HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
thebig-bear 
-
-
|
This rose really responds well to the old Victorian practice of pegging - something I highly recommend, having used it on several roses now. Just bending and tying the long stems into the plant itself to form a network of canes criss-crossing back and forth to make a bushy shape, has made such a difference to this old plant, transforming it from a bean pole of a few stems and few flowers, to a beautiful large bush covered in flowers. She has so many blooms on her these days, she is like a different plant. And she tolerates shade really well too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
30 SEP 21 by
Clairose
|
thank you for your suggestion re winding around instead of pegging. Bought a potted GJ yesterday and was thinking of a tripod. I have a Mme Isaac Perriere that didn't flower a lot but when I put a tripod in and wound it around and voila heaps of blooms
|
REPLY
|
|
Glad it was helpful. Pegging works well both taking the branches outwards or inwards - it just creates a different effect, and makes a different plant shape. Yes, it will have worked well using a tripod for Mme Isaac Perriere. These sort of techniques work really well for a lot of the larger Old Roses, particularly Bourbons and H.Ps.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Has anyone ever had any thoughts, insights or discussions on just what Dunwich Rose might be? - Is it a hybrid? If so, what might be involved? Is it a long lost variety? Is it just a form of Pimpinellifolia?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Diploid? Really?! That seems an odd ploidity for the given parentage.
|
REPLY
|
|
I've always wondered if the real parent was 'Belle Amour'. I grew the two plants next to each other for a while and noticed the flower shape and color is similar and the unusual fragrance (cold cream) is the same. How does that work out genetically?
|
REPLY
|
|
I've heard that idea being posed before, and I can see why, although I have no personal experience of Belle Amour so can't really comment.
If the given parentage is correct, then with Dainty Maid as a tetraploid and Belle Isis likely to be either a tetraploid or a triploid, then I would guess it is unlikely to result in a diploid rose - most likely to be a tetraploid. So either the parentage is wrong, or the ploidity analysis is wrong. Something is amiss anyway.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
8 JUL 21 by
jedmar
|
I cannot access the 2005 article which claims diploid ploidy. However, I agree that there must be an error and removed the ploidy information.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I have to say I'm a little confused about Fedtschenkoana being the pollen parent of the Damasks.
While I am in no way any kind of genetics expert, and indeed I am only just now starting to grasp some of the very basics, I do feel that in this instance things do not add up for me, no matter what way around I think of this - and this is why.
According to Hurst's septet theory (which I don't believe has been debunked, but please correct me if I'm wrong) and all the scientific (including genetic studies) discussions that I have found by all manner of people far more qualified than me, R. Moshata is described as an A septet diploid, R. Gallica as an A and C septet tetraploid, and R. Fedtschenkoana as a B and D septet tetraploid. These designations would fit with all the characteristics and traits of the three roses in question, so no problems there.
Now as I understand this, the initial cross between Moschata X Gallica would result in a triploid hybrid (fertile or otherwise, but that is not really relevant here). So far so reasonable. But- if this hybrid was then pollinated by Fedtschenkoana, surely the result would be something along the lines of an irregular A, B, C, D septet tetraploid - somewhat like the original seedling from Pernet Ducher's cross that subsequently led to Soleil d'Or. (Or even something like an A, A, B, C, D, pentaploid?) Yet nowhere have I seen this fact discussed, let alone explained.
Am I missing something, or does that not add up with the finding of all 4 of the oldest of the Damasks as A and C septet tetraploids? Where did the B and D go?!
Any thoughts? Much obliged in advance.
I've pinned this comment on the Quatre Saison page as well.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
6 JUL 21 by
jedmar
|
I agree. See the paper "Tulips, Traders and Roses" (available on the web) where the findings of the Iwata et al. study are also questioned, although for other reasons. I would suggest that the origins of R. damascena need to be looked at again in a better-prepared scientific analysis.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello again Jedmar, I had a feeling you might reply.
Thanks for the article - I've read it and it makes a lot more sense than Fedtschenkoana does to my mind. I've also heard someone pose the theory of whether the Albas are actually in the background of the Damasks, rather than the usual assumption that the Damasks helped create the Albas - and if an Alba happened to pollinate the Moschata X Gallica hybrid, that would create an A and C septet tetraploid, in theory.
As you quite rightly say, I think a lot more analysis will have to be done on the Damasks. I know some would say that I am unqualified to speak on such matters, but to this layman, Fedtschenkoana just doesn't seem to be the right answer to solve the puzzle to me.
Further to when I mentioned Soleil d'Or, look at Stanwell Perpetual for example - that rose shows a lot of influence from the pimpinellifolia parent, which would have had either B and C or B and D septets, very much like Fedtschenkoana with B and D - and yet that is a very different looking result than we have with something like Kazanlik or Quatre Saison. All the first generation hybrids with either Pimpinellifolia or Foetida as a parent that I have ever seen have had a much more pronounced similarity to them than the Damasks ever do to Fedtschenkoana (even allowing for the fact that I have never seen it in the flesh). And Hurst says that the B septet has a very strong tendency to make roses with flowers coming in singularly set flowers rather than in clusters, even when recessive - something that I would never say was the case with my extremely cluster-flowered Quatre Saison!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
7 JUL 21 by
Plazbo
|
I don't think the claim is (mosh x gallica) x fedt = instant damask. More that it is their genetic origin and generations post that initial cross/es is where the Damask and Autumn Damask come into it.
Hurst septets are based on visual observation of phenotype, not genetic analysis of genotype so they work in some cases not in others. Some traits don't express when other traits are in play (eg wichuraiana foliage tends to over power most other foliage types in a cross, doesn't mean the genetics of the other parents foliage aren't there)
|
REPLY
|
|
Testing, testing, 1 2, 1 2 - it won't let me reply! Sorry folks. I'll keep trying.....
|
REPLY
|
|
Let's try again!.....
Thank you for chipping in.
Well I may have agreed with you, had it not been for the fact that that is the parentage that IS being stated as the direct parentage for many of the oldest of the Damask group, including on the pages for Quatre Saison and R. Damascena on this website. If it isn’t the case then it shouldn’t being be pushed as such, and it should be simply a note in the references. But I know what you are driving at.
Regarding the septets, thank you for that snippet about Wichuraiana foliage, I didn’t know that, and I have duly absorbed that info! (I think someone said that Rugosa foliage often disappears in certain crosses, only to reappear in later generations for no apparent reason)
There is a page on bulbnrose (I can't add the link), showing fig. 100 in which Dr Hurst shows the way in which the B septet continues to have an influence on producing singularly held flowers, even on roses where the B septet only makes up a small part of the overall rose.
Surely if Fedtschenkoana had been invloved even remotely recently in the ancestry of the Damaks group, the B and D septets would still be present and having this effect on them? But all the oldest of the Damasks are listed in every source I have ever seen as being A and C septets only (only Omar Khayyam have I seen listed as something else, and that was a pentaploid with an extra E septet). So the question remains, where have the B and D septets from Fedtschenkoana gone? ( please bear in mind that I have never seen or experienced Fedtschenkoana in the flesh, only through books and online, so please correct me if I am wrong regarding any specific traits of it)
Am I right in saying that septets are now able to be be scientifically proven through analysis rather than just theory? (again, please correct me if I am wrong on this point).
Having said all that (at great length, sorry!!) I do take your point. But I just think that it is open to some doubt, in my mind anyway. As the article that Jedmar provided says, the geographical aspect is a bit more difficult to explain too than at face value.
|
REPLY
|
|
Because of all the messing about because it wouldn't allow me to reply, I missed a point out!
I have heard it suggested that some septets 1. may be shed by roses over a long period of time (in theory), and 2. that they can be lost through certain directions of hybridisation (eg irregular pentaploids or hexaploids being used as pollen parents rather than as the seed parent) - but if that were the case, we would be looking at something rather different and removed from the [Moschata x Gallica] X Fedtschenkoana cross anyway.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
8 JUL 21 by
jedmar
|
The claim of Iwata et al. was (moschata x gallica) x fedtschenkoana = R. damascena
|
REPLY
|
|
|
