entry doesn't mention this sad defect of this lovely rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 12 posted
27 MAY 15 by
Jay-Jay
|
Danke sehr, Ich werde mal nachschauen bei Wikipedia.
|
REPLY
|
|
Indeed it's very odd. I checked all my rose books (over 20) and only one (Botanica's Roses) even mentions this problem. (To be sure, not all books mention R. hugonis in the first place.)
|
REPLY
|
|
I wonder if you should be looking at Rosa xanthina 'Canary Bird'. Check out the 1975 and 1981 references for that rose. My Rosa xanthina 'Canary Bird' lived from 2000 to 2007 and suddenly then flew off to a better land.
|
REPLY
|
|
Don't tell me! If the identification on this photo is indeed correct, I've got a Canary Bird. But then many pictures posted in the entry for Canary Bird definitely don't show my rose, so this is awfully confusing, again.
|
REPLY
|
|
Stay with it DWalter. When I sent him this photo, a good friend once told me: "Patricia, your photo of 'Canary Bird' foliage shows 15 leaflets, so it will be the current xanthina-Version. According to Sangerhausen's description, theirs has 5-7 leaflets only. The sepals are upright vs. the reflexed on the photo, too."
Perhaps you might concentrate on the leaflet numbers, the hip colour and the way the old sepals are retained. I can't help you any further as mine is long gone. If yours is in trouble too, then our experience can only help others.
|
REPLY
|
|
Now it gets really confusing ...
As the picture shows, my rose retains the sepals looking down, and I've never yet seen a red hip on it. On the other hand, it definitely has 5 to 7 leaflets, occasionally a small 8th one, as in the center of this photo.
So apparently, providing your photo is correct, I have neither the true R. hugonis nor the true Canary Bird!
(Then by the way, several pictures posted here on HMF under Canary Bird show red hips with the sepals looking upward.)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 12 posted
29 MAY 15 by
Jay-Jay
|
On this photo on top, one leaf has more than 10 leaflets: http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.246284
Hidcote Gold flowers that early too. Might it be that-one?
My Hugonis flowered later than Your rose. And Marnix' rose (Hidcote Gold see pictures on HMF) flowered at the same time as yours. (similar climate)
|
REPLY
|
|
It does look similar, I agree, but the dramatic sericea thorns on Hidcote Gold tell them apart! My rose is nearly thornless. It's in a very sunny and protected position, so that may account for its early flowering.
You had me go back and count leaflets! I found no leaf with less than 7 and none with more than 9 either. What we see on my photo that you linked must be an overlap of two different leaves. According to the picture posted by Patricia Routley this would point to R. hugonis.
On the other hand, in "Classic Roses" Peter Beales has a photo (p. 133) of a Canary Bird that looks a lot like my rose and seems to show a rather small number of leaflets, plus he does mention its tendency towards "partial die-back for no apparent reason", which is where we started. He doesn't mention this for R. hugonis.
So still undecided. I trust Patricia's picture is correct, but then I have a rose that looks and behaves like Canary Bird, but has the wrong number of leaflets.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 12 posted
29 MAY 15 by
Jay-Jay
|
I've once heard that not all R. hugonis are clones, but there is differentiation, due to sowing (self-pollinated) seeds.
|
REPLY
|
|
For a species rose that would make sense. So basically all I can be sure about is that I have some rose that has R. hugonis somewhere in its ancestry.
PS: To be sure, I sometimes despair of ever properly identifying a rose. I just searched the web for an hour or so to find hints for telling Canary Bird and R. hugonis apart, and a lot of people have just that problem while the answers are notoriously vague. People are posting pictures of plants they have, or have seen, in way of a comparison, but clearly these plants, too, are often not clearly identified, and very often people cite HMF as a source for authoritative pictures, but we ourselves may be posting pictures here of roses without being entirely sure of their identification. Now R. hugonis is a comparatively well-known and widely grown rose, but take a more obscure rose where only a couple of people have posted pictures, then have other people going along with that identification and posting their own pictures, and we'll have a rose that will forever be misidentified on HMF!
|
REPLY
|
|
