Feedback request: Rosa canina x rubiginosa = R. x nitidula (200705111003_4233)

[Ithillion]

This post was made automatically in response to a request for comment on the documentation form. There is more general info about such requests here.

Specimen #236887

Taxon:	Rosaceae: Rosa canina x rubiginosa = R. x nitidula Besser
Filed in taxon folder:	Rosaceae: Rosa canina x rubiginosa = R. x nitidula Besser
Collected by:	Mr Anthony Hurt Wolley Dod
Collection date:	30/7/1906
Locality:	Great Britain, VC58 Cheshire, Kidnal, SJ4749
Institution:	Aberystwyth University Herbarium (ABS)
Image:
fruits/flowers:	mature flowers
notes:	I am unable to name this Rose. I suggest hybridity with R. rubiginosa mainly on account of the presence of acicles on the flowering branches below the origin of the peduncles. R. larebrosa, Déségl., is said to have this characteristic, but differs in other important points, and several continental species are similar, but i cannot make them accord with the present one. The fact that only a small proportion of the fruit ever ripens, though of course no proof, favours the hybrid theory, and another, though even less important point, is the fact that the plant almost monopolizes about 15 yards of hedge row just as R. hibernica does in the Wirral Peninsula, but whether this is due to the effort to reproduce itself by root-runners, in defect of good fruit, or to the spinosissima influence in the hibernica hybrid, I cannot say. R. Robertsoni in Surrey behaves in the same way, but not other hybrids I have seen where there is no spinosissima, which is certainly absent from the present plant. Against the rubiginosa parentage is the fact that the glands on the leaves, though abundant enough, are very firm and scentless, those of that specie being very conspicuous, and turning darker on drying. The colour of the petals is a very pale rose. -- A. H. WOLLEY-DOD. "The very regular hooked prickles and the rosy tint of the leaves point to micrantha as one parent, and Major Wolley-Dod's suggestion of latebrosa as the other may well be correct." --A. LEY. "I should guess R. canina, L., to be the other parent." --E. S. MARSHALL.

Documented by ithillion on 23^rd September 2007.

Checked by tom humphrey

Edit history

date	user	change
03/10/2007	tom humphrey	Deleted collection date: 30/8/1906
03/10/2007	tom humphrey	Added collection date: 30/7/1906
04/01/2010	CLL	Deleted note: I am unable to name this Rose. I suggest hybridity with R. rubiginosa mainly on account of the presence of acicles on the flowering branches below the origin of the peduncles. R. larebrosa, Déségl., is said to have this characteristic, but differs in other important points, and several continental species are similar, but i cannot make them accord with the present one. The fact that only a small proportion of the fruit ever ripens, though of course no proof, favours the hybrid theory, and another, though even less important point, is the fact that the plant almost monopolizes about 15 yards of hedge row just as R. hibernica does in the Wirral Peninsula, but whether this is due to the effort to reproduce itself by root-runners, in defect of good fruit, or to the spinosissima influence in the hibernica hybrid, I cannot say. R. Robertsoni in Surrey behaves in the same way, but not other hybrids I have seen where there is no spinosissima, which is certainly absent from the present plant. Against the rubiginosa parentage is the fact that the glands on the leaves, though abundant enough, are very firm and scentless, those of that specie being very conspicuous, and turning darker on drying. The colour of the petals is a very pale rose. -- A. H. WOLLEY-DOD. "The very regular hooked prickles and the rosy tint of the leaves point to micrantha as one parent, and Major Wolley-Dod's suggestion of latebrosa as the other may well be correct." --A. LEY. "I should guess R. canina, L., to be the other parent." --E. S. MARSHALL.
04/01/2010	CLL	Added note: I am unable to name this Rose. I suggest hybridity with R. rubiginosa mainly on account of the presence of acicles on the flowering branches below the origin of the peduncles. R. larebrosa, Déségl., is said to have this characteristic, but differs in other important points, and several continental species are similar, but i cannot make them accord with the present one. The fact that only a small proportion of the fruit ever ripens, though of course no proof, favours the hybrid theory, and another, though even less important point, is the fact that the plant almost monopolizes about 15 yards of hedge row just as R. hibernica does in the Wirral Peninsula, but whether this is due to the effort to reproduce itself by root-runners, in defect of good fruit, or to the spinosissima influence in the hibernica hybrid, I cannot say. R. Robertsoni in Surrey behaves in the same way, but not other hybrids I have seen where there is no spinosissima, which is certainly absent from the present plant. Against the rubiginosa parentage is the fact that the glands on the leaves, though abundant enough, are very firm and scentless, those of that specie being very conspicuous, and turning darker on drying. The colour of the petals is a very pale rose. -- A. H. WOLLEY-DOD. "The very regular hooked prickles and the rosy tint of the leaves point to micrantha as one parent, and Major Wolley-Dod's suggestion of latebrosa as the other may well be correct." --A. LEY. "I should guess R. canina, L., to be the other parent." --E. S. MARSHALL.
04/01/2010	CLL	Deleted locality: GB VC58 Kidnal
04/01/2010	CLL	Added locality: GB VC58 Kidnal SJ4749

N.B. reporting of the edit history is currently fairly unclear and misleading. Most edits made to specimens appear as a pair of 'add' and 'delete' entries, which may not be together in the list. There are also often 'minor' edits, which are made automatically (rather than due to user activity), for example to merge synonym names.

Log-in to edit this sheet.

User comments about this sheet

ithillion wrote

Most petals were gone on the flowers. There was little information about the identifyer or on the sites.