by philip_la » Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:01 pm
In some cases, I think, yes. But I suspect it's a bit more complicated, although I should let someone with more knowledge answer that...
My "favorite *yellow* flowers" for instance, are largely so *only* because they are held above dark, bronzed, young foliage. (I don't know that a "white gene" knocks out the red in the flowers in this case, but I'm in over my head.)
At any rate, I recognize that the same blooms over yellow-green leaves would probably not impress, and might even read as a sickly plant to me from a distance. (Having said that, I do enjoy a good chartreuse foliage as a contrast to bronze and purple foliaged plants, so I don't mean to disparage a color. I just haven't yet seen such in a rose to make a positive impression on me...) It is the context of the setting of the flower against the leaf that can really make it sing, and so I think, upon reflection, that while the generalization of a correlation b/w foliage and flower color might have some merit, pursuing that assumption could potentially eliminate plants having strong impact in the landscape.
It is easy to forget to focus on foliage when breeding for the bloom.
Having said all that, I generally like dark foliage, and will probably continue to get excited over heavy anthocyanins in seedlings. ;-) (I know better than to listen to my own advice -- I just like to share it with others liberally if only to see if it actually has any merit.)
[Off-topic: Has anyone ever seen a "chartreuse-foliaged" rose that has a modicum of attractiveness? Do roses have potential for such? There are a host of plants in this color group that are quite popular, having names like "key-lime," "lemon," "golden," or having "aurea" in their nomenclature...]
In some cases, I think, yes. But I suspect it's a bit more complicated, although I should let someone with more knowledge answer that...
My "favorite *yellow* flowers" for instance, are largely so *only* because they are held above dark, bronzed, young foliage. (I don't know that a "white gene" knocks out the red in the flowers in this case, but I'm in over my head.)
At any rate, I recognize that the same blooms over yellow-green leaves would probably not impress, and might even read as a sickly plant to me from a distance. (Having said that, I do enjoy a good chartreuse foliage as a contrast to bronze and purple foliaged plants, so I don't mean to disparage a color. I just haven't yet seen such in a rose to make a positive impression on me...) It is the context of the setting of the flower against the leaf that can really make it sing, and so I think, upon reflection, that while the generalization of a correlation b/w foliage and flower color might have some merit, pursuing that assumption could potentially eliminate plants having strong impact in the landscape.
It is easy to forget to focus on foliage when breeding for the bloom.
Having said all that, I generally like dark foliage, and will probably continue to get excited over heavy anthocyanins in seedlings. ;-) (I know better than to listen to my own advice -- I just like to share it with others liberally if only to see if it actually has any merit.)
[Off-topic: Has anyone ever seen a "chartreuse-foliaged" rose that has a modicum of attractiveness? Do roses have potential for such? There are a host of plants in this color group that are quite popular, having names like "key-lime," "lemon," "golden," or having "aurea" in their nomenclature...]