Anyone wish to venture a bloom recurrent rule of thumb or generation probabilistic matrix they heard of concerning off-spring bloom category (remember Don’s color matrix still got it).
One that starts with the crossing a non recurrent seed parent with a recurrent pollen parent or vice versa?
Does not have to quantified, just yes or no or strong maybe, for recurrent off spring.
Could have swore l read the result has a high probability of being non recurrent until second crossing or backcrossing with a “non recurrent” - sounds strange.
Non rec in starting duo as l need hardy first, and the RDxS equivalent second.
I will be trying RDxS again - failed - as its the only true hardy to -35 to - 40C non rugosa good repeater l know of and have access to.
4n have 4 of a gene at each locus, any of those 4 genes can pair to pass on to pollen/egg. So the blue value (in the chart above) is the possible combinations that could happen
eg
AAaa
AA = first + second
Aa = first + third
Aa = first + fourth
Aa = second + third
Aa = second + fourth
aa = third + fourth
the orange and green are the results of the cross
obviously this is in a hypothetical, all things being equal kind of way. won’t account for things like preferential pairing, unreduced gametes, the canina meiosis or other oddities.
I prepared a couple mole scenarios accounting for more ploidy levels, but once you get the mechanism they are pretty easy to develop. A Plazbo pointed out, however, this is just in theory. Practice sometimes turns out to be quite different
this scenario is what you’d be facing when crossing, for instance, a modern with a hybrid china (in the OGR sense, gallica x china)
all this assuming no unreduced gametes appear, no preferential pairing, and anything else that may intervene (including reblooming roses that are not homozygous recessive for the recurrent gene, either one of the parent or in the offspring).
You should also consider that roses have only 7 couples/triplets/groups of chromosomes, meaning that linked genes are higher than in species with higher numbers of chromosomes. This means that 1/6 reblooming, if true, does not imply that, if 50% of the offspring has yellow petals, 1/6 of the yellow colored seedlings will be reblooming (random example, I have no evidence about color and reblooming abilities correlation - it was just to explain the concept). You may have that 70% of the yellows from a cross are repeat bloomers, while only 5% of the whites are repeaters
In the chromosome 3 where the Rosa S -locus is assumed to be located, there are other important loci controlling valuable traits for ornamental plants, such as CF [19], double flower [20], thornlessness [21], and resistance against black spot disease [22].
sooooo probably wouldn’t use a once flowering type as a source of double flowers…although it’d be a near fluke at this point if some used a modern single flowered type in such a cross
I recall someone empirically showing that a diploid RoKSN_wild/RoKSN_copia seedling did not yield 25/75 repeaters/once flowering when allowed to set self pollinated seeds and assuming that it was probably due to self incompatibility
Good to know about blackspot resistance; however, it would be relevant to know how close on the chromosome those genes are to see how linked they are.
The idea of predicting recurrence starts to go a bit fuzzy when working with non-copia/null RoKSN alleles, and unfortunately, that is very often the case when you’re using alternative species and their hybrids. If you have known starting points with your breeding work with (or at least, known pedigrees for your starting points), that gives you real a leg up in guessing at combinations that could lead to repeat bloom sooner, but no way to accurately predict ratios. I think that the “yes/no/(strong?)maybe” is closer to the mark of what you can reasonably expect when you’re thinking about these things outside of the copia/null allele box.
Even with RDxS, you’re probably working with a combination of copia and A181 alleles of RoKSN (the former from ‘Red Dawn’, the latter from ‘Suzanne’). Your once-blooming hybrid involving R. fedtschenkoana and ‘Merveille’ should already have some copies of A181 from R. fedtschenkoana, but could only have copia if it were somehow already present in ‘Merveille’ (for instance, if it is really a hybrid China rather than a pure gallica, which probably isn’t as inconceivable as it might sound). Still, it’s just a “light/medium maybe” for giving recurrent offspring if you crossed it with RDxS. Now, if you crossed RDxS with ‘Lykkefund’ you would be getting into “fairly likely to yield some repeat bloomers” territory because both have copia alleles, and since ‘Lykkefund’ is diploid, about half of its seedlings could even be continuous flowering. Either of these combinations might represent solid steps forward, and maybe mating the offspring together would deliver something that is very close to a significant goal in hardy roses. If you’re really lucky, you might even stumble into something amazing even sooner.
A good rugosa hybrid might also still have something to bring to the table. I was just admiring the J. H. Nicolas hybrid ‘Polar Bear’ on HMF; its parentage is ‘Schoener’s Nutkana’ x ‘New Century’. It’s a real shame that it doesn’t seem to be around anymore, but there’s nothing to stop us from trying to recreate something like it today.
Good suggestions and logic backup (of which some of alles / 181s discussion l have limited navigation experience).
However merveille a hold since not likely to bloom for a couple of years as her offspring are young but have utter confidence they will (potentially fatal in my face phrase). Itching to cross my crosses
So focus for this season is jelling. Lykkefund is roaring to full foliage at a final bent down (arched) length of 5 feet. Helena is shy of 2 feet but will not bloom again.
Therefore it is RDxS x Lykkefund core focus this season - splashed both ways since mosses recovering from rodent attack - and very well too. My third one is new - Henri Martin - so don’t expect blooms but will go with the flow if they do.
Skinner sure chose the right species for aggressive recovery (laxa) in his moss . Edit Errata … oooops thats me, not Skinner he used other. But my cross did germinate now wait and see. Though his moss is an aggressive recovery.
Doc Dave a way back mentioned RDxS may function better as pollen parent- triploid stuff? I tried it as seed parent few years back. Will cover both basis until no blooms left on Lykkefund.
I couldn’t find anything to directly support the idea that RDxS/S45 is triploid (only possibly passed down from ‘New Dawn’–otherwise, the other roses in its background are tetraploid), but it does sound like it might have issues with producing seed based on this older thread:
I’d definitely focus on RDxS pollen, and it sounds like it releases that rather early, so maybe collecting anthers before the buds fully open, possibly even the night before, would be a good tactic.
Luckily, ‘Lykkefund’ loves to set hips full of seeds (without caring too much about the pollen parent ploidy) and germinates easily. The only serious threats are cane borers and maybe rose seed chalcids.
Thanks for your information input and support … especially in bio technical
Also symptoms / warning both you and Roseseek gave id’ing “cane miners” aka borers.
l have cleaned out the damage for now and yes it is prevalent in plants with blanda in background in my garden. Shows up as localized circumferential swelling with longitudinal “bark cambium” splitting from frass buildup. Even found voids marking tunnel paths. Rugosas have not examined with a hard eye.
Also photo today showing another reason why l !!! hope !!! last winter’s apparent vastly improved hardiness “stays”. Getting some nice branching on one cane wonder. Means good potential for “ rambler/climber like” behaviour”. Here’s to“hoping” … that an that these two plus “the gift” from Andre are the only “multiflora” based roses to survive in my garden climate so far.
Testing Cdn hybridized and multiflora based Lavender Bouquet this year in 3 locations.
Also new basal breaks within (and out) Lykkefund’s rodent cage.
And cuttings this fall of Lykkefund … rodageddom last winter makes it mandatory
Helenae hybrida in front … growth from no cane surface expression in spring.
That’s some excellent regrowth on the “Helenae Hybrida” despite its significant winter setback… maybe it will increase in hardiness with age and serve some useful purpose yet.
If you work them into your breeding, roses allied to R. multiflora and R. lucieae (as well as China, tea, and many “modern” roses heavily influenced by them) do seem to avoid suffering from cane borer/girdler damage, and their hybrids are also usually little bothered, so it’s good to have them in the toolbox. If you were thinking of ordering from High Country Roses, you should seriously consider trying their “Mountain Mignonette” as well as David Zlesak’s rose “Snowball” (possibly ‘Sven’ pollinated by ‘John Davis’, and evidently a pollen fertile, relatively hardy rambler type with recessive genes for rebloom–see HMF). His rose Catherine Guelda might also be of some interest, although I don’t know about fertility; it hasn’t been available commercially before, as far as I know.
High Country’s Snowball was very vigorous in my garden last year and completely tip hardy in a tough MN winter that killed most of my modern roses to the soil. I look forward to pollinating it this year.
David mentioned on HMF in the Member Comments section that “Snowball” doesn’t produce hips, but has fertile pollen. That sounds like really promising hardiness!
The best answer would come directly from David, who posts on the forum with some regularity, since he mentions having some seedlings from it. Given that only the seed parent (Sven) is known, and Sven is a reblooming diploid, its percentage of reblooming seedlings would depend on a few things. The first is its ploidy (triploid seems likely); if it is triploid, what third RoKSN allele might have inherited from the pollen parent? This can be inferred somewhat by observing enough seedlings, but is not easily predicted.
Crossed with an everblooming rose, though, it should probably fall somewhere within the theoretical 17% to 50% range as shown above. Ideally, you will also be able to either look into the background of any rose you would want to mate it with, and/or (with a premium HMF membership) check lists of its first-generation descendants to see how many (if any) are repeat blooming to try to understand what is happening on the other side of the equation.
