There is much "discussion" concerning the proper classification of roses. Should one be identified by its breeding, such as HT because it is a cross of HT X HT, or HP X Tea or HT, as has been the traditional practice? Or, should a rose be classed because of its appearance?

Symphony, the 1935 Weigand Hybrid Perpetual, is the result of crossing Frau Karl Druschki with Souv. de Claudius Pernet. Druschki is the result of crossing an HP with Safrano, a Tea rose, therefore a traditional HT. The seed parent of Frau Karl was an HP crossed with a Tea, which should then also be classed as an HT. Due to its breeding line, Druschki should be an HT.

The pollen parent of Symphony was a Foetida based (therefore Pernetiana) HT. So, by traditional classification practices, Druschki should be HT as should Symphony. But, neither LOOKS or grows anything like what we traditionally consider an HT.

Would you be more in favor of traditional classification where the rose is identified by its lineage, or the more common classification method of identifying it by how it looks and performs? Kim

Jeri

If I purchase a Hybrid Tea and the blooms are no bigger than a miniflora, and it grows like a polyantha, I would be dissatisfied.

I believe classification should be by habit & performance, otherwise we need to be trained to erase our expectations as gardeners when we see a particular classification.

In other words.....are we growing a certain rose because we like it's bloom form, growth habit, and remontancy, or because we like to say that we grow Hybrid Perpetuals (or HTs, Minis, etc)? If the characteristics of a certain classification don't mean anything, then why do we prefer certain types of roses?

Rather tasty can of worms, IMO.

I purchased Taischa this past winter, a cross between Reve d'Or and Pinocchio. I wondered initially why it should be called a HT but I see now that it was probably done based on its growth habit: stiff canes terminating in a bloom each (although the blooms certainly do not look like those of a HT). Perhaps it would be better to classify such roses as shrubs - it seems to be the category that comprises all the odd ones that don't fit anywhere else :)

Masha

When this happens, how is the choice made regarding classification of the new rose? Is it purely breeder's choice?

My knee jerk reaction is: Lineage, Lineage, Lineage. I just hate it that when I want to know why a rose is a mini and not a poly that the answer is "that's what was selling when the breeder brought it to market". What's the use of learning anything at all it's all make believe.

And then I'm wondering: I remember that HT's were "created" by crossing HPs and Teas, but when did the roses that came from those crossings start being called HT's, and is HT "defined" as a rose created by crossing an HP and a Tea?

Oh it makes my head hurt to think about having to go backwards, but....I still think I should be able to tell from looking at the parentage what the rose IS.

And then again, do all classes cross the pollination boundaries? What would a HP X poly yield? Yikes....

More worms than cans.....

SdlM's parent 'Mme. Desprez' was said to already have been half noisette, so why should she be called a bourbon? It could be clearly justified only if she strongly resembled extant bourbons--which SdlM does not.

The tidy parentage-based potted rose history that is repeated in all the rose books is heavily fictionalized. From the early 19th century, breeders were raising new hybrids from hybrid parents (often unknown parents) whose genes came from at least 6 wild species. Modern roses may incorporate genes from 9 to maybe 14 species all mixed up. Seeds from a particular cross could produce offspring that variously resemble HTs, floribundas, climbers, and once-blooming shrubs. Or a particular cultivar could be classed in any of say 3 classes depending on the introducer's whim or judgement about markets.

There's no alternative to classifying modern roses based on what they look like.

Had there been a committee when Mr. Bluebird was introduced, they may have determined that even though it LOOKS like a mini, it should be a China. It may not have sold at all and could well have become extinct. Mr. Moore created two new HPs from minis and Paul Neyron. "Mini" hardly describes them. If you bought either one as a mini, you'd hate them. If you attempted to exhibit either as minis, you'd be disqualified.

HP might pique someone's interest to buy them and may even permit them to be exhibited in an OGR class where they might have a leg-up on some of the older types. "Shrub", which is where they finally landed, tells you very little of what to expect from them as it means nothing.

Basically, any non climbing rose can be a "shrub". Even many climbers, if hacked severely, could be considered "shrubs". For your interest, these are the two HP seedlings he created.

http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.25152.1
http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.25151.1

If you created a rose you felt really neat because of the creative breeding behind it, would you want someone else to determine what you could call it and how it would be defined? Kim

What is a Buck rose? Buck means that it will thrive in the north, but I don't think it says much about the heritage of the rose. It does not refer to disease resistance. Distant Drums for example, is beautiful, but I cannot grow it in Tulsa because it is very vulnerable to blackspot. As a category, it may not have much meaning except that it is easy to grow.

Caldwell Pink is china and polyantha. It is very disease resistant.

Bermuda roses.....

I won't go on and on, but since I have a no spray garden, I want roses categorized according to their ability to live in my garden's conditions. Once that is accomplished, I am curious to read about certain roses, and would appreciate knowing the lineage or history.

The lineage and history are different. SDLM, as Michael mentioned, is Bourbon --- in lineage??? THe history is Josephine and her beautiful gardens. THat is what I like. One of the Bermuda roses was spread by a school teacher. I teach school, and want to read more about the roses that fascinated her.

Can of worms. We have a long way to go. I have felt that one of the first things to do is to promote roses that will thrive with little care in all areas of the country, and try to find some interest in growing them. I wish all local rose societies would get involved in this rather than to promote grand champions that need so much daily care.

Sammy (who must rush off to the first day of school)

What could be the solution that best fits everyone's needs? How exactly do the needs conflict with each other, and how can it be solved? Who would most people trust with the duty of figuring this out? I'm a little leery of trusting either the ARS or some of the major breeding powerhouses with this duty. I think this is really an interesting question and it merely touches on how things are evolving with the speed of electronic media & commerce.

Sorry if I'm overly esoteric....I'm just fascinated by it all.

WHOA! Now, THERE is a can of worms!
Roses that are disease-free, free-blooming, and undemanding where EYE live are quite probably going to be blackspotted messes in some other parts of the country.
Roses that are non-stop undemanding, year-'round bloomers HERE would probably be annuals in the North-Central part of the country.
Gallicas and Damasks, the stalwarts of cold-winter areas, are bloomless, diseased piles of drech where I live.

The more I see, the more I personally believe that the goal of roses which can perform well with little care in all parts of the country (not to mention the world) is a chimera.

Jeri
Shivering in a thick fog bank in Coastal Ventura County

Not to mention B O R I N G .....!!!!

One of the joys of traveling around the country (not to mention those who are able to visit other countries) is the opportunity to see roses you cannot grow well in your own garden, in settings where they excel.

Jeri

For those who are into breeding the parentage information is still available (most of the time) for you to use in your own breeding programs. But for the grower the habit is what's the most important. And I don't get this "I can't call it a polyantha because those don't sell" business. Probably 90% of the people who buy roses couldn't tell you the names of them let alone the classes! They just go and see some pretty bloom they like and bring it home. Those of us that are really into roses WILL buy a rose that's a poly or HP or whatever because we do know how it will perform, to some degree, by it's class.

Who makes the decision? Maybe it needs to be two steps. The breeder makes the initial decision. It's their rose and they should make that decision. And for the most part they are good at it and about it. But there have been some whoppers too! So if on a subsequent review, by say test panel judges from around the country (or world), the characteristics do not match that first classification it can be re-classed into a better fitting category. We all know of cases of minis that should be minifloras and minifloras that should be HTs or flories, etc. and a second review would be able to make those changes.

My two cents and probably not worth a nickel!

We are of the same mind with the "quacks like a duck" analogy. This is an issue to every commercial breeder and there has been a dedicated group hammering this issue for quite some time. There are known instances where breeder selected classifications have been changed by someone at the ARS, which, personally, is quite arrogant to me. The person who MADE it very often has a better idea what to call it than someone who hasn't even touched it and probably knows a whole lot more about roses than someone sitting at a desk in an office making that decision.

If we need to create a selection committee, I should think it would be best to keep them within the country in question. We have grandiflora, which is as artificial a class as floribunda. The British don't use it as the rose for which the class was created to describe, performs like what we call floribunda there. None of us wants to deal with their "Large flowered" and "cluster flowered" system! You should have heard the outcry when that was passed!

I do think a number of the older classes actually conjure up more of a mental image of the plant type than "shrub" or many of the marketing names. I wonder how realistic it would be to suggest sort of a melding of current types with the system Vintage devised? "Shrub, type 3" for one style, size and habit, with "type 1,2,4" , etc. for other habits? At least with such illustrations available, and differentiating between The Fairy and Red Coat or Sally Holmes, you'd have some idea what to expect. Those certainly aren't interchangeable, but I've encountered all three as 'shrub'. Kim

Lemon Meringue is classified in the ARS Handbook as a Shrub and listed by Weeks as a Shrub/Climber. It is a climber in our yard--routinely hitting 12+ feet in height. It easily fills the 50 sq feet we have for it.

I do think that too many roses have just been thrown into the shrub class because breeders feel this class will sell better than, like you said, an HM or HP or whatever. And I do like the Grandiflora, Floribunda and now Miniflora classes better than the UK system. I don't mind an artificial class if it actually tells me something about how the rose grows. Vintage's system is a good one and I wouldn't mind that one at all. It's sort of like the pruning types 1, 2 and 3 used for clematis. It really does give the grower pertinent information about plant habit. I've actually often wished there was a similar pruning system in place for OGRs since I've never been good at figuring out which ones like pruning and which ones don't, lol! But to just call something a "shrub" doesn't tell me much of anything. It could grow any where from Knockout size to Lady Banks size! It may be upright to 6 or 8 feet or be 2 feet tall and 8 feet wide. I suppose if I had acreage to play with it wouldn't matter but in my suburban backyard those measurements make a difference.

I still feel that breeders worry too much about classing things to sell. Like I said most people just buy the one they see and like or the one somebody told them about without any idea what class it is, nor do they care. I know plenty of people even in my rose society who don't know the classes of the roses they have. Those of us who do care will buy it maybe because of the class it is if it's classed correctly. The rest will buy it just because it's pretty or it doesn't spot or some landscaper said it was a good rose for them so it will sell anyway. So give it the correct class to begin with and then sell it for it's attributes.

I don't like the idea of just one person summarily deciding to change a class a breeder has selected though. It should be a consensus of people of some sort making an informed decision after having observed the roses habits. Perhaps a review of the rose 5 years after introduction. That would be a long enough period to see how a mature plant grows. Maybe something in the ARS Roses in Review or something for the consulting rosarians? Hopefully that would also include a range of climates and conditions as well. I don't know...it's food for thought though.

How would YOU categorize this rose?

'Kim Rupert' is the perfect rose for this discussion because it defies classification because it grows differently in a container and in different climates. Calling it a 'shrub' would not give the gardener who is expecting to have a sense of how it would behave in their garden any clue about the rose's expected performance.

When grown in a container, the blooms are smaller and the plant can easily be classed as a miniflora, but in my climate and in my garden, when I planted it in the ground, it had more of a spreading floribunda growth habit with clusters of 3" blooms, which would be small to medium for the floribunda class ... very different from when it was grown in a container.

Both the seed parent and the pollen parent of the rose are classified as miniature roses, so based upon linage, it should be a miniature rose, but with 3" blooms, it's not a miniature rose by definition, as miniature roses are defined by bloom size and not plant size.

So what is it ?

Smiles,
Lyn

What results is a rose which produces a lot of the odd growth patterns I've seen in Mosses and Portlands, with thicker stems growing out of those which aren't quite as sturdy as what supports it. Nearly polyantha characteristics with growth buds lower on the main canes terminating in clusters of flowers with no visible growth buds on them, yet they produce new canes which then provide new flowers. I cut bud wood of it today to send to The Netherlands and had to remove more of the plants than I'd wanted to as I had to with the polyanthas I cut, to collect the desired buds.

With that much Wichurana behind it, I'd expect it to require a larger plant to perform well. Yes, there are a number of miniatures, but they are nearly all based on Wichurana, also. I'd expect cluster flowering, often in quite large ones and those would require more leaves, requiring a larger plant.

I am positive Sequoia originally classed it as a mini, as they would have usually only grown it in four inch pots and one gallon cans. They wouldn't have seen what the plant wanted to do, nor what it is capable of. It's a larger flower and plant with more substantial wood than its sister, Rose Gilardi. There is nothing about calling it a shrub that would tell you anything to expect. It isn't a floribunda and it surely isn't a polyantha, even with that type of growth in the lower plant parts. "Moss" is about the only class that would give you any insight as to what it wants to do and how you should think of it. Not "mini moss" as it isn't a "mini", though it is smaller than something like its ancestor, William Lobb. Kim

Smiles,
Lyn