|
|
'Banksiaeflora' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
25 JAN 10 by
 hannes
|
Pardon my ignorance but if the parentage for 'Banksiaeflora' is given as: Rosa arvensis Huds. × Unknown (possibly a noisette hybrid) why is the rose classed as Hybrid Sempervirens?
Thank you for enlightening me on that.
Hannes
|
REPLY
|
|
Check the REFERENCES tab for on the rose page and you will find multiple references classifying the rose in the sempervirens class.
Lyn
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
26 JAN 10 by
hannes
|
Thank you, Lyn.
I had seen the references and I assume this is why HMF too has 'Banksiaeflora' as a Hybrid Sempervirens. But what I don't get and really would like to know is the following: Why is a rose that apparently is a hybrid of R. arvensis (and an unknown pollen parent) not classified as Hybrid Arvensis/Ayrshire but as Hybrid Sempervirens?
Hannes
|
REPLY
|
|
It is a good question. The oldest reference is dated 1837. It's entirely possible that all of the other references just brought that classification forward.
Lyn
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
26 JAN 10 by
jedmar
|
Another explanation is that the Parentage mooted in Modern Roses is incorrect, as there is no earlier source confirming it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
27 JAN 10 by
hannes
|
I have just looked up the rose in Charles Quest-Ritson's Climbing Roses of the World, Timber Press, 2003. He places 'Banksiaeflora' among the "Western Hybrids of Rosa Brunonii". (I'd guess he decided so because of possibly R. moschata in the parentage.)
Quest-Ritson's assessment of 'Banksiaeflora': “Probably a hybrid between Rosa arvensis or R. sempervirens, crossed with a form of R. moschata. It has small , very double, pure white flowers with a cream centre and reflexing petals.” (page 23)
Hannes
|
REPLY
|
|
