HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
RoseBlush
most recent 29 OCT SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 31 AUG 12 by Fred Boutin
Charles Quest-Ritson in Climbing Roses of the World, p 88, gives a parentage of "'William Allen Richardson' X 'Mme Pierre Guillot'".
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 31 AUG 12 by RoseBlush
Thank you, Fred.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 29 OCT by odinthor
Where is this parentage attested in contemporary records? I don't find it anywhere.
REPLY
most recent 27 OCT SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 30 NOV 10 by John Moody
Has anyone had success using Jardins De Bagatelle for breeding? I would especially like to know if it sets hips with viable seed.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 14 posted 1 DEC 10 by RoseBlush
John,

There is only one descendant listed in the LINAGE reports on HMF, but that does not necessarily mean that there are not more descendants. Many of the roses bred by Meilland have not been registered with the ARS or patented in the United States.

In reading the patent for 'Jardins de Bagatelle', I found a statement that says, "Aptitude to bear fruits.--Normal". As to whether or not the "fruits" have viable seeds is not stated in the patent document.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #2 of 14 posted 2 DEC 10 by John Moody
Yes Lyn, you are absolutely right about european breeders not always registering their roses.
As well, many hybridyzers choose not to list the parentage of their roses preferring to leave it blank or just as "Seedling X Seedling". I think they just don't want other breeders to know what plants they are having good success with in their hybridyzing programs.
One of my favorite hybridyzers in England is very guilty of that. If you pull up all of their roses 99% of them do not list parentage and I am sure they do know and keep track of the roses used for breeding purposes but just prefer to keep it anonymous.
I know some breeders use their own homebred proprietary stock that is not commercially marketed and therefore not named--usually just given a number for identification so it wouldn't mean a thing to you or I anyway.
But they all still use a fair share of commercially marketed roses of their own and other hybridyzers in their breeding programs and just want to keep that info to themselves. It is a shame they do that for small timers like myself who then spend alot of wasted time and energy on trying to breed unsuccessfully with some roses that may be beautiful but don't pass their fine quality to their offspring. Many "average" roses have turned out to make very good breeding plants as they produce better than themselves both in appearance and in health. A breeder just has to find that out by trial and error since the experienced big guns don't share their knowledge.

I know it's a different thing, but I was once an all-breed professional show dog trainer and handler as well as a very successful breeder of my own line of Champion Cocker Spaniel show dogs. I bred several top winning and most proudly top National Best-In-Show and National Specialty Best-In-Show winning and top champion get producing Cockers. I would have multiple champion offspring in most litters I bred, sometimes as many as 3 or 4 of 5 puppies or 4 or 5 of 6 puppies in a litter would go on to be champions themselves bred by me and carrying my "Kandu" kennel name. I had a specific line breeding plan in mind and stuck to it and it made me very successful.
Of course when breeding American Kennel Club registered stock all of your breedings are very public and it is impossible to hide anything which I think is best. It sure makes the responsible breeders very careful with what they breed for health, temperament, and beauty. All of my breeding stock were examined, tested, and certified to be Canine Good Citizens (good temperaments) and free of congenital health defects such as juvenile cataracts, retinal atrophy, blood disorders, hip dysplasia, luxating patella's etc..and I always guaranteed any puppy I ever bred would never come down with these problems which makes for a very happy owner of a very sound and healthy, beautiful puppy that could be a lifetime member of their family with no fears.
It may sould like I bred alot of puppies, but actually I averaged less than I litter every 2 years. And, I usually sold any show quality puppy I couldn't or didn't want to keep to other responsible breeder/exhibitors. For a pet quality puppy, I usually gave them away for free but all prospective new owners went through a very tough screening process and would not get registration papers unless/until the puppy was spayed or neutered unless I had already had it done. Sometimes I would even not be able to sell a show quality puppy for lack of a suitable home and would give them away as a pet as well rather than sell them to a breeder/exhibitor person that I felt was not completely suitable or didn't treat their animals as well as I thought they should.
I think if rose producers were forced to honestly publish their breedings it would sure put the onus on them to really concentrate on producing beautiful and more disease resistant roses that the average gardner could enjoy without all the hassles of fighting off diseases as much as we still seem to do today.
Also, I wish science could come up with a test to accurately measure a roses true disease resistance in a logical way we could all understand and rate and certify them as such. When selecting breeding plants then a hybridyzer would know what they have to work with and would use only those roses that meet or better an accepted level of disease resistance. That still wouldn't guarantee total disease resistance, but would sure be helpful to those of us trying like the dickens to breed more disease resistant roses that are still beautiful enough to exhibit and enjoy in the garden.
I am only a fairly new small time rosarian breeder but I am proud that the three roses I have kept from all the breedings I've done the past 5 years I believe could live in a no-spray garden with no difficulty.
Lastly, I think that propagation of roses by cloning weakens each generation so very minutely it isn't noticeable to the naked eye. But when the cloning has been done 1,000 times, it really adds up to alot of weakening! 4 years ago I was lucky to find a neighbor man with a 40 year old Peace bush that knocked my socks off. He knew the age because they planted it when they got their first home after marriage. I had budwood from that old Peace bush budded onto multiflora rootstock and got 5 new "old" Peace bushes. You wouldn't believe the difference in these bushes compared to the modern Peace roses sold today. Most rosarian gardners probably would hardly even know what it was. My Peace bushes are 10 times more disease resistant, vigorous, and winter hardy. Even with a BS magnet next to one of them in my garden, my Peace bushes stay almost perfectly clean with little fungicide spray at all for them. As well, these Peace blooms are decadently large and richly colorful with twice the fragrance, and the quickest repeat bloomers of any new Peace bushes sold today. The difference is amazing!!
REPLY
Reply #3 of 14 posted 2 DEC 10 by HMF Admin
I think you should consider using this missive as a basis for a short HelpMeFind Ezine article. You have very interesting experience and opinions I'm sure would interest many of our site guests.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 14 posted 3 DEC 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Selective propagation can be used to improve a cultivar just as surely as profligate propagation can lead to degradation. The sword cuts both ways.

There is no reason why cultivars can't improve over time.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 14 posted 4 DEC 10 by John Moody
I like this discussion immenseley, Thanks for responding.
Can you illuminate a bit more on what you mean here for me??
Thanks...
REPLY
Reply #7 of 14 posted 4 DEC 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
John, there is historical precedent for cultivars improved through selective vegetative propagation.

Wood can be selected over time to improve repeat flowering, smoother stems and other characteristics.

You're correct in that indiscriminate propagation practices have degraded many well known varieties. Widespread introduction of viruses through budding didn't help.

Roses are plastic over time.

Wood selection is the key, just as you selected a superior clone of, 'Peace'.

Best wishes, Robert
REPLY
Reply #5 of 14 posted 3 DEC 10 by RoseBlush
John......

I am going to respond to only part of your post:

"I think if rose producers were forced to honestly publish their breedings it would sure put the onus on them to really concentrate on producing beautiful and more disease resistant roses that the average gardner could enjoy without all the hassles of fighting off diseases as much as we still seem to do today."

This is good in theory, but in a practical sense, I doubt if it would help one bit. Jack Harkness wrote in his book, Roses (pg 19) "Nobody knows how many, nor has anyone proved how many different roses can be raised from the same two hybrid parents; but one brave soul risked a guess that it could be 250,000,000."

Further down in the same paragraph, he says, "Remembering the bold guess of 250,000,000 different seedlings from the same two parents, the breeder will be lucky if any of his seedlings happen to combine the qualities he wants; because most of the 250,000,000 are sure to be distinguished mainly by their glaring faults. It is at this stage that the rose breeder's experience tells him how to select the sheep from the goats."

Even with full disclosure of the parentage, there is no guarantee that if you, or anyone else, made the same cross that you would produce a viable seedling worth bringing forward.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #8 of 14 posted 4 DEC 10 by John Moody
Being hybrids there is absolutely no way that you would be able to get the same combination of genes in offspring from identical parents. I am certainly agreeable to that because there are just too many possible combinations. 250,000,000 may be right, I don't know, but wouldn't bet against it for sure. and remember there are genes that don't affect the phenotype or the outright appearance, but the inner workings of the offspring at play as well so you can't ever count them out either.
But, I think that if you selectively hybridyze keeping all the very best attributes that you get, see, and want in your particular roses generation to generation you do move the balance of the "positive" genes you want more in your favor. The more good quality genes that are available there is a greater chance for them to display in the offspring. How much you can affect that balance I would say is hard to say in plants. I know in animal husbandry it works quite well. I used extensive linebreeding in my years of dog breeding and worked wonderfully. That is why I got multiple champion get in litters--the puppies looked alot alike and luckily what they looked like was what was correct and made them good dogs. Of course, there are some negative things that can crop up from time to time as well as they are just as likely to show as the good things. So, once in a while a VERY well thought out outcross was a good thing so long as you immediately went right back to the linebreeding with the next generation. I once had a litter where a heart condition reared it's ugly head in two of five offspring and the newborns faded by the time they were two weeks old. I ended up placing the other three puppies in pet homes spayed and neutered for that very reason even though they didn't have the problem themselves. I was sure they would probably be carriers and I REALLY didn't want to go down that road. Those three were sure champions if they had been shown but responsibly, why would I want to proliferate that problem for myself or place them in a home where they would possibly be bred only to carry on that problem to someone else. That wouldn't be very responsible breeding in my book. With a little research and a few "be honest with me's", I found the "branch" of the family tree where that came out and I carefully stayed away from that limb never doubling up on it again and luckily never faced that problem again.
Yes, I know, plants and animals are different things, but some of the philosophies are still the same. I studied genetics for two years so I do know that. In a cross of two roses you are going to hopefully get some really disease resistant offspring and some that are not so much so. Responsibly you would trash the fungus prone progeny and concentrate on those that displayed good disease resistance. You wouldn't trash the entire cross unless they were all disease magnets, right?? After all, we are talking hybrid plants here, not animals. Hopefully those new plants that do display the good disease resistance also got the other good traits you were looking for as well. And hopefully they can continue to pass that along to their offspring as well.
I am still really learning more of the basics of the ploidies which is very important in plant genetics. It seems pretty complicated to me so far but I know I must grasp the intricacies of it to be successful at this venture. Paul Barden and Kim Rupert especially seem to be conversant about ploidy so every time I see them write something about it I try to absorb as much as I can about it and glean anything I can.
Lastly, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the point about honestly reporting the crosses and the responsibility it would entail on the hybridyzer. I still think if it were mandatory for all crosses to be published as honestly and accurately as possible--which I know can be hard to do sometimes--it would make the breeder really think about what they are using. If a very beautiful top exhibition rose produces gorgeous offspring but with a marked tendancy toward say a propensity towards mildew, other hybridyzers would know that before using those offspring in their own hybridyzing activities. If I had a program running that was showing excellent disease resistance I would opt to stay away from selecting a particular rose as a breeding plant that is known to produce disease prone progeny. That would be taking a whole step back in the wrong direction that could have been avoided had the hybridyzer known beforehand.
Does that make sense to you?? It certainly does to me.
Blessings....
REPLY
Reply #9 of 14 posted 4 DEC 10 by RoseBlush
John.......

I don't think there is a good answer to your quest. Breeders are always culling their seedlings for faults and very few of the seedlings move forward to the next stage of testing. There are so many variables that even if you knew a rose to be disease resistent in your breeding program, you could not honestly know that it would be disease resistant in another climate, soil, budded or own root beyond the areas where the rose was tested.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #10 of 14 posted 5 DEC 10 by Kim Rupert
John, what you aren't taking into consideration is there are many types of mildew, black spot and rust just as there are many types of flu viruses, for the same reason. They are always mutating. Dr. David Byrne, the Basye Genetics Chair at Texas A&M has collected different black spot infections from around the country to take home to Texas so he can inoculate his roses to test for resistance to different strains of the fungi. If there were only one of each, what you propose may have some validity, however, the first time you tell someone independent enough to strike out on their own ideas, such as breeding anything, that they are GOING to list what they used, get ready to be told where to get off. I list parentages because I find it interesting. Tell me I am GOING to do it and you'll find my response rather "un gentlemanly", I'm afraid.

Your supposition that attempting to force disclosure of breeding plants will force changes in what breeders chose to use is, I think, off base. Everyone who breeds to an ideal makes choices based upon what they feel will get them where they want to go. Trying to force them to tell you what has been used will not change that personal aesthetic. Fortunately, and unfortunately, not everyone has the same goals in breeding anything. You bred for show dogs, which is very similar to breeding for exhibition roses. Show dogs don't necessarily make good pets just as exhibition roses don't necessarily make good garden plants. A number of characteristics held as "perfection" to show judges prevent the animal from being a successful pet in most instances. Breeding for the perfect high centered form bud and selecting for that trait above things like health, vigor, cold and heat hardiness, continuous color, fragrance produces just as many unfortunate plants as does breeding and selecting for the perfect snub nose, or overly long torso, etc. in dogs. Conscientious breeders of both strive to create successful organisms, healthy, vital, vigorous ones which can hopefully be enjoyed without much drama and which will successfully live without trouble. That's the difference. Your "ideal" you wish to create and enforce regulations to provide information will not change someone's ideal of OGR form at the expense of health, vigor, etc. That person is going to use what is shown to produce the results they desire....period.

Then, there is the problem of climate. Joseph Pernet-Ducher was asked later in life about his Foetida crosses, Pernetianas, "What about the black spot?" His honest, surprised response was, "WHAT black spot?" Ralph Moore created an interesting Rugosa hybrid with semi double, open flowers in red with pink stripes. It grew very well, developed into a rather large plant of fairly decent habit and it flowered year round. He gave me one and it grew very well and rusted in my garden like an old iron nail. He asked me about it and I told him of the rust. His response was, "WHAT rust!?" Black spot did not flourish where Pernet created his Pernetianas. Rust was very seldom an issue in Visalia where Sequoia was for over 70 years. That rose took another few years to finally show rust at Sequoia because the climate changed, creating conditions favoring the fungi. You can't damn a breeder for creating a black spot prone variety when it didn't black spot where he bred and selected it. None of us can test every rose in every climate. I read with interest your statement that the few roses you've maintained from your breeding you think could succeed elsewhere in no spray gardens. I might suggest that be modified to they may succeed in other no spray gardens of the same climate as yours with the same strains of the major fungi, under similar cultivation. Until a rose is tested in other climates, other cultivation styles, with other strains of diseases, in other soil and water types, none of us honestly know what to expect. Few roses are as good elsewhere as they are where they are born. Many are better, particularly culls, elsewhere than they were at home. A number have returned to me to bite me in the butt when I gave them away because they didn't do what I hoped they would and did even better elsewhere.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 14 posted 6 DEC 10 by John Moody
Kim thank you so much for weighing in on the discussion. Interstingly today while in my rose house I thought of the different strainsof fungus but knew I was too naive on the subject and needed info. So, I am so glad you spoke up here. I understand you completely and agree with you. I have heard there are different strains of BS and that roses can be resistant to some and not others or even none at all. In my area I see no rust ever--northeast Missouri--and VERY rarely even see any mildew except for just a tiny bit on the HT Nightingale or the climber New Dawn the first two years of it's life though I saw none the last two years. I do get BS, and sometimes I wonder that some years different cultivars seem affected and the next year they are clean and previously clean cultivars are prone. So, different strains of BS could be part of that answer I guess. I do see botrytis on light colors. I have had two other rosarians in the KC area grow two of my hybridyzed roses--a yellow HT ( Gold Medal X St. Patrick) and an apricot blend FL (Livin' Easy X Day Breaker) with good success against disease resistance. Both reported no fungus on the FL and VERY minor BS on the yellow HT. Of course their area probaby has about the same fungus I have but their cultural practices are different so I was glad they reported good vigor, disease resistance, blooming, and winter hardiness as I had experienced. Now I have made arrangements with wtih other rosarians in Nor. Cal, Sou. Cal. Nor. Car. Dallas,TX, Okla City, OK, and Minnessota to grow these two starting next year to trial them for me. I would still like another couple--southwest and Great Lakes/Ohio Valley--to get an idea how they fare there.
In breeding with these roses I would like to linebreed with them, crossing back to the grandparents. In the case of the yellow HT, the seed parent of St. Patrick of is Gold Medal crossed with Brandy. So, I crossed St.Patrick pollen back with Gold Medal and got my yellow HT. Now I would like to cross this offspring back to Brandy and to Garden Party and Garden Party to continue breeding on the line, probably not quite so tight. There are plenty of quality offspring of all these roses to choose from.
My AB Fl I would like to cross back to grandparents Remember Me, Silver Jubilee, and Pensioners Voice, to continue. There are plenty of quality offspring of all of these and of Livin' Easy to continue on with this thread I think. I really think that her so far apparent outstanding disease resistance comes through Livin' Easy and I am especially interested in going that way first. I am intrigued thinking of using Hot Cocoa and/or some of it's offspring like About Face which both have shown excellent quality including disease resistance for me so far.
Anyway, I think and hope linebreeding is the way to go. In studying other rose hybridyzers I have seen some linebreeding practiced. More so by some than others, but definitely there. I can't imagine just going into this blindly without a game plan in mind. You must have structure to erect a building I was always told by my father so he made me a planner as he was.
I do want to be sure to make it clear that I certainly have no intention of causing dissent or upsetting anyone with my thoughts and questions. I only ask and question to stimulate discusson so that I and others can be educated ourselves. I never mean any harm and I really appreciate the thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc..of you Kim and of course Robert and Lyn as well. This is the way we learn from one another the best I think and I for one sincerely appreciate your participation. I am always agreeable to change my mind based on anothers experience, education, and advice if I believe it sound, but I also reserve the right to agreeably disagree on friendly terms as well and may have to learn the hard way myself. That's just me and the way I am.
REPLY
Reply #12 of 14 posted 6 DEC 10 by Kim Rupert
Hi John, thanks! Good luck with your tests of your seedlings. It's often quite enlightening hearing how they perform elsewhere. I agree with you that there may be good things to be gained through line breeding. The main thought I would offer is the Hybrid Tea rose is already very inbred. By continuing along this geneological line, you stand to homogenize for undesirable traits. Hopefully, you can weed them out quickly, perhaps not. You may benefit from including something like Baby Love, which, though a miniature, is wonderfully disease resistant. Perhaps creating some hybrids of it with your chosen seedlings and working it into your line breeding, you may hit upon an even greater level of disease resistance?

Jim Sproul has succeeded in creating Hulthemia hybrids with foliage and plants light years ahead of what was the norm just a few years ago. Baby Love plays an important role in his improvements. There are others you might consider, but Baby Love's performance is pretty much a given and it's readily available.

You mentioned you were still working on the ploidy subject. Some feel it of great importance, and it MAY be. Some very accomplished breeders have simply ignored it and succeeded in creating some amazing roses. Early in my breeding preparations, I chose to work with a species not already incorporated in modern roses. Meeting and getting to know Ralph Moore taught me that was the only way to really create something different. I had decided on R. Fedtschenkoana as it possess some traits I find very attractive and I wondered what these would do when combined with genes from other areas of rosedom. I asked Mr. Moore what he thought and added that since modern roses are mostly tetraploid (4 sets of seven chromosomes or 28) and Fedtschenkoana is also tetraploid, I shouldn't have any of the sterility issues historically reported with breeding Teas into European Old Garden Roses. Mr. Moore told me it really didn't matter whether or not the chromosome numbers matched. "The rose will find the way". He continued, "As soon as you think you know the rules, the rose goes and changes them!"

He simply ignored the chromosome counts in his breeding. And, it worked! Triploids (3 sets of 7 chromosome or 21) are generally thought infertile. The early fertility problems in Hybrid Tea breeding was blamed on the increased number of triploid varieties produced. Yet some of Mr. Moore's most prolific and successful breeders ARE triploids! My rose Lynnie, bred from Mr. Moore's minis and Basye's Legacy and extremely fertile herself, IS triploid! The early theories of what would and wouldn't work are being proven incorrect. My point is, though quite interesting, unless you're trying to create something for severe extremes such as zone 3 or something, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference! Selecting parents for traits you wish to build upon is probably a better use of your time and effort than worrying about matching chromosome counts.

Of course you retain the right to disagree! None of us would have it, or you, any other way!
REPLY
Reply #13 of 14 posted 6 DEC 10 by RoseBlush
John.......

There are several articles written by breeders, breeding and about breedings in the HelpMeFind Ezine archives. You can do a TEXT SEARCH and just enter the word "breeding" and you will have a whole afternoon's worth of good reading.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #14 of 14 posted 27 OCT by ParisRoseLady
Thank you John, this is such a great posting. Your comparison with the dog breeding process to rose breeding is fascinating, and your experience with the Old Peace variety is eye-opening and inspiring!
REPLY
most recent 13 JUL SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 2 OCT 04 by Danty
I really like this rose. My wife asked me why I don't get rid of it since we don't cut the flowers. Well, I just like it. It is a delightful coppery-orange-pink blend that blooms in waves. Extremely healthy and more graceful in growth than most minis. Blends and complements all other roses and plantings. I'm keeping it.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 2 OCT 04 by RoseBlush
I stopped cutting a lot of roses in the garden long ago because I love to see the blooms on the bush as much as I like seeing roses in a vase. I simply love either looking out the window or walking through the garden and seeing all of the different colors, bloom forms and contrasting foliage in the garden. Not every rose needs to be cut for the house, some just make you smile when you see them in bloom.

Smiles,

Lyn
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 13 JUL by styrax
So far I am also impressed by this one- most miniatures here suffer from black spot but this little guy keeps chugging along.
REPLY
most recent 16 MAY SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 12 SEP 08 by Carlene
Is this rose shade tolerant? I have a position with 4 hours of sun a day, and the rest of the day with filtered sun. Thanks.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 6 posted 22 MAR 10 by MaryG
Hi Charlene,

I checked three different rose books that go to some trouble to try to identify those roses that can do reasonably well in shade. None of them mention 'Crépuscule' for any degree of shade tolerance, and one book, the Peter Beales' "Classic Roses" book, specifically recommends that you be put it into full sun.

There are plenty of roses that Peter Beales doesn't mention any sun/shade information on; he singled this one out for needing sun to do its best. So perhaps Peter knows of some very unsuccessful attempts to grow the rose in partial shade? The books do list some noisettes that can succeed with some shade, but apparently this rose just isn't one of them. Sorry.

Best wishes,
Mary
REPLY
Reply #3 of 6 posted 18 JUL 10 by RoseBlush
Just a note ... full sun in England is very different than full sun in Texas or even parts of California. It's likely the rose will "reach for the sun", but I have found that many roses said to require full sun by authors from England fry to a crisp in the mountains of northern California unless they have some shade or filtered sunlight.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #4 of 6 posted 18 JUL 10 by redwood rose
How true. I live a half an hour from the beach, but most of my roses appreciate a little shade at some point in the day. The ideal spot here faces east, towards the morning sun, then gets shade in the afternoon hours.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 6 posted 18 JUL 10 by Margaret Furness
Here's a photo of Crepuscule in a previous garden of mine. In a 3m wide corridor between the (one-story) house and a colourbond fence, facing east, and subject to howling salt-laden winds at times. Zone 9b, summers hot to very hot.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 6 posted 18 JUL 10 by redwood rose
Mine grows in similar conditions and blooms well. I live in the Bay Area, Ca.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 6 posted 16 MAY by wuckertrhea
My own thrives in those same conditions. The San Francisco Bay Area is where I make my home.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com