RHA Meeting in San Jose

The ARS Convention in San Jose was a great success. One of the highlights for me was Roger Phillips’ talk ‘Species Roses and Beyond’ in which he showed slides of his trip to China in search of rose species and the original stud Teas and Chinas. Another highlight was the garden tour, which included four of the best private rose gardens I’ve ever seen. And, of course, the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden was fabulous, as it usually is this time of year.

I didn’t count, but I think that there were 15-20 people at the RHA meeting. Most of the time was spent discussing the new advanced hybridizer’s handbook, written by a variety of RHA members and put together by Larry Peterson. The rough draft looked great - a lot of useful and interesting information.

Ralph Moore spoke briefly at the RHA meeting on a technique that he calls fanning. He uses it to see what traits a rose is capable of passing to its progeny. Basically, it involves crossing that rose with a variety of others, and looking at all of the seedlings to what traits they got from the rose in question. I also got a chance to speak with him briefly on a couple of other occasions. What a wise and gentle man he is!

I talked with Sean McCann over a glass of wine one evening. He is an Irish hybridizer who has registered about 50 roses, mostly minis, in the last 20 years. He told me that he thinks that hybridizers should breed for beauty. He said that there is no such thing as a healthy rose (any rose will be unhealthy in the wrong place or the wrong conditions), and advised me that rather than trying to breed for health, I should educate people to spray (he didn’t convince me). He also told me something that Jerry Twomey said about the Watsonville area (where I live). Jerry had his test roses here for many years and told Sean that if a rose was healthy in Watsonville, it would be healthy anywhere.

One of the speakers at the session on new introductions said that Mitchie Moe’s yellow mini, I think the name was “Mitchie’s Gold”, will be on the market soon. (Mitchie, please give us the details, and correct any mistakes!)

I forgot to mention Roger Phillip’s new web site, which looks like it will be a great resource:

Link: www.rogersroses.com/

I ran into Enrique in the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden and took this photo of him…

ARG Everyone, please don’t look… Okay then, but it’s not my fault if you turn to stone…

Well, I had a nice time with Jim. We talked a little, but I couldn’t go to the RHA meeting. We saw some very intresting roses, one in particular that I haven’t seen at all till then. It was VERY thorny. I think it was a cross between Lemon D x Out of Yesteryear. I have a pic. Wish I could at least stayed longer, but lingering isn’t what I do anymore. I’m always on the go now a days. Bought a very nice Cafe Ole right when everyone was closing up. I haven’t looked at the pics from my camera.

Cool. Chao.

I enjoyed talking with you at the SJHRG, Enrique. I hope I didn’t embarass you too much by posting your pic. I remember that Moore seedling you mentioned. The thorns completely covered the stems and looked rather strange, kind of like a cross between thorns and moss. I wonder what the flowers look like?

The Moore rose you mentioned is “12-95-4”, and as Enrique pointed out, it is indeed the result of a cross of “Lemon D” and ‘Out of Yesteryear’. (“Lemon D” = ‘Little Darling’ X ‘Lemon Delight’)

Mel Hulse was the man responsible for getting this test rose into the garden last year. If you have ever seen Ralph’s original plant of this one at his place, you would be astonished. It makes a climber to 10 feet or more and is fully remontant. The buds are mossed with mahogany colored mossing, and the blooms open like an Austin rose; cupped and full of swirling petals of cream and amber yellow. There are at least 100 petals to each 4" bloom and they are often produced in clusters of 5 or so. Mr. Moore is contemplating allowing it into commerce. Lets hope he does, as it is an astonishing rose.



Wow, 10 feet?! I went today, with my digital camera again, and this time I made a few more shots of it, one in particular illustrates its thorny nature. I’ve also got a very good shot of Golden Glow and of others. I’m having ideas of photographing every rose right there and burn it all on a CD. I think it would be much better than a rose book; you know, like helpmefind.com/roses.

Was there any discussion of my revision to the basic Rose Hybridizer’s manual (that I was asked to write) and which I submitted a first draft quite a while ago?

Also, was there any discussion about the Constitution?

12-95-4 looks amazing! I hope it is introduced.

Henry, I didn’t hear anyone mention the constitution, or a revision of the basic manual.

Jim - Mitchie’s Gold was introduced last year. It is available, when she get some more propagated, from Mitchie. She hasn’t done much since her eye surgery and a difficult recovery period. Michael Williams also has it at the MiniRose Gardens in SC.

As Mary Peterson was not at the meeting, I took some notes and will write up some minutes and send them off to her.

Good to see you in San Jose - See, there were some of us that did know the way!


“Henry, I didn’t hear anyone mention the constitution”

The last election of officiers should of been in 1999 - is this correct? (I am not aware of such an election).

If there was not an election, does this mean that the organization does not now have any officiers?

I don’t know when the last election was, but there was mention of an upcoming election. I think that it is going to be at the next ARS Convention (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

Good that there was mention of an election. According to the constitution the procedure is:

Section 6. Elections shall be conducted in the following manner:

(1) Names of persons on Nominations Committee shall be announced in summer Newsletter of 1979 and subsequently every four years.

(2) Any member may make nominations for District Director of his district and/or for General Director. All nominations will be mailed to the District Nominations Committee representative. Consent of person being nominated should be obtained in advance.

(3) If no nominations are received for a particular office the Nominations Committee shall make that nomination.

(4) Nominations Committee shall send list of nominees to Editor for publication in Fall edition of the newsletter. Fall edition shall include ballot containing names of all nominees.

(5) Ballots shall be mailed to Chairman of Elections Committee. He shall then certify results of election to General Director and to Editor.

(6) Results of elections shall be printed in Winter edition of Newsletter.

That’s great that an upcoming election was talked about. It would be nice to get back on track with what is outlined in the constitution. Was a nominating committee formed?

Henry, I pulled out your draft of the revision of the handbook a couple months ago and enjoyed it. It might be nice if you and the Moes would choose to work on integrating portions of your work into the upcoming edition being developed. If I understand correctly, what happened was that there was a misunderstanding about your role in it. The board’s expectation was that you would edit the edition, not author the whole thing. By obtaining contributions from many people writing about some aspect of rose breeding that they especially enjoy, the overall product would be expected to have more depth and perspective and more RHA members can feel ownership of the resource.

David, your statement is interesting, “If I understand correctly, what happened was that there was a misunderstanding about your role in it. The board’s expectation was that you would edit the edition, not author the whole thing”.

Did whoever told you that have anything in writing to back up that statement? If so, I would like to see a copy of it, as it appears that I am getting senile as I have no recollection of receiving such a communication from the board. In hindsite I guess that I should of asked for a formal contract.

I’m a bit disturbed about what is happening with the new RHA handbook. I had offered to write a short history (about 5000 words) of rose breeding for the RHA handbook. It would have included an outline of the potential for breeding several types of roses. However, if the handbook wasn’t going to be professionally edited and therefore ensuring a high quality product I didn’t want to participate. Now I learn that the board expected Henry to be the editor and that would have been acceptable to me. I would like some clarification of what’s going on.

David, I have thought more about your statement - “not author the whole thing”. I have never represented the revision as a new work. It was what I was asked to do - a revision. The concept that it is a revision is explained in the introduction:

"In 1989 the Rose Hybridizers Association (RHA) produced the first edition of this booklet in an effort to “thoroughly cover the basics of rose hybridizing”. It went on to state: “The information in this booklet is not the ‘final word’ on hybridizing - there are as many different methods as there are hybridizers, and more ideas are being tried each day”.

The above paragraph serves as a good explanation as to why a second edition is in order. It is our intention to incorporate the new hybridizing knowledge of the past decade into the basically sound information of the first edition so that someone starting out in the field can be confident that his chances of success will not be restricted by a lack of knowledge of what is known about the mechanics of rose hybridizing.

Whether your goal is to produce a rose worthy of award or just the satisfaction of creating your own unique rose variety, we hope that Rose Hybridizing for Beginners starts you well on the road to producing a rose you can present with pride." END OF INTRODUCTION

I sent the first draft to many hybridizers for their input. You were one of those that I sent it to. The following is what I wrote you on 10-4-1998 after you had offered to proofread it:

“Thank you for the offer, but since this is a first draft, it is not necessary for you to proofread it at this time. I would appreciate general comments about things to add, things to expand, are there any statements that you feel are incorrect, could be misinterpreted, etc.”

Dear Henry,

It sounds from your messages on this string like there are some unresolved issues and miscommunication that you and those you have worked with regarding the handbook would benefit from resolving. You know who you communicated with and in my opinion you and whoever these people are should initate some dialog, review the situation, and sincerely and honestly try to work through the issue for the sake of RHA and yourselves.

Yes Henry, you sent your draft to me and I offered to proofread it. You clarified your purpose in sending it to me and what you desired from me. I gave you general feedback as you requested. I enjoyed your work.



David, normally I have brought up this subject in private e-mails, but you forced this out in the open by making the statement here that: “If I understand correctly, what happened was that there was a misunderstanding about your role in it. The board’s expectation was that you would edit the edition, not author the whole thing”. the idea that I had authored the whole thing against the wishes of the board is completely different than anything that I remember being told. I asked a large number of hybridizers to review the first draft of the revised handbook manuscript under the pretext that I was authorized to edit a revision. They took me at my word and spent time going over it. I do not want there to be any doubts about my motives. I repeat my request for documentation of your statement.

Dear Henry,

I am not the person you need to contact. You know who

you dealt with and you need to contact them asking

them for clarification. The Moe’s have been involved

editing the revised edition of the handbook for some

time. I’m surprised you waited this long to bring up

this discussion since they have been making public

requests for many months for contributions and it was

made general knowledge that they were working on

editing the revision. I was not a part of your

discussions and commitment to RHA regarding this

handbook and don’t know what happened between you and

those you worked with that led you and them to not

bring your revision to completion during the past two

and a half years and be available now to the

membership. Something obviously precipitated for the

Moe’s to be asked to edit it. You opened up the topic

on this string about your past involvement and left

the impression, at least to me, that you are being

slighted. "Was there any discussion of my revision to

the basic Rose Hybridizer’s manual (that I was asked

to write) and which I submitted a first draft quite a

while ago?" Perhaps you are being slighted. I don’t

know. I’m glad I encouraged discussion. You wrote

previously, "I asked a large number of hybridizers to

review the first draft of the revised handbook

manuscript under the pretext that I was authorized to

edit a revision." Editing and writing are two

different things, but can overlap and only you and

those you talked with now the details of the request

made upon you. You introduced the topic in a public

way on this string instead of going to the people you

have been involved with and I felt okay with voicing

my concern publicly as well for you to respond to it and

clarify it. I hope this situation does not detract from

all the wonderful work that the Moe’s and others have

done on the revision at hand. I do not claim to know

exactly what happened between you and the board and

ask that you review your documents and contact those

you worked with. I do not have any documents since I

was not involved with your discussions. All I am able

and will contribute is the sincere hope that you and

whoever you worked with find resolution and that the

best resources at hand can be brought together to make

the handbook the best it can be.

I am through discussing this topic.