First timer UK advice?

Unfortunately, not all breeders share the lineage of their roses. Many do and where they are available, they have been posted to HMF. Some feel that information “proprietary”, such as the Austin machine. A number of European sources have shielded their breeding information for some time. But, you can also find out if the roses in question have produced further offspring from the “Parentage” tab on the rose pages. Just because there are no offspring listed doesn’t mean they might not be useful. It just means either no one has thought to have used them, or they haven’t shared the results.

Thank you Peter for this very key information! I shall set my mind to it tomorrow when i get some time!

Unless I am reading you incorrectly, there are lineages for most of your roses on HMF (Help Me FInd). This is a copied version of the bloodline (lineage) of Diamond Jubilee. Check out SITE USES.
RANK PARENT BLOOD LINE PCT

  1. Isabella Gray 75%
  2. Feu Pernet-Ducher 50%
  3. Maréchal Niel (tea noisette, Pradel 1864) 50%
  4. Julien Potin 25%
  5. Margaret McGredy 25%
  6. The Queen Alexandra Rose (hybrid tea, McGredy, 1918) 25%
  7. Chromatella 18.75%
  8. Souvenir de Claudius Pernet 12.5%
  9. Constance (pernetiana, Pernet-Ducher, 1915) 6.25%
  10. Lamarque 4.69%
  11. Rayon d’Or (Pernetiana, Pernet-Ducher, 1910) 3.13%
  12. Madame Mélanie Soupert 1.56%
  13. Soleil d’Or 1.56%
  14. Antoine Ducher (hybrid perpetual, Ducher, 1866) 1.17%
  15. Rosa foetida f. persiana hort. ex Rehder < 1%
  16. Champneys’ Pink Cluster < 1%
  17. Madame Domage < 1%
  18. Blush Noisette < 1%
  19. Parks’ Yellow Tea-scented China < 1%
  20. Rosa chinensis Jacq. < 1%
  21. Rosa moschata Herrm. < 1%

I thought what was being referred to, Jackie, is the lack of parentage information about the newer European roses selected for the breeding.

Thanks Jackie! I feel there may have been a problem with accessing HMF on mobile. I also, as far as I can tell, have a different Diamond Jubilee to that listed here. In the UK we had a new one introduced in 2012 of the same name by Marks and Spencer ( I think!). It is not the pale yellow shown on HMF, and most likely not from such an illustrious line. I started a new thread for it in case I am wrong (or even if I’m right).

It is very kind of you however, to go to the trouble of copying that out for me. I shall look again on my desktop and see what comes up.

All best,
Jake

Dr. Lammerts (1945) recommended “scientific breeding”, which he described as (AxB) x (AxC). In this case, A is a particularly fine rose that lacks a little something. B is chosen because it has something A lacks, and C is chosen because it has something else A could use. By crossing the best of the (AxB) seedlings with the best of the (AxC) seedlings, one has a fair chance of getting an improved version of A. Or so he wrote.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/Lammerts/Lammerts_yellow.html

Many of the more popular rose varieties have been used to breed further varieties. From these we may choose numerous examples of (AxB), (AxC), (AxD), etc. to use for further breeding. This can save us a year’s work since the initial crosses are already done. For example, ‘Diamond Jubilee’ was raised from ‘Marechal Niel’ x ‘Feu Pernet-Ducher’; and ‘Paul’s Lemon Pillar’ came from ‘Frau Karl Druschki’ x ‘Marechal Niel’. Crossing DJ x PLP (or the reverse) might give something similar to ‘Marechal Niel’, but hardier and probably larger.

Inbreeding depression can be a problem, but is not so overwhelming bad as some have supposed. If a hybrid is forced to self-pollinate, there is usually a drop in vigor among the F2 offspring. Howevever, as Mangelsdorf (1952) found, in a cross-pollinated plant such as corn, the F3 generation is not less vigorous than the F2. Furthermore, if only the best specimens of the F2 are chosen to produce seed, the F3 generation can be even more vigorous (on average) than the F2.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Mangelsdorf/MangelVigor1952/MangelVigor1952.html

In this we may point to ‘Independence’ which was raised from (Baby Chateau x Crimson Glory) x (Baby Chateau x Crimson Glory). No doubt Kordes selected two of the best seedlings from the initial cross, which he then bred together to give something even better.

Somewhat similarly, ‘Gloire Lyonnaise’ was raised from (Baroness Rothschild x Mme. Falcot) x Mme. Falcot.

The parentage of ‘Sea Foam’ is even more complicated: [(White Dawn x Pinocchio) x (White Dawn x Pinocchio)] x (White Dawn x Pinocchio)
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/HuttonSeaFoam1977.html

PARENT BLOOD LINE PCT is a biased tool as it is calculated as if there were average progenies with no selection pressure.

Consider the small percent of selectable plants in our seedling population. Among the very highest selection pressure experienced.

On the contrary strong selection was applied at each generation for a few features that every breeder was looking for. At any time mostly the same. So that best breeders features were carried on and genetical uniformity enhanced much more than percents blood line show.

I guess it is ambiguous, but I always interpret something like (Baby Chateau x Cr Gl) x (BCxCrGl) as simply a self seedling. The probability of having two really good complementary seedlings from exactly the same cross is low. It takes work to make the second generation cross, whereas selfing is more or less spontaneous. Breeders keep records in different ways, but for instance Mendel would have gotten F2 by selfing, not deliberate crossing of 2 F1 as his peas were self-fertilizing flower by flower. For wheat on the other hand it would be pollen of one flower on another, but same plant. For brassicas generally it would have to be as you say, two different crossed seedlings, being deliberately crossed again, because there is self-incompatibility. Most hybrid roses are self-compatible, unless they are close to the species parents (for some species).

This doesn’t detract from the point being made of combining good traits by doing half-sib matings.

Pierre, you are absolutely right. I was just trying to think how to say this. We are not looking at unbiased progeny, but transgressive segregants in most cases.

Introgression may pump up desirable traits, even including vigor, but it always comes at the cost of imposing genetic uniformity. It has been - and is still being - practiced so intensely with roses that we need special trials to identify the few cultivars capable of living without pesticides. Even then, when a new ‘resistant’ cultivar makes it to market it doesn’t take long before the bugs catch up.

No amount of holistic agriculturing can take the place of genetic diversity to keep the germs at bay.

We don’t know very much about what keeps bugs at bay, or the negatives of genetic uniformity in garden roses. I guess that is why genetic mapping of Rosa is underway, so we can know a little more.

Nearly all garden roses and even other plants in the rose family get black spot and similar leaf diseases (including Indian Hawthorn, Rhaphiolepis indica, which gets black spot about as badly as roses do). Even the offspring of seemingly disease resistant roses tend to inherit the susceptibility of the most susceptible in the previous several generations, even when various supposedly resistant species are stirred into the soup.

Crossing siblings and selfing offspring are long-time practices of plant breeders. These methods are slow, but they do yield some improvement. Reading the records of Felicitas Svejda (see the post and follow the link at Dr. Felicitas Svejda: Scientist and Rosarian - Rose Hybridizers Association Forum ) may give some insight into how some people have tried to create a kind of genetic uniformity (biased by the need to have roses survive cold and not get enough disease to weaken them) and keep the bugs at bay. The records of Griffith Buck and (in Canada) Frank Skinner and William Godfrey and Henry Marshall show that these breeders worked in the same methodical way Svejda worked. As long as people are looking for similar characteristics in the roses they love, genetic uniformity will be necessary. It remains to be seen whether genetic manipulation in the lab will give us genetic uniformity that brings good health and everblooming vigor–or whether we’ll have to get those qualities by random pollen placement and sheer luck. Meanwhile, we’ll keep trying.

Peter

Larry,
Mendel was obliged to raise self-seedlings of his F1 crosses to demonstrate that two “factors” were present in the individual. Thus, selfing was of theoretical importance.

It is not uncommon for two named roses to yield more than one offspring worthy of introduction.

‘Oklahoma’, ‘Mr Lincoln’ and ‘Papa Meilland’ are full siblings (Chrysler Imperial x Charles Mallerin). I read somewhere that the first two were raised from seeds in the same hip. All are good, but distinctly different. It should be obvious that self-seedlings from ‘Oklahoma’ would not be the same as some raised from (Mr Lincoln x Papa Meilland).

‘Dame de Coeur’ (Peace x Independence)
‘Karl Herbst’ (Independence x Peace)

‘Mirandy’ (Night x Charlotte Armstrong)
‘Nocturne’ (Charlotte Armstrong x Night)

How many other offspring from these crosses were good, but not good enough?

Hutton (1977) gave a detailed account of the breeding of ‘Sea Foam’.
“‘Sea Foam’ was not an accident. It was produced by Ernest Schwartz after some very careful planning. Its parentage is ‘White Dawn’ x ‘Pinocchio,’ which is at first glance not particularly impressive. Ernie’s first crosses were good but not what he hoped for—they lacked the “quality” that sets the truly distinctive roses apart from all others. And in order for a new rose to be a success, he knew it had to be better than all the rest and yet distinctively different. Ernie then sowed self-seeds and they produced several hundred plants to watch. Out of these, one had the luxuriant holly-like foliage and growth he was looking for. This seedling showed no signs of mildew or blackspot; unfortunately the blooms just were not good enough. He then crossed this seedling (for its growth and disease resistance) with the best one from the original cross (for the quality of bloom he needed) and produced ‘Sea Foam.’”
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/HuttonSeaFoam1977.html

The “self-seeds” mentioned should be described as “open pollinated seeds”.

Enchantress (HT) [(Mme Caroline Testout x unnamed seedling) 3rd generation]
Cardinal (HT) [(Liberty x unnamed carmine seedling) 3rd generation]

I provided a link to a paper by Mangelsdorf (1952). He gave an account of the relatively new race of corn, Chalqueño, that had been maintained for 50 to 100 years (generations) of open pollination. “Inbreeding yields segregates which almost duplicate in their characteristics one of the parents—Palomero Toluqueño. Segregates approaching the other suspected parent, Cacahuazintle, also result from inbreeding but this parent is never exactly duplicated.” Again, selfing gives different results than open pollination among siblings.

In fact, it is well known that OP races of corn frequently yield “tripsacoids” when selfed for a generation or three. These are not found under ordinary open pollination.

Peter wrote: “Even the offspring of seemingly disease resistant roses tend to inherit the susceptibility of the most susceptible in the previous several generations, even when various supposedly resistant species are stirred into the soup.”

And in addition to that, I’ve also seen cases where crossing two resistant species can give offspring that are surprisingly susceptible. An example would be Rosa palustris X Rosa fedtschenkoana. Both species are relatively healthy here. But although the F1 hybrid is a fairly vigorous grower, it has nearly defoliated each summer from spotting.

Tom,
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, or so I’ve read. No doubt there is also more than one way for a rose to resist disease. If two different types of resistance are both “diluted” in the hybrid, two half-resistances may not yield a whole.

For example, at the SJ Heritage garden I observed that ‘Perle des Jardins’ is susceptible to mildew, while Rosa wichuraiana is not. ‘Gardenia’ (R. wichuraiana x Perle des Jardins) does mildew, but not so badly as ‘Perle des Jardins’. This shows that resistance may be only partially dominant (i.e., diluted) in a cross.

R. fedtschenkoana is native to arid lands. R. palustris, the swamp rose, presumably exploits a very different sort of disease resistance. Hybrids would likely inherit neither sort of resistance in full force, while also being confused by soil that is simultaneously too dry (for Palustris) and too wet (for Fedtschenkoana).

tsilvers wrote:
And in addition to that, I’ve also seen cases where crossing two resistant species can give offspring that are surprisingly susceptible. An example would be Rosa palustris X Rosa fedtschenkoana. Both species are relatively healthy here. But although the F1 hybrid is a fairly vigorous grower, it has nearly defoliated each summer from spotting.

There is a thought , that the BS in roses came from Damask mines which has Rosa fedtschenkoana in it

Warren

R. fedtschenkoana is native to arid lands. R. palustris, the swamp rose, presumably exploits a very different sort of disease resistance. Hybrids would likely inherit neither sort of resistance in full force, while also being confused by soil that is simultaneously too dry (for Palustris) and too wet (for Fedtschenkoana).

There’s no reason to think this. It is equally likely that offspring inherit both resistance mechanisms full force if, and your assumption is a big one, there are indeed two different mechanisms. Likewise, there could equally likely be some middle ground between wet and dry that each hybrid progeny would ‘understand’, assuming roses could actually be confused in the first place.

One problem with your objection is that Tom’s hybrid did not inherit resistance in full force from either parent, let alone both.

Burbank crossed Lilium pardalinum of California with a Peruvian Alstroemeria. Lilies make bulbs; Alstroemerias rely on fleshy rootstocks. The hybrid had neither (not both) and died during the winter. That is to say, the specialized adaptations of the parents were not merely diluted in the hybrid, both were entirely absent.

Furthermore, there are instances where hybrids do not survive long, nor give the anticipated “mendelian segregation”, because the parents inhabit adjacent but distinct habitats. The Louisiana irises come to mind. Hybrid swarms typically occur only where the habitat has been greatly disturbed, providing “hybridized” niches. Otherwise, the hybrids that survive are overwhelmingly similar to the parent that is better adapted to the immediate conditions.

A plant adapted to wet conditions is likely to have some means of “shaking off” moisture that settles on its leaves, thus making the leaves less hospitable to the germination of fungal spores. But a plant that is not subject to frequent spray, rain or dew is less likely to have a well-developed ability to shed water. Whatever resistance it has is likely from a different source.

Some grasses, for example, are mostly resistant to fungal infections because they keep their stomata tightly closed until the morning dew is dried off. On the other hand, there are numerous succulents that open their stomata only at night, avoiding excessive loss of water during the heat of the day.

Has anyone examined Rosa spp. to determine whether there are differences of timing in the opening and closing of stomata? I’ll have to do some googling.

Thanks again to everyone for such a full range of advice. I harvested my first stamens today from Stanwell Perpetual to use with Diamond Jubilee (a rose with a history of producing hips without intervention) I have almost given up on any hope of SP as seed parent, but I’m going to give it a go anyway.

I’m sure I’ll be back in due course with more questions. I’m getting particularly excited about Persian Mystery St Christopher cross as they both have such beautiful foliage, and strong yellows in their lines.