|
|
'Betty Bugnet' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
The description notes indicate that the rose was bred “before 1946”. Was 1946 the year this rose was introduced? Or was it introduced in 1957 (the other date that is mentioned in the description.). Thanks!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
14 DEC 23 by
 jedmar
|
We need to add some concrete references ro this listing. Before 1946 would be the date when the crossing was made or the rose first bloomed. 1957 can be introduction year, or registration year.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
14 DEC 23 by
Lee H.
|
Whilst reviewing the available online references for ‘Betty Bugnet’, I encountered this Brian Porter article from the 1997 Canadian Rose annual, claiming Betty to be a nearly thornless rose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Where is the Université d'Orléans references? This Bugnet timeline is confusing to me :[
|
REPLY
|
|
Michael
You are right. The reference to Universite d'Orleans seems to be out of context with this rose. I have a poor quality photo copy of Bugnet's breeding notes as well as a copy of Andre Imbeault's report on same. I'll double check but I am fairly certain there was no University d'Orleans involved in this cross.
|
REPLY
|
|
It has to be the rose just called 'Unversity'. Take a look at the file, and I'll change the parentage from Université d'Orléans to 'University'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, 'University' was a mixture of miscellaneous pollen, Bugnet collected from the grounds of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Betty Bugnet
Referring again to the same Bugnet letter mentioned above, he states "is a daughter of Therese Bugnet." Therefore I would say that the seed parent should be listed as 'Therese Bugnet'.
As to the pollen parent, we thus far have no definitive statement on this. Georges' daughter wrote to Roger Vick that it is "unknown" and so I suggest that be the way we presently record it.
Communication from Arnold Pittao
|
REPLY
|
|
