Species-Modern Crosses

A meeting place for rose breeders.

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:31 pm

One last note from HMF on 'Isobel':

Hazlewood Bros. Pty. Ltd (1924) Page(s) 38.
(91). Isobel (HT. McGredy, 1916). A superb single variety, with wonderful colouring, described as carmine flushed with orange scarlet. in Adelaide, Hobart and Melbourne grows quite vigorously, but in Brisbane and Sydney shows a tendency to die back in winter, due to its Pernetiana origin. Closes at night when cut, and is, therefore, a failure for decorative purposes.

If the alleged parentage is correct, Hibernica does not seem to contribute enough hardiness to overcome the Pernetiana winter die back.

Karl
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:37 am

Hansen's 'Tetonkaha' rose is another example of the apparent benefit of crossing R. blanda with R. rugosa.

In 1912, Hansen wrote, "The flowers are fully 3 inches in diameter; the bush is perfectly hardy, flowering abundantly in June; about 18 to 25 petals, deep rich pink; very fragrant; appears desirable for dwarf hedges or as an ornamental shrub. The habit is more upright and the flowers are less concealed by the foliage than in the pure Rosa rugosa."

In 1927 he added, "The exact pedigree of the Tetonkaha rose cannot be ascertained. The native rose from Lake Tetonkaha is nearer to Rosa blanda than to any other species. Taxonomists know how difficult and even impossible it is to determine the species of most wild roses, because there are so many intermediate forms. Wild roses cross freely with each other. The real name of the Rosa rugosa hybrid cannot be determined, as it was not known at the time. At any rate, it was a good variety."

Rosa blanda, and the related R. davurica, seem to help lift the flowers above the foliage without lessening the hardiness of R. rugosa.

It would be nice to learn whether a backcross of 'Tetonkaha' to a Russian Rugosa would recover the rebloom of Rugosa while keeping the flowers above the leaves.

Furthermore:

A Rose Odyssey (1937: p. 123-124)
J H Nicolas

In 1933 I had found a curious sport on Margaret McGredy. The foliage strongly resembled Rugosa but the plant characteristics also leaned toward R. cinnamomea. I mentioned this fact to Sam III [McGredy] when I visited him in 1934. Sam could not account for the sport. He had never used species in his breeding. His brother-in-law, Walter I. Johnston, spoke up, "Your father did much more work with species." We adjourned to the office, where complete hybridizing records from the early days of the firm are kept, one volume for each year, a valuable library. After several hours of research we traced the origin of Margaret McGredy to crosses of Rugosa and Cinnamomea. They were, of course, many generations back. But as these two species are in the blood stream of Margaret McGredy and all modern McGredy roses, the possibility of the sport was explained. It is an accepted fact that hybrids alone sport (pure species mutate, but rarely, if ever, sport) and can sport only within what is in them.


Rosa cinnamomea is closely allied to R. blanda and R. davurica. In this case, at least, the influence of Cinnamomea and Rugosa is not obvious in 'Margaret McGredy' (and 'Peace'), but certainly did no harm.

Karl
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Paul Olsen » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:42 pm

Regarding Dr. N.E. Hansen's 1927 comments about 'Tetonkaha and in particular about Rosa blanda and native roses, it's likely this species was a variation of Rosa woodsii, since it's now been determined there is no such thing as a Rosa blanda species (I've known this for many years).

Dr. Hansen was wrong when he wrote: "Taxonomists know how difficult and even impossible it is to determine the species of most wild roses, because there are so many intermediate forms." He is likely referring to North American species, particularly those native to the northern Great Plains region, where he did much of his horticultural work.

In fact, if one knows the basic characteristics of the plants of these three rose species native to this geographical area, it's easy to distinguish them from each other. It's helpful for identification purposes these three species flower at different times, although there can be some overlap. Finally, these "wild" roses (I take it Dr. Hansen is referring to the different native species) don't readily cross with each other, because of the different flowering times. Furthermore, the soil has to be exposed near the rose plants for the seeds to germinate, of course. With the possible exception of Rosa arkansana, which is often found growing in very poor soils, that situation is uncommon in their undisturbed habitats. Yes, wild animals and birds can carry the rose hips away, but again it's very problematic the seeds were dropped on bare soil before agriculture and ground transportation development.
Paul Olsen
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:32 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:43 pm

Paul,
From what I've read of the earlier botanists, Rosa blanda was far more widespread and diverse than modern botanists would allow. For instance, Greene (1899) discussed the species he named R. pratincola (later heliophila):
It is the peculiar rose of the rich grassy prairies of the upper Mississippi Valley; and, though passing usually for R. Arkansana, has been distributed by Sandberg, from Minnesota, as R. humilis. It is, of course, a part of R. blanda of the earlier American authors, and of local botanists residing in the prairie regions.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... s1899.html

And in the same paper:
R. MACOUNII. Low shrub of compact growth, the growing branches and short flowering branchlets densely leafy, the older armed with numerous prickles of various sizes, all stoutish and rather deflexed than recurved; leaves wholly glandless, glabrous except a slight soft pubescence on the stipules, rachis and lower face of leaflets; stipules short, ample for the size of the leaves, and plane, obtusish or short-pointed; leaflets mostly 9 or 11, somewhat cuneate-obovate, obtuse, sharply serrate from the middle, otherwise entire: flowers solitary and short-peduncled, small, rather pale; sepals broad, woolly-ciliate, bearing very short and inconspicuous foliaceous tips: fruits large for the plant, depressed-globose, of a light red (between scarlet and orange).

This rather common rose of the middle and northern Rocky Mountains has often been taken for a stunted and subalpine R. blanda, though it is more commonly labelled in the herbaria as R. Woodsii; but to this latter it bears no intimate relationship at all; for that is a shrub with perfectly straight prickles, glandular-edged very narrow and acute stipules, ovate fruit and shining foliage.

Erlanson (1934) added more detail:
R. blanda also gives fertile vigorous hybrids with the diploid R. woodsii. An intergrading series between these forms makes it hard to classify the diploid roses of the northern Great Plains region. In herbaria these forms are usually called R. macounii, a species that is probably a definite ecotype of R. woodsii. Lunell's description of R. naiadum Lunell covers this hybrid, which resembles R. woodsii and may be used to designate intermediate forms.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... on1934.pdf

Then there is Rosa foliolosa var. leiocarpa Torr., a synonym of Rosa woodsii Lindl.

My point here is that the "species concept" of R. blanda has changed over time, and hybrids do add to the confusion. And as for R. woodsii, Greene (1911) explained: "The trouble with Rosa Woodsii is, that no one can find, anywhere in the West, a wild rose answering to the description that Lindley gave of it; for he attributed to it a foliage shining above, paler beneath; and there is no western rose known to us with leaflets polished or shining above. Moreover, he who will read Lindley's account of the origin of R. Woodsii will see that its pedigree is quite too mythical. The seed from which the bush grew may have come from 'near the Missouri,' and it may have come from some part of the world very remote from the Missouri."
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... s1911.html

Greene was too polite to mention that the specimen Lindley described was reported to have black and yellow flowers, though Lindley did not claim to have seen them.

Species that flower at different times in one place, may flower together somewhere else. Erlanson (1925) wrote, "In this part of Michigan [Mackinac region] R. palustris flowers late while R. blanda is early. Further south the former flowers earlier and often overlaps the flowering period of R. blanda along the southern parts of the latter's range."
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... c1925.html

And in the same paper:
Many of the anomalous forms of R. blanda which appeared to resemble R. acicularis in certain characters bore full crops of hips crowded with achenes. There is no reason to suppose that many of the natural hybrids are self-sterile. On the contrary the F2 generations from oft repeated crosses between the species of Rosa which occupy the same habitat and flower at the same season are no doubt partly responsible for the series of forms found.
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:39 am

I found Pronville's brief mention of Rosa lutea nigra:

Nomenclature raisonnée des espèces, variétés et sous-variétés du genre Rosier (1818) pp. 23-24
Auguste de Pronville

M. Noisette a reçu d’Angleterre un rosier qui paraît être une variété du pimpinellifolia, et qui vient du Missouri, Amérique-Septentrionale. M. Kennedy l’a envoyé sous le nom de rosa lutea nigra.

[Google translation: M. Noisette has received from England a rose-tree which appears to be a variety of pimpinellifolia, and which comes from Missouri, North America. Mr. Kennedy sent it under the name of rosa lutea nigra.]

In 1826, Lindley wrote, "It has been the fate of this rose to have been the subject of error or misapprehension with every author who has noticed it.
It was first mentioned in a little work on the nomenclature of Roses, by M. Pronville; and stated, upon the authority of a cheating gardener, to bear yellow flowers, with a black centre."

Pronville did not mention "yellow flowers, with a black centre."

It is worth noting that around this time Lee & Kennedy of Hammersmith were distributing Double-flowered Scotch Roses, some of which were yellow. Others were bicolor.

I can't guess who told Pronville that the rose came from Missouri (or The Missouri, as Lindley wrote), but mistakes can happen in nurseries.

More to the point, Rosa woodsii (Lindl. 1820), is entirely different from Rosa woodsii (Lindl. 1826). Greene (1911) was criticizing the earlier description.

Those Scotch roses also illustrate how much can be done within a species before any out-crossing is done.
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:49 am

When breeding with species, it is useful to note that there are often differences among specimens of a single species, including differences in disease resistance.

Rosen: Breeding a disease-resistant red climbing rose (1941)
Rosa setigera has also shown a fair degree of resistance to black spot in some individuals but not in others ...
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... r1941.html

And some of the differences can be found by raising self-seedlings of the wild specimens.

Erlanson: Revision of genus Rosa (1934) p. 228
When I tabulated the combinations of characters in the collective species R. acicularis ... Stem colors — brown, green, and red — segregate; so do erect and decumbent, strict and subcernuous habits. Glaucous stems or foliage and non-glaucous are found in single cultures. Foliage texture and surface (lustrous or dull), color of filaments, petals and styles, all vary. Resistance to rusts and mildews differs in individuals of the same culture.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... on1934.pdf
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby jbergeson » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:34 am

[quote="Karl K"]When breeding with species, it is useful to note that there are often differences among [i]specimens[/i] of a single species, including differences in disease resistance.
[/quote]

Hear, hear.
jbergeson
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:54 am

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby roseseek » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:47 pm

Even in my limited species experience, I have noticed "traditional" Arkansana rusts badly when I've grown it. Arkansana "Woodrow" gets very little and "Peppermint" gets virtually none. The California form of Minutifolia does not set hips but the Mexican forms, Pure Bea, Berkeley seedling and Don Ger's seedling all three set hips containing seed. Whether or not they will germinate, I hope to see this spring, but at least there WERE hips and seeds.
Kim
California Central Coast
USDA Zone 9b
Sunset Zone 15
Cooler inland coastal valley with strong marine influence
roseseek
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Zone 9b Central California, Sunset Zone 15

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:09 pm

I should mention that Wilhelm Kordes (1955) also wrote about the quest for disease resistant roses. He found both Rosa multiflora and R. moschata useful in eliminating much of the mildew and rust that afflicted earlier races of European roses. "A Pemberton variety, 'Robin Hood', which was characterized by tireless flowering, perfect resistance to all leaf diseases and striking winter hardness, was used by me as a starting form for this happy new breed." (All the while I thought they were mainly used for producing new forms.)

I have to apologize for the clumsy translation. I don't read German, so blame Google.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... s1955.html

Kim,
Does 'Woodrow' repeat for you?
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby roseseek » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:51 pm

Multiflora and moschata may have reduced much of the mildew for Kordes, but on the West Coast, I avoid multiflora as much as possible because of the mildew. Yes sir, Woodrow flowers most of the year in flushes here so far. It did in Newhall, too.
Kim
California Central Coast
USDA Zone 9b
Sunset Zone 15
Cooler inland coastal valley with strong marine influence
roseseek
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Zone 9b Central California, Sunset Zone 15

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:37 am

roseseek wrote:Woodrow flowers most of the year in flushes here so far. It did in Newhall, too.

I was going to comment on the inheritance of rebloom, so I checked my notes.

Wright (1944)
"The earliest hybrid I made was produced by putting pollen of the single Suffulta on the pistils of the Rugosa Hybrid, Hansa, an extremely hardy and vigorous variety not well liked except where it is about the only choice in everblooming roses, on account of its rather violet color. From this cross numerous seeds are easily got, fifty to a hundred per hip, and nearly every flower catches. From my first cross I got Hansette, about intermediate between the two parents, but tending to be more like Hansa when thriving and when a full grown plant, and more like the wild parent when suffering from drought or just getting a start. The flower is small, red without violet tones, and possessing thirteen petals. It is fully fertile both ways, though its mother is probably a diploid and its sire is a tetraploid. Unfortunately it is as susceptible as is Hansa to root galls. It attains about three feet, is broad and bushy, and blooms earlier in the spring than either parent. It blooms but once, each parent having suppressed the type of everblooming shown by the other."

Then I went to HelpMeFind in hopes of finding a picture. Instead, I found this.
Percy Wright Catalogue - Hardy and Semi-Hardy Roses p. 11 (1849)
"HANSETTE* - Our hybrid between Hansa and R. rubrifolia. Semi-double red. Not particularly valuable in itself, but has the power to transmit freedom from violet tones and non-fading."

In the first case, it is somewhat mysterious that two forms of rebloom would counteract each other. But in the second case, there is no mystery at all.

According to Hurst's research, the pollen of Rosa rubrifolia should give results similar to what would come from R. cinnamomea. And the latter, according to Boulanger (1937), is generally similar to (and sometimes nearly indistinguishable from) R. blanda.

Anyway, have you raised any reblooming hybrids from 'Woodrow'.
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby roseseek » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:15 pm

One, many years ago. I put Woodrow pollen on Lavender Pinocchio in hopes of improving the lavender bloom on a better plant. What resulted was a dark, muddy red, semi single arching shrub which repeated. The foliage was clean in Newhall and it apparently set seed, none of which I germinated. I grew the plant for three or so years until room became an issue. I've used its pollen on several seed parents this summer and may have seeds planted from the crosses. They would have to be in one of the first two seed tables which were planted several months ago. The third, final table was planted a few days ago and doesn't contain anything from Woodrow. I will try to remember to check when the yard dries out enough to wander out to them.
Kim
California Central Coast
USDA Zone 9b
Sunset Zone 15
Cooler inland coastal valley with strong marine influence
roseseek
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:54 pm
Location: Zone 9b Central California, Sunset Zone 15

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby tsilvers » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:24 am

Karl,
I have a clone of Rosa carolina, that I call "Dogwood Ridge". When growing well, it will repeat at the tips of the new canes, in addition to the normal season bloom on laterals of older growth. I would have expected that it would behave like arkansana in a cross with rugosa. To the contrary, the F1 hybrid (rugosa x carolina) had the same repeating habit as carolina itself. I no longer have that F1 hybrid but still have a small piece of "Dogwood Ridge" and a big clump of an offspring from gallica pollen that is nearly identical to carolina. I used pollen from this one on 'Dart's Dash' rugosa in 2016 to see if I can recreate something similar to that old F1 rugosa X carolina, but hopefully with double flowers this time. Guess I'll find out in a couple of years.
Oh and to complicate the matter, Hybrid Tea crossed with that same carolina gave only once-bloomers.
Tom

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.109111
tsilvers
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:39 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Rob Byrnes » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:24 am

Tom,

I just pulled the seeds from the hips that you sent me from the carolina x gallica cross, using that "Dogwood Ridge" clone and they are now stratifying in the fridge. I'm hoping to get at least one F1 that will repeat at the tips of the new canes. I'll keep you posted. Thank you!
Rob Byrnes

Historic Village of Roebling, NJ Zone 7a
On the left bank of the Delaware River
Rob Byrnes
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:34 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:03 pm

tsilvers wrote:Karl,
I have a clone of Rosa carolina, that I call "Dogwood Ridge". When growing well, it will repeat at the tips of the new canes, in addition to the normal season bloom on laterals of older growth. I would have expected that it would behave like arkansana in a cross with rugosa. To the contrary, the F1 hybrid (rugosa x carolina) had the same repeating habit as carolina itself. I no longer have that F1 hybrid but still have a small piece of "Dogwood Ridge" and a big clump of an offspring from gallica pollen that is nearly identical to carolina. I used pollen from this one on 'Dart's Dash' rugosa in 2016 to see if I can recreate something similar to that old F1 rugosa X carolina, but hopefully with double flowers this time. Guess I'll find out in a couple of years.
Oh and to complicate the matter, Hybrid Tea crossed with that same carolina gave only once-bloomers.
Tom

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.109111

Tom,
The inheritance of rebloom is not as tidy as we might like, but far more interesting. For example, 'Soleil d'Or' (Antoine Ducher x Persian Yellow) reblooms freely, while 'Lawrence Johnston' (Souv. de Mme. Eugène Verdier x Persian Yellow) does not.

And I have a note (which I can't find just now) of some hybrids of everblooming Chinas with everblooming Rugosas that did not rebloom.
Karl
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby jturner » Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:31 pm

Tom,
The inheritance of rebloom is not as tidy as we might like, but far more interesting. For example, 'Soleil d'Or' (Antoine Ducher x Persian Yellow) reblooms freely, while 'Lawrence Johnston' (Souv. de Mme. Eugène Verdier x Persian Yellow) does not.

And I have a note (which I can't find just now) of some hybrids of everblooming Chinas with everblooming Rugosas that did not rebloom.
Karl


I have a seedling of R. rugosa rubra x 'Duchesse de Brabant' that does not rebloom.
Jim / Monterey Bay, California / USDA zone 9b / Sunset zone 17
jturner
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby AquaEyes » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:47 pm

[quote="Karl K"]
Tom,
The inheritance of rebloom is not as tidy as we might like, but far more interesting. For example, 'Soleil d'Or' (Antoine Ducher x Persian Yellow) reblooms freely, while 'Lawrence Johnston' (Souv. de Mme. Eugène Verdier x Persian Yellow) does not.

And I have a note (which I can't find just now) of some hybrids of everblooming Chinas with everblooming Rugosas that did not rebloom.
Karl[/quote]


I've read that 'Soleil d'Or' was as a (likely) self-seedling of the original cross between 'Antoine Ducher' and 'Persian Yellow', growing next to the original F1.

:-)

~Christopher
AquaEyes
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:31 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:31 pm

AquaEyes wrote:I've read that 'Soleil d'Or' was as a (likely) self-seedling of the original cross between 'Antoine Ducher' and 'Persian Yellow', growing next to the original F1.
~Christopher

Christopher,
I have also read that the original hybrid was crossed with a Hybrid Tea, but with no mention of a source for the information.

Viviand-Morel (1894) stated that there were two hybrids: a vigorous type with single flowers, and a double. His description of the latter matches 'Soleil d'Or' very well.

A fleuri en 1894 pour la première fois. C'est une variété de la plus grande valeur au point de vue horticole.

L'arbuste, moins vigoureux que le précédent, à un port rappelant davantage le rosier hybride remontant.

Ses rameaux sont érigés, munis d'aiguillons assez semblables à ceux du R. Punicea, mais plus nombreux, feuillage arrondi, rappelant un peu celui des rosiers hybrides.

Fleurs solitaires, grandes, globuleuses, très pleines, beau jaune d'or, nuancé de rose abricoté au centre, ce qui distingue son coloris de R. Persian Yellow.

Une particularité suffirait à elle seule à démontrer l'origine hybride de cette variété, la fleur exhale l'odeur très prononcée des roses centfeuilles, alors que le R. Punicea a plutôt une odeur désagréable.

http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... e1894.html
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby AquaEyes » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:00 pm

I found one of the references on HelpMeFind for 'Soleil d'Or', the original source being "Journal des Roses", June 1, 1900, pages 87-89.

[i]Part 1:
Rosa Pernetiana (Var. Soleil d'Or)
Cette nouveauté, due à M. Pernet-Ducher, l'habile semeur lyonnais, si avantageusement connu, a été tout spécialement dessinée pour nos lecteurs afin de leur donner l'image fidèle de la fleur. Elle forme un hybride tout à fait particulier dans le genre rosier. Ce n'est pas une de ces roses banales comme on en voit hélas beaucoup trop dans le commerce, mais bien un croisement heureux, dû à la persévérance d'un chercheur infatigable auquel nous devous déjà une longue liste de belles et bonnes variétés.
Voici l'histoire de cette fameuse fleur que nous désignerons maintenant sous le nom de Soleil d'Or, dénomination que son obtenteur lui a octroyé.
C'est depuis 1883 que M. Pernet-Ducher cherche à obtenir par voie de croisement des variétés provenant de Persian Yellow (Rosa lutea) avec d'autres remontantes. Ce savant rosiériste était hanté par le superbe coloris jaune du Persian qu'il désirait vivement obtenir remontant.
L'entreprise paraissait hardie, car Dame nature n'est pas toujours disposée à se laisser faire et bien des fois on obtient d'elle- surtout dans la fécondation des plantes- tout le contraire de ce qu'on désire.
Bref, M. Pernet-Ducher, n'écoutant que son idée, se mit à faire une foule d'hybridations sur des hybrides remontants en employant toujours le Persian Yellow comme variété pollinisatrice.
Après bien des tâtonnements, il remarqua que la rose Antoine Ducher se prêtait plus facilement que toute autre au croisement avec le Rosa lutea.
En 1888, il naquit des semis obtenus de ces hybridations, lesquels mis en pépinière fleurirent successivement; les plantes étaient certainement bien curieuses, très intéressantes au point de vue botanique étant donné leurs variations, mais aucune ne présentait de valeur commerciale.
L'une d'elles seulement fut remarquée en 1891 et 1892 lors de sa floraison; elle donnait des fleurs semi-doubles, rose vif, à base des 'pétales blanchâtres, formant étoile, à revers des pétales jaune clair, et possédant l'odeur fétide des Rosa lutea. Elle aurait sans doute été délaissée ou du moins abandonnée momentanément, si le petit incident suivant, n'était survenu.
Dans une aimable causerie que fit M. Pernet-Ducher avec le sympathique rédacteur du Lyon-Horticole, M. Viviand-Morel, celui-ci mit au défi son ami de lui montrer des descendants de Rosa lutea qu'un autre horticulteur lyonnais, feu Allégatière, n'avait jamais pu faire grainer.
La saison suivante, c'est-à-dire en mai 1893, au moment de la floraison du fameux rosier semi-double et à fleurs roses dont il est fait mention plus haut, satisfaction fut donnée à M. Viviand-Morel. Mais en allant chercher les rameaux destinés à son ami, M. Pernet-Ducher s'aperçut que deux sujets étaient poussés à côté l'un de l'autre et que non seulement il avait conservé sa rose rose à fleurs semi-double, mais qu'un autre tout petit sujet laissait voir pour la première fois des fleurs bien pleines et d'un beau coloris jaune: Soleil d'Or était trouvé.
M. Pernet se trouvait donc doublement en mesure de convaincre M. Viviand-Morel, de la possibilité d'obtenir par le semis des variétés de Rosa Lutea non pas en faisant grainer celui-ci, mais en se servant de son pollen pour féconder d'autres espèces ou variétés.
La voie parcourue, tout en étant diamétralement opposée, n'en aboutissait pas moins au même but.
Soleil d'Or fut immédiatement greffé en plusieurs exemplaires et soigneusement étudié; en 1896 il donna une seconde floraison, et ses rameaux florifères et remontants soigneusement sélectionnés et antés produisirent des plantes remontantes.
Fait digne de remarque, les premières plantes greffées en 1893 qui, au début, ne remontaient qu'accidentellement, devinrent franchement remontantes dans la suite par le seul fait de la nature de la variété qui a mis ainsi plusieurs années à se caractériser.
[/i]

[i]Part 2:
Soleil d'Or, obtenu en 1888, a gardé du père Persian Yellow le coloris des fleurs mais quelque peu modifié; le bois à écorce rougeàtre comme dans le type Lutea, les rameaux sont plus gros et plus érigés; le feuillage quoique ayant une certaine ressemblance avec celui de R. Lutea, est plus ample et d'un vert plus foncé, lorsqu'il est froissé il dégage une odeur sui genéris qui rappelle l'odeur de la pomme. Quant à l'odeur de la fleur, chacun sait que Persian Yellow produit des roses d'un goût fétide et repoussant, Soleil d'Or au contraire, exhale un parfum agréable analogue à celui des roses cent-feuilles. Cette variété a aussi hérité de la rusticité du Persian et peut supporter des températures très basses sans en souffrir.
Si cette variété a conservé un certain nombre de caractères de son père, il n'en est pas de même vis-à-vis de la mère, la rose Antoine Ducher à laquelle elle se rapproche quelque peu seulement par la forme du péricarpe, le parfum de ses fleurs et sa qualité précieuse de remonter. Quant au port de l'arbuste, il est intermédiaire entre les deux parents.
Soleil d'Or sera vendu cet automne par son obtenteur à un prix suffisamment modéré pour que toutes les bourses puissent en faire l'acquisition; le stock des sujets disponibles est suffisant pour que satisfaction soit donnée aux demandes.
En annonçant sa mise au commerce pour le premier novembre 1900, M. Pernet-Ducher en fait la description suivante:
« Arbuste très vigoureux, de 60 à 80 centimètres de haut, rameaux droits, assez gros, bois brun, feuillage très rapproché, d'un beau vert gai, bouton conique d'un beau jaune, fleur très grande, 7 à 10 centimètres de diamètre, très pleine, globuleuse, les pétales du centre repliés intérieurement, superbe coloris variant du jaune d'or orange au jaune d'or rougeàtre nuancé de rose capucine, très odorante.
« Le coloris résiste au soleil, qui ne le fait point pâlir; par une température fraîche, la couleur est plus claire et se rapproche sensiblement de celle de la rose Persian Yellow. »
Suivant un précédent créé par Noisette, qui a donné son nom à un groupe de rosiers si appréciés, M. Pernet-Ducher a donné, avec raison, à cette nouvelle série du genre Rosa, la dénomination de Rosier Pernet, Rosa Pernetiana, afin de perpétuer l'indication de son origine.
Bien que Soleil d'or ne soit pas encore dans le commerce, dous avons été appelé à l'examiner dans plusieurs circonstances et notamment sur un envoi que son heureux propriétaire a bien voulu nous adresser; aussi nous n'hésitons pas à en faire le plus grand éloge, certain que l'avenir confirmera nos appréciations. Du reste, les récompenses suivantes obtenues par cette nouveauté sont suffisamment éloquentes pour que nous n'ayons pas besoin d'insister plus longtemps sur son mérite.
1898. Août-septembre. 1er prix, médaille d'or, exposition internationale d'horticulture de Lyon.
1899. 17 juin. Diplôme d'honneur. Certificat de mérite de 1er classe à l'exposition de Tours. (Congrès des rosiéristes).
1899. 25 juin, 1er prix. Grande médaille de vermeil à l'exposition de Dijon.
1899. 19 juillet, 1er prix. Médaille d'or, décerné par l'Association horticole Lyonnaise, à Lyon.
1899. 27 juillet. Certificat de mérite de 1er classe avec félicitations, à la section des roses de la Société nationale d'horticulture de France.
1899. 12 août, 1er prix. Grande médaille de vermeil, décernée par la Société d'horticulture du Rhône.
1900. 25 avril. Diplôme d'honneur à Vienne (Autriche), même date. Grande médaille d'or à Budapest.
1900. 27 avril, 1er prix. Médaille de l'Etat, à Dresde (Allemagne).
Ces trois dernières récompenses ont été accordées pour des sujets forcés en serre.
Soleil d'or sera le digne pendant des belles roses que M. Pernet-Ducher a obtenues ces dernières années et parmi les-quelles nous citerons au hasard: [...]
Toutes nos félicitations à M. Pernet-Ducher qui, grâce à sa persévérance nous réserve encore d'agréables surprises pour l'avenir. --Pierre Cochet
[/i]



Thanks to GoogleTranslate:

[i]Part 1:
Rosa Pernetiana (South of France)
This novelty, due to M. Pernet-Ducher, the skilful sower of Lyonnais, so well known, was specially designed for our readers to give them the faithful image of the flower. It forms a hybrid quite particular in the type rose. It is not one of those banal roses, as one sees too much in commerce, but rather a happy crossing, due to the perseverance of an indefatigable researcher to whom we already have a long list of beautiful and good varieties.
Here is the story of this famous flower which we shall now designate under the name of Soleil d'Or, a denomination which its breeder has granted him.
It is since 1883 that Pernet-Ducher sought to obtain by crossing varieties from Persian Yellow (Rosa lutea) with other ascents. This savant rosier was haunted by the superb yellow Persian color which he earnestly desired to get up.
The enterprise seemed bold, for Mother Nature is not always disposed to let herself be made, and many times we obtain from her, especially in the fertilization of plants, the very opposite of what we desire.
In short, M. Pernet-Ducher, listening only to his idea, began to make a multitude of hybridizations on ascending hybrids, always using the Persian Yellow as a pollinating variety.
After much trial and error, he noticed that the rose Antoine Ducher lent himself more easily than anyone else to the crossing with the Rosa lutea.
In 1888, seedlings were obtained from these hybridizations, which in the nursery flourished successively; The plants were certainly curious, very interesting from a botanical point of view given their variations, but none had any commercial value.
Only one of them was noticed in 1891 and 1892 during its flowering; It gave semi-double flowers, bright pink, based on whitish petals, forming a star, with petals of light yellow petals, and possessing the foul odor of Rosa lutea. It would doubtless have been abandoned or at least temporarily abandoned if the next small incident had not occurred.
In an amiable talk which Monsieur Pernet-Ducher made with the sympathetic editor of the Lyon-Horticole, M. Viviand-Morel, challenged his friend to show him descendants of Rosa lutea that another horticulturist from Lyons Allégatière, had never been able to graft.
The following season, that is to say, in May 1893, at the time of the flowering of the famous semi-double rose-colored rosebush mentioned above, satisfaction was given to M. Viviand-Morel. But when Pernet-Ducher went in search of the branches destined for his friend, he perceived that two subjects were pushed to one side of the other, and that not only had he retained his pink rose with semi-double flowers, but That another very small subject showed for the first time flowers full and a beautiful yellow color: Soleil d'Or was found.
M. Pernet was thus doubly able to convince M. Viviand-Morel of the possibility of obtaining by sowing varieties of Rosa Lutea, not by graining, but by using his pollen to fertilize d Other species or varieties.
The path traveled, while diametrically opposed, nevertheless led to the same goal.
Soleil d'Or was immediately grafted in several copies and carefully studied; In 1896 it gave a second flowering, and its carefully selected and anted floriferous and remontant ramifications produced remontant plants.
It is worth noting that the first plants grafted in 1893, which at first only went back accidentally, became frankly upward in the sequel by the mere fact of the nature of the variety, which thus took several years to characterize.


Part 2:
Soleil d'Or, obtained in 1888, kept from Persian Yellow the color of the flowers but somewhat modified; The wood with red bark, as in the Lutea type, the branches are larger and more erect; The foliage, although with a certain resemblance to that of R. Lutea, is broader and of a darker green, when it is crumpled it emits a smell sui generis which recalls the smell of the apple. As for the smell of the flower, everyone knows that Persian Yellow produces roses of a fetid and repulsive taste, Soleil d'Or on the contrary, exhales a pleasant perfume similar to that of hundred-leaf roses. This variety has also inherited the rusticity of the Persian and can withstand very low temperatures without suffering.
If this variety has retained a certain number of characteristics of its father, it is not the same with the mother, the rose Antoine Ducher, to which it is only somewhat approximated by the shape of the pericarp, Perfume of its flowers and its precious quality to go up. As for the port of the shrub, it is intermediate between the two parents.
Soleil d'Or will be sold this autumn by its breeder at a moderately low price so that all the stock exchanges can acquire it; The stock of available subjects is sufficient to satisfy the requests.
M. Pernet-Ducher, in announcing his introduction to commerce for the first of November, 1900, makes the following description:
"Very vigorous shrub, 60 to 80 centimeters high, twigs fairly large, brown wood, very close foliage, beautiful green, conical button of a beautiful yellow, very large flower, 7 to 10 centimeters Diameter, very full, globose, the petals of the center internally folded, superb coloring varying from the yellow of orange gold to yellow gold reddish nuance of pink capuchin, very fragrant.
"The color resists the sun, which does not make it pale; By a cool temperature, the color is lighter and closer to that of Persian Yellow. "
Following a precedent created by Noisette, who gave his name to a group of such valued roses, M. Pernet-Ducher rightly gave Rosa Pernet, Rosa Pernetiana, the name of Rosa Pernetiana Perpetuate the indication of its origin.
Although Soleil d'Or is not yet in commerce, we have been called upon to examine it in several circumstances, and particularly on a dispatch which its lucky owner has kindly addressed to us; So we do not hesitate to make the greatest praise, certain that the future will confirm our appreciations. Moreover, the following rewards obtained by this novelty are sufficiently eloquent so that we do not need to insist on its merit any longer.
1898. August-September. 1st prize, gold medal, international exhibition of horticulture of Lyon.
1899. 17 June. Diploma of Honor. Certificate of merit of 1st class at the exhibition of Tours. (Congress of Rosterists).
1899. 25 June, 1st prize. Great silver medal at the Dijon exhibition.
1899. July 19, 1st prize. Gold medal, awarded by the Association Horticole Lyonnaise, in Lyon.
1899. 27 July. Certificate of merit of 1st class with congratulations, in the section of the roses of the Société national d'horticulture de France.
1899. 12 August, 1st prize. Great medal of vermeil, awarded by the Horticultural Society of the Rhone.
1900. 25 April. Diploma of Honor in Vienna (Austria), same date. Great gold medal in Budapest.
1900. April 27, 1st prize. Medal of the State, Dresden (Germany).
These last three awards were given for subjects forced in the greenhouse.
Soleil d'or will be worthy during beautiful roses that M. Pernet-Ducher has obtained in recent years and among which we will quote at random:
Congratulations to M. Pernet-Ducher, who, thanks to his perseverance, still offers us pleasant surprises for the future. --Pierre Cochet[/i]


So a small plant was discovered at the base of one of the original F1 plants -- perhaps the result of a self-set hip falling from the original plant? This second plant then underwent bud-selection for reblooming.

:-)

~Christopher
AquaEyes
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:31 pm

Re: Species-Modern Crosses

Postby Karl K » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:40 am

Christopher,
I also have to rely on google for translations, but I read it a bit differently.

Soleil d'Or fut immédiatement greffé en plusieurs exemplaires et soigneusement étudié; en 1896 il donna une seconde floraison, et ses rameaux florifères et remontants soigneusement sélectionnés et antés produisirent des plantes remontantes.

Fait digne de remarque, les premières plantes greffées en 1893 qui, au début, ne remontaient qu'accidentellement, devinrent franchement remontantes dans la suite par le seul fait de la nature de la variété qui a mis ainsi plusieurs années à se caractériser.


Soleil d'Or was immediately grafted in several copies and carefully studied; In 1896 it gave a second flowering, and its carefully selected and anted floriferous and reblooming branches produced reblooming plants.

It is worth noting that the first plants grafted in 1893, which at first only rebloomed accidentally, became frankly reblooming in the sequel by the mere fact of the nature of the variety, which thus took several years to characterize.


I can't make sense of "antés", but otherwise it appears that 'Soleil d'Or' rebloomed only accidentally at first. But after careful selection of scions, the reblooming habit became stably characteristic.

Much the same thing happened when Moreau-Robert raised his famous striped rose. At first it was a once-bloomer, which he introduced as 'Commandant Beaurepaire'. But following careful training, encouragement and scion selection, it became a consistent rebloomer, which he renamed 'Panachée d' Angers', though that name didn't stick.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/Rose_Pict ... paire.html

Karl
Karl K
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Rose Hybridizers Association Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests