|
|
'Rosa foliosa Léman' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I am not really sure what I have.
Mine is short, prickleless, and non-glossy. The foliage is fern-like and dull. The blooms are very tiny, and they are rose pink. The buds are slightly glandular, but barely. The plant is short. The plant is amazingly drought resistant.
I am not sure if I have Rosa foliosa, Rosa foliolosa, some hybrid of Rosa foliolosa or palustris, or what. It came from forest Farms, but that does not mean I have the same as others. In an email, they said they used seed sources from some roses, which is why they no longer sell Rosa hirtula -- the seed source no longer had it. I do know it is not Rosa palustris, however.
These roses are an ID mess imo.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
25 FEB 05 by
Henry
|
Although listed here as R. foliosa, it should be R. foliolosa (note the extra "lo").
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
2 MAY 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
My sources are telling me that R. Foliosa IS A SEPARATE species to R.Foliolosa, and the two should not be confused.
|
REPLY
|
|
Can you provide more details.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
3 MAY 10 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Refer to this discussion today from the Rose Hybridizisers Association forum on how R.foliolosa should not be confused with R.foliosa:
http://www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=24614#27566
|
REPLY
|
|
I believe since RHA upgraded and that url changed, this is the current format of that thread:
www.rosebreeders.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24614&p=27566&hilit=foliosa#p27566
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
6 MAY 10 by
 Cass
|
Thanks. You're right. All the images posted here should be posted to Rosa foliolosa. This name is probably a synonym of a well-known European species.
|
REPLY
|
|
