|
|
Callimarcio 
-
-
|
This rose is very similar to another hybrid rugosa x gallica from the same epoch, I mean 'Rugosa Repens Rosea' (Smith, 1904). Is there any difference between those two varieties or is it the same rose ?
It could exists a mixing among collections/nurseries, so it could be great if a reliable expert could enlighten us..
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose is not even a centifolia. It is a hybrid Portland-Chinensis.
See princeps description from the breeder himself who places it as an altered Portlandica (Travaux du Comice Horticole de Maine-et-Loire, N°39, 1853, p.51.)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The name is 'Ambroise Paré', not 'Ambrose'...a tiny mispelling I guess...
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
21 JAN by
Jay-Jay
|
Misspelling You mean... or was that a pun?
|
REPLY
|
|
oups, I misspelled with the missing "s"... :p
Thanks
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
22 JAN by
jedmar
|
We usually list different spellings found in literature in order to enable the search function in all cases. "Ambrose" is moved to hidden listing, so that "Ambroise" appears alone.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose probably bloomed in 1828, thus the copy-pasted date is to update. See references in my book "Rosomanes et Roses au Mans, de la Renaissance à nos jours" (2024, pp.145-149).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
17 JAN by
jedmar
|
Unfortunately we have no access to any catalogues by Jacquemet-Bonnefont. The mention in Joyaux's books is insufficient to list a 'Oeillet parfait' from before 1830. If you have such catalogues, it would be useful to post a scan of the relevant page.
|
REPLY
|
|
I was looking for this Jacquemet-Bonnefont 1830 catalog without success, it was in a private collection I guess.
Nevertheless, according other historical elements presented in my book and in particular another catalog of Jacquemet-Bonnefont dating 1839 I own, we are very sure this rose was presented much before 1841.
I'm quite confident about trusting M. Joyaux's date of 1830.
|
REPLY
|
|
