| Author | Message | ||
     Stefan Lura (Stefan) Bug Squisher Username: Stefan Post Number: 103 Registered: 01-2006 |
Well, I didn't intend that rose - not that it couldn't have been a double version of R. virginiana that was involved in the breeding. I don't really believe that it is necessary for it to have been bred from a rose with turnip-shaped receptacles or hips in order to be that way itself; it probably just takes the right kind of genetic background (Cinnamomeae mixed with Gallicanae seems to turn up lots of these) and an abundance of petals, which could have come from either side. I also think that this was likely an old, unintentional garden hybrid, because it would have been better accounted for in the literature if it had been bred by someone like Vibert. At the very least, it should be expected to have appeared in nursery catalogs, but there has been no clear match for it in the old catalogs even though it seems to have a long history of cultivation. | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Bug Squisher Username: jedmar Post Number: 175 Registered: 10-2006 |
You probably mean R. rapa, which Krüssmann lists as a synonym of R. virginiana plena. It is interesting that older literature called this also Rosier Turneps (Turnip rose) due to the shape of the calyx. I believe early French breeders like Vibert also experimented with R. rapa. | ||
| Stefan Lura (Stefan) Bug Squisher Username: Stefan Post Number: 102 Registered: 01-2006 |
I would say that it differs; our 'Banshee' has fairly strong thorns, perhaps less numerous and narrower on the upper branches (I'm more than a thousand miles away from mine, or I would make a closer examination). I don't remember the older wood being thornless at all; as I recall the whole plant is formidably armed. One interesting characteristic of 'Banshee' is that the larger thorns are often found in pairs at the nodes, much like some Cinnamomeae roses, which helps fuel speculation that R. virginiana or another similar species might be involved in the breeding. It has been speculated with some evidence that there are several clones or siblings of this rose with moderate differences such as flower color, petal count, or less difficulty opening during rain, but if this rose is really thornless on the older wood I would probably want to know more about it before making further guesses. | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Bug Squisher Username: jedmar Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2006 |
Stefan, the text on 'Dornenlose Kreiselrose' says that it is completely without prickles on old wood, but has thin, pointed prickles on young growth. How does that compare with what you have seen? | ||
| Stefan Lura (Stefan) Bug Squisher Username: Stefan Post Number: 101 Registered: 01-2006 |
Behcet, I'm sorry I missed seeing your post in December! It's fascinating to see it in yet another country with yet another name. I have a feeling it has a history much longer and more interesting than any of us have begun to fathom  Do they have any theories about its origin in Germany? I like that they managed to classify it as a turbinata rather than alba, which is obviously much farther from the truth of the matter. How did it get the name "thornless" even though it has thorns, I wonder? | ||
| Behcet Fenercioglu (Jedmar) Bug Squisher Username: jedmar Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2006 |
Stefan, in Germany the found rose "Dornenlose Kreiselrose" (Thornless Turbinata) is now accepted as being identical to Rosa suionum and of couse 'Minette' in commerce. The original "Dornenlose Kreiselrose" is at the garden of the Agricultural Museum in Meldorf and is pictured and described here: http://www.museum-albersdorf.de/rosen/kreisel.htm | ||
| Jeri Jennings (Jeri) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: Jeri Post Number: 786 Registered: 01-2006 |
Stefan, it'd have been nice if they had credited you for it, after all that research. But every error or misnomer that is cleared up is a point for us, I think. Thank you! Jeri | ||
| Stefan Lura (Stefan) Bug Squisher Username: Stefan Post Number: 100 Registered: 01-2006 |
I'm afraid it was my fault that they had to change their catalog - I was concerned that with the proliferation of a misidentified "alba" named 'Minette' floating around, there would be mass havoc on the front of keeping 'Banshee' identification across the continent on track. I've developed a fairly concise argument for how I came to understand the way this identity transformation had occurred and why it is so problematic (with many thanks to Marianne Ahrne of Sweden for her translation and contribution of one very crucial article on the subject). Here is that summarized argument, copied from my last email to Marianne (unfortunately, she didn't receive the information in time to use during her talk, but she told me that it was forwarded to a few people who were interested after the fact): "...I'll try my best to summarize how I came to believe that our North American "Banshee" is the same rose as the one grown in Scandinavia as Rosa suionum, "Mustialan Ruusu" (at least in Finland), and now (wrongly) as the alba 'Minette'. I hope you can follow as I'm sure to put this down rather crudely: ---In my search for information about the origins of "Banshee" I first got the notion of it growing in Scandinavia from Leonie Bell's 1977 ARS article, Banshee: The Great Impersonator. She listed it as having been found growing in a Swedish botanical garden with the name Rosa amoena grandiflora by Dr. F. L. Skinner in 1947. ---I began scouring Scandinavian rose web sites for general information (curious to learn about what hardy roses were growing there, and because of my Norwegian heritage), and came across photographs of "Mustialan Ruusu" and various other names that looked unmistakably like "Banshee". I started searching the internet for more pictures using these Scandinavian names, and every picture I found was invariably the same plant (from the leaves to the buds, whenever I could make them out well enough, it was clear that they were identical). ---From your postings on Gardenweb and the article you sent me, I learned how the rose became known widely there as 'Minette'. This was absolutely critical to my understanding of how the problem started - I'm completely indebted to you for that! The article does give clues that helped me to speculate about how that misidentification may have happened. I believe now that the material from 'Minette' sent by Sangerhausen was not properly compared with the important corresponding features of "Rosa suionum". Not only that, but one of the very sources of information cited by Mr. Merker (Prévost fils, Catalogue Descriptif...du Genre Rosa, 1829 - ten years after 'Minette' was bred by Vibert) clearly paints a picture of a very different rose. Here are the most poignant quotes I found from that description: "Canes diffuse, jutting-out, glabrous, and smooth; unarmed at the tip; ordinarily bestrewn at their base with several prickles which are feeble, hooked, and intermingled with some bristles." (My own assessment of "Banshee" is that the canes are much more heavily armed than this, with very strong prickles) "Ovary oval or ovoid, glabrous." (The "Banshee" plants I've grown, and have seen in pictures from Scandinavia, have a distinctly turbinate ovary, and both ovary and sepals tend to be quite glandular) ---I then went searching for pictures of 'Minette' from Scandinavia, and once again, little ambiguity discovered that they appeared identical with our "Banshee" and different from the botanical descriptions of the real 'Minette'. ---Now, the last twist in the story: pictures were posted at www.helpmefind.com of the 'Minette' growing at Sangerhausen, and I was absolutely shocked to discover that this rose does not look identical to "Banshee"/"Rosa suionum"/"Mustialan Ruusu" etc.! I can see the superficial similarities, yes, but it was immediately clear to me from the shape of the ovary and buds (and their apparent smoothness), the much more perfect form of the blossom, and the huge clusters of flowers the plant bears that it cannot be identical. It appears that Ernst Loménius and Hellmut Merker were incorrect in their original assessment of the situation. I do not know whether this Sangerhausen plant could be the true, original alba 'Minette', but it certainly isn't the rose that has been grown for ages in Scandinavia and America. Bearing in mind that while there may be several slight variations or clones of "Banshee" floating around the United States and Canada, they all share such distinctive traits in common that they can be recognized easily on sight as "Banshee", and none of them could be mistaken for the 'Minette' photographed at Sangerhausen or described by Prévost if the correct characteristics are scrutinized. To any North American eye trained to recognize "Banshee", the Scandinavian "Rosa suionum" or "Mustialan Ruusu" or by any other name, would be identified swiftly as the very same rose - of this I am sure. It is possible that if the 'Minette' stock from Sangerhausen was imported widely into the rest of Scandinavia (through the Lykke rose nursery or others) that they may be very mixed in cultivation there today. It is even possible, if the Lykkes had their 'Minette' from Sangerhausen and were selling that plant for years as "Rosa suionum", that they could have become mixed into the population well before Loménius and Merker made the connection between them. This may be something to be wary of." | ||
| Jeri Jennings (Jeri) Supreme Crown Gall ! Username: Jeri Post Number: 752 Registered: 01-2006 |
WELL! HOW REFRESHING! It's wonderful to see a nursery acknowledge such an error and change their catalog. I sure wish they would ALL do that. Jeri | ||
| ann peck (Anntn6b) Bug Squisher Username: anntn6b Post Number: 261 Registered: 01-2006 |
From the .pdf of the new Pickering catalog comes the following: It has been brought to our attention that the rose we were selling as (alba) Minette was mis-named. After reviewing the information provided to us we have listed it in the shrubs as Banshee. We encourage anyone interested in rose history to search the internet for the article "Banshee: The Great Impersonator" by Leonie Bell as it is very interesting. We thank one of our rose friends for bringing it to our attention." |