Hi Kim.
I am soooo confused!!
Without getting into the code name thing, have you or anyone else here grown the roses named ‘Basye’s Legacy’ and ‘Basye’s thornless’ side by side, or seen both plants? Are they the same rose??
thx in advance…
o_O
:O)
Kim,
I don’t know what to tell you about the inconsistencies on the naming. The best I could do at this point is to look at the historical records (and yes, I’m talking reams of paper and lots of dust)!
We no longer have many of the original Basye plants. Over the years, we used them and incorporated them into other lines to create advanced selections. We’ve used those advanced selections to move to something that is more ‘releasable’ than the originals. (Everblooming traits, few/no thorns, disease resistance, better bush type, etc…)
However, we do have a few stock plants of the original Basye plants. I’ll have to run out to the field and double check what’s still there and how they are doing. We rarely look at that field any longer because the roses are established and do just fine on their own.
Jakie,
The only Knock Out’s (KO) that consistently do well for us (in our area) are the original KO and Blushing KO. Double KO is okay, but it doesn’t have a very good bush type and wasn’t as vigorous as the 2 mentioned above. We couldn’t even keep Yellow or Rainbow KO alive. (That’s not too shocking though since the parentage for the last 2 mentioned is different than the original KO).
George, don’t be confused! There were/are three named roses being passed around and growing in various places here in California.
-
A rose named “Basye’s Thornless”, given to Ralph years ago by someone whose identity he forgot, which they had growing in pots at Sequoia.
-
A rose handed to David Neumeyer by Dr. Basye when David visited Dr. Basye’s garden in Texas years ago. I met David on Garden Web. He was moving from Texas and feared he might lose the rose, so I had him send cuttings which were propagated. This rose, Dr. Basye personally identified to David as 65-626 or Commander Gillette.
-
A rose labeled as “Basye’s Thornless”, growing in The Study Plot at The Huntington Library in San Marino, California. I know the two roses Dr. Basye sent The Huntington, written of in the ARS annual articles, in which Dr. Basye stated breeding material could be obtained from The Huntington for a nominal donation, were never mixed up with any other material. They were the only Basye roses The Huntington grew until I brought them Blueberry and Basye’s Purple. Clair Martin had them rooted and planted them under an enormous old oak in the Study Plot, where all found roses, unidentified roses, most once flowering OGRs and anything else which didn’t fit the main rose garden, were grown. I ran across a partial listing of what was grown there years ago, the other day as I began unpacking my library. It was finding those ARS articles which set me searching for them in The Study Plot. I found them and propagated them for their plant sales to prevent their loss and to get them spread around as I knew they were something special, worth getting “out there”. That’s why I also grew them and shared them with Paul for Ashdown. This is the rose Paul and I christened “Basye’s Legacy” to differentiate it from all others. I have a photo copy of The Huntington’s identification card for this rose stating Dr. Basye personally identified it as 77-361, the cross between The Probable Amphidiploid and Commander Gillette.
I grew all three of these roses, side by side, in my old Newhall, California garden. ALL of these roses were identical in every detail. They all bloomed simultaneously side by side in Newhall. There were no differences between them, period. Cutting pieces of each and putting them side by side, you couldn’t tell them apart. Lord only knows WHICH rose it is, but they are all the same rose.
Does that help? Kim
Hi Kim,
Ok I see.
So I hope I am right in assuming that Basye’s Thornless=Basye’s Legacy=Commander Gillette.
If that is correct, note that (as you might already be aware) on HMF there are seperate listings for Basye’s Legacy and for Basye’s Thornless/Commander Gillette…Might it be a good idea to merge the Basye’s Legacy page with the Basye’s Thornless/Commander Gillette page to create one page for the one rose?
That would be a thought, however, the roses DID originally exist. It’s just that the same rose currently circulates as all three. They weren’t the same rose initially, Dr. Basye himself, was responsible for misidentifying the same plant as both Commander Gillette and 77-361 (Legacy). “Basye’s Thornless” is the common name given the rose by people who didn’t know his wishes for naming 65-626 (Commander Gillette) nor what we christened what he provided as 77-361. Merging the pages would remove the documentation that the two roses originally existed. There are people who SWEAR they are still separate roses, that they see differences, but I’ve never found anything but the same rose wearing different name tags.
Hi Kim,
fair enough, thanks very much for taking the time and trouble clarifying this “situation”.
At last I can let that point of confusion go in my mind, and move on…
:O)
You’re welcome, George. Even though there is confusion, the rose in question does make wonderfully healthy, thornless (or nearly so) offspring with very good heat and cold tolerance.
‘Julie Link’ does indeed set seed quite readily, although I have not attempted to germinate them, nor make crosses with it. I like the rose a lot, and for my climate, it is one of the best of the Moore Bracteata hybrids in terms of overall performance, shapeliness, health and beauty. It stayes under 2 feet tall, thrives in a container for years without fuss, and is always shapely, requiring the least “manicuring” of any modern rose. It does fade, certainly, but in my climate, not too quickly, nor does it end up an unnattractive hue. I have issues with Austin roses in this regard to a far greater degree than I do with ‘Julie Link’.
As Kim pointed out, it has some dreadful genes, on its maternal side in particular, and for that reason I have not considered it (at least more than half-heartedly) as a breeding plant. I suspect its potential for producing junk is far greater than its capacity to summon magic, but without actually testing it, that is just speculation.
As far as Kim’s comments about Moore’s thornless plants out of the Basye group, I am in full agreement. If people could see my mature 7 X 7 foot specimen of ‘My Stars’ next to an ideal plant of, say…‘Knockout’, I have no doubt ‘My Stars’ would wow everyone. Add to its grace and clarity of color, the plant is thornless. Completely. In my garden it has been left untended except for watering in July and August, receiving no fertilizer, no pruning, no spraying, for nearly 7 years now and it is an outstanding plant in every way. Sure, it won’t perform as well everywhere, but it is as close to the ideal of low-to-no-maintenance as any rose can be, at least in my circumstances.
It is precisely because of the stellar (pun intended) performance of ‘My Stars’ that I am now working with it, and its kin (‘Basye’s Blueberry’, ‘Commander Gillette’, and others) in breeding. The results I have seen in the past three years of employing these selections makes me think that Basye really did accomplish something special in his time, and provided us with some great genes. Now all we have to do is make use of them. Seriously, if you haven’t used ‘Basye’s Blueberry’ yet in your work, do yourself a favor and acquire a plant. I’ve witnessed ‘Basye’s Blueberry’ pollen generate thornless and near-thornless seedlings in great numbers when placed on even the most outrageously thornly plants, including Rugosas!
And what is this “Floradora Fade” you speak of?? I have not witnessed such a phenomenon. (read: sarcasm) 
Paul
Thomas Affleck (carefree beauty x basyes blueberry)
is supposed to be thornless. Has anyone grown TA?
We had ‘Thomas Affleck’ in our fields from about 2003 through 2005. According to our dbase, it has a few thorns. We also made a note that it has thorns/prickles on the backs of the leaves.
I grew Thomas Affleck from 2005-2007 (my plant was killed in the late freeze of 2007). It had a few thorns here in Charleston, WV too. An attractive rose as it opens, and seed-fertile.
Peter
Paul, if you have time, I know you are a busy man and ‘Julie Link’ sets some hips this coming summer would it be possible to send some to me, I will pay all relevant costs of course. I do have a back up from Nat Anderson(please remember).
his “first rose”…Baby Mine was a Mlle. Cecile Brunner seedling
While sorting out my breeding plans for the upcoming season just now I was looking at the ancestry of Ruby Pendant on HMF. I noticed something interesting - it looks like Mlle. Cecile Brunner has to be heterozygous for the miniaturizing gene.
The seed parent of Ruby is an unnamed seedling derived from an assortment of the usual Pernetiana based hybrid teas. The pollen parent is Baby Betsy McCall, a micro-mini that has as its parents a mini named Rosey Jewel, by Dennison Morey, and Mlle. Cecile Brunner.
In order for Baby Betsy to be a micro-mini it has to be homozygous for the mini gene, so it must have gotten one copy from Mlle. Cecile Brunner.
To confirm this I had a look at the other offspring of Mlle. Cecile Brunner and, sure enough, it looks like about half of the f1’s are minis.
It seems to me, then, that Ralph was targeting mini’s right from the start and he suspected Mlle. Cecile Brunner of having the power to deliver them. Since Zee has the obvious advantage of being not only a mini but also being remontant it makes sense that Zee would become the foundation breeder for Ralph’s miniatures. Still, it is good to know that Ruby Pendant carries one or maybe even two copies of the mini gene which could be useful with some of the polyploid briars I am trying to tame.
Don, I’m researching some early yellow polys and dug up the registration for Baby Mine today from the 1930 ARS annual. There is finally more information about this rose on HMF, directly from the original registration. Ralph had only mentioned the rose as being the “real yellow Cecile Brunner”, poking at the “other one that wasn’t really yellow”, meaning the “Yellow Cecile Brunner” H&S sold, but for which no information seems available. This wasn’t a Perle d’Or from what I can determine. Fr. Schoener, in the 30s, offered Yellow Cecile Brunner, Yellow Baby Rambler (George Elgar), Perle d’Or and Eugenie Lamesch in the same catalog.
Here is the scan of the registration.
[attachment 405 BabyMine1931ARSannualpage218.jpg]
Last night I had another look at the book ‘All about Miniature Roses’ by Ralph S. Moore and did some additional online research. I came across a page I hadn’t seen before that shows the phylogenetic tree of some of his breedings. Perhaps this graphic is not yet known to everyone and may be of interest to some.
2 Likes