I’m going through the parentage list of a few of my seedligns that have popped up and this one has me wondering what it really is. Is it really possible that the parents of News is Lilac Charm X Tuscany Superb or is it more likely to be Lilac Charm X seedling of Tuscany Superb? I was not aware that Tuscany Superb carries a repeating gene.
Ah, grasshopper, that is the question! It has been for forty-plus years. Either Mr. LeGrice’s Tuscany Superb was something special like Ralph’s Soulieana, there has been a mistake or some breeding “short hand” going on there. Whatever it is, he sure made an amazing floribunda, didn’t he?
You’ll also run across the question about the British use of R. Californica to create mauve and russet roses. Supposedly, what they had and used, wasn’t Californica.
My theory is that News is an F1 of Tuscany Superb. It is possible to get repeaters from Lilac Char, I suppose, from once-bloomers, because it is somehow odd, but the lack of both the Gallica foliage and the muddy tones is very telling.
The “californica” was probably plena or some such. Whatever it was, it gave LeGrice some pretty odd colors.
Too funny Kim - I feel like a little grasshopper when I see things like this. Just when you think you have some handle on predicting outcomes something like this comes along.
The breeding of Tuscany Superb is unknown,looking at its foliage there seems to be some slight difference in shape. It could be possible that some of the repeat Damask found its way into its breeding and the repeat gene lay in wait.
I feel it is possible to create a repeat offspring from such a cross as records pre 1900’s did n’t exsist and a lot of variaties we do not know whats were in them.
One year I used Laneii a once blooming Moss, The cross was Moulin Rouge X Laneii. Two offspring were kept Odysseus blooms only in spring and an other which has a darker Bluey red bloom, repeats, shorter upright less thorny and has a strong perfume.
[attachment 1575 ODYSSEUS.jpg]
[attachment 1576 ODYSSEUS3.jpg] The repeat flowering offspring does not have any mossing.
I have found a few cases where breeders mention, as an after thought, that the selected plant turned up in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th generation from the initial cross.
For example, as Graham Stuart Thomas wrote:
Ormiston Roy. Doorenbos, Holland, 1938. ‘Allard’ x Rosa pimpinellifolia. Mr Doorenbos tells me that this rose of his often produces blooms late in the summer as well as at the normal time. It appeared in the F2 generation and was named after a friend in Montreal.
So, the proper ancestry would be (Allard x pimpinellifolia) x (Allard x pimpinellifolia).
I don’t know that Le Grice did the same thing, but it’s a possibility.
Last year I used Champlain, (Hot Wonder x William Baffin) and a rugosa pollen on Tuscany Superb with over 40 seedlings from the three crosses. None of them have bloomed yet and I would have been really surprised if they had. Iâ€™ll let you know if any of them do have repeat bloom, but it may be a few years before I know.
I’ve only played with Tuscany Superb once, with Sequoia Ruby. It resulted in two seedlings. One was single, the other double. I passed the double on to Paul Barden because it simply wouldn’t flower with any reliability in my climate. Both were once flowering.
I looked up Legrice’s News on HMF and it’s leaves show little if any of influence of TS in them. You can definately see the TS influence in my first generation TS seedlings, so that makes me doubt that News is a first generation offspring of TS. As mentioned earlier, it could be a later generation offspring or it could even be an OP seedling as well.
Here are a few more examples of the “short hand” notation:
The Garden (London) 51: 255 (April 10, 1897)
“Gloire Lyonnaise was another difficult Rose to place, notwithstanding M. Guillot stated it to be a cross between Baroness Rothschild and Mme. Falcot, although the progeny of the first and second crossings had to be crossed again before securing this ‘yellow Hybrid Perpetual,’ as it was then called.”
RHA Newsletter 8(1): 6-7 (1977)
A BREAKTHROUGH IN ROSES
R. J. Hutton
" ‘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 forâ€”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.’ "
Independence - (‘Baby ChÃ¢teau’ x ‘Crimson Glory’)
Whether ‘Independence’ was a self-seedling from this cross, or a product of crossing two sibs, is unclear.