Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

A meeting place for rose breeders.
Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69416Post Karl K
Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:06 pm

MidAtlas wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:12 pm
(petal count is considered to be a quantitative trait.)
Stefan
That is probably true in general, but I've seen the occasional exception, such as the IAC Rose described by Budd & Hansen (1896).
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... n1896.html
I. A. C. ROSE.
This is our No. 1 of the many seedlings produced by fertilizing the Russian Rosa rugosa with pollen of the Gen. Jacquiminot. The bush is a rampant grower, now four and one [half] feet in height with many branches. It is less thorny and its leaves are thicker, more leathery, and glossy than those of either parent. So far it seems a model of health, and able to endure the extremes of summer heat and drouth.

The first flowers opened July 22nd. The flowers average larger than those of Gen. Jacquiminot, are much more perfectly double, containing as high as sixty‑six petals of a beautiful dark crimson color much like the Russian Rosa rugosa, and delightfully fragrant. As the mother has but five petals and the male parent but about forty, the perfect doubling of the hybrid is remarkable. Possibly it has bred back to some ancestor of the Gen. Jacquiminot.
Image

One thing that comes to mind is that various Rosa species differ in their numbers of stamens, which are transformed into petals by "doubling". For example, according to Erlanson (1934), Rosa woodsii averages 65 stamens. R. blanda, on the other hand, has from 85 to 140. If specimens of both species were crossed with a China rose, with cross is likely to have offspring with more petals?

Then there is R. palustris with more than 200 stamens per flower, if you really want to pack in the petals.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/species.htm

rikuhelin1
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69417Post rikuhelin1
Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:41 pm

Various lengths of time in 4A Canadian:

'Stanwell Perpetual' in garden since 2005 but on last legs and not done much in 5 to 6 years. Struggles with up to 60 to 70% spring pruning - poor performance is probably exacerbated by tree roots and somewhat shady location. Therefore mine is probably not atypical of performance.

'Ormiston Roy' is on winter 2 - sailed through first winter and bloomed (golden wings hangs on for awhile but eventually can't make it) - good suggestions for crossing tries

'Doorenbos Selection', a winner, my kind of color ... also planted many times in gardens, now somebody just needs to get blooms 6- 8 feet high off the ground. Also color related, went through first winter with a European Nelly Kelly last year and no dents - similar color ... "another donor" to get pizazz in altaicas ?

MidAtlas
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69419Post MidAtlas
Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:38 pm

First, I want to apologize for not being able to use the built-in quote function, or italics, or any of the other text controls; for some reason all I get is code mixed in with my text when I try to use it.


philip_la wrote, "I don't know if R. maximowicziana has the same inclination for RRD as the multifloras, but even if so, it seems there could be other arguments (e.g. hardiness) for choosing max. over multi. as well. (Does one seem to show greater resistance to common diseases?) If one were to use some of the hardier repeating Kordesii lines in the mix, it seems like there could be a decent possibility of getting some healthy zn 3/4 hardy reblooming climbers within a few generations, no?"


Me: 'White Mountains' has been reported to be resistant (immune?) to either RRD or the mite vector, so that could be an indication, if true, that R. maximowicziana is also not susceptible. Neither R. maximowicziana nor R. setigera is in any sense disease-free in the hot, humid Mid-Atlantic (R. multiflora is much healthier), but they are both tough and shrug off their spots and continue to plot world domination. For whatever it's worth, I have two seedlings of 'Baltimore Belle' x 'White Mountains' that are vigorous to a fault and not unattractive, although they've inherited the latter parent's complete lack of scent. They put on quite a show when they bloom but I'll admit they annoy me most of the rest of the time with their excessive growth, and they definitely aren't thornless... None of those has shown any signs of contracting RRD, not that you could draw any definite conclusions from that. The real question is, how hardy *is* R. maximowicziana compared with R. setigera (at least those of more northern provenance) or R. multiflora (which can survive well into zone 4, if not actually thrive there)? I'm not sure I'd give it the benefit of the doubt in such a comparison without real observational data.


Karl K wrote, "Has anyone considered building a new R. Kordesii using R. Maximowicziana instead of R. Wichuraiana? One might even go so far as to use a form of R. rugosa from Korea or further north. Or 'Hansa', which reportedly flowers freely in Alaska."

You *could* recreate a sort of 'Max Graf' (and maybe then a version of R. x kordesii) using R. maximowicziana and a hardier (likely hybrid, R. x kamtschatica, which probably accounts for the hardier Russian "R. rugosa" stock)... but I shudder to think of the even greater number of prickles you'd then have to overcome, and unless the R. rugosa contributes enough to dominate the hybrid, disease resistance might not be what you get with R. x kordesii, since R. maximowicziana is not as healthy as R. lucieae (the correct current name for R. wichurana, FWIW.) Maybe more thorniness is an acceptable trade-off for somewhat greater hardiness... or you could try crossing R. maximowicziana first with the thornless form of R. lucieae (assuming that trait is dominant--I think it might be), screening for hardiness, and then crossing the more useful progeny with R. rugosa would help tame the prickles.


Karl K (also) wrote , "That is probably true in general, but I've seen the occasional exception, such as the IAC Rose described by Budd & Hansen (1896). (in response to my statement, "petal count is considered to be a quantitative trait.")

"One thing that comes to mind is that various Rosa species differ in their numbers of stamens, which are transformed into petals by "doubling". For example, according to Erlanson (1934), Rosa woodsii averages 65 stamens. R. blanda, on the other hand, has from 85 to 140. If specimens of both species were crossed with a China rose, with cross is likely to have offspring with more petals?

Then there is R. palustris with more than 200 stamens per flower, if you really want to pack in the petals."


Me: Karl, I also agree that there are exceptions to a lot of the genetic "rules" we've been taught, if not all of them... it was admittedly pretty lazy of me to repeat dogma like that without qualifying it. There certainly are known examples of double-flowered roses with single-flowered parents, like 'Baltimore Belle', which almost certainly was raised from seed of some single-flowered R. setigera. That said, I do wonder if some apparent exceptions might not have alternate explanations or mitigating circumstances--for instance, "Russian" R. rugosa stock might really be a hybrid, such as R. x kamtschatica, and a mixed background might permit the other parent to have greater apparent dominance in any offspring. Also, that particular hybrid would likely have double the chromosomes from tetraploid 'General Jacqueminot' as from the diploid rugosa parent, so that might also have some influence over the resulting seedling's petal count.

I've also wondered whether petal count is limited by the number of stamens that are naturally possible... I'm not sure it's that clear-cut, and some experiments would really need to be conducted. (I'm not necessarily volunteering...)


Karl K (one last time) wrote, "I've been wondering how the reblooming Scotch rose group has fared in the far north.

'Stanwell Perpetual' is an oldie that has been recommended for northern Sweden. It seems to be a stubborn parent, as it stands it could be trained upwards as a climber. I've seen it, but haven't grown it.

'Ormiston Roy' looks like a nice little bush with a little late bloom. Apparently that's enough because 'Golden Wing's [Soeur Thérèse x (R. spinosissima altaica x Ormiston Roy)] is a reliable rebloomer. Maybe GW isn't hardy enough for the far north, but I'm guessing that (R. spinosissima altaica x Ormiston Roy) would make a good breeder. Or maybe (Hazeldean x Ormiston Roy).

Then there's 'Doorenbos Selection', a reblooming Scotch rose with wine-red flowers. I have seen it in San Jose, CA, where the winters are not at all challenging. If it is hardy enough in the north, it might be used to breed a companion to 'Stanwell Perpetual'. Otherwise, paired with R. altaica, it might yield a breeder to go with the (Altaica x Ormiston Roy) cross."


Me: 'Stanwell Perpetual' generally had some winter dieback each year for me in zone 4 Minnesota, although it was still able to flower (poorly, in no small part because it was an own-root specimen, and this cultivar really does both flower and repeat better when grafted.) If you can find it, 'Ormiston Roy' might be useful; 'Golden Wings' was not very cane hardy in zone 4, and the best thing I can say is that it lasted for a few years as a dieback shrub. The only seedling of 'Doorenbos Selection' I've grown, which was probably pollinated by 'Harison's Yellow' (it was OP), didn't inherit any repeat bloom--but then I don't think that 'Doorenbos Selection' has ever had more than a very light sprinkling of repeat flowering here. My patch of that cultivar has now probably completely died out (I have horrible luck keeping R. spinosissima and its hybrids alive here for very long, even though they grow and spread like wildfire before suddenly declining.)

Whew. Once again, I apologize for my lack of quoting/etc. abilities. I need to figure out what's wrong. (Help?)

Stefan

Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69420Post Karl K
Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:15 am

MidAtlas wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:38 pm
Me: 'White Mountains' has been reported to be resistant (immune?) to either RRD or the mite vector, so that could be an indication, if true, that R. maximowicziana is also not susceptible. Neither R. maximowicziana nor R. setigera is in any sense disease-free in the hot, humid Mid-Atlantic (R. multiflora is much healthier), but they are both tough and shrug off their spots and continue to plot world domination.
Stefan,
That's not fair. No plant can be at its best when it is grown in a hostile environment. If you need tolerance of heat and humidity, then you might prefer a selection of R. setigera from the southern limit of its range in northern Florida. The common form of R. moschata or any of a gazillion R. multiflora specimens that grow in Tennessee should do as well. Here are some Multifloras I observed when I lived there.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/Rose_Pict ... flora.html

Crépin consulted with Franchet, and advised him to combine several of his "species", along with Crépin into one named Rosa luciae. However, after further study, Crépin decided that R. wichuraiana was really distinct from R. luciae and R. multiflora. For one thing, R. wichuraiana is a creeper, not a climber.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... s1886.html
Karl

MidAtlas
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69422Post MidAtlas
Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:09 pm

Hi Karl,

I think it's fair enough to offer my experience, for whatever it's worth; most people growing various species roses won't likely have the benefit of knowing their clones' specific provenance, after all. The clone of pure R. setigera that I am most familiar with (although I have seen others from different backgrounds growing locally) happens to be Serena Group (or 'Serena', depending on your preference)--which should originally hail from the Ozarks of southern Missouri or northern Arkansas, where it was originally described from as R. setigera var. serena. While it could be stressed a bit by being held captive too far east for its liking, I don't think that our summer weather is necessarily its problem. I've seen similar leaf spot issues on other clones and in other areas, although no doubt it varies somewhat and there may be something really amazingly disease resistant in the species, somewhere. On the other hand, R. setigera is growing scarce across most of its native range, so opportunities to locate and collect ones with provenance are not what they once were. If a Florida population has better disease resistance and can actually be located that's fine, although it could then turn out to be tender--at any rate, I'll believe that when I see it! I don't necessarily think that all species are necessarily healthy in their native habitats, either; as I said, this one seem to be getting along perfectly well here (too well, even) in spite of the spots. They are more of a concern if breeding for health is your goal, in which case, it's helpful to know so that you can plan crosses accordingly. I can tell you, for instance, that 'Darlow's Engima' mated with 'Serena' produced fairly disease-ridden (but still vigorous), wickedly thorny seedlings. Crossed with the thornless R. lucieae, I have gotten healthy, thornless offspring (even though the prickles under the rachis are still present).

I'm afraid that in spite of what Crépin wrote and believed, Franchet and Rochebrun named R. lucieae (as R. luciae) based on specimens labeled R. wichuraiana* (then an unpublished name) by Crépin that were found in the Berlin herbarium (see https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3130743). Because that material constitutes the type of R. lucieae, there is no separating the two names. Currently, there doesn't seem to be any controversy among taxonomists around this particular issue.

*Apparently there is a legitimate justification noted recently for not requiring that the spelling be altered to "wichurana", since the species wasn't formally described as being named in honor of Wichura, which would have necessitated the change. On the other hand, the spelling of R. lucieae is the correct one because it was specifically honoring a woman named Lucie, and the rules don't actually allow for an intentional Latinization of that name (to "Lucia") in this case.

Stefan

Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69423Post Karl K
Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:36 pm

MidAtlas wrote:
Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:09 pm
I think it's fair enough to offer my experience, for whatever it's worth; most people growing various species roses won't likely have the benefit of knowing their clones' specific provenance, after all.
Stefan,
I only meant that it is unfair to a species to be dismissed as disease-prone because it is unhealthy in an environment to which it is not adapted. It is entirely fair for you to relate your experiences with this and any other plant you grow.

BTW: The first R. setigera I ever saw (Manhattan, KS) was also the first rose I ever saw with rust. That specimen was growing on the campus of K-State, which is not the sort of habitat where it is likely to be found further south. In fact, there was discussion (19th century) about distinguishing between the northern and southern forms because of their growth habits. No one at the time (so far as I've read) attempted to grow the two forms together. I then saw a specimen growing into a tree in Kentucky, and another doing the same in Tennessee. And while traveling around Tennessee, I saw this species usually growing among low (2 or 3 ft) herbaceous plants along the roads.

Karl

david zlesak
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69425Post david zlesak
Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:16 pm

That is great news that R. maximowiziana may have some tolerance/resistance to RRD. The form I have is from Dr. Peter Ascher, retired from the U of MN. He got seeds many years ago from a Russian scientist from a botanical garden over there as thank you for something. Peter raised the seed and share a plant with me. It is reliably cane hardy here in the Twin Cities area and the hybrids of it with polyanthas are a bit intermediate, but still typically overwinter close to the tips. I have a lot of R. setigera plants for the work over the years with the study of gender in this species. After a hard winter, they often die back considerably and sometimes don't bloom. They often do have over half live wood come spring and bloom pretty well. For R. multiflora, some thornless rootstocks I've received die back considerably and are generally less hardy than the R. setigera I have (these R. setigera's orgins are a bit unclear- one is form an old nursery that went out of business in OH many years ago and the others came as seed from Boerner Botanical Garden in the Milwaukee area to the U of MN in the early 1970's). The thornless R. multiflora rootstocks from Dr. Buck, however, is comparable in hardiness to the R. setigera I have. There are multiple species of fungi that cause rust on roses and I have a form too that tends to cover my R. setigera plants by mid summer infecting leaf, stem, and hip tissues. I've started using some fungicide to hold it back. The hybrids of R. setigera and other species have not been infected, suggesting to me that resistance to this form of rust is easy to get and is likely dominant coming from other rose backgrounds. It has been easy to reduce the thorn/prickle number in hybrids with the very bristly R. maximowicziana. I love the idea of generating hybrids of R. max. and R. rugosa and doubling them to form a 'Max Graf' then R. x kordesii of sort.

Paul G. Olsen
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 3:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69426Post Paul G. Olsen
Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:18 pm

A few notes about Rosa maximowicziana in a Zone 2 climate (Saskatchewan, Canada).

First, this species is surprisingly cold hardy for this zone, coming through the winters quite well. The flowers generally bloom very well each year. Of course, the shrub's very prostrate growth habit helps a lot in this respect.

I was surprised to see this species growing in Saskatoon (U of Saskatchewan Patterson Garden arboretum) trained on a trellis. It's something I wouldn't do. In fact, perhaps a third of the shrub winter killed last year but it still produced some flowers. It indicates to me the potential of using this rose species to develop cold hardy Climbers for a Zone 2/3 climate. For sure, it should be crossed with Rosa woodsii to develop a cold hardier Ames 5 (Rosa multiflora x R. blanda). By the way, I managed to get a couple of hips containing seed of this Rosa maximowicziana crossed with 'Prairie Peace'.

Rosa maximowicziana disease resistance is very good when grown on the Canadian Prairies, but I think it possibly could be better if a selection was developed by crossing it with Rosa wichurana. Yes, I know, likely with a loss of cold hardiness. I managed to do a couple of crosses in this respect last year and have a single seed stratifying at the present time. I'll repeat the cross this year and hopefully will get more seeds.

I think what we're looking at for developing Rosa maximowicziana Climbers for very cold climates are plants geared for growing on a trellis or lattice fences/barriers, much in the same way clematis is often grown. In fact, for current housing developments this likely would be the only market for them, which no doubt is quite limited. The canes, for maximum winter survival, will have to have enough flexibility so they can be easily laid down and protected for the winter. Fortunately, this species with its long and very flexible canes is ideal to use for a breeding program in this respect.

jbergeson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69427Post jbergeson
Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:56 pm

Stanwell Perpetual seemed to die back in the winter for me here in Zone 3b Minnesota. - Joe

Rob Byrnes
Posts: 1738
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69428Post Rob Byrnes
Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:58 am

jbergeson wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:56 pm
Stanwell Perpetual seemed to die back in the winter for me here in Zone 3b Minnesota. - Joe
Significant die back Joe? I just got SP last season in hopes of using it for increased hardiness.
Rob Byrnes

Historic Village of Roebling, NJ Zone 7a
On the right bank of the Delaware River

jbergeson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69429Post jbergeson
Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:11 am

Rob, I dug it out several years ago as it was not thriving in general and was soooo thorny. I'm not sure how much of it was winter dieback or if it just wasn't growing much in the summer. I do remember quite a bit of dead wood in the spring. Maybe my decision was hasty, as I definitely hated those thorns.

Rob Byrnes
Posts: 1738
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69430Post Rob Byrnes
Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:18 am

Thanks Joe. I hope to pair it with thornless mates. BTW, I’d be interested in your opinion on how hardy Robert’s GEAxGLPE is when you are able to determine. I’m also using it. Thanks again.
Rob Byrnes

Historic Village of Roebling, NJ Zone 7a
On the right bank of the Delaware River

Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69431Post Karl K
Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:40 pm

MidAtlas wrote:
Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:09 pm
I'm afraid that in spite of what Crépin wrote and believed, Franchet and Rochebrun named R. lucieae (as R. luciae) based on specimens labeled R. wichuraiana* (then an unpublished name) by Crépin that were found in the Berlin herbarium (see https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3130743). Because that material constitutes the type of R. lucieae, there is no separating the two names. Currently, there doesn't seem to be any controversy among taxonomists around this particular issue.

*Apparently there is a legitimate justification noted recently for not requiring that the spelling be altered to "wichurana", since the species wasn't formally described as being named in honor of Wichura, which would have necessitated the change. On the other hand, the spelling of R. lucieae is the correct one because it was specifically honoring a woman named Lucie, and the rules don't actually allow for an intentional Latinization of that name (to "Lucia") in this case.
Stefan,
You linked to Crépin's bulletin, a sort of "sneak preview" of Franchet's full description. Even so, Crépin made it clear that R. luciae was based entirely on Savatier's specimens.
"Thanks to Mr. Franchet's extreme kindness, we were able to study the rich collection of Japanese Roses collected by Dr. Savatier. Among these Roses there exists a completely new species, and MM. Franchet and Rochebrune have named it Rosa Luciae. We think we have to describe it."

Wichura's specimen in the Berlin herbarium was mentioned, but it was certainly not the type. It would have been highly unethical for Crépin to "steal Franchet's thunder" by basing the species on a specimen that was not in Savatier's collection.

Franchet (1875) published his completed work (identifying at least 15,000 botanical specimens that Dr. Savatier had collected) and presented R. luciae as being composed of eight varieties, all of them based on Savatier's specimens.
α genuina Nob. (Savatier, n. 373).
β fimbriata Nob. (Savatier, n. 374).
γ poteriifolia Nob. pedunculis glabris (Savatier, n. 375).
δ poteriifolia Nob. pedunculis glandulosis (Savatier, n. 376).
ε crataegicarpa Nob. (Savatier, n. 377).
η oligantha Nob. (Savatier, n. 378).
θ yokoscensis Nob. (Savatier, n. 379).
ι hakonensis Nob. — Hab. in montibus Hakone (Savatier, n. 380).

Again, he acknowledged Wichura's specimen, among others that could be referred to R. luciae, but these were not part of the definition.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/Rose_Pict ... uciae.html

Facts aside, I have to express an opinion. I think it is annoying that people who have nothing to contribute to science, will still manage to get published by applying arbitrary 20th century rules to names published in (and accepted since) the 18th and 19th centuries. It is hard enough to track plants through time without the names being changed to fit every passing fashion.

If any name needs to be changed, I vote for Eschscholtzia. Using six letters (schsch) to represent a single Cyrillic character - Ж - seems a bit much. But that was consistent with the orthography of the day, and we're just stuck with it.
Karl

rikuhelin1
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69459Post rikuhelin1
Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:16 pm

Good time for this thread to have arrived to get the hardy climber conversation and ideas stewing in the pot. Interesting to see what comes through in spring (high hopes for 6910). Should be okay (moved to prairie bred hardy), assuming a low cool down since October was beneficial.

February 2019 4th coldest average temperature (degrees C), since start of data in 1882 - last year colder was 1904 ... Environment Canada

February 1936: –24.5 C
February 1887: –20.1 C
February 1904: –18.4 C
February 2019: –18 C (expected)
February 1891: –17.4 C
February 1979: –16.8 C

Hourly graph attached.
Attachments
calgary-february-2019-hourly-weather.jpg

Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69460Post Karl K
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:55 am

This is a bit off topic, but I think it's interesting that hardy ramblers can give rise to a miniature.

Lyndon Lyon had 'White Mountains' alternating with 'Durham Pillar' and nailed to a barn. Among the OP seedlings of 'WM' was, "one very miniature everblooming plant which has since had such influence in miniaturizing our smallest roses."

And then he had some hardy roses growing together. From 'Thérèse Bugnet', "One seedling and one only blossomed when about 6 weeks old. The flower was semi-double pink, very fragrant, and had plenty of pollen. The plant was upright growing with red stems, thorny at the base and thornless near the top. I started more plants from cuttings as fast as possible and in the spring set then out in a row."

These two plants contributed to his miniature rose program. I con't know about hardiness, though, because he was growing them indoors.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... i1978.html

Percy Wright also bread some Dwarf Polyantha sized roses. His were definitely hardy. These were derived in part from what he called Rosa suffulta, though Greene I1899) wrote, "Of this southern Rocky Mountain rose I have seen but one specimen, and that was communicated to me some years since by the late Dr. Geo. Vasey, from the meadows of the Rio Grande at Las Vegas, New Mexico."
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/ ... fulta.html

Karl K
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Hardy, Everblooming Climbers

Post: # 69483Post Karl K
Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:07 pm

I just happened on this interesting note in The Garden (June 5, 1880)

C. M. Hovey: "Mr Pierce's Roses are not quite so hardy as those of Mr. Feast; in very severe winters the strong shoots get killed part-way down."

And to repeat an earlier comment, Feast's Rosa setigera specimens were raised from seed sent to him from Ohio. Pierce started with plants growing in D.C., but originally from Tennessee.

I think it is reasonable to extrapolate from this bit of info, and suggest that Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York could produce hardier selections of R. setigera.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest