|
|
scvirginia 
-
-
|
Bridesmaid should be white and less double.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Bridesmaid should be white and not so double.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
HMF gives Vibert as the breeder of this rose and 1845 as the introduction date, but in his 1845 catalogue, Vibert doesn't indicate that he bred this rose. I suspect that William Paul, writing in 1848, was correct to say that the rose was introduced in 1845 'from Angers', however.
One likely possibility is that Vibert discovered this rose as a sport. I've seen a number of roses that are attributed to him that he didn't claim as coming from his "semis". He must have discovered and introduced any number of sports during his long career, but I don't think he tagged them in his catalogues as his creations. The 1845 catalogue's price of 3 1/2 francs does seem appropriate for an 1845 rose introduction.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
16 FEB by
jedmar
|
Clearly not bred by Vibert, but introduced by him. Teas were not his forte in any case.
|
REPLY
|
|
He did sell Teas, though, so maybe a sport that he discovered?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The web site states the parentage as 'Heritage' X 'Old Blush'. Our record indicates the involvement of R. wichurana...do we know the source for that genealogy?
|
REPLY
|
|
Unfortunately we've not been consistent in recording provenience for much of the data on HMF. To be fair, that would be a significant impact on our limited resources and the current HMF software is not well suited to the task, at least convenience wise.
But all is not lost as comments like yours are a back-end solution: Raising questions and inviting input from a vast community.
I have updated this listing's note to reflect your post.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks—I see that the Modern Roses site gives the parentage as we have it (with the Wichurana involvement), and have updated the note to mark the discrepancy.
|
REPLY
|
|
