|
Rosa indica L. was based on a specimen of Rosa cymosa Tratt. in Petiver's collection.
"11. Rosa CHUSAN. glabra, Juniperi fructu. This Rose I have received both from Chusan and China, but not with Fruit, till Dr Sloan was pleas'd to give it to me."
As Lindley (1820) wrote:
"It is now, perhaps, too late to inquire what was really intended by Linnaeus for R. indica, since his specific character and description will agree with no species from China at present known; and the figure of Petiver which he quotes to this, in which he is followed by Willdenow, belongs to a widely different plant, very nearly allied to R. Banksiae, and which I have called R. microcarpa. I have, however, examined his specimen, which I see no reason to doubt belonging to this species. The specimen which Sir James Smith considers to have been the foundation of R. sinica I have also been permitted to see, and I feel little hesitation in pronouncing it to be a monstrous state of the species before us. The stipulae are narrow, pointed and finely toothed at the edge; the prickles are straight, very slender and unequal, which may be reasonably expected on R. indica in so weak a state as this R. sinica evidently is. That name, therefore, becomes disengaged, and I have retained it for the plant which was distinguished by it in Hortus Kewensis."
If Lindley had looked around a bit he might have noticed that Dr. Fothergill had Rosa indica L. growing in his garden at Upton at the time of his death in 1780. And in 1790, John Mackie of Norwich listed R. sinica as well as Semperflorens - Ever-flowering Rose and Semperflorens flore incarnato - Flesh-coloured Ever-flowering Rose.
And just for fun, it is worth noting that Lindley claimed that no botanist in Europe had seen the fruit of R. banksiae, even though Boursault had already introduced Banksiae Rosea raised from R. banksiae pollinated by an unspecified red rose.
|
REPLY
|
