|
|
'Rosa xanthina var. ecae Aitch. in Boulenger synonym' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
19 NOV 14 by
styrax
|
The pigments were found very similar to R. foetida.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/EugsterCarotene1991/EugsterCarotene1991.html, table 4, note [i].
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
5 NOV 18 by
CybeRose
|
How clever of you to catch that. :-)
However, they actually wrote: "R. foetida persiana and R. ecae show practically identical results."
This may be hair-splitting, but I have been told that 'Persian Yellow' is a triploid, unlike R. foetida.
|
REPLY
|
|
In the description is:
Botanists have since determined that the two species are either distinct species or different varieties of a single species.
Could someone please explain. What does that mean?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
14 NOV 18 by
 jedmar
|
This is indeed a bit confusing. Rosa xanthina Hook.f. is not the Rose we generally know as Rosa xanthina Lindl. In Curtis's Botanical Magazine of July 1, 1899 there was a description of a "Rosa xanthina" which was pictured and named as the latter with the statement:
"The specific name Ecae is derived from the initials of Mrs. Aitchison's name, given before the plant was identified with Lindley's Rosa xanthina. The specimen figured is from a plant raised at the Royal Gardens from seed sent by Dr. Aitchison in 1880."
However, it was later apparently concluded that this description was not of R. xanthina Lindl. as claimed, but a different species. In that case, the name Rosa ecae Aitch. which had already been published 1880 had again priority and was valid. I have modified the note to "distinct species" only.
|
REPLY
|
|
