HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
billy teabag 
-
-
|
lol, this poor rose has so many inconsistent references, other than its general color and class.
|
REPLY
|
|
Which is exactly why I had a little doubt about this identification for my six foundlings (all the same rose). This is a fairly common foundling throughout Australia. Have a look at the HelpMeFind file "Kew Cemetery Pink (Melbourne, Victoria)". If you have knowledge that would help us discount any of the possible identifications, that would be wonderful. Or perhaps if you have any old reference material for 'Lady Ursula'? In the meantime, I will search the old American Rose Annuals for more substantive information.
|
REPLY
|
|
I havent run across it in the ARS books I own. I own about half of them. It should be publicated more, though, as the breeder was very famous before our time.
|
REPLY
|
|
Discussing further. I've added the American references I was able to find and it is looking more and more like our "Kew Cemetery Pink" etc. foundlings are 'Lady Ursula'. Mistakenly, I thought searches in the U.K. and Australian literature would be enough. Wish I had looked in the old American Rose Annuals earlier. What do other Australians now think of the 'Lady Ursula' identification please?
|
REPLY
|
|
We have three plants here. Each one came to us under a different study name ("Sheila Gravett's [not] Mme Caroline Testout" [No 48], "Kew Cemetery Pink" and "BP Bridgetown"), and it took time to realise they are definitely the same rose. The longer I grow them, and the harder I look at the references, the more satisfied I am that 'Lady Ursula' is the correct identity.
|
REPLY
|
|
Billy, I am inclined to agree with you. However can you discount Edgar M. Burnett 1914 and La Tosca 1900 at this stage?
I have discounted 'Glorified La France' and 'Lord Rossmore' for various reasons.
There may be a parentage for 'Lady Ursula' in the following:
We have:
'Mme Melanie Soupert' bred by Joseph Pernet-Ducher (France, before 1904) and Introduced in Australia by Henry Sewell, Payneham Nurseries in 1906
‘Lady Ursula’ bred by Alexander Dickson II (1857-1949) (United Kingdom, 1908) and Introduced in Australia by H. Kemp in 1909.
Kemp was the first nursery that I noted in Australia to list 'Lady Ursula'. (I see Sewell's nursery was sold to Kemp much later on)
What do you think of the ‘Lady Ursula’ 1917-28 reference. I suspect that handwritten word might be Sewell, (not Sevell) and that Brundrett (or the owner of the catalogue) had information from Henry Sewell (who first introduced 'Mme Melanie Soupert' in 1906) that 'Lady Ursula' was a seedling of 'Mme Melanie Soupert'.
Looking at the references for both roses, they both had broad petals, of great substance, and large blooms on long stems. The bushes were both upright and vigorous with a branching habit. However, 'Mme Melanie Soupert was semi-double, and Lady Ursula had about 40 or more petals. Lady Ursula bloomed in small clusters.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 11 posted
29 JAN by
HubertG
|
It could very well be a seedling of 'Mme Melanie Soupert' and I wouldn't be surprised if its pollen parent is a Tea. It does have a somewhat Tea look to it and with only two sports and no seedlings amongst its offspring, it might have been infertile as a parent.
|
REPLY
|
|
La Tosca should be thornless or have very few prickles, so we can cross that one off as our rose is definitely and defiantly prickly.
I haven't ever checked Edgar M. Burnett, but will do so now.
The thing I find that gels in some of the descriptions of Lady Ursula is the way those who have grown it for a long time try to explain why they have come to admire it so much. They say there's nothing especially marvellous about the colour or the form of the blooms, and yet they love it, and combined with the phenomenal recurrence and the toughness and tenacity of the rose, they have come to hold it in high regard.
It crept up on me in just this way. A rose I once thought fairly ordinary, gawky and prickly in its youth, has become one of the most valued roses in the garden. It's completely won me over with its quiet beauty, generosity and resilience.
|
REPLY
|
|
Edgar M. Burnett makes for interesting reading.
It's described as having very few prickles in the Rosenlexikon reference. If this is correct, it would rule it out as a contender for Kew Cemetery Pink etc etc.
|
REPLY
|
|
Edgar M. Burnett was an exhibition rose. I have deleted it from the list of possibilities. That now leaves 'Lady Ursula' and I am happy to merge the "Kew Cemetery Pink" etc. foundlings with that rose, if everybody agrees.
|
REPLY
|
|
I would agree Patricia.
|
REPLY
|
|
Two agreements are better than one.
I will tidy up the main page and copy here the roses that were considered and rejected.
Admiral Dewey. Too pale and blooms were said to be held erect.
Edgar M. Burnett 1914 was an exhibition rose, very fragrant and almost thornless.
Glorified La France 1919 Too full and too low
La Tosca 1900 is mostly thornless
Lady Ashtown References consistently say this has a high-pointed center. The colour seems deeper than our foundlings.
Lord Rossmore 1930 colour wrong. Was creamy white, edged pink.
Mme. Caroline Testout. It has some similarities but the foundlings are probably double, and more, the height of this Mme. Caroline Testout The prickle shape is different in both these roses. Pedicels are more erect and more prickly and the colour is deeper than the foundling.
Mme. Leon Pain The reverse may be too deep in colour.
Mme. Segond-Weber was said by Hazlewood to be a good seed setter and perhaps too salmon.
Mrs. W. J. Grant, - This rose has been investigated and discounted.
Pharisaer discounted because it sets hips. Refer 'The Rose Annual', UK, 1910, page 55.
Viscountess Folkestone 1886 was particularly fragrant.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Jérôme Chêne from Loubert is gonna send me two versions of Mme Bérard, the Sangerhausen version and the l'Hay les roses version. What's the difference between them and which one could be the original?
|
REPLY
|
|
This is great. Will you let us know how they compare?
The original was described as thornless.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I have two young Julias Rose plants. They both produce flowers with very good scent and the growth habit is very upright. The foliage is more of the matte dull green color and in my opinion is a bit sparse and could be more dense. The stems are spaced a bit too far apart. However, that could improve a bit as the bushes mature over the next couple of years. My Julia's Rose plants have 5 leaflet sets as I remember.
I have tried to grow Cafe twice and both times the plant didn't survive the first year. The first plant lived until winter and succumbed to the winter temps even though it was overwintered in my unheated garage. I generally don't lose any of my "Pot Ghetto" overwintering in the garage but that particular year I lost 20 for some unknown bizarre reason, so I won't blame that on the rose. The second try with a Cafe plant was short lived as the own root plant I received only lived about 4 months. It was never vigorous and just faded away slowly. That was two years ago--2008--and I would like to give Cafe one more try before giving up on it completely.
|
REPLY
|
|
The brown-violet roses all seem to have a hard time growing on their own roots (at least for me). If you can get any of these brown/violet roses on a suitable rootstock for your climate (or graft them yourself), you will be pleased, I think. I am growing Julia's rose on it's own roots, and my experience is similar to yours -- not a particularly vigorous plant. I just got a plant of Cafe grafted on Pink Clouds by Burling (which is an excellent cold weather very vigorous rootstock by the way), and it looks like it is going to be a winner. Try Burlington roses, and see what she can do for you -- she also does custom grafting.
|
REPLY
|
|
Our 'Julia's Rose', growing in a warm - hot climate, sounds just like your descriptions. It's budded onto Fortuniana, which will often help with vigour, but this rose is not what I'd call a garden-worthy rose. It's not unhealthy, but quite sparse and spindly.
I think you're right about the brown/violet roses.
One for the cutting bed with the other ones we grow for the blooms and forgive the shortcomings of the bush?
I wonder if anyone can report a vigorous, well foliated plant of 'Julia's Rose'.
|
REPLY
|
|
I do agree that the brown/russet/violet roses seem to be poorer growers on their own roots. Most all of them I have grown seem to need a good rootstock under them. The one exception is the Terracotta HT that is a sport of the HT florist rose Leonidas. My Terracotta's and one other I have seen in person grow quite well on their own roots with no problem, including being very winter hardy with no added help from me in my zone 5b/6a area. I also grow Leonidas and I almost cannot believe that Terracotta is a sport of that bush. Terracotta is ten times the plant and rose that Leonidas has ever hoped to be. Terracotta is more vigorous, winter hardy, heavier blooming, has better flowers, denser foliaged, and way more disease resistant than Leonidas is. There is just no comparison between the two for me. It is a shame because I think when people see Terracotta is a sport of Leonidas they assume it is very like the parent except for the color which it is not in any way. Even the petal pigmentation is much better on Terracotta than Leonidas. And, Terracotta will set OP hips and I have never had any luck at all trying Leonidas as a pollen or seed parent either one. In short, I just have a hard time believing that Terracotta is a sport of Leonidas because there are way too many differences 'tween the two.
But, most of the brown/russet/coffee/lavender roses just aren't good doers on their own roots. Of course we shouldn't forget the brown floribunda Hot Cocoa of course. It too grows well own-root or budded either one and it seems to pass that vigor to it's offspring. I have seen some gorgeous huge bushes of Hot Cocoa that were own-root that were better than those budded onto multiflora or even fortuniana.
I have heard of using Pink Clouds as an understock but haven't seen any in person. I think I might try to purchase a couple of plants of Pink Clouds and give it a try myself.
|
REPLY
|
|
'Belle Epoque' does very well own-root. Its one of the exceptions imo. 'Ann Henderson' is probably okay own-root, but the dang thing mildews, even in the PNW.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
One of the distinctive things about Bardou Job - the rose collected from a venerable plant that had never lost its name in Mrs Howie's garden in Adelaide - is that the canes are thornless.
Prickles are rarely mentioned in descriptions and I think this is unfortunate. When trying to chase down the identity of a foundling rose, the presence or absence of prickles is such a simple way to rule a contender in or out.
Bardou Job has the distinctive leaf serrations of its parent, Gloire des Rosomanes, but not its prickles.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
