HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
jedmar ![HMF supporting member](/img/ms3.gif)
-
-
Apparently Mr. Jones was responsible for breeding all of the roses mentioned in the following (with Dingee & Conard as their introducer):
“Long ago it was known that different varieties would hybridize or mix with each other, that is that the pollen would mix producing seed, that might under some circumstances produce varieties in which some qualities of both the parents, so to speak, might be blended or represented together in the new variety, and knowing this it occurred to a skillful hybridizer in this country, one who had made it almost a life business, that if he could combine the best qualities of the choicest varieties now in existence, he might secure something far better and more valuable, than any of the parents, and this is just what he has tried to do. He selected some of the best types of Roses for parents, and after years of patient study succeeded in hybridizing them under conditions that precluded the possibility of other mixture, and from this seed these new varieties have been produced. It is an exceedingly interesting illustration of what skillful hybridization can do, and no doubt the Roses will be watched with much interest. The names of these Pedigree Roses are, ‘Henry M. Stanley’, ‘Pearl Rivers’, ‘Mrs. Jesse Fremont’, ‘Maud Little’, and ‘Golden Gate’. The Stanley was named in honor of the great African explorer, and was raised from ‘Madame Lambert’ and ‘Comtesse Riza du Parc’; it is clear pink in color, and very beautiful. The ‘Pearl Rivers’ is raised from those two noble Roses, ‘Devoniensis’ and ‘Madame de Watteville’, color ivory white. ‘Mrs. Jesse Fremont’ is a seedling from ‘Duchess de Brabant’. ’Maud Little' is raised from ‘Pierre St. Cyr’ and ‘Duchess de Brabant’, and has a particularly lustrous bloom. ‘Golden Gate’ comes from ‘Safrano’ and ‘Cornelia Cook’, and is one of the most distinct and unique Roses recently introduced; altogether they are a charming addition to our list of New Roses, and will no doubt be largely sought after. It is certainly time that more attention was given in this country to the production of new and valuable varieties of Roses and other flowers and fruits, and though it is a matter requiring careful study and patient industry, it is believed that it will pay well if followed up with good judgment and skill, in fact a good many people are now doing quite a handsome business in introducing new varieties of various kinds, and there is undoubtedly room for a great many more.” [Success with Flowers, vol. 1, 1890, pp. 6–7]
The New Orleans connection is supported by the names 'Pearl Rivers', journalist of the New Orleans Picayune, and poet, and 'Maud Little', probably the daughter or wife of New Orleans florist R.N. Little (himself responsible for 'Winnie Davis'). Meantime, the magazine Success with Flowers was from Dingee & Conard, so they certainly speak authoritatively in the above comments.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
References to the parentages addded. Regarding the breeder, the text only speaks of "He". We have Jones as a breeder of 'Golden Gate' based on a single reference from 1906. The wikipedia entry on Star Roses and Plants / Conard Pyle mentions: 1867: Dingee & Conard began propagating roses under a new system introduced by Antoine Wintzer, the head nurseryman, and a world-class hybridiser. Conard conceived the idea of disposing of their rose stock through the mail. Their first catalog offered bedding plants, shrubbery, bulbs, seeds, and roses. 1888: Howard Preston sold his farm (a dairy farm and regional creamery) to S. Morris Jones, who continued to operate the creamery. 1892: Conard separated from Dingee and along with Antoine Wintzer joined with S. Morris Jones. The new company continued with the growing and distribution of roses and flowering plants. Much of the farmland acquired by Jones became part of Conard-Pyle, the house was eventually provided to the head nurseryman, Antoine Wintzer, as his residence. 1895: Antoine Wintzer worked on the improvement of the canna. 1897: The company's name became Conard & Jones Co.
No further information on S. Morris Jones. Wouldn't the breeder of Dinge & Conard be Antoine Wintzer = He?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
yesterday by
odinthor
S. Morris Jones was certainly a rose lover (see his presentation to the Pennsylvania State Horticultural Association published in "A List of Apples, Pears"; [etc.], 1889, p. 71); but I see no hint that he had rose-breeding aspirations. He was 'a business man of West Grove knowing Mr. Wintzer's great ability as a propagator, [who therefore] furnished him capital to organize the Conard & Jones Company" (from periodical Gardening, vol. 15, 1907, p. 137), of which he was Secretary and Treasurer.
As to Wintzer, though he was in charge of the nursery and rose-growing for Dingee & Conard, he seems to have restricted his own hybridization efforts to the Canna; I'd be interested in seeing anything about him rose-breeding.
Surely Dingee & Conard would have taken pride in referring to the "he" in their article (quoted above) as OUR hybridizer had such been the case; as it is, it appears to concern someone with whom they have commercial relations--that is, a breeder from whom they brought proprietary rights to his varieties which seemed to show promise--not an "in-house" worker. Why the Jones of 'Golden Gate' evidently did not want to publicize his name we cannot know; but if we accept Jones--whom I do not take to be businessman S. Morris Jones--as the breeder of 'Golden Gate', we also need to accept him as the breeder of the other roses mentioned in the article.
I should add that the reference to Jones, 'Golden Gate', and New Orleans comes from that most reliable source the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society (vol. 27, 1903, p. 478).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
I believe NOA16079 should be merged with NOA16071 Showpiece Lipstick. The New Zealand Plant Variety Rights grant number 34868 says a commercial synonym for NOA16079 is Showpiece Lipstick. Double checking before a merge.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 7 posted
19 JUN 22 by
jedmar
Noa16071 and Noa16079 are distinct varietal names, and should not be merged. The only reason can be that Noack introduced a different rose as 'Showpiece Lipstick' in NZ, or that the synonym 'Showpiece Lipstick' is incorrect for Noa16071. The latter needs checking.
|
REPLY
|
Perhaps member Plazbo can help further, see his comment in 'NOA1112130‘
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 7 posted
19 JUN 22 by
Plazbo
Australia PBR has NOA16079 as Showpiece Lipstick
pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr_db/plant_detail.cfm?AID=39362379
noack has Noa16071 as Charisma noack-rosen.de/produkt/charisma/
if we go to the tesselaar marketing photos for the showpiece line
www.flickr.com/photos/tesselaar/albums/72157718483636093
specifically www.flickr.com/photos/tesselaar/50993818772/in/album-72157718483636093/
and do a reverse image search
tinyurl.com/yckbnjre
we find that same image being used in europe for Crazy Pink Voluptia eg www.roseraiebarth.com/fr/rosiers-a-grandes-fleurs/rosier-crazy-pink-voluptia-noa16071.html
different picture showpiece lipstick picture (from the tessellar link above) on the german adr website www.adr-rose.de/adr-rosen/rose/charismar/
So either someone sent out Noa16071 photos for NOA16079 or NOA16079 is a typo or something. For whatever reason, the marketing photos are the same for both if they aren't the same rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 7 posted
19 JUN 22 by
Plazbo
Having said that (and because I don't want to edit the previous comment and get escaped html characters, so new comment)
The photo in the Australian PBR for NOA16079 (despite being listed as showpiece lipstick) doesn't look like the pictures on the tessellar site (or what people have posted as showpiece lipstick in australia rose facebook groups)...which is weird in itself. Maybe, Flower Carpet Pty Ltd (as the agent) did a goof and no ones noticed? The pbr photo looks more like showpiece blush, looking at the usa patent picture for showpiece blush show the darker petal base that's obvious on the australia pbr photo
www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.319066
the photo for blush on the australia pbr doesn't look like blush (pigment is too deep).... pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr_db/plant_detail.cfm?AID=39362376
something goofy going on
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 7 posted
19 JUN 22 by
jedmar
What is clear is that if there are two different varietal names, these are distinct roses: So Noa16071 is not Noa16079, even though they may be similar or sister seedlings (very close numbers). Noa16071 is clearly Charisma, syn. Crazy Pink Voluptia. According to the Australian PBR Noa16079 is Showpiece Lipstick. Photo confusion on nursery websites are not proof enough.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 7 posted
19 JUN 22 by
Plazbo
Even in the USA patent for NOA16079 uses the same images as is used for Charisma (NOA16071)....interesting paperwork either way since either the USA patent is using images for the wrong rose or the pictures used for Charisma (for german adr and such) aren't pictures of Charisma.
|
REPLY
|
Honestly wouldn't be the first time. Poulsen made some booboos in the 1990s.
They clear because there are so few patent examiners for plants, and roses are considered niche.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Rose Listing Omission
Madrid (Love Forever)
source : https://roses-forever.dk/wp-content/uploads/sites/4640/2019/01/Roses-Forever-Presentation-2019.pdf
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
4 days ago by
jedmar
-
-
Ora 72-09 appears to have an additional name according to the site "Promesse de Fleurs." (No reference to other code name from Orard.)
"The Kazatchok Rose ® (Ora 72-09) was recently introduced to the market by the Orard Rose Nurseries, a family business located in Feyzin, near Lyon. It is classified as a modern hybrid tea rose, as evidenced by the turbinated shape of its flowers. Niharika is an Indian name evoking the fine veils of dew that momentarily veil misty mornings."
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
5 days ago by
jedmar
The Kazatchok Rose is listed as ORAgrapar on our link to the Promesse de Fleurs site and is deep pink. No mention of Ora 72-09, which is 'Niharika' (second part of your quote)
|
REPLY
|
promessedefleur.ie is a vender. I unfortunately cannot paste a link to the quote above. Note spelling: is a singular "de fleur"
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
4 days ago by
jedmar
The company is named Promesse de fleurs (singular promis and plural flowers). It has webseites ending in .ie and .com promessedefleurs.ie/
|
REPLY
|
|
|