|
|
'Bloomfield Abundance' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
26 JUL 15 by
 mmanners
|
I wonder if it may be time to split the 'Bloomfield Abundance' listing into two parts, perhaps with a Wiki-type "disambiguation," in that 'Spray Cecile Brunner' is the rose traditionally called by that name, yet Fred Boutin has found apparently the "real" thing, and it's quite a different rose. I see no current way, for example, to list which one grows (we have both in the FSC gardens).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
27 JUL 15 by
Patricia Routley
|
We do have two separate files for
Bloomfield Abundance Thomas 1920 and
Spray Cecile Brunner Howard, 1941.
There are many photos of 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in the 'Bloomfield Abundance' file but I am not volunteering to move them. Hopefully, members will take up the baton and move them themselves.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
5 days ago by
Lance Mellon
|
I would say that the many photos of (as you say) Spray Cecile Brunner) in the Bloomfield Abundance file are actually not Spray Cecil Brunner but the actual original Bloomfield Abundance. See some of the black and white photos in the file with the extral long sepels not existent on the Cecil Brunner. Here is my rebuttal to this misnamed rose next to my photo in the file:
Rose photo courtesy of Lance Mellon
Peter Beales and many others conclude that Cecile Brunner and Bloomfield Abuindance are NOT the same rose. We have both and my Bloomfield Abundance has been growing here for over 70 years old. Bloomfield has the long sepels. These are missing from Cecil Brunner. Bloomfield Abundance blooms about a month later than Cecil Brunner. There are many other differences and most experts agree the two roses are different AND that the large pink rose mentioned by some is not Bloomfield Abundance. We hope this will be changed in your database.
Uploaded 21 AUG
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
4 days ago by
Margaret Furness
|
Spray Cecile Brunner was shown by Malcolm Manners' group to be almost identical with Mlle Cecile Brunner by DNA comparison, and therefore must be a sport of it. The original Bloomfield Abundance has very different parentage (wichurana x HT), and could not possibly be very similar to Mlle Cecile Brunner on DNA comparison.
So: four roses.
Mlle Cecile Brunner
Cl Cecile Brunner
Spray Cecile Brunner (originally called a climber, which it isn't, in Australia), and sold for decades in many countries as Bloomfield Abundance (which it isn't). As someone said, it grows like a triffid (makes a huge bush), has long sepals, and starts flowering later than the above two.
The above three are very similar in DNA comparisons.
Bloomfield Abundance, HT, lost for many years, unrelated to the above three, possibly rediscovered.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
4 days ago by
jedmar
|
Thank you, Lance and Margaret, for your comments. We have now 4 listings:
- Bloomfield Abundance
- Cécile Brunner
- Cécile Brunner Clg by Hosp
- Spray Cécile Brunner = Cécile Brunner Clg by Ardagh
The photos on these pages are hopelessly mixed-up for an admin who doesn't have all of these varieties. Are there any (which) show the real BA? I am assuming that the bloom pictures of the next three are all identical.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
4 days ago by
Patricia Routley
|
To make things a little clearer, I think we should rename ‘Bloomfield Abundance’ as ‘Bloomfield Abundance (hybrid tea, Thomas, 1920).
It is impossible to tell which Mar's photo is of. Perhaps moved to her garden file page?
The same with the photo from Rosesbyping.
I also think Lance Mellon's photo should be moved to 'Spray Cecile Brunner'.
JeanClaudeH seems to be 'Spray Cecile Brunner'
As does the photo from Oli_Nwk
and Kamila Rakowska-Szlazkiewicz Rosaplant. - two photos
That would leave all photos in this file belonging to the rediscovered ‘Bloomfield Abundance’ (hybrid tea, Thomas, 1920).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
18 JUN 16 by
Give me caffeine
|
I notice that Thomas for Roses claim to have this rose. I assume that what they actually have is 'Spray Cecile Brunner'. I should probably ask Glenys about this too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
19 JUN 16 by
Margaret Furness
|
As far as I know, all roses labelled Bloomfield Abundance in Aus are Spray Cecile Brunner.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
19 JUN 16 by
Patricia Routley
|
The three Australian nurseries are now shown as selling 'Spray Cecile Brunner'. Thanks to you both
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
19 JUN 16 by
Give me caffeine
|
I've added a note to the T4R nursery page about the (common) misnaming in their catalogue. ;)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
24 SEP 15 by
Fred Boutin
|
Why Spray Cecile Brunner has been confused with Bloomfield Abundance. The only surviving photographs of the original Bloomfield Abundance do not reveal the size and scale of the shrub, flowers and inflorescences. It is easy to ignore the early description which said it was a Hybrid Tea in size. Another reason for the confusion is that both Bloomfield Abundance and Spray Cecile Brunner have similar growth habits and unusual brush or broom-like inflorescences which carry the buds and flowers distinctly way above the foliage. It was this latter characteristic which was so evident on the old specimen Judy Dean discovered in the California Mother Lode. The foundling looked like a giant version of Spray Cecile Brunner but with large hybrid tea like flowers on a large shrub.
A third reason for the confusion of Spray Cecile Brunner with Bloomfield Abundance comes from the immense influence of Graham Stuart Thomas' valuable book Shrub Roses of Today where in Spray Cecile Brunner is identified as Bloomfield Abundance.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
31 JUL 15 by
scvirginia
|
Journal- Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, 1965, p.280
Concerning Rosa 'Cecile Brunner' some nurseries still list this rose though it is more difficult to obtain through the trade than a few years ago. However there is one point to watch. Some nurseries are supplying Rosa 'Bloomfield Abundance' in error. In the Waikato area I noted plants of R. 'Bloomfield Abundance' with nursery labels 'Cecile Brunner'. A few authorities say R. 'Bloomfield Abundance' is a sport of R. 'Cecile Brunner' but ' Modern Roses 6' and the Royal National Rose Society's latest edition of 'Roses — a Selected List of Varieties' consider it to be a separate cultivar in its own right.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
31 JUL 15 by
Patricia Routley
|
Virginia - I think this reference should go in 'Spray Cecile Brunner'.
We've added a note to the 'Bloomfield Abundance' page:
The information on this page is for the original, possibly lost, Bloomfield Abundance
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
31 JUL 15 by
scvirginia
|
Do you think it's definitely 'Spray CB' that the writer was referring to when he wrote 'Bloomfield Abundance'? I do not know the history of those roses' confusion in commerce in NZ and Oz...
It seems that the roses were confused in commerce very early on in the U.S., and probably elsewhere, but it also seems likely that retailers who had the real 'Bloomfield Abundance' to begin with would continue to sell it.
Bobbink & Atkins was a large and reputable nursery; I don't know how long they carried 'BA' in their catalogs, but I wouldn't think they'd have been selling 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in lieu of 'Bloomfield Abundance'?
At any rate, I can't add the reference, since I don't see the publication listed...
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
31 JUL 15 by
Patricia Routley
|
The confusion was widespread in Australia - and New Zealand is just "across the ditch".
The publication is now added.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
1 AUG 15 by
scvirginia
|
I added the quote to the 'Spray Cecile Brunner' references.
I do wonder if the real 'Bloomfield Abundance' ever made it Down Under?
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
