Pink Queen Elizabeth

These days, I do hardly any embryo extracting as such, however because of availability of pink QE here I have happened to use this variety in the past for some embryo observations/experiments (not for reasons to do with raising OP QE seedlings as such).

It is not unusual to find twins with separate testa in OP achenes of pink QE (nearly always one twin is dead). But one day I definitely did come across two embryos that were twins in the one testa, for certain, and both were pearly white and healthy (now this type of twinning event is very rare in my experience). I did a knee-jerk reaction and threw both twins out, as I was just practicing my “embryo extacting-by-cutting” method, rather than planning to germinate any embryos.

I shouldn’t have done that, as one of those twins could have been a diploid version of pink QE!!

When I realised this, it was about one minute too late!

LOL

I would recommend caution in deciding to utilize a famous rose because it “had” a lot of good offspring. It is/was my impression that some/many commercial hybridizers hid their true parents and often selected paper “parents” which they felt would help commercial sales.

Henry,

Good advice. It’s disappointing to think that some breeders may have (still?) done that since we put so much importance on lineage when planning for our own crosses. Even if QE’s parentage is wrong, I’m thinking it has much to offer as a parent. I’m going to see what comes out of these OP seeds and probably will ‘borrow’ some blossoms next season for pollen.

Rob,

My next door neighbor in NY has his house surrounded by (we presume) Queen Elizabeth. We can only guess since he acquired the original plant from a neighbor when she moved and it wasn’t labelled and the neighbor couldn’t remember the name. Interestingly they took others as well and this variety was the only one to survive though he and his wife are good gardeners.

The present plants are all cuttings he made from the original plant almost 30 years ago. They are all 6 feet high and bloom from spring to late fall. Unfortunately, they are virused- I saw the telltale markings in the leaves. However, they are vigorous, appear healthy and are bloom machines. They occasionally cut a bloom for my sisters and the bloom lasts almost a week.

I did what you did. Each time on my last two visits to NY,I picked a few large OP hips that were leaning over the fence ( he keeps his plants free of hips) on my side that I guess he had missed.

I removed the seeds (many and large) from the hips and they are now soaking in water in jars in the refrigerator alla George’s method.

Just couldn’t resist!

My big problem is when my seeds sprout I eventually lose most of them to damping off, even when I plant them in total perlite. ;O(

Jim

It’s a shame about many plants being virused. These two plants in town…and I’m assuming they are QE as it fits…are virus free from what I can see. I may take some cuttings next spring and try to root them. It’s a shame about the damp off problem as well. You would think there would be less DO in perlite. Good luck with your QE seeds. Let us know if anything interesting shows up.

Rob

Rob, it’s pretty well established that Queen Elizabeth was virused pre release. The pre release plants Lammerts gave Ralph Moore 57 years ago are and always have been infected. Unless someone obtained VI stock from either Davis or Florida State and propagated these old plants from that stock, you can safely bet they are infected also. Until J&P started their VI program, Iceberg in this country was pretty much guaranteed to be infected. The plants may never show symptoms, but, as you are probably aware, that means nothing.

Kim,

I wasn’t aware that an infected plant might be asymptomatic. Thanks for sharing that. I guess I won’t take cuttings next spring. lol Is the virus transmitted via embryo do you know?

In cool climates there would appear to be about a 2 per cent chance of virus transfer through seeds. See link below. In hot climates, probably no transfer.

Link: home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/rose%20virus%20and%20pollen.htm

Thank you for the link Henry.

When I first became aware of the virus issue, of course I wanted roses without it. I sought plants of the varieties I wanted to grow and study which were uninfected. They didn’t exist. I chose to grow the varieties anyway. Given the choice, I will take clean stock any day, but we are seldom given that choice.

I began volunteering at The Huntington about 1983. I spent the years playing there propagating roses for the sales and gardens and making sure the odd and rare things were reproduced to prevent their loss. I studied the main garden and Study Plot thoroughly. I observed classic virus symptoms everywhere, and it wasn’t the fault of the location nor anyone there. Old, commercially obtained plants were infected. Collected “found” roses from old gardens all over displayed symptoms. I wandered Descanso and The Arboretum and observed the same symptoms in their gardens. I visited public gardens in Northern California and in San Diego as well as all the private gardens which opened to me through that association. I wandered large, commercial rose sources; I wandered fields in Wasco and got to wander around in Roses of Yesterday and Today’s holding area at their home site. The same symptoms I observed on line and in the public gardens and all the private gardens were prominent in the fields and nurseries, also.

I honestly believe it is naive to think it is possible to find clean stock of most varieties anywhere. The issue has been so wide-spead, Harkness, in is wonderful book, “Roses”, comments that British nurserymen complained of American sources spreading at abroad, leading one “prominent American nuseryman to comment that he felt the patterened leaves added a decorative effect” to the plants. That was written in 1970. Gregg Lowery told me years ago, he and Philip Robinson observed wide spread symptoms in the Queen Mary’s Rose Garden in Regent’s Park on one of their visits.

Commercial production has always been driven by cost cutting. It is the nature of the world and we all do it in all of our pursuits. We HAVE to. The common method of propagation was, for many decades, to root the tops of last year’s budded root stocks, for next year’s plants. That’s how the viruses became so wide spread and how so many became infected with multiple viruses. Even after the issue became “popular” and the larger concerns began advertising their clean-up efforts, it continued. Not to point fingers nor to trash anyone, particularly because I respect his work and like the man, but when Flutterbye, a Tom Carruth creation, came out from his employer, Week’s Roses, it was infected. Week’s created it and they introduced it. Their stock was infected. When asked about it, the response was, “the budders ran out of root stock and used what they had on hand”. Excuse me? I have worked several seasons with Ashdown in Wasco, and visited many times. That isn’t how it works.

As a producer, YOU supply the root stock material. YOU supply the bud sticks. Irish Farms, the labor supplier, provides people who are skilled in whatever labor you require. They take what YOU give them and do what you tell them to do with it. THEY do not have any plant materials available to them other than what YOU hand them. Irish Farms is literally a collective of farm workers. They bud, they weed, they clean the plants and they harvest them. They only supply people and tools. Virus was a hot issue and the usual methods of transmission were well known, yet new roses from reputable sources continued and continue to arrive infected.

I have an acquaintance here in Southern California. She is of the mentality, “absence of light black and Resurrection White”, no gray areas in anything. She was, for many years, a rabid exhibitor, to the point of having multiple florist freezers in her home to hold her blooms for shows. She had dozens of portable gazebos to move around her garden to protect the buds as they formed. She was determined to grow uninfected varieties only as symptoms would disqualify her entries. J&P had begun their VI program and reserved the VI plants for specific states as the laws in those states had changed, making it illegal to supply virused stock across their state lines. She badgered J&P for their VI stock, then had it tested. Surprise! The results were that the VI stock was infected with the specific viruses tested for. She loosed her wrath on J&P and the PhD who ran the VI program. They replaced the plants, which, in turn, tested positive. When she contacted J&P again, she was told the program had been dismantled and the woman PhD in charge, reassigned as they found, even when grown in “sealed greenhouses with no possibility of spread, the viruses spontaneously regenerated”. They refused to replace the stock a second time.

J&P continued to advertise their VI stock until their demise, at least in wholesale their catalogs. Whether they were actually uninfected or not, who actually knows?

I know, from studying old rose catalogs from the thirties to the seventies, how roses traveled from the major sources, through the “second line” sources, and, often, eventually through Armstrong Roses to Roses of Yesterday and Today. I also have seen how Armstrong Nurseries, for decades the introducer of all the AARS winners, and Roses of Yesterday and Today, used the same contract budder in Wasco. He had the largest catalog of roses under production and his prices were usually the lowest for finished product. From personal observation, because I wanted to SEE every one and grow as many as I could, AARS winners came to market infected. Armstrong regularly sent out infected stock. When Bear Creek bought Armstrong years ago, John Walden, formerly Keith Zary’s assistant at the J&P R&D facility in Somis, CA, stated when visiting my old Newhall garden that if I thought the stock I saw was bad, I should have seen what they had in the Armstrong fields when J&P took over. He said it was terribly infected, so badly so they had to burn the stock. J&P bought Armstrong to get their patents. Purple Tiger was an Armstrong creation and one of the worst plants I’d grown in years. He laughed and said if I thought it was bad now, I should have seen it before they “cleaned it up!”

More popular modern varieties and most OGRs filtered down through the other sources, finally into Armstrong’s catalog and eventually through Roses of Yesterday and Today before being cataloged only by specialty sources. Pour over old catalogs and you can watch the progression time and again. Even if other producers hadn’t infected them, the final two most certainly did. I have often heard conjecture that American virus spread originated in the Armstrong fields and radiated out from there. From observation, I believe it.

Making things worse, Griffith Buck was a dear friend of Dorothy Stemler and Patricia Wiley, owners and operators of Roses of Yesterday and Today. ROYAT’s virus type was so distinctive, it was DNA mapped and tracked! 99% of Buck’s roses were produced and introduced by ROYAT. His employer, Iowa State University, seemed to never take interest in his work, until after his death. Then, they sent out letters to everyone in the Combined Rose List who offered any Buck roses demanding royalties for their “proprietary material”, the vast majority having never been patented.

I know no one wants infected plants. I don’t. From the above, there IS a chance of virus through seed. From other research, virus transmission is possible through pollen. Root grafting occurs under ground spreading it further. Roses, like people, can remain asymptomatic of viruses for many years.

Many specialty nurseries, and you can determine which simply by reading their sites, have routinely stated “our stock is clean as we regularly rough out any plant which shows symptoms”. THAT’S assuring! One of the worst offenders of this statement, bought many dozens of own root plants I helped produce while volunteering at The Huntington back in the 80s, from stock I KNOW was infected. Miraculously, many of those varieties which they bought in April of that year from that sale, made their debuts in their catalog as VIRUS FREE by October of the same year. Yet, none of these varieties ever appeared on either Davis’ or Florida State’s list of VI cleaned stock.

I’ve wondered if producing own root plants as Sequoia did for decades might have had similar results to the heat treatment they were grown under when cleaning up viruses. Summer conditions in their greenhouses were very frequently highs of 120 degrees F with 100% humidity. Roses grew extremely quickly and were often reproduced from that new growth. They rooted, often in days and when budded, produced worthwhile plants in a matter of weeks. Could that accelerated growth, under those extreme heat conditions have resulted in the plants out growing the viruses as supposedly occurs in the heat treatment?

Some varieties demonstrate symptoms very easily. Mr. Lincoln has often been used to test for infection. Others seldom, if ever show it. Culture and climate play crucial roles in symptom expression. For years, there was an enormous plant of the old HT, Autumn, at The Huntington. Its dark leaves were regularly tortoise shell patterned with obvious infection, yet it grew vigorously and flowered continuously. It shouldn’t be surprising, as even people vary greatly in how various viruses affect them. There are cases of people being infected with HIV for long periods, but who seem to never be affected by it, while others succumb and die quickly.

Bottom line, you grow roses, you will have virus. Whether you ever see it or not, it’s going to be there. Growing roses is like dating, whether or not you can SEE any symptoms of disease, you’d better proceed as if it is there!

Thank you Kim for sharing. I would like to add that there can be different strains of the same virus with more of less ability to stress a rose. Also, since the rose immune system is temperature dependent, possibly the diseased “Autumn” rose at Huntington if transplanted to , say, Wisconson could be under much more serious stress.


Since the original temperature dependence immune system response report (Szittya et al., 2003), it has been cited by 172 more recent papers (according to Google Scholar).

I have proved a link below to the abstract of what is probably the most recent, an October 2010 paper which looks at the temperature behavior of a different type of plant virus than the ones studied previously.

This quote is from the introduction of the full paper.

"Indeed it has been observed that RNA silencing is

weaker when plants are grown at cool temperatures and

stronger when grown at high temperatures (Szittya et al.,

2003; Chellappan et al., 2005). However, these studies

were limited to a few DNA or positive-stranded RNA

plant viruses. This work examines the effect of temperature

on RNA silencing of a negative-stranded RNA virus

(Citrus psorosis virus, CPsV) infecting citrus, its natural

woody host." End of quote

H. Kuska comment: RNA silencing is thought to be the way (or one of the main ways) the plant’s immune system fights the virus.

Link: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02315.x/abstract

Thank you Kim for the background on rose viruses. It’s much appreciated. I did some reading and one article indicated that the transmission of mosaic virus started when someone tried to graft plant material from a fruit tree on to rose stock. The graft failed but the rose continued on with the virus and the rest his history. Something like ‘patient zero’. So I will assume that each plant I purchased for breeding stock is infected and most likely pollen used from them to create my seedlings is infected as well and go from there. Thank you Kim and Henry for the information.

Thank you Henry and Rob. I’ve heard conjecture from several sources the origin of the virus infection, the rose to fruit grafts, were attempted by Luther Burbank. Sort of like “Dr. Moreau”!

Rob, regarding “I did some reading and one article indicated that the transmission of mosaic virus started when someone tried to graft plant material from a fruit tree on to rose stock. The graft failed but the rose continued on with the virus and the rest his history.”

rose viruses were known as long as viruses were known, before that they were known as graft-transmissible disorders.

See link below.

Link: home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/when_was_rose_mosaic_virus_first.htm

Viruses have been shown to have accumulative/combination effects. Being asexually propagating each one has strains with varying contaminating hability and virulence. Many single strains have little visible nor mesurable consequences.

Evident mesurable effects have been shown to usually be from three different virus.

Mesurable being flower number and quality.

Beside grafting and root grafting, main contaminators are stinging insects, nematods and prunning tools.

Virus incidence is much lower here Europa as rootstocks are mostly seed propagated. And rose fields are usually rotated.

Taking cuttings from previous crop favors generalized virus build up.

The following link leads to 2 pages concerning the early history of rose viruses by one of the workers in the field. This article was published in the book “Plant Diseases” by the United States Dept of Agriculture, U. S. Goverment Printing Office, Washington in 1953.

Link: science-in-farming.library4farming.org/PlantDiseases_2/Ornamentals/Viruses-on-Roses.html

“Rose wilt occurs in Australia, and it or a similar one has been reported in Italy. Because reports from Australia and Italy indicate that the virus disease is much more damaging than the ones we already have in this country, roses may ma not be imported from Australia and Italy to the United States.”

This is the first time I’ve seen a rational explanation for the embargo on roses from down under.

Henry,

Thank you for the links. This is what I had read:

“It is not clear where and when Rose Mosaic Virus came into being, but it is unknown prior to 1920. This is about when the rose Dr. Huey began to be used industry wide in the USA as a commercial root stock on which other hybrid varieties were budded. People have theorized that it was introduced by grafting some wood from a peach or apple tree onto a rose. This bud would not take, but would be enough to infect the rose with the virus. The rose was then eventually budded onto some rootstock which got the virus and the rootstock wood was used to produce future generations of rootstock, which then introduced it into the whole rose world. It appears that NO roses are immune to this problem. The symptoms appear to be worse on some varieties than others, but any rose is capable of getting RMV.” Source: http://www.rose-roses.com/problems/mosaic.html

I went back looked over the site and didn’t see any references cited or any expertise listed for the author. The information you provided certainly indicates that the virus was around long before 1920 and the introduction of Dr. Huey.

In the article from your second link I read, “L. C. Cochran found two roses in California naturally infected with the virus of peach ring spot.” Do you have a guess as to what was meant but “naturally infected”? Thanks again for the great information.

Then there is Rose Rosette…

I visited a friend in the next town yesterday and he showed me some odd growth on one of the Eden roses he had planted this spring. I did some research and it appears that it is most likely Rose Rosette. Based on what I’ve read I told him that he would most likely lose the plant with a year or two. Not a happy camper. At least with mosaic the plant can survive.

Rob,

“virus of peach ring spot” is another name for PNRSV, which is often considered to be the most common virus in the group of viruses collectively called RMV.

http://www.ictvdb.org/ICTVdB/00.010.0.02.015.htm

Link: www.ictvdb.org/ICTVdB/00.010.0.02.015.htm