HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Recent Member Comments, Questions and Answers
-
-
Initial post
3 JUN by
fenriz
|
i’ve found a rose which looks like a burnet rose but the petals are not white rather progressing into a light pink, no double flowers like some sorts. it was growing next to rosa canina bushes and other rose species.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
3 JUN by
fenriz
|
a classic yellow floribunda rose, the habit and growth are like a tea hybride straight up to 1 meter. leaves sometimes have SRT and aphids like her as well. nice citrus-smell or maybe this is a association of the yellow colour. the petals don’t fade much and are lasting just not on the plant. but i guess its better than mummies or brown leftovers. despite not being my favourite rose or a admirer of this kind of yellow roses, it makes good plant.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
22 SEP 14 by
 Jay-Jay
|
The German name means Night-Moth.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
1 JUN by
fenriz
|
moth is motte, falter means both butterfly and moth but rather the former.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
3 JUN by
jedmar
|
Falter means moth and Schmetterling is butterfly
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
3 JUN by
Jay-Jay
|
Motten essen Klamotten aus Wolle.
"Motten" in German are wool(-en clothing) eating insects...
I do not believe, a breeder would call such a beautiful and lovely smelling rose after that particular insect.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
3 JUN by
jedmar
|
No, wouldn't, but the english and german meanings are different:
Schmetterling (butterfly) specifically used for Tagfalter (butterfly); but also includes Nachtfalter (moth).
The Motte (moth) which subsist on textiles, grains etc, are actually also subgroup of Schmetterlinge, but no German would call them butterflies.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
3 JUN by
fenriz
|
Falter per definition means both, but rather a nachtfalter. As you have already written every night-active schmetterling is just a moth in english, which might have a negative connotation, as some are vermin. But does the group or even the word night-moth exist in english?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
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
2 JUN 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
3 JUN 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
3 JUN 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
3 JUN 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
|
|
|
