HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
-
-
Hi HMFers,
I think that all roses that are attributed to Christoph Weigang actually "belong" to his son Ludwig. Christoph Weigand died in 1909. In 1904 already Ludwig took over the nursery. There are no references to be found that Christoph actually bred roses, only Ludwig started to breed as a hobby. The main occupation of the Weigand nursery, however, stayed the growing and selling of flowers.
Greetings
Giuseppe
|
REPLY
|
Giuseppe,
Yes, most all of these roses are after his death. Can you provide a reference we can cite regarding Christoph Weigand's history. Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
28 JUN 11 by
jedmar
Giuseppe The contemporary references seem to refer to Christoph Weigand as the breeder of the wichurana hybrids. These were all commercialized until 1911. The later roses are HTs, HPs etc which would be Ludwig Weigand's field. There is an article in the Rosenzeitung 1904, p. 106, of which I see only a fragment, which will tell us more.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Sehr geehrter Herr Distl,
ich hätte Sie gerne mal erreicht wegen einiger Fotos für ein Buch, aber wie??
Reinhard Witt
|
REPLY
|
-
-
This photo perfectly illustrates the "spray" flower formation Spray Cecile Brunner exhibits. "Bloomfield Abundance", the Captain George C. Thomas seedling, is most likely extinct. Spray Cecile Brunner (which see) is the rose most frequently supplied when Bloomfield Abundance is purchased.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
26 DEC 10 by
Unregistered Guest
Well, Kim,
I only stick to the explanation of Graham Stuart Thomas, who declares the rose, which shows long, leafy extensions to the sepals being 'Bloomfield Abundance' and the similar one with no extensions to the sepals being 'Cecile Brunner'.
|
REPLY
|
Sorry, I did not mean to reply as "anonymous", but I missed to log in. Best, Josef
|
REPLY
|
I understand, Josef, all one can do is rely upon what those who possess the rose label it and the "experts". Unfortunately, so far, everything shown resembles Spray Cecile Brunner. Thomas' Bloomfield Abundance was a hybrid Wichurana, which nothing shown or grown so far has been. It appears to want to remain a confused issue and will likely be so for a very long time to come.
|
REPLY
|
Sports aren't an "on" or "off" proposition, but something which occur along a continuum. I view it as if Spray is an intermediate mutation between the original bush and the extreme climber. You can find Spray with and without the elongated sepals, just as you can find variations in the climbing sport which flower nearly continuously all the way to once flowering, like a traditional rambler. Thomas wasn't the first to be fooled by the variability. It's as if he observed all he could and attempted to determine what differences there could be between two identical plants in hopes of figuring out what the difference actually was. As has occurred with the identification of many species, he observed repeated characteristic variations and proclaimed them different, when they were actually variations of the same thing.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Very good characteristic shot, but might it be possible this (and the others which I've posted this comment to) photo is actually Nigel Hawthorne? From what the plants are like here in Southern California, this photo more closely resembles Nigel than it does Euphrates. Thanks for posting them! Kim
|
REPLY
|
Ok, Kim,
that might be the case - regarding the fact that on all other fotos of 'Euphrates' here at HMF the basal spot to the petals is much more pronounced than on mine. I shall check with the Sangerhausen head gardener next year.
On the other hand, on photos I got from 'Nigel Hawthorne', the petals have pointed tips, which cannot be identified on these "Euphrates"-photos. Clearly these two Roses are quite similar and sadly enough subject to the possibility of being mixed up.
Best, Josef
|
REPLY
|
Hi Josef, when grown in close proximity, the two plants and flowers are so strikingly different, they can't be confused. I can well imagine how photographs can become mixed, as I've probably done MORE than my share! Nigel's foliage is much larger, heavier and "rugose" than Euphrates. The ovaries have the straight, sharp prickles Euphrates doesn't always exhibit. Nigel's petals are much larger, wider and heavier, also. The flowers are larger and it never demonstrated the ever present mildew which Euphrates seems to grasp closely to its breast and cling to as its cross to bear. There is also a much greater contrast between the "blotch" on Euphrates than on Nigel. From the petals, flower size and coloring, how heavy the foliage and wood are and the texture and size of the foliage, I would strongly suspect that particular plant to be Nigel Hawthorne. Euphrates just has never looked like that, at least no where I've ever grown or studied it.
No matter which it turns out to be, I sincerely appreciate your 'virtual rose garden' and the wonderful images you have so graciously shared with us all. Thank you! Kim
|
REPLY
|
|
|