Michael,
Can you explain the difference between dwarf and miniature? Also, if you remember off the top of your head could you name a few dwarfs that I could look up on HMF? Thanks in advance.
Rob
Philip,
ItââŹâ˘s possible that a (R.glauca x diploid) could be fertile. I just re-read a paper by Isabelle Preston that states she had an open pollinated seedling of an (R.glauca x R.rugosa) plant. So it is possible that they can set seed and produce seedlings.
Here is a link to a site that has lots of good information where you can read the papers Iâve mentioned and others.
http://bulbnrose.org/Roses/breeding/rose_brd.htm
In a cross of R.glauca x repeat blooming diploid, R.glauca would contribute (3) non-repeat bloom alleles to the offspring and the diploid would contribute (1) repeat bloom allele. So the offspring would have (3) non- repeat and (1) repeat bloom alleles. Assuming that the 1st generation offspring had normal meiosis, 50% of its pollen and eggs would have one allele for repeat bloom and 50% would have none. Self pollination or crossing of two 1st generation plants would result in 25% without any repeat bloom alleles, 50% with one and 25% with two in the 2nd generation offspring. The 2nd generation offspring with two repeat bloom alleles would still have two non-repeat bloom alleles so they wouldnââŹâ˘t have repeat bloom either. So after 2 generations you still donât have offspring any with repeat bloom. This is going to be a longer term endeavor than you thought.
Could R. glauca work as a pollen parent to pollinate a diploid, then? Any examples of this succeeding? One could recover rebloom much more quickly.
Iâm thinking of David Zâs Candy Oh x R. glauca. Probably too wide of a cross to take, eh?
Probably too wide of a cross to take, eh?
Never say never. If it was easy then we would be doing something else.
The greatest potential gains are from the widest, most difficult crosses. The closer, easier crosses are what Ralph termed, âstirring the potâ. Nothing new ever comes from pot stirring. Not all ânewâ things are beneficial, but the only way to obtain beneficials is to weed through all the awful things mined from far reaching combinations.
Joe,
Yes it could be possible to use R.glauca as the pollen parent with a diploid repeat blooming rose and that may be an easier route than the other way around. But using R.glauca as the pollen parent will also reduce how much influence it has on the seedlings and they will look a lot less like R.glauca than using it as the seed parent.
I had read that the dog roses were bridge roses. Meaning they could act as a bridge between species that didnââŹâ˘t normally cross pollinate because they would cross with most things. My experience with R.glauca is that this is not always the case. Last year I tried R.glauca on both Marie Pavie and La Marne and got just a couple hips, few seeds and no seedlings. Though five years ago I had some R.blanda seedlings that to me had R.glauca features and IââŹâ˘ve read of R.glauca pollen taking on R.rugosa, so R.glauca seams to take on members of the Cinnamomae section easier than members of the Synstylae section. Here is a picture of leaves from a R.blanda on the left, R.glauca on the right and an R.blanda seedling in the middle.
[attachment 373 leafcomparison800x600.jpg]
You could certainly try some R.glauca pollen on Candy Oh Hi Vivid Red to see what happens, you may have better luck than I had. Like they say nothing ventured nothing gained.
Would be interesting to do a DNA Strip on a Caninae species or cultivar ( Albaâs) with their unusual septet configuration (4+ 1, 4+2 or 5+1). Then do a strip on the pollen and seed gametes to see where everything goes, This could be interesting when determining which way you would cross
I stopped worrying and just cross.
That was a common thread through two and a half decades of conversations with Ralph. âThe rose will find the way.â He might determine the ploidy just out of interest, but he otherwise ignored them. If it didnât work one way, it would another, or in another season. He had many decades, but time usually proved him right.
I think it is wise, with the added note that if somethign is with the grain and quicker, that that might be even wiser.
Regarding Caninae, which I have many hybrids of, I once did Rosa canina x Rosa multiflora. What a mess! I still have one by accident. It was left on my familyâs property. They were 100% identical, which were all runted multiflora replicas. It was not expected. I was merely seeing if I could breed a rootstock, because I was bored and curious. Yeah, uhm⌠stems about as wide as pencil lead! The one that was accidently kept is about 1â x 1â, albeit healthy, and it has never bloomed. My only assumption was complete genetic incompatibility, lol, which may explain why I dont see canina/multiflora hybrids spread in the wild here, since theyre both ânaturalizedâ.
A little known truth that rocket scientist are aware of is once your work bench is (conditioned) the little black box works. Most of the time just in that spot. The same thing could apply to plants. These roses are just going to do what they want and I`m along for the ride. I keep saying, show me what you got, and sooner I hope they will start trying harder. Neil
Right⌠My F2 should have read F3 as I was considering the F2 of the first cross, and not the glauca. So after many years and several crosses, I can count on 1/16 of the F3âs being useless. Ugh.
An interesting article on the allopolyploid speciation of caninae for the nerds among us who like to try and decipher such stuff:
After learning of the concept of alloploids, I wondered if the caninae might have arisen through allopolyploid speciation, so I googled it. Not that such affects what we know with regards to hybridizing, but interesting nonetheless. It provides an interesting route for cladogenesis, but as the species quickly reach stasis, I donât think there are really any additional implications for hybridizers considering using the dog roses.
I am not sure who it was, but there is this chaps therory that all roses evolved from a single artic decaploid rose dropping ploidy numbers as they interbred, and then there is the other therory, that ploidy numbers increased as they interbred. Its all sort of like the Astro Physicists two therorys of the expanding and contracting universe.
But honestly, the way I look at it, does it matter what ploidy rose you use, if it gives you the results your after and its fertile in one way or an other, thats the important thing.
The best lessons about breeding come from other breeders. He may not have used the species itself directly but Wilhelm Kordes II thought enough of the caninae R. rubignosa to produce Obergärtner Wiebicke, Goldbusch, Cläre Grammerstorf and Maiwunder.
The rare Cläre has been put to work by some of our members. Maiwunder looks like it makes more carotenoids than Cläre but, alas, is only listed in a single garden in Germany.
If anybody in the USA has a copy of Maiwunder Iâd be happy to take some OP seeds off of your hands next season.
I did try Gelber Engel pollen, which is supposedly 1/4 CG. I believe it stuck. Likewise, my various caninae hybridsâ pollen stuck on modern tetraploids and switch-hitter triploids (Bonica, for example).
Don a few years ago I did this cross, one of mine Mimas X Maigold and got this. Flowers like a beaut and gets covered in hips,
[attachment 379 003.jpg]
I like diploids as they tend to be healthier, but most moderns are tetraploid and they do have thicker petals and leaves. I prefer final products to be triploid, as they have the best of both worlds and they usually donât waste much energy making hips. An example, I made a Carefree Beauty x Old Blush which I like. Carefree Beauty 4x and Old Blush 2x are both good plants, but they spend a lot of energy making hips, which for me is fine but most consumers donât care about hips. I crossed them and got a triploid that looks very much like CB except that it produces more flowers and no hips. Better final product. Carry diploid lines and tetraploid lines and cross them when you want a final product. Not an original thought, but there you have it.
Charles I found when using Teaâs X Mod Tet , I get very full doubles. Some retain their reproductive organs , but a lot go extreme doubles, with stamens and sometimes stigmaâs being converted to petaloids. I did a Safrano X Gold Bunny and kept three, a single, double and a full double. The full double has its reproductive organs replaced with petaloids.
[attachment 380 017.jpg]
[attachment 381 020.jpg]
[attachment 382 SAFBUN01.jpg]
A couple of years back I did R. glauca x (Several different roses). I did hundreds of crosses literally. The majority failed. Most were definetly selfs. But about 30% to 20% or so showed morphology especially in the leaves and thorns that differened from R. glauca enough to call them hybrids. The ones that looked like pure glauca or close enough I weeded out. Out of these 20 seedlings only two survive now. Most of the rest had genetic issues that prevented them from growing well. The crosses I did was with some multifloras, woodsii, miniature roses and some floribundas. The two the survived just happen to be from hips that lost their tags (Ainât that always the way). I think one of them is probably from pollen of R. woodsii; because I done enough crosses with it that I can begin to see it charcteristic in all of its seedlings. The other I would say is from a miniature but I can not be certain if its dwarf size is from a miniature gene or from some genetic instability. I am still waiting for blooms; hopefully year three is the magic number.
This past summer I did a number of crosses using R. glauca as a pollen parent. I used it on several tetraploid miniatures, Tom Thumb, some rugosas and on R. foliolosa. Only the R. foliolosa set seed with the pollen. But I also did not make any where near as many crosses because I have only so much room for things that wonât bloom for several years. And most of that room is being taken up by several other species crosses. I have high hopes for these seedlings. They just started to come up last week. Hopefully they are crosses. In the past I have tried selfing the form of R. foliolosa I have and it has not produced much if any seed so I am very hopeful.
Hi Adam, looks like you done a fair bit of work there, you should see the results soon. Those species you have worked with I have not seen or worked with them yet to add any comment, but oneday I may.
I think a lot of species, especially the singles shed pollen when the flower is quite young, so the chance of selfing is quite high. I was doing some work with single rugosaâs and it did not click why the crosses were not working out and all offspring looked like mum. A few years ago while pollinating a rugosa whose petals were still fused together, I started to cut the anthers off for pollination and Lo and behold pollen was being shed in large quantities. Now when I cut the anthers I tip the bloom to one side so they fall away from the stigmaâs and be a lot more gentle.