|
|
'Madame Raymond Chevalier-Appert' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Diploid, per Grossi and Jay 2002
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
4 DEC 21 by
 jedmar
|
This is difficult to believe, considering its parents. I would guess that the plant at Guillot is mislabeled. I would also doubt whether 'Gros Provins Panaché' is really diploid as in the study. In these cases plants from other provenances should be tested as a control.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
4 DEC 21 by
HubertG
|
If the plant at Guillot is mislabelled and really is diploid, it's much more likely to be a Tea. It would be very interesting to see a photo of this rose.
An alternative is that somehow Grossi and Jay are incorrect. I note that they give the ploidy of 'Lady Hillingdon' as tetraploid, when it has been reported as being triploid, which is supported by the fact that it isn't very fertile.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 4 posted
4 DEC 21 by
jedmar
|
Yes, we have made notes where we think their findings are questionable. However, there is a chance that some roses at Guillot are mislabeled. It seems that they had to restock on mother plants after 1945, as the nursery was damaged during the war.
Here is a photo og LH from Guillot's website. I have a printed catalogue from 2006 where the photo looks more like the semi-double rose we know.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 4 posted
4 DEC 21 by
Duchesse
|
yes, there's a couple of things in this study that raises eyebrows. I wondered if it was simply a mistake in the text as english does not seem to be first language.
|
REPLY
|
|
