Yes. Floribunda, hybrid tea, Mini-Flora are all mentioned in the reference. It brings up a stupid mind-picture of a new baby borne at sea to an Italian father and a Norwegian mother.
When Polo Club was introduced there was no such class as Miniflora. It's classification as a hybrid tea was strictly a marketing decision to round out the Beverly Hills Collection that was sold by Armstrong Roses.
It doesn't have any relationship to genetic miniaturization, which is what makes it very odd. A purely aesthetic classification. Home Run, Watercolors Home Run, Take It Easy, and Candy Cane Cocktail (which shows genetics traits of ), have more of a true relation to that class. Yet, they are shrubs and floribundas.
Then again, American classifications are bizarre and manufactured to begin with. I would be happier with a descriptive system, closer to the UK. Or something not synthetic, like ours. But the societies and businesses fear Americans are too simple to change. Yet, there was absolutely no problem when Austin coined his own terms and took America by storm. No one had a problem learning a new term, it was innovative, and it really produced new rose industries in America.
A symptom of rose societies putting more emphasis on trophies and winning, than sharing a community experience. Rose shows very rarely reflect what is happening in the garden, or what is good for the garden. A massive disconnect! Main reason why I quit exhibiting. It's not real. And the numbers will get even worse. My generation typically rejects that type of idea. Rightfully so.
Too long; Didn't read version: Silly classification change to a pointless system.
Could it be that Cherry Gold /Arotigny, bred by Armstrong Nurseries in 1986 is the same rose as Polo Club™ /AROtigy, bred by Christensen in 1986 are same rose? Both got same colours and same parents, etc..
