Thanks for explaining a bit about the display of names in HelpMeFind! Don't get me wrong--I wasn't really commenting on the nomenclature used here, so much as I was responding to the conversation between you and Andrew about what is technically proper, and what isn't. Yes, improvements could be made here, subject to what is technologically possible, but that may be better discussed at length elsewhere. I do consider it perfectly acceptable for a space to be included on either side of the times symbol for search purposes at this site, and it is also quite reasonable to list rose names and (generally speaking) formats as they have been employed by various sources, especially when the context is clear enough. It would help to indicate the most correct/accepted name of each entry, and to avoid accidental formatting like the single quotes at the top of the page, which appear regardless of the identity selected.

Regarding the form under discussion, although the found rose that was introduced by Lens was/is essentially being sold under the same name as the historic Rosa arvensis 'Plena' (or var. flore pleno), it is actually not at all likely that the two are indeed identical--the information needed to make that determination is essentially stated in Lens Roses' own catalog entry. Any actual burden of proof in such a case should reside with those who claim that the found rose and the original are identical, rather than the other way around, and I don't believe that burden of proof has been met in this case. The Lens Roses catalog states clearly that this selection was found by Lens in the wild in 1982; that bit of history is obviously not shared by the original clone that was described in the 19th century, and it is likewise erroneous to say that any of the historic literature reciprocally applies to Lens' found rose. There seems to be no indication that the old variety was still in known to be extant in the 20th century, much less 1982, so it's doubtful that any material that is extant today was not propagated from the Lens found rose. Had Lens used a different name in the first place, as he should have done, there would be no such debate needed; there would have been a separate entry naturally!

I'm also observing that the Lens rose is mostly thornless--there are some large prickles near the base of the cane, but the rest of the length seems to be entirely smooth, which might be noteworthy. From what I can see in others' photographs, this may be true of the clone in general. One way to refer the Lens material for now, in the absence of a distinct name, would be to distinguish the modern clone with a device, such as Rosa arvensis 'Plena' (Lens). By rights, a replacement name should be offered by Lens Roses or by the ARS, but I probably won't hold my breath for anything like that to happen.

Stefan