I wasn't there when it was "discovered" but that is USUALLY the term used when someone "discovers" a sport on a known rose.

For instance, had my L.D. Braithwaite produced a STABLE striped sport,I would have "discovered" that sport, and could then register it with ARS. (I DID get a striped bloom on my L.D.B., but it was not stable.)

Which is WAY different from my "discovery" of an unidentified China Rose in the Adina, Texas cemetery, not far from the grave of my Great-Grandpa. In THAT case, I Study-Named it "The China From Adina." It is truly a "found" rose, and of course is NOT registered.

So, I'd say the person who wanted you DQ'd was simply ignorant.

Jeri

The person who told me this is a VERY reliable source and wasn't involved in the show at all. So it wasn't a case of sour grapes or anything, just an FYI.

Modern Roses 12 lists it but with no date or intro info. I guess I'll just keep NOT showing it to be safe.

No. Seil, it would be a good idea if you DID show it -- and made a point of showing it to people, and explaining its history.

AKC's listings CAN be corrected. And they SHOULD be.
And people should be made aware of the correct information.

AKC maintains that Rose Shows are "Educational."
If that is even remotely true, you should use them to do a little "Missionary Work."

Jeri

You are RIGHT! I never thought of that, thank you! I'm going to print out all the info I have on it and keep it with my inventory that I bring with me to shows. That way I'll have it if people question it.

I wish I could find out which date is the correct one though. It makes a difference on whether it should be shown in Victorian or Dowager classes. I'm going to send an email to Long Ago and ask if they can give me a source for their information.

See if Odinthor will pop up with some info on that.

Let me check his books . . .

OK.
"THE OLD ROSE ADVISOR" says Introducer and Date Unknown.
ARS does not list any dates or introducer in the latest Modern Roses that I have.
HMF, as you note, says that the sport was disc. 1916, and references Tanne, in 1916.

You should be correct, unless something is changed, to show it in the Victorian category.

And YES! PLEASE DO SHOW IT!

Jeri

Jeri, I know about dogdom's AKC, but if we're to do corrective rose-related missionary work there, I need to know what/where it is in the rose world. Please advise.

Jax, I'd start by talking to Phil Schorr, who used to be active here. I worked with him on the Sombreuil problem, et al. If he's not still working with such things, he'll know who is.

And, contact Jolene Adams. She's a real person, and she knows and appreciates Old Roses.

And -- bring the puzzle to the Heritage Roses Group, and we'll tackle it, too.

Send me a pvt message, and we'll talk. :-)

Jeri

Yes, the information about Tanne, 1916, is evidently newly-found information--I myself just heard about it maybe two or three weeks ago, and I like to think my fingers are on the pulse of such developments. I'm seeing the word "discovered" being used; I don't know but that it was "bred" by Tanne. Does anyone know the full story of this? Presumably all of the obscurity of its origins can be laid at the doorstep of World War I. How rude of WWI to come along and get in the way of rose progress!

I sent that email to Long Ago Roses and received this reply today.

Hi Sharon,
The entry in Botanica's Roses says it is a sport of Commandant Beaurepaire but doesn't give a date. I don't know where I got that date. I looked it up in the ARS encyclopedia and it says its origins are unknown. I looked it up at www.helpmefind.com/roses and it says it was bred by someone , I think around 1910. Here is the link to that :
http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.1896
Rogue Valley Roses also uses that information. Good luck exhibiting it!
Best wishes,
Linda Loe

I'm not sure that helps but it was very nice of Linda to reply so quickly. But I know that I had the 1840 date on my inventory sheet too at one point and then changed it after I was told it was a found rose. So I know that date was out there somewhere at one time. I think for now I'm going to stick with HMFs info. I know they take great pains to document their information so I feel pretty secure using that.

ROTFL! How rude, INDEED!

It occurred to me, last night, that there are two operative issues here.

For the sake of HISTORY, it's important to collect all available facts. (And verify them!)

For purposes of a ROSE SHOW, however, there's really no issue.

The American Rose Society catalogs 'Honorine de Brabant' in "MODERN ROSES" as an AEN (Approved Exhibition Name). For that reason, irrespective of its origins, it is eligible to be exhibited. (Doesn't matter if it originated on Mars. It has an AEN.)

The only error Seil made was entering it in the Dowager Queen class. If the date is unknown, it is unknown, and would remain unknown even if we all found the missing records, and KNEW the date.

And in that case, it should be entered in the Victorian Rose class, unless and until it is changed in "MODERN ROSES."

(If the 1916 date were to be verified, then it would be appropriate to bug ARS about changing its records to reflect it.)

It's interesting, tho. The book listing that 1916 date was written in 1931. What did THAT writer know, that no one else knew? And why did he know it?

Jeri

Thanks for the reassurance, Jeri! It'll go in Victorian!

Mike Lowe had an article in the American Rose in, I think, the 90s,, in which he claimed that Honorine should be considered a centifolia, and not a Bourbon. I tried to grow it in CA, and it hated the heat and drought, never bloomed and didn't grow past 1' tall.

It's not normally that hot in Camarillo, here on the SoCal coast. (Well, it's SCORCHING right now, but that's different.)

We tried to grow it here, and it was just as mizzible as any other Bourbon we've ever had here. I really think it is a Bourbon, because it was just that bad here.

Jeri

Well it's huge and pretty healthy here! Winter doesn't phase it at all. Green to the tips most years. It does get some BS down around the bottom but doesn't flinch. It isn't a real prolific bloomer. I usually only get a spring and fall flush. Maybe, like you said, it doesn't like our mid-summer heat.

My friend, Dickie, has a large plant of it that covers itself in blooms in spring. I don't know how well his repeats. I looked up Honorine at Countryside Roses and they too had the date listed as 1840. Since most agree it is a sport of Commandant Beaurepaire I don't think it could be called some old found rose.