Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
solicitr

Maggie: not Marlitt?

solicitr
14 years ago

For several years it's been suggested, or simply stated, that the found Bourbon 'Maggie' is actually Mme. Eugene E. Marlitt (Geschwind, 1900), a China-Bourbon (and 'Maggie' certainly has a lot of China character).

But I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere, not long ago, that the DNA folks had disproved the assertion: that 'Maggie' can't be EM. Does anyone know more?

Comments (18)

  • malcolm_manners
    14 years ago

    I've not heard of such DNA proof, and am not sure how it could be done -- for DNA analysis to make such a proof, someone would have to have some tissue of a known, actual Eugene E. Marlitt, and as far as I know, there is no known, certified copy of that plant in existence. And that is the problem with proving that "Maggie" *IS* EEM -- again, there's no original to which to compare. So while it may well be that they are the same rose, it seems doubtful that anyone will ever be able to prove it.
    Malcolm

  • solicitr
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    Well, do we know what EM's parents were, and do they still exist?

  • jerijen
    14 years ago

    It appears that the parentage of 'Eugene E. Marlitt' is un-recorded. End of the Trail.

    A note on HMF says:
    "Additional data received from Erich Unmuth of Vienna Austria. from the Rosenlexikon compiled by Augst Jäger 1936. This describes this as a HT."

    FWIW, Jeri

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    At a minimum, it would seem that DNA analysis could determine if "Maggie" is identical to two other roses that figure prominently in this mystery -- "Kakinada Red" and the found Bermuda rose "Pacific". Does anyone know if such analyses have ever been attempted?

    Three years ago, ROSA MUNDI (Heritage Rose Foundation publication) published an excellent, very detailed article on the "Maggie" mystery written by Gregg Lowery. The issue that the article appeared in contained several articles on Rudolf Geschwind and his roses. The entire issue made for fascinating reading -- esp Lowery's on "Maggie". If I recall correctly, he made no mention of DNA studies (either completed or planned).

  • malcolm_manners
    14 years ago

    Yes, the analysis windeaux proposes could easily be done. We've discussed doing it, but have not done so, in that we heard some lab in Canada was already working on it, and we did not want to duplicate their efforts.

  • solicitr
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    Well, if 'Maggie' in fact proves to be identical to Bermuda's 'Pacific Rose,' then that would seriously undercut the Eugene Marlitt theory, since 'Pacific' supposedly was brought to Bermuda in the 1830's (the story is that Captain Samuel Nelmes got it from a French ship in distress he rescued in the Pacific).

    The legend may be just romantic piffle, but if 'Pacific' was reported/described in the 19th century, then it couldn't be EM.

  • solicitr
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    Query: if EM is lost, where does the "Eugene Marlitt" of commerce, sold under that name by Ashdown among others, come from?

    http://www.ashdownroses.com/browseproducts/Eugene-E.-Marlitt.HTML

    http://angelgardens.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=595 (desc. says "reminds us of Maggie")

  • jbfoodie
    14 years ago

    I could not find Maggie offered among Ashdown's Bourbons, so I expect they just renamed their 'Maggie.'

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    Solicitr -- You've asked a question that brings up one of the mystifying/aggravating conundrums of the rose world. In lieu of 'Eugene E Marlett', one could ask where the 'Irene Watts' and 'Souvenir de la Malmaison Rouge' of commerce come from.

    Ashdown received their 'Eugene E Marlett' from Mike Lowe in NH who lists the plant by its common (but erroneous) alternate name, 'Madame Eugene E Marlett'. (The rose is also sometimes listed as 'Eugenie E Marlett'.)

    I would guess that Paul at Ashdown has retained the name simply because it's the name that was supplied to him & he has no grounds to make a definitive identification otherwise. "Maggie", incidentally is still pictured and described on the Ashdown website with the notations that (a) their plant was acquired from Countryside Roses (now out of business), and (b) that "Maggie" is no longer part of Ashdown's collection.

    It looks like Angel Gardens may be the only source in the US that includes the name 'Eugene E Marlett' on their active list. It's interesting that they make the comment that EEM reminds them of "Maggie". It's also interesting that they currently offer 'Irene Watts' AND 'Pink Gruss an Aachen'.

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    Solicitr -- You've asked a question that brings up one of the mystifying/aggravating conundrums of the rose world. In lieu of 'Eugene E Marlett', one could ask where the 'Irene Watts' and 'Souvenir de la Malmaison Rouge' of commerce come from.

    Ashdown received their 'Eugene E Marlett' from Mike Lowe in NH who lists the plant by its common (but erroneous) alternate name, 'Madame Eugene E Marlett'. (The rose is also sometimes listed as 'Eugenie E Marlett'.)

    I would guess that Paul at Ashdown has retained the name simply because it's the name that was supplied to him & he has no grounds to make a definitive identification otherwise. "Maggie", incidentally is still pictured and described on the Ashdown website with the notations that (a) their plant was acquired from Countryside Roses (now out of business), and (b) that "Maggie" is no longer part of Ashdown's collection.

    It looks like Angel Gardens may be the only source in the US that includes the name 'Eugene E Marlett' on their active list. It's interesting that they make the comment that EEM reminds them of "Maggie". It's also interesting that they currently offer 'Irene Watts' AND 'Pink Gruss an Aachen'.

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    oops -- sorry for the double post. something's haywire with the site . . . got a prompt to that the first hadn't gone thru

  • jerijen
    14 years ago

    I wonder if they bring those plants in from someone else, who lists them that way.
    I should ask.

    Jeri

  • greybird
    14 years ago

    I grow both Maggie and Mme. Marlitt. I see subtle differences between the two, most notable the much heavier clustering of the buds and a more compact, rounder growth habit of my Mme. Marlitt. The bloom coloration is sometimes more on the violet side than my Maggie. The two plants are very similar, most folks would not see much difference. And I rec'd my Marlitt from Countryside Roses as well (they are still in business).
    This rose is as sweet by either name!

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    Greybird is correct, Countryside IS still in business. The source of Ashdown's "Maggie" was The Rose Peddler (which did go out of business). I used to order often from those 2 suppliers (still do from Countryside), but I always got them confused -- I guess because of their close geographical proximity. Anyway, pardon my mistake & apologies to Lisa at Countryside.

  • solicitr
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    Arrggghhh. OK, what's the provenance of Countryside's "Marlitt"?

    To further confuse things- various references give EM and Maggie, both, as 'nearly thornless.' My Maggie, at least, (Roses Unlimited) is pretty substantially armed.

    Could there be multiple "Maggies" running around? Could one or more of the Texas foundlings identified with the original Louisiana "Maggie" have been mis-IDed?

    And then there's this: "Comparing ["Maggie"] over the years with numerous roses in the Sangerhausen and Cavriglia collections, Martin Weingart identified it as Julius Fabianics de Misefa" (another Geschwind, 1902).

  • jerijen
    14 years ago

    OH! That's really interesting! Where did you run across that information?

    Jeri

  • windeaux
    14 years ago

    In his article on the "Maggie" mystery, G. Lowery wrote: ' . . . nurseryman Martin Weingart had uncovered a rare Geschwind hybrid called 'Julius Fabianics de Misefa', introduced in 1902, that proved to be identical to "Maggie" as well! The rose, which appeared in the notable collections of Germany's Sangerhausen and Sweden's Goteburg could not easily be dismissed as a mislabeled plant.' Later in the article, Lowery entertains the notion that the 'Eugene E Marlett' identify may have ' . . . been given as a (perhaps American) replacement for the more complex name, JFdM.'

    Lowery also has interesting observations re the thorniness and coloration of "Maggie". He reports that his own 2 mature plants (taken as separate cuttings from the same mother plant) vary noticeably in the color, length & shape of leaves, the coloration of the flower, and the degree of thorniness/thornlessness. His plants grow in different parts of his garden, & he states that the variations are 'within a range that growing conditions seem to account for.'

    In his research, Lowery learned that the Mike Lowe/Ashdown EEM was acquired by Lowe directly from Sangerhausen. He also learned that, at least as early as 1988, Sangerhausen had ceased listing the rose in its catalogues.

  • solicitr
    Original Author
    14 years ago

    Well, then there is another DNA test potentially to be run: is "Maggie" Julius FdM? Since old Julius is still around (and its parentage is known (T. Barton Job (Bourbon) x Souvenir du Dr. Passot (tea))).

    Pics of JFdM: http://ruze.wi.cz/cs/julius-fabianics-de-misefa.html

0