|
|
-
-
|
Does anybody have more information on his rose ‚Magic Moss‘ or grows it?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
yesterday by
fenriz
|
This rose is apparently mislabelled as Rosa x centifolia, it lacks the moss of Rosa x centifolia “Simplex”/La Louise if that one has it but they have some similarities yet it lacks reddish thorns, but it’s standing a little shady. Or even rosa gallica or some root base? The flower was photographed with flash, the colour is a tiny bit less intense in vivo. I thought about r. rugosa var. rubra but it lacks the bushiness (2m high) and had no hips and it grows offshoots too.
May y’all help me in the identification of this rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
today by
 HubertG
|
The foliage makes it look a bit like one of the Rugosa roses.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
today by
fenriz
|
Thank you, after some reconsideration i think it’s a Rugosa too, the ofshoots we’re probably cut off in time.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
today by
HubertG
|
Maybe it was a Rugosa root stock that has taken over, something like 'Hollandica', although I have no idea if that or anything similar is still used in Europe for that purpose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 days ago by
fenriz
|
Is this the root base coming through?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
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
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
3 days ago by
fenriz
|
I‘m just a grower of Lady Curzon, the flower petals on the other one look less crinkled sometimes and posses a more salmon-like pink when freshly opened. By their disclosed parentage they should be similar somehow, that they are when comparing those few photos of the other rose. Real closure could only be provided by genetic analysis i guess. But i would rather grow a lady…
|
REPLY
|
|
