Amateur Hybridizers in Weeks Catalog

Plant Patents
, , , , , , , , , ,
1

Hello everyone,

I’m doing some research into the Weeks catalog, and made a list of the hybridizers listed. Can people help me to correctly identify the hybridizers listed as either amatuers/professionals? If someone was an amateur when they started hybridizing roses, but changed to a professional at a later date, please let me know that as well?

Also, who out there are considered to be the best known/successful amateur hybridizers, and what rose(s) are they most famous for creating?

Thanks,

Andy

Total - 75 hybridizers listed

Amateurs - 18 (5 sports)

Dykstra

Earman

James

Morey

Pottschmidt

Scrivens

Sheridan

Spies

Strickland

Tracy

Warner

Weddle

Winchel

Desamero - Sport

Johnston - Sport

Lowe - Sport

Swane - Sport

Weatherly - Sport

Not Sure (probably professional)- 5

Buck

Lens

Maladrone

Orard

Radler

Professionals - 44

Adam

Basye

Baum

Bédard

Boerner

Brownell

Bugnet

Cant

Cants

Carruth

Chabert

Chaffin

Christiansen

Cocker

Coiner

Conrad-Pyle

Clollicutt

Davidson

de Ruiter

DeVor

Fryer

Harkness

Holmes

Kordes

Kriloff

Lammerts

Lim

Linquist

McGredy

Meilland

Moore

Mother Nature

NIRP International

Noak

Olesen

Saville

Schwartz

Svejda

Swim

Tantau

Twomey

Warriner

Weeks

Zary

Pre 1950 - 8

Bentall - 1932

Callay - 1932

Cochet-Cochet - 1892

Dreer - 1930

Hammarberg - 1931

Hosp - 1894

Longley - 1949

Schaum & Van Tol - 1905

2

Hi Andy,

That is a good question. We can categorize people based on if rose breeding is their profession or not, but it may not encompass what practical things we are trying to capture. There is a lot of grey in between amateur and professional. Typically people think of professionals are ones that are hired by or own a company in order to accomplish the breeding work and earn their living from the work. Another aspect in the midst of it is ones formal training in breeding and genetics. Dr. Buck was highly trained with his doctorate and did great genetic work and introduced cultivars, but definitely he did not earn his living from the money his roses brought in. Most were not patented and the income flow back to cover costs was not the motive. If business was the focus the program would probably have been shut down as not being profitable. The greater good of the nursery industry and horticulture in the Midwest and beyond was. So, for income, Dr. Buck would not fall under a professional category although he had greater formal training and experience in breadth of roses than many hired by companies and can be considered professional from that extent. Bill Radler was trained as a landscape architect and was the director of Boerner Botanical Garden. He saw a need and niche the traditional professional breeders being guided by their boards of directors/stockholders/etc. did not have the vision for or maybe freedom to pursue and he has blown them away with highly sought after roses with great advances in plant health.

Maybe if you are interested in categorizing these people, incorporating educational background, if rose breeding was their primary income source, etc. would bring in a broader picture. The take home point I love is that we can pursue our passions and continue to learn and achieve great advances no matter if someone is paying us to do something or if our understanding came through a formal program or our own guided learning taking advantage of resources at our disposal. This is just a side note and I am not trying to imply anything regarding rose breeders, but it definitely has made sense in hiring committees I’ve been a part of at the university, especially sometimes in hindsight. Work experience is great, but just because someone got paid to do something does not necessarily mean they have the capacity to do it well. On hiring committees we try to do as much background work as possible with references and other means to try to understand the greater picture of ones skills.

3

[size=medium]Andy,

If you can provide a criterion by which we can differentiate the “amateur” from the “professional,” we might try. But I’m not sure that it’s possible, even if we accept that all those on your list are people.

Bill Radler, for example, clearly began as an “amateur” but has had so many successful introductions that he might be considered as a “professional” since he makes his living by breeding roses (and is interested in other plants too). Before retirement, John Pottschmidt made his living as a medical doctor–breeding roses was and is a side interest for him.

Griffith Buck was a college professor. He taught courses, and his salary did not depend on the roses he bred. Was he a professional? an amateur?

Ernie Schwartz would have been amazed to be classified as a professional rose hybridizer. Did you mean some other Schwartz?

Dennison Morey was the director of research and breeder for a rose company (J&P, I think) for a short time.

Mother Nature has been around for a while and dabbles in all sorts of breeding, of people and roses and other things too. A devout amateur, Mother Nature refuses royalties on originations and introductions; often collaborates with Honey Bee and other pollen-transporters.

NIRP International is not a breeder of anything–so maybe not even an amateur, although its management tries to make sure it will survive financially. Ditto for other corporations listed.

You list Meilland, Kordes, Olesen, Tantau, McGredy, etc–but you don’t say which member of the family. Was the founder of the dynasty an amateur?

What about people who were gardeners for large estates, and bred or grew roses just because they were interested in seeing what happened when they planted the seeds?

What about people who owned small nurseries and made their living mostly by selling fruit trees and vines, but did a bit of rose breeding?

One or more of those credited as breeders in your list got listed simply because of their position in an organization, not because they actually bred any roses.

Although most “professionals” began as “amateurs,” is it possible for a professional to become an amateur again by retiring and simply breeding roses for the love of breeding roses, and the fun of seeing what happens when roses are cross-pollinated?

Peter[/size]

4

I remember several years ago when we (the RHA executive board) were trying to determine the criteria to be eligible for the RHA seedling trophy awarded at the ARS Fall National Rose Show. We didn’t want it to be awarded to “professionals”, but that boiled down to who was one. Some were fairly obvious at the time, Tom Carruth at Weeks, Keith Zary at J&P, etc, but there were a lot that were questionable. We finally settled on a fairly simple definition of a “professional” - as one who receives a salary for his or her work. So in this manner, we felt that anyone who did draw a salary would have the integrity to not vie for this trophy. This left all the rest of us as “amateurs”, which is where it has been since the trophy was instituted. To me, this is still a valid way to view hybridizers, for as Peter mentions there are so many possibilities.