HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'65-626' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
This variety has been used in studies on blackspot resistance in diploid roses and is listed as a R. wichuraiana hybrid. So it seems more likely the parentage is incorrectly reported given that these studies have sequenced the rose.
Another possibility is that there are two different varieties in circulation under this name. One being diploid, the other tetraploid.
But either way, given the commonness of misreported pedigree in cultivars I would be more inclined to believe the report that has been sequenced fully for use in studies over an assumption based on reported parentage until further results have been obtained to settle the matter one way or another
|
REPLY
|
|
Well, I'm more inclined to say that the studies used an incorrectly labeled rose. R. carolina and Hugh Dickson are both tetraploid, and neither carry R. wichur(ai)ana. Sure, they could very well have sequenced the rose, but if "the rose" they sequenced wasn't this one, then the results wouldn't apply to this rose. And simply looking at the rose itself, I see no indication of R. wichur(ai)ana ancestry -- blooms are not clustered, habit is not lax, and foliage is not "wich-y".
J06-20-14-3 -- what does this reference? I would like to see the entire study -- all I can read is a one paragraph summary posted in the references.
~Chris
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
29 OCT by
 jedmar
|
The full article plus the article from which the statement is derived (Characterization of Partial Resistance to Black Spot Disease of Rosa sp.) are available online. Both are too technical to include in HMF
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
To the moderators...it seems far more likely that this rose is tetraploid than diploid, given the listed parentage. Indeed one of the references here describes it as tetraploid.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I was just reading this article, which I'd read many times before, but missed the line where he states, "self pollinated seedlings of the Carolina X Hugh Dickson". What this means is Commander Gillette, aka Basye's Thornless is actually (R. Carolina alba X Hugh Dickson) X (R. Carolina alba X Hugh Dickson). This is the link to the article which supports this, and it's written by Dr. Basye, himself. http://www.bulbnrose.com/Roses/breeding/basye/gillette.htm This would also mean that Basye's Legacy would need to be changed to reflect this as the pollen parent. Dottie Louise, Lynnie, Softee X Legacy, Indian Love Call and my Dottie Louise X R. Fedtschenkoana seedlings would require the change. Ralph's newer Legacy seedlings will, also. I presume the system will automatically make the change, right? I hope so!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 13 posted
28 APR 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
What color are Commander Gillette flowers? Does anybody have a photo of CG plants to upload here for the benefit of all HMF readers?
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi George, I don't know of any photographs of the rose Dr. Basye originally called "Commander Gillette", but the roses commercially available as "Basye's Thornless", "Commander Gillette" (65-626) and "Basye's Legacy" (77-361) are ALL the same rose.
Years ago, through Garden Web, I met David Neumeyer. He visited Dr. Basye and received from the Dr.'s own hand a sucker from a rose the Dr. personally identified as "Commander Gillette". He shared it with me and it was propagated by Sequoia Nursery. While a volunteer for The Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens in San Marino, CA, I propagated the two roses Dr. Basye personally sent Clair Martin, the Curator of Roses there. They were "The Probable Amphidiploid" and "Basye's Thornless", personally identified by Dr. Basye as 77-361. I ran across the photocopy of the identification card they had proving it the other day. Sequoia had a rose identified simply as "Basye's Thornless" for years.
I supplied the 77-361 from The Huntington to Sequoia and to Ashdown Roses. Paul Zimmerman and I were discussing it one day and decided we needed to give this rose a name to differentiate it from the others floatiing around with the name "Basye's Thornless". We came up with "Basye's Legacy".
I have grown all three roses. They were maintained separately so as to not confuse them. All three roses are the SAME rose. Both David Neumeyer's 65-626 and The Huntington's 77-361 were personally identified by Dr. Basye as their respective identities. Whatever mistake has been made, Dr. Basye made it himself. Which rose what we grow actually is, God only knows as no one else seems to.
Not even Dr. David Byrne has that information. He stated to me once he took over Dr. Basye's collection, nearly everything was unlabeled and many were dead. It was in terrible condition and no one is familiar enough with it to really KNOW what is what of the little bit of it left. So, to answer your question, any photos you find of Basye's Legacy, Basye's Thornless or Commander Gillette should be of the same, identical rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 13 posted
28 APR 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
George, the only description I've read is "single, pink", which the flowers of what we have in commerce are.
|
REPLY
|
|
My plant came from Ashdown during their closing sale in Sept '09 and was labeled
"Commander Gillette (syn. Basye's Thornless) Shrub, medium pink, zone 6 -- Introduced in 1965 by Basye, Dr. Robert E. Growth, Size & Characteristics are large shrub (5'+), fragrant, repeat flowering, single petaled, thornless."
Here's a photo taken today.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for posting your photo. Ashdown'soriginal plant of "Basye's Thornless" came from me. I gave it to Paul Zimmerman from my old Newhall garden. My plant came from the "Basye's Thornless" Basye sent to The Hutington and personally identified as 77-361. Paul and I discussed this issue several times. When plants were given the nursery and identified as Commander Gillette, that's the identity they went with. Having grown them from every source offering them here in the US, believe me, they are the same rose. Whether what we have is Commander Gillette or 77-361, I guess only DNA testing can tell. Commander Gillette shouldn't have any rugosa in it, where 77-361 should. Dr. Basye suffered from dementia in his later years. Whether this had anything to do with his releasing the same rose under both names or it was simply an honest mistake, we'll never know. But, he did release the same plant under two names.
I'm afraid what we have or are going to have with this rose is what occurred with Irene Watts and Pink Gruss an Aachen. The same rose from different sources, identififed as different roses. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated in the Irene/Pink Gruss an Aachen and Barcelona/Francis Dubreuil cases, the one everyone hopes they have, they don't. In the case of Irene Watts, only Peter Beales has said he still has the REAL one, though I have yet to see photographic evidence from any source a different Irene Watts exists other than the Pink Gruss an Aachen identified as Irene.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 13 posted
28 APR 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Great information, thanks!
|
REPLY
|
|
Never mind about moving the photo - we've moved it for you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 13 posted
28 APR 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Thanks for supplying a flower picture of CG!
|
REPLY
|
|
Rosaholic,
Gasp! This is not the place to upload your photo. Attaching your photo to a comment limits its exposure to people reading these comments and in this case we disparately (!) need a photo of this plant for its Photos tab.
If you would, please upload this photo again using the UPLOAD PHOTO button found on the PHOTOS tab for this rose. We'll then finally have an actual photo of this rose to feature. Meanwhile we'll update the details you mentioned.
Thanks !
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 13 posted
27 AUG 13 by
a_carl76
|
Kim, this may be rehashing things out (again) and a very minor point to many, but I am wondering if the parentage listed here is even now correct. I cannot pull up the page you give an address to but I am wondering if the following reference listed under Basye's Legacy reference section be the one you used? (Generation Numbers added for clarification)
"One cross I made in 1956 was (F1) R. Carolina x 'Hugh Dickson'. Among the open-pollinated seedlings of this cross was one (F2) which, during its first year of growth, appeared to be thornless. During its second year, however, a few thorns appeared on the laterals. I then grew 15 open-pollinated seedlings (F3) of this rose, one which proved to be completely thornless. It bears the number 65-626."
If my analysis of what is recorded here is accurate, then shouldn't their be yet another OP seedling? As I read it, Basye made an F1 seedling from R. carolina X Hugh Dickson. Then made an F2 seedling from his selected open-pollinated seedling from the F1. Then, made 15 F3 OP seedlings from the F2 which one of them was numbered 65-626.
As the current parentage tree indicates, Commander Gillette (65-626) is an F2 of R. carolina (or Hugh Dickson) and not the indicated F3 as there is only 1 unnamed seedling.
Like I said, it is probably a minor point, but I am supposing that it would explain the amount of time it took to get from his 1956 cross to the 1975 cross which made Basye's Legacy.
|
REPLY
|
|
That could be, Andre.
|
REPLY
|
|
Andre, are the parentheses yours? If not, I think one could just as easily read the "this rose" in the sentence "I then grew 15 open-pollinated seedlings of this rose" to mean returning to the F1 after *almost* acquiring a thornless OP F2.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
From experience, though highly fertile, Commander Gillette/Basye's Legacy/Basye's Thornless makes very small, weak seedlings which struggle along until they develop sufficiently to grow. It sheds its pollen very quickly creating many self seedlings. I've had tremendously greater success using it as the pollen parent. Not only are stronger seedlings produced using its pollen, but the chances of selecting self seedlings are greatly reduced. Its character is so obvious, even from the first seed leaves, hybrids are extremely easy to spot.
This rose's genes hold GREAT promise in creating significantly better disease resistance in future roses. Playboy is notorious in many American climates for its addiction to rust, yet first generation hybrids of it with this rose are nearly immune from rust, black spot and mildew. In my old Newhall garden, Torch of Liberty was extremely clean, yet in Encino, California, it rusts and black spots. Lynnie, the product of Torch of Liberty and Legacy, suffers none of those ailments. So far, further generations using Lynnie with such roses as Cineraire, Mutabilis, Grandmother's Hat and Sunny Today are free from all three major fungal infections here in Encino. This is a hybrid environment experiencing a healthy dose of coastal fog and humidity with generous blasts of inland valley heat.
Many seedlings from this rose express greatly reduced prickles, often to the level of being able to be called "thornless". Many also express very lacy, decorative sepals which are quite attractive. I'm very surprised how fertile Commander Gillette/Legacy/Basye's Thornless is and how fertile its offspring remain.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
