|
|
-
-
|
The author of the 1887 article in Journal des Roses states clearly that 'Princesse de Sagan' was a seedling of 'David d'Angers':
" La rose thé Princesse de Sagan a été obtenue en 1883, d'un semis du thé David d'Angers, par M. F.Dubreuil".
I assume what they call "David d'Angers" must be the 1856 Robert tea rose 'Souvenir de David d'Angers'. At least I can't find any original references to a "David d'Angers" rose.
I thought it might be worthwhile adding this more specific parentage to the description page.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have added that parentage, but I do have a little concern over why Brent Dickerson, who also quoted that reference, said in the Advisor “affiliated with” .....‘Souvenir de David d’Angers’.
Then that reference mentions the breeder M. Dubreuil.
Souvenir de David d'Angers' was bred by Robert in 1856
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
11 days ago by
odinthor
|
The "why" is just . . . my oversight. Yes, it is a seedling from 'Souvenir de David d'Angers'.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
OK, trying again....
The 1824 Pronville reference does NOT classify it as once-blooming. The second quoted segment in the reference here does not refer to 'Var. Anemating' but instead is a sort of "side-note" about China roses -- though they were previously described under the header of "semperflorens" ("ever-blooming"), their seedlings bloom once per year. This probably refers to the time before controlled pollination, and the hips collected from the Chinas may thus be pollinated by once-blooming European roses, the resulting seedlings being once-blooming Hybrid Chinas. Please see link below, start at page 177 (where the header of LVII 'R. semperflorens' appears at line 277), then follow through the list of repeat-blooming Chinas. Then, on page 178, you'll see the next line quoted in the reference for this rose appearing as a sort of side-note: "N. B. Toutes les varietes de semis du bengal ne fleurissent qu'une fois l'anee" which translates to "All varieties of China seedlings bloom only once a year".
www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/52529#page/194/mode/1up
The 1826 Noisette reference (linked below) does list this rose among other known once-blooming Hybrid Chinas, and that is a bit of a mystery, considering the other references listed here. I wonder if perhaps a seedling of 'Animating' was passed off as 'Animating' and Noisette described that rose. The practice of giving parent-names to seedlings was not always known to be incorrect at that time -- surely the subtle variations of the first Chinas in Europe as depicted in paintings and descriptions result from, for example, seedlings of 'Slater's Crimson' being raised as 'Slater's Crimson'. Another possibility is that Noisette simply made an error.
Considering that Noisette's is the only reference calling the rose once-blooming, and that other references list this rose as among those imported directly from China (thus not a "classic Hybrid China" with a European rose parent), is it not more likely that one reference was incorrect about this characteristic rather than that all the others were?
www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/95904#page/531/mode/1up
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
LeRouge (1819) says, "There aren’t any fanciers who can make it bloom all year."
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
22 APR by
 jedmar
|
Could it be that there were different roses propagated under this name? The 1823 reference states it was blooming end of September in Boursault's garden.
|
REPLY
|
|
While it's intellectually conceivable that there could be different China roses under one name, the rose folks of that time (and of all times!) were pretty sharp-eyed for (a) new roses on the scene, and (b) shenanigans by competitors and rivals. It would be most odd if someone wouldn't have published something warning people not to get two same-named roses mixed up, especially as one was a sparse bloomer, indeed perhaps a once-bloomer. That, and 'Animating' (in whatever form) is a most odd name for a rose (could the Chinese equivalent, with different naming traditions, have been the original name back in its place of origin?). That two roses at the same time would manage independently to have the same weird name seems unlikely; that someone would attempt a rip-off by knowingly naming another rose the same would be lunacy, given what I stated above, that the rose folks of that time were pretty sharp-eyed (especially when dealing with a comparatively new, exciting, and so closely-watched category like Chinas which had quite a limited number of varieties at that time to deal with)--the fraud would be detected without much delay, and the fraudster denounced. I tend to think that the range of differences found would more likely be due to cultural factors--own-root/grafted, grown outdoors/grown in a glass-house, weather here/weather there, even perhaps just the simple amount of skill or lack of it for particular growers.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
-
-
|
Why is Buffon being discussed on the Description page?
|
REPLY
|
|
