HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
jedmar 
-
NurseryDiscussion id : 172-858
-
|
Zieger and Sons Florists seems to be permanently closed. The link provided in the nursery lookup goes to what looks like a scam site or an old payment site.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
today by
jedmar
|
Yes, they seem to have been acquired by another wholesaler in October 2024, thank you! We are keeping their plant listing as Reference only.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
There does not seem to be a catologue for purchase of roses here. Seems to be a location for weddings, yoga, etc. I could not find anywhere to purchase roses on their site.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
today by
jedmar
|
Yes, it seems they have stopped selling roses.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The German name means Night-Moth.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
2 days ago by
fenriz
|
moth is motte, falter means both butterfly and moth but rather the former.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
today by
jedmar
|
Falter means moth and Schmetterling is butterfly
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
today 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
today 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
today 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
|
-
-
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
today 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
|
|
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
|
|
|
