I have a question regarding clones. I am wondering whether we may be using the term "clone" for a more or less vigorous "sport" of a rose.

I realize that some roses will make noticeable "sports" and these sports can then be propagated from vegetative cuttings. Usually the sports are identified by a new color, more petals, change in growth habit (bush rose sporting a climbing cane).

Isn't it also likely that a particular rose, like Marachel Niel (this is a reference to the Sombrieul/Marachel Niel thread), can sport as well...but not in noticeable traits such as color, petal count etc., but just in vigor? And, if you have a large bush from which a propagator is taking cuttings, isn't it probable/likely that cuttings from the vigorous "half" of the bush will be vigorous, while cuttings from a non-vigorous half of the bush would be non-vigorous? I would think that the roses would be identical in every way except vigor. Even though the same bush was used to make the cuttings (clones of the parent), in fact, they are not all identical.

So when someone has a particular specimen of a rose that is growing very well and another specimen of that same variety (perhaps purchased from another vendor)may not grow vigorously are in your garden, perhaps one rose came from a vigorous cutting while another came from a cutting that lacked vigor?

My reasoning may be faulty, but I really believe that there are specimens of the same "named" variety that are more vigorous than others...and, I'm not considering that some are less vigorous because they are virused...that's a whole other discussion.

Does anyone else feel that some specimens of a named variety are, in fact, more vigorous than others? I often hear people ask what vendor they got a particular rose from. Or they will comment that a particular vendor has particularly vigorous "clone" of a particular variety. I do realize that if one is more vigorous, they are not, technically, identical...and therefore, not truly "clones." But couldn't these different roses be sold as the same variety by different vendors?

Robert

For Marechal Niel, use google books and read about how people tried all sorts of ways to get the best blooms. One that I remember talks about using your green house (Old time meaning) plant the rootstock outside and bud on Marechal Niel and direct Marechal Niel INTO The greenhouse.

We really don't know diddly about what roses want. Someone looked hard at Dr. Huey and found the ideal pH for it; I don't think that has been done for many other, if any, roses. Then go to the variables beyond pH.
The studies nowadays are directed to cut flower production and don't seem applicable to garden roses.

By the way, even early reports on Marechal Niel say it was a weak grower on it's own roots,so the fact that it is a weak plant today may not be due to anything having happened to it such as sports or viruses.

Jill

I have shovel-pruned a few poor-performers. Even though I had decided to give up on a particular plant, I am still interested in trying a different clone. I was wondering if that made any sense.

Maureen

This thread has reminded me of a fairly recent discussion on this forum about the Tea, 'Rosette Delizy'. Some posters maintained that the 'clone' of RD available from ARE consistently produces blooms of especially intense coloration. If there are, in fact, delicately colored roses sold as RD & vibrantly colored ones sold under the same name, then I strongly suspect that one of those roses is a sport of the other -- a variety (ie, clone) unto itself.

I was intrigued enough by that discussion to order RD from ARE just to see how it will compare to the one presently growing in my garden. It's among my favorites, so I welcome an excuse to have more than one.

*** No argument at all.
But note -- they would appear to be the same rose.
So it is likely that they would be sold as the same rose.
And, so, they would probably be regarded as more (or less) vigorous clones of the same rose.

The history of that Rosette Delizy difference:
A nurseryman in San Jose chose from many different plants of 'Rosette Delizy' one that he found to propagate easily, and grow quickly. From a business standpoint, this made sense.
He deliberately avoided a more colorful version which he felt was less-vigorous, and more difficult to propagate.

I have seen his chosen R.D. in the Heritage, and it is identical to mine in all respects, other than producing distinctly pastel blooms.

Mine came from Antique Rose Emporium as the teeniest little twig -- sent bare root! It's been here for perhaps 20 years, it is VERY large, blooms generously, and (per my DH) propagates easily. In all but the hottest weather, its color is deep, and rich.

I think it is now in the Sacramento City Cemetery's Historic Rose Garden. It will be interesting to see how its color holds in that hotter climate.

Jeri

Perhaps, some of the weaker "specimens" of a particular variety do have some type of virus (not necessarily one so obvious as RMV).

Thanks for all your comments. I think it may make sense to try a specimen of rose from a nursery that seems to have a vigorous variety.

The language here (clone, variety, specimen, sport, etc.) is awkard.

Robert

Jeri

Sport is a spontaneous genetic mutation.

Variety is •(biology) a taxonomic category consisting of members of a species that differ from others of the same species in minor but heritable characteristics; "varieties are frequently recognized in botany"

Cultivar is a CULTIvated VARiety, most often a deliberate (artificial) cross to obtain a new plant with distinct characteristics.

Specimen is an individual animal, part of an animal, plant, part of a plant, or microorganism used as a representative to study

Jeri

Constants:
Cultivar : 'Etoille de Lyon'
Clone: A.
3 persons evaluated the same 3 blooms that bloomed on 3 different quadrants of the same plant, within 10 minutes of each other, on the same day.
There was a second plant (clone B)of Etoille de Lyon' planted beside clone A, and Clone B produced roses that showed a uniformity of degree of scent: 4 out of 10.
-Why I believe that this information may be potentially of importance. If a proffesional propagator took a cutting from the part of 'Etoille de Lyon' that had decreased to 3 fragrance points, and kept it as a mother plant to propagate from, it could spread lesser scented clones of Etoille de Lyon' throughout North America. Another 'Ena Harkness'

Another rose with fragrance variable mutation.
I took 8 cuttings from different parts of a huge 'Catos Cluster' plant. It too showed a mutation of fragrance in its different parts.
7 out of 8 plants propagated from the mother plant, bore flowers with only a slight fragrance, I rated these clones, 3 out of 10 points and gave the plants away to people who did not mind the plants only producing slightly fragrant roses and who do not propagate roses.
I kept the 8th plant. Although it produces quite fragrant flowers, these are only produced on one area that covers c. 1/6th of the plant, rated as 7.
c. 2/3rds of the plant produce only slightly scented roses, rated 3. A small area, of the same plant produces roses that are unscented (0).

Luxrosa

Jeri

Thanks for clarifying that!

http://www.rosemagazine.com/articles02/rosegardeningfaq/faq12.asp

The abstract of the actual paper is at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC3-4002H87-V&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1076125054&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6a291701cba8c8b28a951cc84c871f95

2 additional papers are at:

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/2/301

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/78/2/215 (this one is the full paper)

patricia

Jeri

Unfortunately, 'clone' appears to have assumed a brand new, sort of in-group meaning among certain gardeners (most notably, rose gardeners). We seem to have re-defined (or given an additional, amorphous meaning to) what is a fairly explicit scientific term.

Perhaps others will eventually agree that the term should be broadened to accommodate whatever it is we're trying to define -- an accommodation akin to a word that's commonly mispronounced for so long that lexicographers finally cave-in and deem the mispronunciation acceptable. Things do evolve, and the culture does acquiesce from time to time to accommodate even the erroneous. Perhaps the same will happen with 'clone'. Regardless, I expect that for many moons to come we'll continue to read here of good clones and not-so-good clones of various clones.

If indeed I am the culprit who started the brouhaha, I declare a truce, and promise NEVER to mention the c word again. ;)

I think that, if I am having trouble growing a rose that I feel should grow well in my situation, I will look for a nursery that is "known" to provide a vigorous version of that variety.

Robert

But that other thread got me thinking too about virus passed on through asexual propagation. We know that many roses when budded onto virused Dr. Huey became virused. And then when those versions are cloned (by cuttings), the disease is also passed on through that asexual propagation. Thus the clone from the diseased plant may behave differently than the clone from the clean plant. Those plants would theoretically be the same genetically, but the difference of the asexually passed on disease is of great importance to the gardener.

I guess what I'm getting at is... it seems to me that diseased clone and clean clone are rather specific descriptions for information the rosarian is looking for. Diseased, clean, good, bad are just adjectives right? The clone is still a clone of the parent plant.

And perhaps version is a nice catch-all term to make everyone happy, but I would like a more clear understanding of what makes "good clone" a bad term in botany. (if anyone would be willing to clarify)

In my searches for more clarification I found the term "virulent clone" referring to diseases caused by bacteria or virus (I can't remember which). But the attaching of the adjective virulent implies that there are other clones that are not as virulent.

I also found an interest article in strains, clones and species in bacteriology. I know you're thinking but those aren't roses, but I'll just claim that at least they're all taxa. :) After reading that, I was thinking that maybe these are all different strains, but I found strain has a specific meaning in horticulture that is does not apply to exact rose varieties.
strain "A cultivar that is normally propagated by seed, retaining its desirable traits from one generation to the next."

I found a quote in that article the is quite fitting here anyway.
"To cite Humpty Dumpty: 'When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.' A definition cannot be wrong but it can be unsuitable if it is contrary to general usage or ambiguous.

I'll link that article(it's a pdf). Though it may seem irrelevant, I at least found it highly interesting. :)

patricia

If that is so, the clone you obtain is at the age of the original plant not any younger.

Am I correct in this logic? If so, that might explain the loss of vigor in the successive clones.

I am curious what biologists think about this.

http://www.actahort.org/books/738/738_47.htm

I believe the very fragrant clone that I kept of 'Catos Cluster' (I've labeled it Clone 8) which I'd rate as producing a Damask type of scent with 7 out of 10 points for degree of scent, may be the norm for that cultivar, because others have commented on it being very fragrant.

The 'Catos Cluster' that I've propagated, and kept, is producing a color sport, of purest white with a green pontil.
- if the color sported canes, grow large enough I will propagate from them.
- of great surprise to me, is the fact that the white roses have a completly different type of scent, and degree of scent. It reminds me of the powdery scent of an Alba class rose.
I'd rate the
white roses with green pointel (on Clone 8) as deserving 3 out of 10 points for degree of scent, with an Alba type of powdery scent.
From what I've observed, I would expect the fragrance of the white color sport roses (that have a powdery Alba scent, of a light degree,) to continue to remain upon their cane, if and when it is propagated to produce a seperate plant.
Luxrosa

But Patriciae 'know(s) what people mean when they say good or bad clone', so I'm looking forward to her rushing right back here & sharing that knowledge with the rest of us.

Meanwhile, as I reviewed this thread, it all began to sound vaguely familiar (including elements of my own earlier post here). So I did a search & found that we hashed and re-hashed all of this only a few short months ago. I'm not going to post a link, but if anyone here is fortified enough for a 'clone' overload, s/he can seach for a thread entitled thusly: Alchymist..who has the best clone? That lengthy declamation stars many of the same posters featured here and covers much of the same ground. Yawn . . .

That's a very good question. I have never read or heard of anyone researching this, but I'd be surprised if no one has. One of the largest single differences between animals and flowering plants (& possibly sporulating ones, but I don't know enough plant physiology to know if it applies to them as well, and I'm speculating about this since I haven't taken a plant physiology course in 30 years & haven't ever studied plant cellular physiology in detail) is the way in which they age and are capable of reproducing.

There's a big difference between a (flowering) plant's ability to reproduce itself asexually and a mammal's ability to do that. If I recall correctly that ability in mammals and many or most other veterbrate taxa is just about zero (identical twins excepted). Meanwhile among some cultivated plants there are cultivars that have been around for literally centuries and are still very widespread now. The Kurume hybrid azalea "coral bells" comes to my mind immediately. It's extremely widespread in parts of the USA (including the Northeast) and still very widely available in commerce right now, yet in Japan it's known as "Kirin", and it was bred all the way back in the 1600's, with no sign of its changing much or losing any of its growth characters!

(It's growing on the property where I live now, ten miles north of Boston as I write this, but I'm very close to the northern edge of what it will tolerate. The winter here can be very brutal on its leaves.)

If its telomeres functioned the way a mammal's telomeres did I can only think that by now it would no longer exist, yet it does, and it's constantly asexually propagated, and must be so millions of times per year (based upon the number of cuttings I took of it yearly at a small azalea production nursery back in the 1980's).

How many times have own-root species rose clones been asexually propagated with no loss of vigor?

You come to a rose/plant geek website and then complain when rose/plant geeks hold forth?

LOL!

;)

I am still perfectly happy with Version or any other word that gets the message across.

Thanks Henry for the answer on Telomers. Interesting.

patricia

In any case I doubt that vegetatively propagated plants are literally identical to the mother plant, although probably they would be called clones. Even the cells in one plant do not have genetically identical DNA. But experience shows that significant mutations are rare.

The terms genus, species, variety, cultivar, "version" are ways of categorizing individuals from less to more closely related plants. The traits we're interested in -- color, size, fragrance, vigor, etc. -- are probably due to complexes of genes. It may take several mutations before significant change in a trait is evident. Also those mutations have to occur in the chain of cell replications that led to the production each particular flower affected. For instance, when a branch bud contains a mutation, then the growth of the branch carries forward that mutation and, voila, you have a sport.

But while mutation might explain why that rose is underperforming, experience shows that environmental factors, cultural practices, and disease are much more likely to be the reason.

Mike

patricia