HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
StefanDC 
-
-
|
I got this as cuttings from a friend, along with 'Ayrshire Splendens' and 'Ayrshire Queen'. The latter two as found in commerce appear to be identical, as has come up in HMF discussion on these varieties, 'Ayrshire Splendens' having been substituted for 'Ayrshire Queen'. So far so good. But I also don't see any difference between my 'Venusta Pendula' and 'Ayrshire Splendens'. Are they two distinct varieties? I note particularly the dark growth, thorniness, flexible canes, pink-touched white buds, and strong myrrh fragrance. I would like to hear from anyone who can tell me of differences between these two varieties. Thanks!
|
REPLY
|
|
The rose I've received as 'Venusta Pendula' does have somewhat the same coloring to 'Splendens', but does not have any myrrh scent. That is probably a good way to separate them, although there may be other differentiating characteristics.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose was growing in my neighbours' garden in shady woodland conditions with slender stems about 2 metres into a willow bush. It does not look very vigorous but considering the conditions aren't perfect it is doing well, it appeared as my neighbours have been slowly taming a jungle of neglected garden. I had half thought it was 'Venusta Pendula' but the flowers have a pronounced myrrh scent. Even today with heavy showers and 13C the flowers have at least a mid to strong myrrh fragrance.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's probably the Ayrshire 'Splendens', which looks and smells exactly like the rose you've photographed and described!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Heirloom --- the jerks -- have changed the name on this one. I HATE when they do that. Argh! But we better list it. They want this rose to be called "Moonlight in Paris." While I'm sure that is a good marketing name, it just adds confusion UNLESS they get the original introducer and the ARS to change the name for exhibition purposes BEFORE they do it themselves.. Now people will buy the rose under that name and get disqualified in shows when they try to show it under that name.
See, https://www.heirloomroses.com/moonlight-in-paris.html
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Kathy. Added.
|
REPLY
|
|
Actually, I see Edmunds is also calling it Moonlight in Paris. Maybe 'Garden and Home' just didn't have enough zip to it. It is a pretty boring name (probably named for a magazine?)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
It's important to remember that all of these fanciful "names" are actually trade designations, and not names at all--in fact, the ARS does itself a great disservice as ICRA for the genus by referring to exhibition "names" when those approved "names" are frequently trade designations instead. These are not to be regarded as, or confused with, cultivar epithets under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which the ARS is obliged to follow as ICRA. Known trade designations should also always be displayed along with the cultivar epithet.
It would be far better for the ARS to fulfill its obligations under the ICNCP by better and more consistently emphasizing that there is only one accepted name for each cultivar, consisting of a true cultivar epithet, which is to be indicated by enclosure within single quotation marks. Likewise, trade designations should ideally be displayed in different typeface or otherwise set apart from the cultivar epithet, and must never be enclosed in single quotation marks. For this cultivar, 'Delanac' is the correct name. The others are technically meaningless proprietary trade designations that may be employed freely only in a non-commercial context as a matter of "fair use." Proprietary trade designations are bereft of any true connection to the actual cultivar; the owner of such a designation may apply it to as many different varieties as desired, to change the designation or designations that it uses for a cultivar however it sees fit, and of course, there is no limit to the number of trade designations that a single cultivar may be sold under.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
jedmar
|
The Approved Exhibition Name by the ARS is so last-century! No one outside of USA cares. It's time the Guidelines for Judging Roses are revised and simplified, if the ARS doesn't want to end up as an anachrony.
|
REPLY
|
|
This comment by me was 5 years ago. In the meantime, Bob Martin, who handled these things for the ARS until he passed, did change this rule. I believe that roses in ARS shows can now be shown under any name used to market them, including this rose, now commonly known in the USA as Moonlight in Paris.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
Lee H.
|
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet…”
I doubt the Bard ever imagined modern marketing. What I will say is that it has been a very good rose in my garden, and it probably would never have had the chance, but for the fact that Heirloom capitalized on an equally good name.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
24 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
Good on ARS for making at least that much of an adjustment--does it now insist on the use of the actual cultivar name as well? That would be a much more substantial improvement than simply allowing the use of any marketing designation (which is by definition not a name).
|
REPLY
|
|
Pretty much anything you use that identifies the rose will be allowed now.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
People often assume that this rose is the same as "Lijiang Road Climber," but it is not. "Phillips & Rix Pink China Climber" is definitely a China, while "Lijiang Road Climber" is a Tea.
|
REPLY
|
|
I would love to try it in Florida. I have the book in my living room and I never noticed the difference in Class. Thank You for clearing that up for me.
Regards,
Andrew Grover
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
3 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
It's a bit odd to classify it as a China if it only flowers once annually, though. Perhaps it is a hybrid of a China and something else.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
3 FEB 23 by
jedmar
|
Rosa chinensis spontanea, the wild form, is also once-blooming, with a few blooms later.
|
REPLY
|
|
There are other once-blooming climbing roses from China, which are rather hard to classify. People kept confusing this rose with Lijiang Rd, another once-bloomer large climber, which clearly has gigantea heritage. This rose shows no trace of gigantea and is much more china-like in every feature, including the green color of the new growth and the shape of the receptacle, sepals and blossoms. .
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
4 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
|
While the lines between horticultural classes and botanical taxa have been pretty well blurred in roses, it seems to me that a China rose as a member of the traditionally understood class (cultivar Group) assignment should simply not possess once-flowering behavior.
As for the supposedly "wild form" of Rosa × chinensis, it has not been scientifically demonstrated that those wild populations are actually conspecific with Rosa × chinensis, whose type was a cultivated crimson China belonging to a group that DNA evidence suggests are really hybrids. It's pretty clear from the relevant studies produced so far that the taxon being called R. chinensis var. spontanea is a progenitor species of R. × chinensis, but it is not the sole progenitor species. The assignment of such wild forms to R. × chinensis without DNA evidence at a time when it should have been possible to perform the needed studies was pretty clearly influenced by a strong confirmation bias, but it has not been supported by molecular evidence. It isn't rational to recircumscribe a species that was based on a cultivated type of unclear origins and that could be a hybrid to include a wild taxon, and it makes just as little sense to broaden the circumscription of a well-established cultivar Group (class) to incorporate features of that wild taxon without clear scientific evidence.
For one study that examines the genetic relationship between a cultivated member of R. × chinensis and "R. chinensis var. spontanea," see: www.researchgate.net/publication/236941747_Untangling_the_hybrid_origin_of_the_Chinese_tea_roses_Evidence_from_DNA_sequences_of_single-copy_nuclear_and_chloroplast_genes
From my perspective, the assignment of that apparently wild taxon to Rosa × chinensis was on par with the recognition by some of Rosa gigantea as a variety of its own hybrid, Rosa × odorata. Like Rosa × odorata, it appears that Rosa × chinensis should be regarded as a hybrid. Assignment of a progenitor species to its own hybrid is paradoxical.
To me, a "once-blooming China" is something of a contradiction in terms.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
