hardiest reblooming diploid?

Does anyone have ideas for the hardiest non-rugosa diploid that is fully reblooming?

My best guess at the moment is Darlow’s Enigma.

Because I got some rebloomers out of Metis x Catherine Guelda, I’m trying to figure out what pollen to put on Metis this season.

Maybe the Ole, Lena, and Sven roses from the Northern Accents series, and Candy Oh.

I’m definitely also going to use Pretty Polly Pink, which is hardier than most polyanthas but still dies to the ground.


I don’t live in the north, so I have no personal experience. However, I have read that ‘Hansa’ survives well and reblooms happily in Alaska.

Only one that repeats nearly continuously for me until stopped by freeze and reasonably hardy is Isabelle Skinner. No idea if diploid or crosses as mine failed last year. Did get seed from Suzanne x Gertrude Jekyll … but no amount of supplemental incantations has produce “seedlings” … Gerties still going after 15 years but start over in spring.

Thanks to Karl and Riku for your suggestions.

Karl, I’m not sure I want to use a rugosa like Hansa for this purpose because of the potential for delayed remontancy, ie. a lack of juvenile bloom, which makes screening for a low percentage of rebloomers a much more difficult process.

Riku, it seems like Isabella Skinner might be very valuable in developing a hardy reblooming climber. I just ordered one from High Country.


You may want to consider ‘Marie Bugnet’, which is classified as a Rugosa hybrid but has an unusual pedigree for one, containing a Polyantha in its lineage.

This I believe made it possible, if my memory is correct, for Robert Erskine to develop a seedling of ‘Marie Bugnet’ that had juvenile bloom. Unfortunately, he shortly lost it…

Keep in mind that ‘Schneezwerg’ is unbeatable for developing progeny having excellent repeat bloom, the prime example being ‘Jens Munk’, of course. It can, like ‘Jens Munk’, also pass on very good disease resistance. It likely would be superior to ‘Marie Bugnet’ in this respect.

I’ll also mention that although the Damask ‘Minette’ doesn’t repeat its bloom it’s cold hardy to Zone 4 and can also do very well in Zone 3. David Zlesak has recently tested its ploidy and surprisingly it’s a diploid. So an interesting rose to work at the diploid level. The question is, of course,.in a breeding program can it produce progeny having repeat bloom. I hope to eventually answer it.

Very hardy Rosa beggeriana (non-juvenile but usually flower by the first fall). I am interested in what you consider hardy? In zone 2 the juvenile rebloomers die to the ground and take a long time to recover. But the colours are so much more expansive!!

Thank you Paul and Johannes!

I haven’t grown Schneezwerg, but have had interesting results from its seedling Henry Hudson. I have two seedlings of Henry Hudson x Above & Beyond. One is pale yellow with slight rebloom, and the other is a single white with good rebloom. Unfortunately both pretty sterile. The other interesting Henry Hudson result is/are some OP seedlings that are seven feet tall and tip hardy and at least one is nearly thornless.

Metis x Schneezwerg would be interesting, with the potential for very hardy repeaters that hopefully wouldn’t be so prone to iron chlorosis as most rugosas in my soil.

Lately I’ve been circling around the idea that ‘Banshee’ is really just a double form of R. palustris, so if David found it to be diploid, then it almost can be nothing else when you consider all of its other characteristics. The name ‘Minette’ is by now well known to have been misapplied to ‘Banshee’ in Europe, and then was re-imported to North America under that name via Canada; of course, it almost certainly had an earlier name, and is possibly the same rose that was named ‘Turneps’ or Rosa rapa, but there’s a lot more work needing to be done. A DNA study including it with various species would be extremely illuminating.

I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘The Gift’ is a bit more cane-hardy than ‘Darlow’s Enigma’ there, although I never grew it myself when I lived in MN. ‘Trier’ is another rose in that vein that is similarly tough, but probably just a bit less hardy than DE. I’ve read similar things about ‘White Pet’ in southern Minnesota.

There is also ‘Ross Rambler’ to consider.


Has anyone done worked with Banshee? Thanks to Jwindha I have pollen on multiple plants and I was wondering what to expect. Also, I have five potted cuttings rooted (actually from sucker). Thanks again Jwindha!
I was wondering if anyone had ideas what to do with extras if they all pull through, which looks like they will?
I was thinking of seeing if local nursery, which carries some species and old roses, would like one. But we will be moving soon and I don’t wish to move all of them with me.

I’m thankful for Kim Rupert having given me Banshee. Above average cane hardiness, although not tip hardy. HMF lists it as a tetraploid, so I imagine the path to rebloom is just as long as when working with R. virginiana or R. carolina. (I would like to cross it with those species!)

I have one seedling this year that is Banshee x (Rugosa #3 x (R. carolina x Prairie Peace)). The pollen parent is tip hardy, has very nice foliage and a large quantity of bright single blossoms that seem to continue for longer than most carolina seedlings. Definitely not a repeater, though.

I’m hesitant to try to take Banshee down the road of recovering rebloom, because it’s such a long path.

I just looked at the HMF entry for ‘Banshee’, and didn’t find any published reference for the ploidy determination, only a name–does anyone know the individual from Texas A&M who performed it, or the provenance of the plant that was tested? It concerns me that there isn’t better documentation, because there have been false ‘Banshee’ marketed, particularly the plant that High Country Roses used to sell under that name before acknowledging the mistake. That selection (now sold as “High Country Banshee”) is very likely to be a tetraploid. However, the clone that was sold as ‘Minette’ in Canada (mainly by Pickering) is ‘Banshee’ without any question, and if it was found to be diploid and the result is reliable, then any other true ‘Banshee’ should be, too. The recovery of rebloom might then potentially be a little shorter.

Stephan glad you mentioned it, still grow the “Pickering Minette relabelled Banshee” … note made me check its health after a winter where even very hardy roses have been crawling to leaf out up cane - making the pruning clippers and chippers over heat when lose patience. It put out a nice new basal break so far.

Anyways tried crossing it last year, but its bloom’s very high susceptibility to balling in my garden makes it a challenge - no hips so far in 10 years +. Makes 2.5 to 3 feet in lousy spot and not completely hardy.

If somebody in Canada does ploidy determinations for free be be glad to send sample.

The ‘Minette’ plant I sent David Zlesak for ploidy testing came from the Rainy River region of Ontario (borders Minnesota), and has been grown there for many decades. From the research I’ve done I think it’s a good possibilty it came with eastern Ontario settlers who homesteaded in this area in the early 1900’s… It’s great ability to sucker profusely means there are always propagules available to transfer to another yard or cemetery.

My plant originated from the Bergland cemetery. ‘Minette’ also grows in two locations in the town of Rainy River and the shrubs have been there for many years. Rainy River is located across the river from Baudette, Minnesota.

I have also seen ‘Minette’ growing in an older residential area of Edmonton, Alberta, where again it was obviously growing for several decades. The same with ‘Banshee’, which is obviously different (much shorter, shrub, for example, in a Zone 3 climate).

I have one seedling of ‘Minette’ but it appears to have been selfed. As it matures and especially if it flowers, It might give me a valuable clue to this cultivar’s genetic origin.

‘Minette’ has very poor fertily as a pistlilate parent. But in my limited experience with it as a staminate parent , it appears capable of producing strong growing, healthy and attractive shrubs. I certanly intend to use it more in breeding programs.

I really shouldn’t be advocating for ‘Hansa’ because I know it only from articles I’ve read. But there is this:

American Rose Annual, 22: 47-48 (1937)
The True Dwarf Prairie Rose
Percy H. Wright
The species has characteristics which it would be desirable to transfer to domestic roses. Unfortunately, it does not cross readily, although F. L. Skinner, of Dropmore, Manitoba, has successfully used its pollen on R. rugosa. In 1935 I secured over 1,400 seeds from pollinations with it of the Rugosa variety Hansa. Thirty-nine of these germinated in April, 1936. One plant grew three feet high, and another bloomed but was only a single. Such early returns are commonplace with tender roses, but I have not heard of them with northern species. This plant certainly could not have bloomed in the first year of its life had it not inherited from one or both parents the capacity for late blooming. It set no seed; Mr. Skinner’s plants are also sterile.

So, one first-year bloomer out of 39 seedlings isn’t great, but it’s something to consider. The follow up:

The American Rose Annual, 29: 76-87, (1944)
Rosa Suffulta as a Parent
Percy H. Wright
The earliest hybrid I made was produced by putting pollen of the single Suffulta on the pistils of the Rugosa Hybrid, Hansa, an extremely hardy and vigorous variety not well liked except where it is about the only choice in everblooming roses, on account of its rather violet color. From this cross numerous seeds are easily got, fifty to a hundred per hip, and nearly every flower catches. From my first cross I got Hansette, about intermediate between the two parents, but tending to be more like Hansa when thriving and when a full grown plant, and more like the wild parent when suffering from drought or just getting a start. The flower is small, red without violet tones, and possessing thirteen petals. It is fully fertile both ways, though its mother is probably a diploid and its sire is a tetraploid. Unfortunately it is as susceptible as is Hansa to root galls. It attains about three feet, is broad and bushy, and blooms earlier in the spring than either parent. It blooms but once, each parent having suppressed the type of everblooming shown by the other.

There are known to be different clones floating around under the name ‘Banshee’ (see Leonie Bell’s 1977 article about this)–while the clones that have been described are variable, they are all very similar from a botanical perspective, and very different from any other OGR of Eurasian species background. It probably shouldn’t be treated as a single cultivar, but out of convenience (and because the variants have not themselves been named) it’s easier to keep using ‘Banshee’ to refer to the whole collective for now.

‘Minette’ is a clearly misapplied name in this instance, and its use traces back to a mislabeled plant at Sangerhausen Rosarium that was noticed in the 1980s, after which the “discovery” made news all across Scandinavia and many plants that had formerly been called (also incorrectly) Rosa x suionum for decades were relabeled ‘Minette’. The true ‘Minette’ was a more classic type of European OGR bred by Vibert that from its early descriptions clearly had none of the characteristic features of ‘Banshee’. No one knows where the ‘Banshee’ that was mislabeled as ‘Minette’ at Sangerhausen actually came from; those records are lost.

‘Minette’ from Scandinavia was imported to Canada some while after all of this happened. There was never any rose growing in Canada under the name ‘Minette’ until nurseries started selling the Scandinavian material relatively recently. There was, however, a plant known there as the “Loyalist Rose,” which is evidently another clear-cut ‘Banshee’.


Sorry, I should have said instead that the mislabeled ‘Minette’ plant was noticed growing in Denmark in the 80s, but that plant had come from Sangerhausen, where it still grows mislabeled as ‘Minette’.


Regarding Karl’s notes on Hansa:

It is really odd that those old-timers didn’t like the violet color.

Plus it’s odd that Hansa just doesn’t set hips for me, pollinated or otherwise. I put one in a pot and I plan to try pollinating it in a hot greenhouse this year.

Iron chlorosis is Hansa’s Achilles’ Heel here in my alkaline soil.

The ‘Loyalist Rose’ is actually the same as ‘Maiden’s Blush’, an Alba.

Joe, interesting that Hansa has chlorosis issues. Neither Therese Bugnet nor Hansa had any issues in our garden, although some of the seedlings from Therese did. Perhaps our garden wasn’t quite as bad as yours for that. Also, Hansa set hips on almost every bloom each year. I hope yours does better in a pot. Although it makes me wonder if there is some difference in different plants of the same cultivar? Or is climate causing the difference? Or soil?
Has anyone had any good results from Maidens Blush?

Probably all of the above. Just as an example, Crested Moss set seed here (after digging for pollen in the first bloom it seemed more hassle than it was worth, so just crammed any pollen available on Crested Moss), around 1/3rd of blooms produced seed, some have germinated. Will be interesting to see if I can repeat the results in a few months given the reported near sterility.

Another would be Julia Child, praised frequently online from the USA but here it gets very very spotty.

On a Hansa tangent, anyone with it willing point to a picture that’s colour accurate. The pictures on HMF vary quiet a lot, so no idea what the high levels of peonidin is meant to be.