The same picture is in Fuchs' De Historia Stirpium p. 657 (1542). It is not colored, and the flower at the top center is the same as that on the left top. Both semi-double. Same hips, same prickles, same sepals. In the 1542 version this illustration is identified as ROSA and Rosen. Nothing more.

This is a very interesting picture: it was copied in various books from the 16th century. Of course, it appears in all versions of Leonhart Fuchs' herbal, but also in the early versions of Dodoens' herbal, incl. the 1578 translation by Henry Lyte (but not in Lyte's edition of 1586). Also in the herbal by Hieronymus Bock (edition of 1572) the same picture is used, although enhanced with more red flowers and even showing a spider web. The Dodoens and Bock versions of the picture are mirrored with respect to Fuchs' figure. Interestingly, in a colored version of Dodoens herbal, of 1554, all flowers are painted white!
It is somewhat of a puzzle to me why the left side of the picture shown here should be Rosa canina and the right side should be rosa gallica. Does this information come from www.waimann.de ? Fuchs clearly writes that the figure is a generic picture of a rose: The German text (1543) reads "Der Rosen seind zweyerley geschlecht fürnemlich / zam unn wild. ... Wir haben beyderley geschlecht under einer form des gemäls begriffen." In English this means something like: "There are mostly two kinds of roses, domestic and wild. ... We have shown the form of both kinds in a single picture."
Thus, as I understand it, this figure is not the picture of any specific rose. In Fuch's original Latin edition of 1542 the figure caption is just "Rosa - Rosen".