I want to say also that in many cases piracy is done as much out of ignorance and apathy as outright deceit.
As far as many people are concerned.
“a rose, is a rose, is a rose”
I spoke with my partner, Alicia, just yesterday about this. I received a book from the UK (ironically enough ), of Australian-bred roses and it was quite depressing that first I had to go to the UK to find a book on Australian-bred roses… and secondly that at the time of print a very large percentage of them were considered extinct and when I think about how much work it takes to bring a rose to a point where you think it is worthy of introduction… I find it quite sad that it can be so transient. Alicia doesn’t believe that we should preserve every rose… that it’s just one of those things that we need to grin-and-bear and accept that things come and things go… my feeling was/is that when a rose is registered a selection should be sent to a central location where they can be grown as archive specimens. I published our school yearbook last year and was shocked that I had to send a copy of it to the state library for archiving purposes… so I figure why not have a national repository for registered roses… I know you don’t register everything, but then registering doesn’t mean you have to release it. It just secures a name and attaches it to this plant for always (or until someone loses all the labels ). Important roses like 0-47-19 could be registered and as a requirement of the registration plants could be sent to the ‘archives’ (I don’t know what you’d have to do to protect it from ‘theft’ and unsolicited commercial release… maybe that makes the whole thing unworkable ). If countries had their own ‘rose archive’ then they can look after roses registered in their own country and so reduce the overall burden but records could be part of an international database. For Australian’s, I feel the lose of all those Alister Clark roses is a national shame but he is just one of many breeders whose roses are becoming unavailable. I was also thinking that if properly managed (to a standard protocol) it could help prevent cases like the ‘Francis Dubrueil’ identification issue… the archive specimes would be the ‘archtype’ specimen for identification purposes too. Maybe it’s just too big a task too, or as Alicia thinks, maybe there are more important battles to be fought… who knows???
Robert, you mean like Softee being sold as the “found rose” Jefferson Rose, and even after positive ID has been pointed out to the retailer, it continues?
So, how do we go about creating what we all agree is a good thing?
I love your idea, Simon, but it costs far more than it would ever be worth. Books are one thing, living tissues are entirely different. In the grand scheme of things, incorrect identifications don’t amount to a hill of beans. Improving the lot of the whole does.
The cost thing is something Alicia said too… and my response to this was that there are not many other plants that are as historically important to humans as a whole than is the rose. It is intrinsically woven into the fabric of our evoltuion and so from a cultural POV I feel that it is something worthy of investing in at a govermental level. Most cultures have some reference to roses. Here in Australia, if you own a house over a certain age it becomes heritage listed and steps are taken to maintain the integrity of the structure in keeping with the period of its construction.
I’m not very practical when it comes to money… I don’t like anything about it… and have no interest in it (much to Alicia’s dismay 
), and so I tend to think well… sometimes there is more to something than just money…
Maybe with DNA technology advancing the way it is we will be able to set up a genetic database for roses in the near future so that varieties can be ‘reconstituted’ when and if required LOL
Yes, there is much more to everything than just money, however everything boils down to one thing…money. A century ago, the USDA spent money on not only studying roses, but breeding them for cold hardiness. Dr. Van Fleet and others worked for those programs and many of our early cold hardy climbers came from those efforts. There was money spent through the 1970s to support research concerning roses and effects of many factors on them. Even the ARS (feh!) supported those efforts financially. Have you ever read of USDA Gold? It was a golden flowered, blackspot resisant HT which they made, a long with another (red, I think) variety, available to rose breeders. I doubt if either of them still exist. These programs, like so many other worthy programs, died due to their costing more than they were valued.
Consider this: Ralph Moore has been gone only a few months, and although he made carefully thought out arrangements archive his work at TAMU (and in the hands of a few private individuals) already Texas A&M is unsure where the funding to continue maintaining this unique and valuable collection will come from. They have used up allotted funds just to transport and establish the archive of Moore roses! Ralph considered his roses safe with TAMU and yet already it seems they have an uncertain future there.
Commercially introduced roses are, in a way, more at risk than proprietary breeding plants. Its easy to think that a rose that is produced in the tens of thousands today will still be everywhere in 20 years. As we know, sometimes a rose can vanish from commerce in a decade or less, at which time the only archivists are the people who bought plants and still have them in their own gardens. We also know that the majority of commercial releases are only passing through the gardens of the world, and only a small percentage are deemed to be worth keeping by their caretakers after a decade or less. Case in point; I used to love ‘The Mayor of Casterbridge’ and had it for quite a few years. But it grew ungainly with maturity: bolt upright with 70% of its foliage out of reach of my sprayer wand, and so it succumbed to disease all too often. This year, I dig it out in favor of something sturdier, more reliable. I’ve had it for only about 8 or 9 years, and now I am showing it the door.
But the proprietary breeding plants often end up in the hands of people who know their value and make an extra effort to preserve the germplasm. Well, I’d like to think that is what happens…I know that is how I have handled the plants I have acquired that other breeders have shared. I always have at least two plants of each for backup purposes, often a third or fourth in containers, ready to replace one in case of accidents. The average gardener doesn’t do that, but I do. I expect many of the RHA members do something similar, or I hope they do, anyway. If we are to collect data about valuable roses, it is these proprietary breeders I feel we should be archiving more than any. Protect what genetically unique materials you have at your disposal. Without things like Moore’s 1-72-1, Magseed, 0-47-19, and some of Robert Basye’s exceptional roses the efforts of many people, myself included would be very, very different, and genetically much poorer than they are.
That’s my 2 cents worth.
Poorer, absolutely. Decades behind, definitely.
I guess I’m a little naive when it comes to this whole idea of preserving the history and work of others. Some how I thought that was a function of the ARS.
“I guess I’m a little naive when it comes to this whole idea of preserving the history and work of others. Some how I thought that was a function of the ARS.”
That was a joke, right?
Jeff, the ARS was initially a group of florists. It was a trade organization. They exist to promote membership in their organization, which like many, is dying.
Paul and Kim:
Guess I made a bad assumption. I was going on things that I have heard about them (the ARS). So with that idea, shot to hell, I think I’ll sit back and watch the input from you guys that have been doing this for years. But it makes me wonder if a great rosarian like Mr. Moore can’t keep his legacy going at an institution like TAMU, then who knows what will happen.
Dr. Basye couldn’t keep his going at TAMU, even though it was funded. By the time anyone held the chair, the collection was half dead and unlabeled. Dr. Byrne has little hope of ever sorting that out. Fortunately for us, a handful of his roses have been spread around. Ralph felt sure this would assure continuation of his work. It appears the only way to do this is to have an hier to take it over, then it’s a toss up whether it goes a full generation or not. Universities want the material for one reason…MONEY. I don’t doubt the motives of people like David Byrne. He’s a good guy and I believe in a perfect situation, could make use of the roses, at least with under graduates. It’s the institution that’s the snag. Again, it’s all money. Once money is given, say good bye to it and what you hoped it would be used for. I’ve seen it time and time again, but in this case, TAMU was promised a million plus. They received a tenth of that.
Sequoia lasted as long as it did and was what it was because it was Ralph’s HOBBY. His obsession. It ran out of his back pocket and it went the direction he wanted. That will not happen to that extent again. It costs too much.
Breed your roses. If you have children, try to interest them or someone else who is likeminded about them with you in continuing them. Unless you can create a money machine with it, it’s doomed to go with you. Who says you can’t take it with you? Very little outlasts a person.
Kim, that is brilliantly put! Bravo.