HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Patricia Routley 
-
-
|
I wonder if it may be time to split the 'Bloomfield Abundance' listing into two parts, perhaps with a Wiki-type "disambiguation," in that 'Spray Cecile Brunner' is the rose traditionally called by that name, yet Fred Boutin has found apparently the "real" thing, and it's quite a different rose. I see no current way, for example, to list which one grows (we have both in the FSC gardens).
|
REPLY
|
|
We do have two separate files for
Bloomfield Abundance Thomas 1920 and
Spray Cecile Brunner Howard, 1941.
There are many photos of 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in the 'Bloomfield Abundance' file but I am not volunteering to move them. Hopefully, members will take up the baton and move them themselves.
|
REPLY
|
|
I would say that the many photos of (as you say) Spray Cecile Brunner) in the Bloomfield Abundance file are actually not Spray Cecil Brunner but the actual original Bloomfield Abundance. See some of the black and white photos in the file with the extral long sepels not existent on the Cecil Brunner. Here is my rebuttal to this misnamed rose next to my photo in the file:
Rose photo courtesy of Lance Mellon
Peter Beales and many others conclude that Cecile Brunner and Bloomfield Abuindance are NOT the same rose. We have both and my Bloomfield Abundance has been growing here for over 70 years old. Bloomfield has the long sepels. These are missing from Cecil Brunner. Bloomfield Abundance blooms about a month later than Cecil Brunner. There are many other differences and most experts agree the two roses are different AND that the large pink rose mentioned by some is not Bloomfield Abundance. We hope this will be changed in your database.
Uploaded 21 AUG
|
REPLY
|
|
Spray Cecile Brunner was shown by Malcolm Manners' group to be almost identical with Mlle Cecile Brunner by DNA comparison, and therefore must be a sport of it. The original Bloomfield Abundance has very different parentage (wichurana x HT), and could not possibly be very similar to Mlle Cecile Brunner on DNA comparison.
So: four roses.
Mlle Cecile Brunner
Cl Cecile Brunner
Spray Cecile Brunner (originally called a climber, which it isn't, in Australia), and sold for decades in many countries as Bloomfield Abundance (which it isn't). As someone said, it grows like a triffid (makes a huge bush), has long sepals, and starts flowering later than the above two.
The above three are very similar in DNA comparisons.
Bloomfield Abundance, HT, lost for many years, unrelated to the above three, possibly rediscovered.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
today by
jedmar
|
Thank you, Lance and Margaret, for your comments. We have now 4 listings:
- Bloomfield Abundance
- Cécile Brunner
- Cécile Brunner Clg by Hosp
- Spray Cécile Brunner = Cécile Brunner Clg by Ardagh
The photos on these pages are hopelessly mixed-up for an admin who doesn't have all of these varieties. Are there any (which) show the real BA? I am assuming that the bloom pictures of the next three are all identical.
|
REPLY
|
|
To make things a little clearer, I think we should rename ‘Bloomfield Abundance’ as ‘Bloomfield Abundance (hybrid tea, Thomas, 1920).
It is impossible to tell which Mar's photo is of. Perhaps moved to her garden file page?
The same with the photo from Rosesbyping.
I also think Lance Mellon's photo should be moved to 'Spray Cecile Brunner'.
JeanClaudeH seems to be 'Spray Cecile Brunner'
As does the photo from Oli_Nwk
and Kamila Rakowska-Szlazkiewicz Rosaplant. - two photos
That would leave all photos in this file belonging to the rediscovered ‘Bloomfield Abundance’ (hybrid tea, Thomas, 1920).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Interesting that Helen Van Pelt Wilson (1955 reference) says 'May Queen'...."tends to bloom all season".
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
7 days ago by
mballen
|
It depends what she meant by "season." My mother was a close friend of someone who copyedited that book and who complained that it tended to be somewhat unclear. That said, I loved that book and had it practically memorized.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
"[0004] The new variety of hybrid tea rose plant of the present invention was created by controlled breeding in May 2008 in Sparrishoop, Germany by artificial pollination wherein two parents were crossed which previously had been studied in the hope that they would contribute the desired characteristics. The female parent (i.e., the seed parent) was an unnamed seedling (non-patented). The male parent (i.e., the pollen parent) of the new variety was a seedling from a cross of `Macgenev` (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 8,279) x unnamed seedling' (non-patented in the United States).
[0005] The parentage of the new variety can be summarized as follows:
unnamed seedling.times.('Macgenev' x unnamed seedling)"
-US PP Application #20210092888
They refer to it as a hybrid tea, so it may grow close to a grandiflora in America, or perhaps an application error. Unsure.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Michael. Details added
|
REPLY
|
|
I am wondering if the codename doesn't mean 'Carmen Wurth' sister, which would be pretty funny.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 3 posted
10 days ago by
jac123
|
They do have similar colors, shape, and blooming patterns. Both varieties are cluster flowered - but not in the sense that they have a cluster of flowers at the end of each cane. Rather (at least in the first flush) the last ten or so buds of each cane lead to a single flower with its own long stem. It could be quite interesting for anyone breeding for home cut flower varieties, as you get a good number of individual blooms with sufficient stem length for a home composition. Not that interesting for commercial production, however
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
14 days ago by
HubertG
|
The description page says this is "a Hybrid Gigantea" but I can't see anything in the references here to support that. Is there some other reference to Gigantea blood not included? I can see similarities with 'Hadley' and 'Princeps' in 'Editor Stewart', so I'm wondering is it's one of Clark's favoured seed parents pollinated with 'Princeps'.
The fact that it was recommended as a hedge suggests it must have had a degree of retention of its foliage in winter. So perhaps there is Gigantea in it after all.
Also, to anyone who has experience of 'Editor Stewart', does it produce hips?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
13 days ago by
jedmar
|
Maybe one of our Australian members can comment on this?
|
REPLY
|
|
HubertG, originally from Modern Roses 12 in 2007. But I do agree, Editor Stewart doesn’t look like a hybrid gigantea to me (but they don’t grow well down here).
I’ve checked my photos and have no hip photos, sorry. I’ve deleted the main page reference to Hybrid Gigantea.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
11 days ago by
HubertG
|
Thanks, Patricia, for that clarification and for looking at your photos for hips. I just scoured all the photos here looking for anything resembling hips, couldn't see any, but in the process noticed no thorns on any of the stems. Now I'm even more intrigued. Is it also relatively thornless? Now I'm wondering if 'Bardou Job' or 'Blackboy' might be in its background. I might have to order this one in this winter.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
