|
| I have been looking at this rose, and was curious if it is the same as the one 'rosa brunonii.' I'm not certain if anyone has grown it, but I would love to get my hands on one eventually. Josh |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| Be careful -- they get big. I think they're often grown into trees. :-) ~Christopher |
|
- Posted by mendocino_rose z8 N CA. (My Page) on Mon, Nov 11, 13 at 9:59
| I looked for Nepalensis on HMF and couldn't find it there. I have Paul's Himalayan Musk, which is Brunonii Himalayica and R. Brunonii. These are gigantic roses. |
|
| Chris, I was looking through HMF photos and it looks to be a house-eater. Sounds like a perfect addition to the cemetery. Medocino, I figured Nepalensis would be unavailable here. My friends from Nepal who recently caught the rose bug were very excited to find out there was a Nepalese variant of the r. brunonii. How does your R. Brunonii do? Is it fragrant at all? I've also been looking at r. brunonii 'La Mortola.' Josh |
|
| I think it's more or less agreed, now, that the huge rose hedge in the San Juan Bautista State Historic Park is R. brunonii. It was probably planted in the 1950's, donated by ROY&T, and in error, thinking it was R. moschata. The fragrance of the two is identical, and like the Musk Rose, brunonii's blooms carry their fragrance in the stamens, which remain fragrant, after the petals drop. See below . . . Jeri |
|
- Posted by harborrose 8-Puget Sound/PNW (My Page) on Mon, Nov 11, 13 at 14:26
| I haven't any personal experience but can contribute a link to some pictures of a 30 y.o. r. brunonii grown into a tree at the Chelsea Physic Garden in London. |
Here is a link that might be useful: r. brunonii
|
| Josh, I think there may perhaps be an error in the name. 'Rosa moschata' was known for a long time in Europe. Later, a rose which came from Nepal arrived on the scene, and was often referred to as another form of 'Rosa moschata', sometimes as 'R. moschata var. nepalensis'. Later, the original became scarce, and literature referring to 'Rosa moschata' was actually describing the big house-eating rambler later renamed 'Rosa brunonii', which probably happened because of its earlier name ('R. moschata var nepalensis'). Maybe when things were sorted out, the 'var. nepalensis' got carried over from 'R. moschata' to 'R. brunonii'. In any case, 'R. brunonii' comes from Nepal, and is a wild species. As such, there will be variations between individual plants, and sometimes these variations were given subspecies or variation names. For example, there's 'La Mortola' which is clearly descended from 'R. brunonii', but is a little different. Is this difference because it's a hybrid with some other unknown rose, or is this difference simply individual variation within a species? When all forms of 'R. brunonii' grown by gardeners are cuttings from one original individual, even a selfed-seedling of that plant will be a little different. Early gardeners, not familiar with the natural variations found within the wild population of the species, would know only that it differed from the parent. In contrast, the true 'R. moschata' exists as clones (or sports) of one original plant, so aside from the three different petal-count sports, they're all the same. 'R. moschata' is probably a natural hybrid, or a natural mutation, of something else, which was preserved as an individual cultivar via vegetative propagation. I don't think it exists as we know it in the wild. Old references to it as a wild species probably result from 'R. moschata' being used to describe other similar and at-the-time unnamed species within Synstylae -- and there a bunch. :-) ~Christopher |
Here is a link that might be useful: Rosa sect. Synstylae at WikiSpecies
|
| There are references to R. moschata -- "The Old Musk Rose," -- being a favorite in California, during the Rancho Period. (If you've ever read "RAMONA" . . . ) That explains why a mid-20th-Century attempt at planting roses appropriate to the period of significance of Rancho Period buildings would include R. moschata. And all of that makes it understandable why R. brunonii was planted here. But while it is factually incorrect -- it really is incredibly beautiful. Jeri |
|
- Posted by harborrose 8-Puget Sound/PNW (My Page) on Mon, Nov 11, 13 at 16:41
| Jeri, that looks like the rose called 'Castro-Breen Musk Climber' that is at the City Cemetery in Sacramento? Castro Breen Musk took my breath away when I saw it last spring.
|
|
| Yes. "Castro-Breen Musk" is the study name. And you're right about it taking your breath away. Little by little, most of us came to the conclusion that it was brunonii, and that it had probably been planted there by ROY&T, likely after the death of Francis Lester. At the same time, probably, "Sector Parking" (see below) was planted, about a city block away from the Castro-Breen house. It seems almost certain that "Sector Parking" is an un-released sister-seedling to 'Francis E. Lester.' Jeri |
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 Antique Roses Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- 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 your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- 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.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here
