|
|
'Spotless Gold' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Given the parentage description on the main page ('Spotless Gold' was an F3 selection from ‘Goldilocks‘ X R. rugosa), should the parentage be listed as:
((‘Goldilocks‘ X R. rugosa) x unk) x unk
Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
|
I don't know. Not up with my F3's. Do you mean:
Seed: (Goldilocks x R. Rugosa) x unknown.
pollen: unknown.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Patricia. That would represent an F3 to me.
Rob
|
REPLY
|
|
I'll take your word for it. Thanks Rob. Corrected.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
 StefanDC
|
Hi Rob, the formula you give implies an uncontrolled open pollination scenario, which is not what Semeniuk meant by F3. It should denote controlled selfing, so the fully written out parentage looks more like:
{['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)] x ['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)]} x ['Goldilocks' x R. rugosa (tetraploid)]
Stefan
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for the correction Stefan!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
20 FEB 19 by
StefanDC
|
No problem! I should have added that it may not have been "selfing"; it is also possible that sibling crosses were employed (the paper wasn't entirely clear on that point), although it wouldn't affect the formula.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's a shame that the Spotless Series aren't available today.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I wish this rose would resurface. The last plant of it I knew of was at the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden. Alas, it is no longer there. Imagine the fun you could have playing with this!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Wow, amazing. I had always wondered about these, and finally a real photo!
|
REPLY
|
|
