HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Rosa gentiliana Rehder & E.H.Wilson' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Is there a difference between R. gentiliana H. Lev. & Vaniot and R. gentiliana Rehder & E. H. Wilson? If Boulenger is correct that they were different, shouldn't this be treated as a synonym of R. henryi?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
11 AUG 21 by
 jedmar
|
Actually, there is the Reference of the Arnold Arboretum from 1940, that this species should be treated as part of R. henryi. However, it was not possible to find some corraboration for that statement. In The Plant List and World Flora Online it is still seen as unresolved. COL doesn't list it. In Flora of China it is not one of the synonyms of R. henryi. I was looking for the original publication of Rehder & Wilson, but could not find it at the time.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, I added those Arnold Arboretum references after I wrote the above.
Boulenger seems to be a respected authority, but it would still be nice to have some sort of back-up reference for the distinction he makes.
Edited: Actually, I think I added references to the other R. gentiliana. I'm too confused!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
11 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
I am confused, too! In Plantae Wilsoniae, there is R. multiflora cathayensis Rehd. & Wilson and separately R. gentiliana Lév. & Van., but no R. gentiliana Rehd. & Wils.! The only reference in this publication to a variety named by Rehder & Wilson is R. gentiliana var. australis Rehd. & Wils., which is probably a synonym of R. henryi.
In 1940, Rehder states that his R. gentiliabna is a synonym of R. henryi. But which? Is it what he described as R. gentiliana Lév. & Van.?
This latter cannot be really a synonym of R. multiflora cathayensis, as the former is white and the latter pink.
We need Boulenger's text of 1933 for a better understanding.
|
REPLY
|
|
I tried to find Boulenger's text, but those JStor people have a tight grip on the copyright, so I don't think I can access it without $$$.
In the 1936 reference that I did add, Rehder wrote that what he and Wilson initially described as R. gentiliana was actually, as Boulenger pointed out, R. henryi.
What he wasn't sure about was what Lévaillé's specimen (by then lost) was.
He seemed to be taking a few shots at Miss Willmott for (presumably) losing Léveillé's specimen loaned to her, but maybe also at Parsons illustrations, because he couldn't match the illustrations with any rose species he knew. He did admit that it might be R. tsusimensis, a rose he hadn't seen. CoL and POWO are agreed that R. tsusimensis is a synonym for R. luciae. I wonder if Parson's drawings look like R. luciae?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
11 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
I have added the texts of Boulenger for R. henryi, R. gentiliana and R. multiflora cathayensis. My understanding:
- Rehder & Wilson's description of R. gentiliana Lév. et Van. is incorrect. They had not seen a specimen, as it was lost. Their description is in part, not totally aligned with R. henryi.
- Therefore, the elusive R. gentiliana Rehd. et Wilson seems to be their description of Léveillé et Vaniot's rose.
- The latter is distinct from R. multiflora cathayensis and probably closer to R. maximowicziana.
- Boulenger cites the original description by Léveillé and Vaniot.
So, we arrive at the same result.
My conclusion would be
- to merge R. gentiliana Rehd. et Wilson with R. henryi Boulenger, however
- to demerge R. gentiliana Lév. et Van. from R. multiflora cathayensis Rehd. et Wilson. That would elimiate the irritation that the former has white blooms, the latter pink, among other differences.
See also Rosa cerasocarpa
|
REPLY
|
|
I'm agnostic about merging R. gentiliana Rehder & Wilson with R. henryi. Rehder & Wilson were working with some "fragments" sent by Leveillé to Arnold Arboretum, and I got the impression that Rehder later regretted trying to describe a species based on so little information, especially since the type was lost. He grumbled a bit that Parsons' drawing with Willmott's description was now the type. For me, Rehder and Wilson's description is based on so little info, that I'm inclined to just try to ignore it as best I can.
Rehder, however, seemed to agree with Boulenger that what he and Wilson described was R. henryi, or did I read that wrong?
The modern botanists seem to be unusually unified in agreeing that R. gentiliana Lévl. is R. multiflora var. cathayensis, so I'm not sure why a demerging would be justified. Especially since we know that Léveillé's description of his R. gentiliana was based on a specimen brought to him from China, and not on a strong familiarity with the species and its normal variations. Flower color is not a big deal, so I'm guessing you saw something else that made you think these should be split?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
12 AUG 21 by
jedmar
|
Agreed on keeping R. gentiliana Rehder & Wilson separate from R. henryi, as it is in case only a partial synonym.
Regarding E. gentiliana Lévl. et Van. and R. multiflora var. cathayensis, my main point would be that Boulenger, who saw herbarium specimens of the latter, and analyzed the drawings of Parsons & Léveillé, treated both as separate species. I do not see who , on what basis, later decided that they were synonyms. The reference of Rehder (1940) and Krüssmann (1981) give no explanation. And again, the R. gentiliana which the Arnold Arboretum received was white, while R. m. cathayensis is always pink with white center.
|
REPLY
|
|
It doesn't make sense to distinguish between the two gentilianas if they were both based on specimens from Léveillé, but it seems that's what happened?
As for R. multiflora cathayensis always having a pink center, my best guess is that botanists after Boulenger felt that there could be a white-centered form, and the two roses weren't distinct enough to be separate species, but were instead 2 forms of the same species? Presumably, modern botanists have had a wider sampling of Chinese roses to study, and thus more opportunity to see how much variability the species have. The distinction between species, varieties and forms is not always obvious.
Or.... perhaps... there was some doubt about whether the Arnold fragment described by Rehder and Wilson was definitely all white? Perhaps it was incomplete or faded?
It would be nice to find out when and why the roses were deemed synonymous...
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I belive that all the photos show Rosa cerasocarpa or maybe 'Polyantha Grandiflora' except the illutration of Léveillé. The original description of Rosa gentiliana is different with semidouble flowers and very cuneate leaflets. The colour of the flowers is not mentioned which could point to that it was drawn from a harbarium specimen.
The illustration of Léveillé (from Catalogue illustré et alphabetique des plantes du Seu Tchouen, t. 58. 1918) show the cuneate leaves, but the plant in this illustration seems to have single flowers.
Original text:
"Planta recta, flexuosa nec scandens; folia glabra, 3-7-foliolata; foliola valde cuneata, dentibus argutis e basi ad apicem crescentibus munita, abrupte et brevissime caudata; flores mediocres, semiduplices; sepala tomentosa, dorso tamen medio glabrescentia, integerrima, eglandulosa; styli glabri, in columnam coaliti.......
Plante du groupe arvensis, tres remarquable par la forme en ecusson. "
My poor translation:
"Plant straight, curved or climbing. Leaves glabrous, 3-7-trifoliate. Leaves very cuneate, sharp teeth from the base to the tip, which abruptly end in a short tail.
Flowers moderate, semi-double.
Sepals tomentose, but glabrescent on the back, entire, without glands throughout.
Styles glabrous united in a column.
Arvensis plant group, very remarkable for the shape of the leaflets."
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Ulf.
I've deleted my photo that I had in 'Gentiliana'.
Léveillé's 1918 illustration of the leaves was particularly telling. I am not sure that it would have been exactly botanically accurate as the bottom leaves seem rather weird. The top leaves I could accept as being a rose leaf.
I've contacted the Victoria State Rose Garden about their photo.
That now leaves David Elliott and Peter (in Switzerland) to move or delete their photos.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
31 DEC 13 by
jedmar
|
On the other hand, it is good to see the rose it is confused with, and where.
|
REPLY
|
|
Good morning to you Jedmar - and may we all have a 2014 as rewarding a year as was 2013.
I take your point. But perhaps it was the two glasses of bubbly pink stuff last night that is really muddling my mind this morning. I am going to make a foundling file for my rose and call it "113 R. gentiliana".
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
31 DEC 13 by
jedmar
|
Please note that R. cerasocarpa is not an accepted taxon. It is not listed in "Flora of China" or other newer sources. The naming sees to have occurred based on one or very few specimens, and not a broad study on site.
Rosa gentiliana Lév. & Van is seen today as a synonym of R. multiflora var. cathayensis.
Rosa gentiliana Rehd. & Will. is subsumed under Rosa henryi Boulenger.
Graham Thomas himself has admitted that he distributed 'Polyantha Grandiflora' mistakenly as R. gentiliana, although he does not state which R. gentiliana.
I would therefore not make a large issue of small differences in photos, until botanists have made further studies in China. It is more probable that a known cultivar, i.e. 'Polyantha Grandiflora' was distributed widely in commerce than obscure species.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
8 OCT 06 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I am looking for Rosa Polyantha but not Grandiflora.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
6 NOV 06 by
Cass
|
You might search under the synonym, Rosa multiflora 'Nana'. Several nursery sources are listed:
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/pl.php?n=19641&tab=1
--
Cass
|
REPLY
|
|
|
