|
|
'Rosa longicuspis Bertoloni' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
10 SEP 04 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Rosa longicuspis is a very different species to Rosa mulliganii. I have both growing side by side and they are not one and the same species.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
14 MAY 23 by
okdb
|
Hi there — it’s been 20 years, but does anyone know the difference between R. longicuspis and mulliganii? The Friends of Vintage Roses guide (from California) lists it as being once-flowering, with top marks for fragrance and gives a date of 1917. It states: “Famous from the White Garden at Sissinghurst Castle, where Vita Sackville-West planted it in the 1940s, and knew it under the name Rosa longicuspis. Tiny white flowers in dense broad panicles lace the air with the scent of tropical fruits. A house eater, good on a large arbor.”
Is this correct? I’ve seen R.longicuspis for sale here in NZ but would be interested to know whether it could instead be mulliganii — if there’s a difference, of course. There seems to be a lot of confusion with old rose identification in NZ lol
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
14 MAY 23 by
 Lee H.
|
There is a difference. Graham Stuart Thomas details both species under chapter “Ramblers Derived From the Musk Or Synstylae of Genus Rosa”, if you have access to his book “Species Roses and Modern Shrub Roses”. But they are apparently very close, and he admits to once having distributed mulliganii as longicuspis.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
21 MAY 23 by
okdb
|
Thanks for that! I’ll try track it down sometime. Been trying to choose a couple of tree-climbers for our small orchard — to ramble up some big non-fruiting trees around the edges and bring the bees in. Himalayan musks seemed a good idea - single flowers, lots of hips, highly scented. The species longicuspis, helenae and brunonii are available here, though it sounds like brunonii would swallow the whole section, let alone the orchard. Reports vary on the first two — apparently longicuspis is manageable by comparison, but I also read it could be the parent of Wedding Day (which is rampant!) … while helenae is listed as both smaller and larger than longicuspis depending on the reference (though all agree it’s lovely) … it’s a puzzle!
As an aside, apparently when I was born my Mum planted Wedding Day to run along our 50-60’ front fence. After 4 years we moved out, at least partly to get away from it. Unsurprisingly a bit wary of that one.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
22 MAY 23 by
Lee H.
|
It may not be what you're looking for, but for a tree climber, I can heartily recommend 'New Dawn'. Even in Zone 6, it scrambled to the top of an 8m dogwood in less than 3 years, and seems to never be without new blooms.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
22 MAY 23 by
okdb
|
New Dawn does look lovely! I wouldn’t mind it for a different spot actually — I need another tree climber for a dead tree elsewhere — but in this case I’m aiming for the single flowers in spring(ish) + hips in autumn combo. Feeds the bees when the trees are flowering and keeps the birds distracted while they’re fruiting. That’s the idea anyway … we’ll see if it works! :-)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
For species roses, I *really* wish that in the "parentage" field, in lieu of the default "If you know the parentage of this rose..." the information provided might instead be e.g. the section (or nothotaxon) of the Rosa: in this case, for instance, Section Synstylae, Series Brunonianae
This type of information could be useful to hybridizers.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The name of this rose is Rosa longicuspis Bertoloni, not Bertolini.
|
REPLY
|
|
