HI Lyn,

It IS possible to make such statements and a long story cut short... genes can be be bred OUT as easily as they can be bred IN. Mr Moore may well have ignored the rules, however, he also knew this well and understood that whilst he might ignore the conventional crossing rules, the final outcome did not... to believe otherwise would mean that genes can be accumulated indefinately over many generations and there is no difference between the genes.

The fact that 'New Penny' and other double roses are in the lineage is, to be blunt, irrelevant as are things like the fidelity of the records kept. Some things speak for themselves. If the instructions to make flowers double are not present then they won't be double and they won't carry double.

Here's what I mean... chromosomes are like filing cabinets. They posses 'drawers' along their length into which genes are placed. Chromosomes are paired and every chromosome has a copy. The copy will have exactly the same 'drawer structure' and each 'drawer' at a specific location can contain the same TYPE of gene. One chromosome contains genes from one parent and the other chromosome copy contains genes from the other parent (without taking into account crossing over etc). Each gene at each matching location on the chromosome carries out the same function but can be slightly different. For example, in humans blue eyes and brown eyes are caused by slightly different versions of the same gene and are found at the same location... and we have two copies of it... one from Mum and one from Dad.

Gregor Mendel was able to show, using pea plants, that when there were slightly different copies of the same 'factor' that one was often more likely to be expressed than the other. We now call these dominant and recessive genes. When a dominant gene is combined with a recessive gene you won't see the effects of the recessive one. Only the dominant one. There are variations to this rule but this is the way it works in its most basic interpretation. If a brown eyed gene combines with a blue eyed gene you don't see blue. You see brown. The blue gene is still there... you just can't see it. It can still be inherited and so we say it is being carried.

When sex cells like pollen and eggs are made the first thing that must happen is the total chromosome number must be halved and the two copies of each chromosome are pulled apart and one goes into one sex cell and the other into another. I am simplifying the concepts involved but this is the general outcome. In the case of the person with one brown eye gene and one blue eye gene these two will get separated and placed put into separate sex cells. The chromosomes must undergo a reduction in number by half so that on fertilisation a full set can once again be made; one from Mum and one from Dad. If the sex cells in this example were sperm then one sperm would have the blue eye gene and another would have the brown eye gene and if the blue eye gene was the lucky one that fertilised the egg then the brown eyed gene from the father is essentially removed completely from the resulting offspring and can never again pop up. The egg is made in the same way and if the egg contains a blue eye gene then the baby will have blue eyes and there is no chance that it can ever have a brown eyed child with another blue eyed person (unless some form of mutation occurs etc).

This is the same with roses. David Zlesak told, me at the date mentioned above, that double flowers are dominant to single flowers. This means that double can carry single but the reverse cannot be true and by single I am limiting the definition to ONLY 5 petaled single flowers. Single flowers that have more than 5 petals are not genetic singles. They are genetic doubles and other genes are acting on them to modify the level to which this gene is expressed to make them look 'almost single'. A genetic single cannot carry double and 'Simon Robinson' is a genetic single with 5 petals. This means it cannot carry double. I am not talking about those singles that look single but sometimes have that curly little petaloid etc.. they are double flowers with other genes reducing the expression of doubleness to such a point that they look single.

When people say things like ity must be a throw back this would be true when talking about recessive genes, but not when talking about dominant ones. Recessive genes can stay hidden for many many generations. Dominant genes are expressed if present.

'Red Fairy' is shown by Mr Moore as being 'Simon Robinson' x ?. This is because he understood this process well and he would have been acknowledging that for this seedling ('Red Fairy') to have appeared it MUST have been from some random (double) pollen from somewhere. For someone else to turn around and say it is from SR x SR is wrong genetically speaking and my question is, and was originally too, why is the word of the breeder not being taken over the word of someone else who in this case has got it wrong? I am betting what has happened is that someones else's interpretation of events was that SR x ? means self pollination, and Mr Moore has been noted as saying that in general most OP pollinations were the work of selfing. But in this case, this is not the case and the problem I have with this is that now it is recorded in the pedigree and someone else will look at this and might reasonably expect that single is dominant to double and that anything really is possible when it isn't. Breeding might seem like a random process but it isn't really. SR x SR is not the same thing as SR x ?

So this is why I am making such a sweeping statement. The way the plant looks (its phenotype) cannot tell us all the answers. Indeed it can tell us only a very small amount of information really, but there are some things that we can tell from it that can help us shape our breeding so that it is not such a random process. One of the things that HMF need to keep in mind is that the family tree function is an enormously valuable genetic resource that shows inheritence patterns to those willing to look and so the records need to be questioned in light of what we know to be true so they reflect as accurately as possible to those looking how the various features of a rose interact.

For reference, this is the list of the basic genetic inheritence in roses that David passed on back in 2007:

"Here is a partial list of the primary inheritance(s) of some of the key traits. It isn't always as simple as what is listed, so that is why I say primary. Hope it is helpful.

David

Qualitative Dominant

Black spot resistance
Double Flowers
Glossy Foliage
Male sterility
Miniature stature
Moss
Prickles
Powdery Mildew resistance

Qualitative recessive

Repeat bloom

Quantitative

Blackspot resistance
Double flowers (degree of doubleness)
Flower color- flavanoids and carotenoids
Flowering under low irradiance
Juvenile Period
Male fertility
Prickles (degree of prickles)
Winter hardiness
Flower yield "

When David says it isn't always as simple as what it seems he is saying that there are many other factors we don't know about. The ones listed above are the ones we do know about and can be readily predicted. To this list climbing might be added as a dominant feature.

Hope this helps some,

Simon