'Complicata' now R. gallica x R. glauca?

Until quite recently I thought HMF stated that ‘Complicata’ was a R. gallica x R. canina (or closely related species from section ‘Caninae’). I’ve noticed it’s been updated to R. gallica x R. glauca complicata.

I know old genetic research had concluded it to be R. gallica x R. canina. Someone up to speed with these (recent?) updates. New genetic research maybe?

I’m using Complicata in some of my crossings. I find it to be an interesting rose with a nice and healthy habit. Nice green leaves also and few prickles. Sets hips readily also. So I just wondered if anyone had some story about this ancestry :slight_smile:


On the references tab, Museo Giardino della Rosa Antica, has the info. Doesnt seem to be glauca in the sense of what we call glauca today and there was a potential mix up as the current complicata plant doesn’t match early descriptions.


In my head I hadn’t stored R. glauca as being one of the Caninae section, but it appears it does. I really should double check before posting :sweat_smile:

There is reference that de “R. reuteri” could even be R. dumalis. But mainly looking at the shape of the leaves and stems of R. glauca, I can see the slight resemblance. The text also states that ‘Complicata’ would be more closely related to R. gallica. So it could be a back cross maybe? i.e. R.gallica x (R. gallica x R. glauca).

1 Like