|
|
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
-
-
Initial post
4 days ago 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 4 posted
3 days ago by
 HubertG
|
The foliage makes it look a bit like one of the Rugosa roses.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
3 days ago 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 4 posted
3 days ago 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
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
2 days ago by
fenriz
|
A misidentification seems more likely, shouldn’t be the first time in a botanic garden. As rootstocks the industry prefers roses with less thorns but stranger things happened. ‘La Louise’ growing there by chance would be such a thing.
|
REPLY
|
|
