HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Rosa underwoodii Rydb. Synonym' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 127-479
most recent 11 MAY 21 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 11 MAY 21 by Rosewild
Rosa melina was described and published by Edward Lee Greene in 1899 from specimens he collected at 8000 feet on Cerro Summit above Cimarron, Colorado on August 30, 1896. The plant bore larger than usual hips for Rocky Mountain roses. His epithet, "melina" is obscure. It's root "mel" is Greek for "honey". Since it was late August, likely hot and the large hips likely covered with resinous glands, I'm speculating they gave off a honeylike fragrance, hence his name "melina". Rydberg's synonym Rosa oreophila means "the mountain-loving rose".
In their recent revision of Rosa in the Flora of North America, Lewis, Ertter and Bruneau have placed melina as a Rocky Mountain subspecies of Rosa nutkana Presl.
REPLY
Discussion id : 118-143
most recent 26 AUG 19 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 26 AUG 19 by Patricia Routley
I am not sure if Peter Beales ‘Rosa Melina’ (1982 reference) would have been ‘Rosa melina Greene synonym’. His date of 1930 is odd.
REPLY
Discussion id : 97-568
most recent 15 FEB 17 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 14 FEB 17 by Give me caffeine
Why does the description page for this rose say "armed with thorns / prickles... thornless (or almost)". It's pretty obviously not thornless (or almost) in any meaningful sense.

See http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.164035
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 14 FEB 17 by jedmar
The botanical descriptions say "armed or unarmed", so it seems to have Versions both with and without prickles. I agree that mentioning both is confusing.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 15 FEB 17 by Give me caffeine
Ah. I didn't read the references. In that case it would be more sensible if the description page said something like "comes in thorny and thornless variants".
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 15 FEB 17 by jedmar
The descriptions are standardized and can cover only a selected number of characteristics. In this special case, a note is the only solution.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 15 FEB 17 by Jay-Jay
Quite a few roses are (very) thorny/prickly at the base of the canes, but further up, they are smooth or almost.
How would one describe such a rose?
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 15 FEB 17 by Give me caffeine
I'd describe it as spikey at the bottom and smooth at the top. Makes sense to me.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com