This variety has been used in studies on blackspot resistance in diploid roses and is listed as a R. wichuraiana hybrid. So it seems more likely the parentage is incorrectly reported given that these studies have sequenced the rose.
Another possibility is that there are two different varieties in circulation under this name. One being diploid, the other tetraploid.
But either way, given the commonness of misreported pedigree in cultivars I would be more inclined to believe the report that has been sequenced fully for use in studies over an assumption based on reported parentage until further results have been obtained to settle the matter one way or another
Well, I'm more inclined to say that the studies used an incorrectly labeled rose. R. carolina and Hugh Dickson are both tetraploid, and neither carry R. wichur(ai)ana. Sure, they could very well have sequenced the rose, but if "the rose" they sequenced wasn't this one, then the results wouldn't apply to this rose. And simply looking at the rose itself, I see no indication of R. wichur(ai)ana ancestry -- blooms are not clustered, habit is not lax, and foliage is not "wich-y".
J06-20-14-3 -- what does this reference? I would like to see the entire study -- all I can read is a one paragraph summary posted in the references.
The full article plus the article from which the statement is derived (Characterization of Partial Resistance to Black Spot Disease of Rosa sp.) are available online. Both are too technical to include in HMF
