HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Papa Gontier, Cl.' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I've had 'Papa Gontier' and 'Cl. Papa Gontier' in the garden for about a decade now and have begun to wonder about them. Its climbing habit aside, 'Cl. Papa Gontier' seems considerably different from 'Papa Gontier'. The shrub form has a flattish to lightly cupped rosette flower with open petals, ranging in color from near-red to soft pink, but mostly in the mid-pink range. Leaves are a rather light green, large, and generally free from fungal disease. The HMF photos of 'Papa Gontier' mostly look like my rose, with the exception of Jedmar's photos of the rose(s) at the Collection Loubert. 'Cl. Papa Gontier's blooms consistently have quilled petals and a spiky form quite different from that of the shrub. Their color is variable but most usually a vibrant pink-red, darker than what I usually see on the shrub, though sometimes its flowers are the same color. The HMF photos of 'Cl. Papa Gontier' look like the blooms on my plant. It has darker and smaller leaves than does the shrub, and seems to be more susceptible to mildew. I don't know how much of this is due to environmental influences. Both my plants of 'Papa Gontier' (shrub) are in full sun, while the climbing form is close to a wall and facing north of east, so it doesn't get a lot of light.
I read the previous discussion about how to list multiple climbing sports of a variety. I'm beginning to wonder if my 'Cl. Papa Gontier' is in fact a sport of 'Papa Gontier'. But even if it is, it's so different from the shrub form that I wonder if there might not be significant differences among the different climbing sports, enough to make it worth while to know which sport one has.
Concerning their pedigree, both my 'Papa Gontier' and my 'Cl. Papa Gontier' came from Walter Branchi.
I read that 'Cl. Papa Gontier' is shade tolerant; in my experience this is not true. Perhaps I was asking too much of it in its position, but it was quite unhappy espaliered along a wall and facing north of east, reaching desperately toward the sun. Finally we built a pergola out for it to get it further into the light, and it has settled down, not sending out such long spindly canes and blooming better. Currently it's about 2.4m x 3.8m.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
If this is a sport of 'Papa Gontier', shouldn't the description page say it was discovered by Vigneron, rather than bred by him?
Also, is there any reason to believe Vigneron's 1903 climbing sport was any different from that discovered earlier by Hosp? Should these two records be merged?
Thanks,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, if it is a sport, it should read "discovered by". If information showing the two sports were virtually synonymous is uncovered, then they could be merged. It's possible, though, one repeated while one was spring flowering. There needs to be more information.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hmmm... according to 'Tea Roses: Old Roses for Warm Gardens', there were three climbing sports; the authors write that the bush form can be trained as a short climber, and then had this to say about the climbing sports:
"Left to itself, 'Papa Gontier' will grow in a sprawling fashion, and it comes as no surprise that a climbing form was released at least three times between 1898 and 1905..."
I can't find any reason to think any of the sports differed from the bush form, other than having a climbing habit. I did find a reference that Hosp selected the climbing form from the bush form of 'Papa Gontier' just as he selected a climbing form of 'Cecile Brunner' from its bush form...
My best guess is that if any of the climbing forms differed from 'Papa G' in any respect other than habit, there would have been some mention of it. I'd be inclined to consolidate, rather than have three separate records, and no evidence that the climbers differ from each other.
If I recall, 'Climbing Iceberg' sometimes reblooms and sometimes doesn't, but there's only one record for it...
Thanks,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
I'm sorry, I meant that the various climbing sports differed from one another. There have been many climbing mutations of many different roses over the decades. Until they are determined to be virtually synonymous, they have usually been listed separately. Yes, the original Cl. Iceberg didn't rebloom, but that variant has pretty much been replaced by the repeat flowering type. Now, had they been named differently, such as Dr. VanFleet v. New Dawn or Blaze v. Blaze Improved (which, over time, was shortened simply to Blaze), then maintaining separate entries for them would be needed. For the database, maintaining separate entries for the various mutations is confusing and inefficient. How would anyone know whose climbing mutation they have many decades later? I grow Cl. Columbia, but there is no way to honestly know which of the five introduced this one is. Though I would like knowing there were five, and when and for whom they appeared.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, I agree; how would one know which climbing sport you've encountered... whether you're actually growing the rose in question, or (as I did this evening) encountering a reference for 'Climbing Papa Gontier' with no hints about which one?
I'd be inclined to merge, and if references turn up later that the 1903 sport was thornless or had day-glo orange foliage or something, that can be dealt with if needed, yes?
Thanks,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
I took Kim's point that how are we going to know which one we have, so the various sports are now consolidated. There was one more mentioned in the 1924 reference, a Gouchault & Turbat 1904 version but I cannot find any more on that one. It is not quite clear whether Chevrier and Vigneron was discoverer and introducer, so for the moment, they are both discoverers until more information comes to light.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, I agree- and if 'Papa Gontier' is inclined to climb on occasion, it's quite possible that if someone did find themselves with a climbing 'PG', it might be yet a later sport, not released.
Thanks,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
|
