I believe the year of publication "1809" for R. glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. Is erroneous. It should be "1806" as cited by the following authors: Komarov / Yuzepchuk in Flora of the USSR Vol. X 1941 (see your HMF reference list) Willmott, Ellen in The Genus Rosa 1910-14 Rehder, Alfred in Bibliography of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs 1949 Also other authors referencing other species that appeared in this same publication "Fl. Graec. Prodr. 1 (1806)" list the same date "1806". So by the rule of priority, R. glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. (1806) was published earlier than R. pulverulenta M. Bieb. (1808) and so is the correct name for this species with R. pulverulenta in synonymy.
HMF is a data base and not a botanical organisation. We reflect publications of botanists in the references. Checking the Global Plant List, IOPI, an others, we find Rosa pulverulenta M. Bieb as the accepted name and Rosa glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. as a synonym. The question of the publication date of "Flora Graecae Prodromus" and thus the precedence needs to be resolved by botanists first. As far as I can see in Biodiversity Heritage Library, Vol. I of this publication is from 1806, Vol. II from 1813. Rosa glutinosa was not mentioned in either volume. Possibly in the 6-volume "Flora Graeca Sibthorpiana", published 1806-1828. Will check tomorrow.
Rosa glutinosa was indeed mentioned in Vol. I of "Flora Graecae Prodromus" on p. 348. While this volume has a date of 1806, it was apparently published in 2 fascicles: up to p. 218 in October-November 1806, p. 219-442 in May-November 1809. So, 1809 seems correct for the publication, despite the date on the cover. This means that Bieberstein has indeed precedence with his R. pulverulenta. The plates were apparently prepared by John Sibthorp before his death in 1796, but published only later; the one for Rosa glutinosa (Pl. 482) only in 1825. It was a bit confusing as the Plate number was already mentioned in 1809! See the info on the dates under the notes for the respective publications.
Wow! I did not know botanical literature could be so tricky, pretty naive of me. I'm certainly glad you know how to navigate it and I'm envious of that knowledge. Thanks for the invitation to join the admin. team but don't think I'm ready.
From the photos, there seems to be 2 different roses. I grow the version I am see in the drawings and from Don H. The version that looks like Rosa rugosa is a dwarf, with large spines and prickled hips. The smoother version in the photos is nothing like mine at all. I wonder what happened???
