Return to the Roses Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
Posted by
snasxs 7-8 VA (
My Page) on
Sun, Aug 12, 12 at 21:39
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| It looks to me like a hybrid or form of R. Hugonis. It reminds me very much of a hybrid I created between 1-72-1, one of Ralph Moore's breeding miniatures and Hugonis. Whatever it is, I want one! Kim |
Here is a link that might be useful: 1-72-1Hugonis
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| SoCal, before I forget, this should be the exotic species or a closely related species of Potentilla glabra var something. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| the blooms (and the relative lack of thorns) remind me of R.dupontii - especially the coronet of stamens - I agree, Kim, a beautiful rose which I would like. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| Where and when did you take this photo? This looks like a winner. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| I am certain that it is labeled Potentilla glabra. But I thought a Potentilla glabra flower has 5 petals; this one appears to have 4. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| I changed my view. It does not match the description of Potentilla glabra. I don't know what it is. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| But where did you find this rose growing? |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| It looks similar to Paul's Single White Perpetual. |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| cannot really imagine the scale but these also look awfully like one of the R.omeiensis types... (petals and leaves and stamens) but smooth stemmed!! |
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| This may offer some suggestion. From the Reference section on HMF for R. sericea. Notice the unarmed one, "v. denudata". Kim "Some Naming Problems in Rosa" Article (magazine) (Sep 1959) Page(s) 210.
Rosa sericea Lind. and R. omeiensis Rolfe Hurst's hybridisations and living material now in the National
Rose Species Collection at Bayfordbury suggest that these two are best united as a single species under the older name R. sericea LINDL. Parallel variations, like the pteracantha prickle form, occur in both, and all combinations of leaflet number, dentition, pedicel form and so forth. A key follows to the better subdivisions:
Fruit red:
--Plant unarmed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . var. denudata.
--Plant with prickles and bristles:
----Leaflets numerous, up to 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . var. polyphylla.
----Leaflets rarely more than 11 :
--------Pedicels slender, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . var. sericea.
--------Pedicels fleshy, red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . var. omeiensis.
--Plant with prickles, bristles and dense glands . . . var. Hookeri.
--Plant with long-decurrent winglike prickles . . . . . var. pteracantha.
Fruit yellow: . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . var. chrysocarpa |
Here is a link that might be useful: R. sericea chrysocarpa References.
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks - and another
| | |
| Baidu, the "Chinese Google", has some pretty amazing images, too. The link below is for an apparently unarmed, double Xanthina. I don't find any images there for R. sericea denudata, but those for sericea itself are quite attractive. Kim http://image.baidu.com/i?tn=baiduimage&ct=201326592&cl=2&fm=detail&lm=
-1&st=-1&sf=2&fmq=1344981868077_R&pv=&ic=0&nc=1&z=&se=1&showtab=0&fb=0
&width=&height=&face=0&istype=2&word=rosa+sericea+ |
Here is a link that might be useful: Double Xanthina seemingly without prickles
RE: This species smooth rose is not Lady Banks
| | |
| I do recall Martyn Rix mentioning the vast variety of colours in the single R.chinensis var spontanea but, a closer look seems to be definately a four petalled flower of which omeiensis is the only candidate - and yep, there are a few variations on this one......I do have pteracantha and the flowers are much tighter - this photo looks rather larger and more airy than my plant. |
Post a Follow-Up
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in.
If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Roses Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
