|
|
-
-
Initial post
5 APR 09 by
 jedmar
|
If the breeder strangled himself on March 28, 1879; then the rose must have been around before that?
|
REPLY
|
|
Is it recorded in concrete that the rose was bred by the Reverend?
His father was a Nurseryman and given the date of 1880 for the release of this rose,
it seems possible to me that the Father released this rose to commemorate his son.
One entry under the reference tab gives 'Cole' as the breeder.
Is it possible that it was later assumed that the Reverend raised this rose?
Rarely did Breeders name roses after themselves.
|
REPLY
|
|
It would make good sense that the rose raised by the Rev. was introduced posthumously by his father (or one of his brothers).
|
REPLY
|
|
The only references I can find to the rose are...
From Horticultural Flora of South-eatern Australia
A Brief History of Australian Breeders
Quote "The earliest Australian raised rose was probably 'Rev.T.C.Cole' COMMEMORATING Rev.Cole of Vic and released in 1880."
From Historical Records of Australian Science
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY
BOTANY in COLONIAL VICTORIA
Quote "Thomas Cornelius Cole (first signature on the matriculation roll; enrolment number 18550001), who happened to come from a horticultural family."
and
"The subsequent COMMEMORATION of the University’s first botany student with
the yellow ‘Rev. T. C. Cole’ rose seems beautifully appropriate.
It originated from a seedling raised by Cole."
The Reverend's Father was also named Thomas Cornelius Cole.
Isn't it possible that a mix up occured over which Cole actually bred the rose?
Incidently-it is not correct that this was the first Australian raised rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for the additional references Sandie.
They make it clear that the rose was named in memory of the Rev.
Are these from copyright publications? If so, would it be possible to ask permission to add this information to HMF References for this rose?
On the question of whether the breeding of the rose might have been attributed to the wrong T.C. Cole, information from the Brunnings catalogues (1897 etc): ("Rev. T. C. Cole. This is a seedling which originated in this colony, and was raised by our old and esteemed friend, the late Rev. T. C. Cole, .....") seems personal enough to be credible, and the Law, Somner & Co catalogue of 1886 also refers to the rose 'Rev. T. C. Cole' as "a seedling raised by the late Rev. T. C. Cole ...." and this was 3 years before the death of T.C. Cole senior.
Putting the information together, do you think it's safe to assume that the rose was bred some time before 1879 by the Rev T.C. Cole but not named and introduced to commerce until after his death?
This would make 1880 the date of introduction rather than the year the rose was raised.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Billy-I will PM you re the copyright situation on the quotes.
I did not have access to the info contained in the Brunning and Law,Somner catalogues.
Thats the 'written in concrete' I was asking about in my first post.
Seems conclusive that the Reverend was the raiser.
thanks
Sandie
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello Sandie, We all have access to the Brunning and Law Somner catalogues. They, and another 30 items from books and catalogues are all included in the references. Fairly repetitive, but it is all 'written in Helpmefind'.
|
REPLY
|
|
If the rose Rev.T.C. Cole was released around 1880, it is a point of fine distinction as to who developed it. Rev TC died in 1879 and was outlived by his father by 10 years (1889). Rev T.C. was well-known in Melbourne for his fine rose garden at St George's Malvern and maintained a life long interest in Roses. From what I know, 10 years of studying the family, I would say that Rev T.C. developed the rose but it may have publicly released after his death by his father and brothers.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for this insight.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 9 posted
16 FEB 21 by
Johno
|
