L83 available?

Is there anyone in the US who has L83 to share? I probably have something of interest to offer in exchange. Thanks.


Paul, I hope that you are successful; but if not, there are some commercially available first generation offspring. If one utilized self seedlings, it should be possible to select for those that are “drifting” back towards L83.

I also wonder about crossing 2 first generation L83 crosses with the intention of diluting the individual “non L83” genes and then selecting.

I dont know what L83 is specifically =/

Jadae, see:


Link: www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=1003#1003

Oh! Very nice.

I only have this one from Ashdown [link below]. But I don’t think it’s L83, since L83 is described in that other post as being a single.

When this one first bloomed, I thought it was a case of mislabeling. I had expected Rosa kordesii to be a single – something like a tetraploid version of Max Graf.

Does anyone else think it’s odd that Rosa kordesii would have so many petals? Maybe some modern tetraploid rose pollinated an unreduced ovule on Max Graf ???

Or is this “kordesii” one of the derived strains, and not the original ???


It might not be that odd depending on what form of rugosa was used? It’s a selfed seedling so the double nature could have resurfaced.

This has happens as you know, similar to Moore’s, ‘Red Fairy’ likely a selfed seedling of ‘Simon Robinson’.

Good points Robert. I hadn’t thought of the possibility that the doubling could have come from the rugosa and been hidden. But then again, now that I think of it (and I do realize that nothing is ever just this simple)… but, if Rosa kordesii were just a simple amphidiploid [a tetraploid version of Max Graf], it should breed true if selfed, shouldn’t it? But… I guess there could have been some quadrivalent stuff going on that would still allow hidden double-ness from the rugosa to resurface, as you mentioned.

I realize that it’s all just speculation, and that we’ll probably never know unless someone does some kind of DNA testing on it. It just seems very tentative to me to assume that any seedling from an open pollination is a self. I’ve had too many cases of unseen “helpers” doing their own pollinations (usually on ones that I’m working with ;0). For instance, I did a fairly controlled cross of Rosa palustris X Rosa moschata – emasculated early and covered with foil. I got at least one seedling that seems to be what I intended, but also some others that are most surely not. But rather than being selfs, they are, from all appearances, the products of pollen from my rugosa X palustris F1, that are growing not too far away.

Anyway, my point is that if this can happen when we’re trying to control the cross, it surely can when we don’t try to control it.

Thanks for giving me more to think about though. Tom

Absolutely Tom, as cognizant as I try to be about early emasculation. I’m certain some pollen does fall through the cracks. Some of the roses shed very early depending on weather conditions. I don’t cover my crosses so anything is possible.

I am reticent to give a particular parentage unless I can discern traits that absolutely point to the cross intended. Often it’s easier to and more correct to state, “X unknown”

I read somewhere that kordesii might not be a self. I forgot which book. Sorry. It was an older book I saw at Powell’s Books in Portland, Or.

Also-- Rosa rugosa has double sports (not hybrids). I know Rosa wichurana doesnt (that I know of) but many other of it’s section do. For example, Rosa moschata plena.

I don’t believe R. kordesii is a self seedling of Max Graf even granted that some traits may not come out for several generations.


We don’t know if Max Graf’s rugosa parent was a pure species rugosa. I’ve heard people raising doubled petal rugosas from single ones… and the opposite too.

But then again…

if a plant became fertile… it would probably want pollen of another diffrent rose to ensure genetic variation and thus… it will cross more easily.

But then again, some roses descended from rugosas shed pollen quickly and self fertilize such as Bayse’s 77-361, Kim’s Lynnie, and my Queen Elizabeth X 77-361.

The majority of the ramblers of Rosa multifora & Rosa moschata crosses are semi-double.

Double flowers of R. kordesii and also Red Fairy convince me (95%+ probability for me) that they are the result of a cross of a single flowered female and some double flowered male and not a self. Single is recessive and double is dominant. The degree of doubleness, however, is variable and depends on other additive genes. Debener published this from his polyantha-like diploid populations and data from Morey and others in American Rose Annual articles are in agreement with other roses as well. In the late 1990’s I wrote an article on the inbreds of ‘Carefree Beauty’ and that data supports that CB has one allele for double flowers and three for single flowers. I believe that as we share our segregation data we can genotype different parents for this major gene so we can be able to make crosses and have some ability to predict segregation of double flowers in offspring. For instance I know the diploid roses ‘Therese Bugnet’ and ‘Robin Hood’ are both heterozygous and in crosses with single roses segregate 1:1 for double/single progeny.

I have raised multiple op ‘Max Graf’ seedlings. I have two semi-double / double offspring that are tetraploid and I assume from growth habit and soft pink color that the neighboring ‘John Davis’ is their male parent. Also there is a diploid hybrid with large trusses of small double flowers and it is likely that one of the neighboring diploid polyanthas is the male parent of that one. I agree stray pollen gets around and looking for traits and understanding the inheritance of traits (where that information is known) gives us confirmation/evidence of pedigrees. Unexpected surprises do pop up, but it’s hard to dispute strong resemblence to another parent consistent with what is known about trait inheritance.

I have a rose seedling that I really like that I have been questioning the pedigree of. I have it written as a cross of a one time blooming R. palustris hybrid (recessive repeat bloom genes are in it from Carefree Beauty) and an orange offspring of Impatient. The hybrid is a semidouble orange-red with gorgeous red stipples throughout (it’s nice it’s a repeater too, but that’s a possibility because of CB in it). The bloom form, color, and plant habit seem reasonable for the supposed orange male. I eventually convinced myself that the most likely male is the only stippled parent I’ve been using that same year the cross was made. I couldn’t overlook the stipples and my experience that if I am not using a parent with stipples I have not routinely found stipples in offspring and definately not to this degree. That stippled parent used that year has ‘Orange Honey’ as a female parent (stippled male tracing back to ‘Spanish Rhapsody’) and is kind of apricot with pink stippling over it, so maybe the orange-red color is possible from this rose with the pink female.

I think that especially when we are working with diploid roses (‘Max Graf’, probably ‘Simon Robinson’, ‘The Fairy’, rugosas in general even though they release their pollen early…) relatively strong self-incompatibility is likely which will also help promote whatever seeds being generated being from cross rather than self-fertilization.


I never gave it any thought before, but considering the complex parentage of the staminate parent of ‘William Booth’ and it only having single flowers, perhaps the parentage of this cultivar is a selfed L83. The shrubs also have a similar growth habit. I think it’s interesting that Hugh Skinner (son of Frank Skinner) grew a number of open pollinated seedlings of ‘William Booth’, and as I understand it they all or nearly all had single flowers. This is not what one would expect if the given parentage of ‘William Booth’ is correct. None of the seedlings had flower quality worthy of introduction. In any case, I think ‘William Booth’ would likely be a good substitute for L83.

Paul, that sounds very probable - unfortunately, William Booth is one of the few Explorers that I do not have.

WANTED William Booth open pollinated seeds!

That seedling sounds gorgeous David. Thanks for the lesson in genetics. Everything you say makes sense and of course it of great value.

I have often suspected Red Fairy to be the product of a marriage to a polyantha?

Btw, I was shocked to hear recently that Dortmund blackspots in South Carolina.

Henry Kuska,

Let me know if you want a couple of William Booth X op 2006 seedlings.

They are in 1/2 gal pots: shipping potted plants is exorbitantly expensive, but they could be bare-rooted?

Seeds came from David Ziesak.

Thanks Dave Wolfe, if you could send them bare-rooted in another month or so (after dormancy definitely has set in); I would appreciate it.


‘Dortmund’ Blackspots badly in Oregon too.


AARGH! I guess that’s the end of my experiments with Dortmund.

Why did I think it was clean?

HMF states, “very disease resistant”. I’m sure they are quoting whatever reference they use to input entries?

To be honest it will be good to check another thing off my list. I have too much to distract me as it is.

I think when possible it would be wonderful to note these types of problems in the comments section of each cultivar.