Editor's Note in October American Rose

Mary Fulgham’s hybridizing article entitled “Crossing in the Shallow End” is reprinted in the October American Rose. The article is an Award of Merit Winner reprinted from the Houston Rose Society’s newsletter, Houston Rosette. On page 27, following the article, is an “Editor’s Note” which includes contact information so interested people can look up RHA. It is not clear which of the several editors is responsible for the note, but it also, unfortunately, includes the following words: “We do not recommend hybridizing with patented roses.”

Does this unnamed editor know something the rest of the world does not know about rose hybridizing and plant patents?

May I propose an Award of Merit for the Editor’s Note?

Such comments leave me speechless, or at least I am better off if I pretend to be speechless.

Thanks for the heads up on the good article.

Well, let’s play devil’s advocate. Maybe there is a reason to not using patent roses. They may carry certain genes that are valuable. For example, it took Ralph Moore 20 years to get repeating mini mosses, but I could just make a cross of his roses ‘Dresden Doll’ and ‘Scarlet Moss’ and get a mossed seedling within a few months with all the characteristics Mr. Moore painstakingly worked for. I do not need to start at the most bottom level of hybridizing. You know, starting from crossing with the once blooming moss roses with floribundas, then cross the offspring to another floribunda, and then hybridizing the grandchild seedling to the mother seedling, and so on.

I do not agree with that statement, but I see a possible reason. I could remember a few years back on the older Sequoia Nursery website that it asked costumer’s to not send not only propogation material overseas, but pollen as well. Anyone else remember?

There has been lot of discussion on the Garden Web about PROPAGATING patented roses. One could give the editor the benefit of doubt that this was on his/her mind. But this thread is a super reminder to all “new” hybridizers that the restrictions of propagation does not include the use of pollen.

There is talk that with gene spliced plant material, the developers feel that they have the right to prevent the use of their gene spliced plants in hybridizing.

I was surprised to see a notation on Ralph Moore’s roses that said that pollen and/or sports were covered by his patents…didn’t know that one!

I don’t think there ever was such a statement about pollen from Ralph Moore’s patented roses. No patent covers the use of pollen.


Okay I finially found the older homepage of Sequioa. Okay it doesn’t say pollen, but it does mention that about seeds not being shipped overseas. Here is the link, and look for the fine print:

Asexual reproduction of these plants without license or written permission from Ralph Moore is prohibited. No plants, cuttings, seeds or budding eyes of patented or protected varieties are to be exported from the U.S.A. without written permission.

I knew I remember about this because I thought that it was sort of queer to not able to send seeds overseas. I just mistakened pollen with seeds. Still I find it odd to not able to send seeds from one of the patented Halo roses, or Scarlet Moss to someone else abroad. Can’t see any harm in that.

Now that we are talking about this–

Should genes be patented? What is your belief?

Link: www.miniatureroses.com/sequoia-nursery/welcome.htm