No way 
thanks for clearing it up for me
That is great hybridizing work, Arno. Congratulations to you!
Arno,
Very nice plants, it
Thanks George!
Its clear that this can only the beginning of something, not the reaching the goal / finish.
But from time to time something should be the outcome, otherwise its not possible to keep on waiting for years.
Thats the reason, why I try very different crossings over the last years. I always think: SOMETHING will germinate, I just don’t know, what it is. …
Grx!
Arno
Hi Paul!
What you write on diseases on rugosa seedlings is interesting, becuase these beggeriana seedlings never had any powdery mildew … perhaps beggeriana brings a stable F1 resistancy into that combination … hmn not only perhaps - it is nearly obvious.
OK what you write on Schneezwerg is further of big interest for me; I didn’t know that there is suggestion that its a beggeriana hybrid. And, you are also right I think, this variety can’t be a F1 plant out of that crossing, at least if rugosa is the seed parent, as the F1 seedlings are all not with glossy leafs.
This gives an opening to a few deep questions; and as I look on Schneezwerg as I know it - this tends more to be a total other combination - even if not a bracteata crossing at all (this often mentioned possibility is almost absurd I think … .)
Totaly speaking without knowledge about the parents - only by viewing the pictures and by remembering what I have seen: For me Schneezwerg looks like a Hybrid of
Rosa rugosa x Rosa canina
or
Rosa rugosa x Trier
Especially the latter combination would make sense in historical context. …
Or it is really a beggeriana crossing, but then an F2 or F3 combination - as you wrote above.
I didn’t know that Lambert had beggeriana (and don’t really believe it).
Skinner had beggeriana, as he crossed Mrs John McNabb, which is on HMF:
Parentage:
Rosa beggeriana Schrenk ex Fisch. & C.A.Mey. × Rosa rugosa Thunb.
I didn’t know that rose until today - so you see what happens when one thinks about having an idea no one had before! ))
By the way, I don’t believe the direction of the cross as well here as its given for this rose on HMF, as its much better to use rugosa as a seed parent because of the huge amount of seeds in the outcome. …
10 seeds or 60 per hip … that does make a difference. And rugosa is a very good seed parent as well, it takes nearly everything.
Grx!
Arno
Hi Arno,
Looking at my Schneezwerg and the photos on HMF, it downed on me that it could be an R.rugosa crossed with one of the diploid Spinosissamae species. I know that sounds crazy as the diploid spins are very hard to work with, but the small leaves and the blooming along the stem suggests that to me. Anyway, there are too many things about Schneezwerg that suggest that it isn
Hi Paul,
I think as a
Rosa rugosa x Rosa spinosissima
it is of course also possible, yes; as an F2 out of crossing the F1 syblings or as a direct backkross to rugosa.
This takes 6 to 8 years for a good hybridizer with enough space; so why not.
One important question would be: is it possible to get an overview of the roses that Lambert owned or intended to use?
Did Skinner speak of beggeriana as partly involved in the breeding history of Schneezwerg only as a marketing tool for his own idea to use beggeriana in breeding?
Perhaps its foetida pollen and the yellow didn’t jump over! 
There you got your spinosissima influence … .
(just kidding)
Grx!
Arno
Great old thread with infos for N2O treatment:
http://www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=1666
“Loving Gas in the Devil Bliss” ;-D
Next year I will do for sure:
Rosa rugotida ‘Corylus’ x Rosa multiflora ‘nana’
Rosa rugotida ‘Corylus’ x Rosa multiflora ‘Trier’
Rosa rugotida ‘Corylus’ x (Rosa rugosa f. alba x Rosa beggeriana)
All that F1 embryos can be treated after the first cell divisions by a N2O atmosphere under pressure between 6 and 8 atmospheres. If I got the technique ready until then.
For me its also a question of money, i am afraid … .
Never the less: Especially the latter cross out of Rosa rugotida ‘Corylus’ x (Rosa rugosa f. alba x Rosa beggeriana) should be perhaps the most important for my personal quest; thats the reason why I post it here.
It could be fertile even without being polyploidized. As all the partners are part of the section of the Cinnamomea, except nitida, which often is called to be a Carolinae (which seems to be very near to Cinnamomea section anyway).
Rosa nitida has got finer expression of qualities, which together with the greyish leafs from my cross out of rugosa and beggeriana should be very interesting.
Also the recurrancy is a point that should be of interest.
Will recurrancy remain in the hybrids - and their polyploid sisters?
These are a few questions I would like to get on the track; but there is much work until then. …
Grx!
Arno
PS: By the way the thread has also the topid 1666. No kidding. This-is-a-sign!
Link: www.rosehybridizers.org/forum/message.php?topid=1666#30444
About ‘Corylus’ x (Rosa rugosa f. alba x Rosa beggeriana) progeny you can expect ample diversity and enough fertility at diploid level.
Nitida was fully cross fertile with diploid Cinnamomae I used. Supporting lumping of Carolinae in Cinnamomae that many advocate.
Cinnamomae x Synstilae seedlings at diploid level were allmost to totally sterile. As illustrated by most available.
There a few exceptions and… one could question published pedigrees.
About recurrence you will probably have a mix of recurrent and once blooming seedlings. At least my consistant experience with many similar crosses that kind of demonstrate that while both parents being half or more rugosa recurrence is not from a recessive gene.
Hi Pierre,
Thank you again for your open minded comments!
At least my consistant experience with many similar crosses that kind of demonstrate that while both parents being half or more rugosa recurrence is not from a recessive gene.
I thought also a bit about that topic and I am also curious and wondering if its a different way of inheritance.
For example young plants with that traits mostly won’t show it, despite they do have the genetical conditions and setting to show that kind of recurrancy later when mature … .
There are really lots of questions that come up with that theme. One reason to play with its fundations.
Also still unknown gene dosis effects may play a role when handling tetraploid specimen of these genetic backgrounds.
Or otherwise QTL effects.
I am really keen on learning more about that in a practical way, not only via books or articles, thats only sleeping knowledge, which solely awakens in real examples. So one has simply to try and watch the output closely.
Interesting was one question for me.
Rosa rugosa is as beggeriana a recurrant flowering wild rose. Combining that means creating heterozygocious plants for that gene.
Know the questions arise: Or do they have the same genes for that traits? Then a F1 crossing would be homozygocious for that trait - even if the genes are from different species.
How could it be possible? - Because the Rosa rugosa is, as beggeriana too, from the cinnamomea section of roses.
That was one further reason for me to test that crossing: How will the different remontancy / recurrancy genes interact in F1 and soon in F2 hybrids. …
Further the inteferencies in polyploidy will be very interesting to watch (as I have already mentioned above) … .
And, all in all: not only negative interference is possible here! - Also a remontancy enhancement through combining remontancy of rugosa and beggeriana should be possible, - as a consequence of the heterozygocious expression of that trait … .
Grx!
Arno
Arno
You could also consider the hypothesis I exposed before that there is no gene for recurrence.
Some consider recurrence as basic. Non recurrency being from genetically hindered recurrence. Adaptations to species conditions such are temperate zone seasons. So that eventual different specific genetical ways to hinder recurrence are possible/likely. And among them fit the temporary delayed rugosa recurrence.
Then instead of genes for recurrence it may be we have genes modifying to hindering recurrence.
That is how I actually explain the recurrent seedlings many rose breeders get from non recurrent species.
An impossibility if it was from one or more recessive recurrence gene.
I always figured that it was a complexity not unlike human science where multiple hormones and how genetics manipulate them was how repeat came into play.
Hi Pierre, and also Jadae!
I will think more about it in the future - excuse me if I didn’t get your point of view here so far.
Yes a different story is always also possible here in the inheritance of recurrency types - as it might be the case for the whole “yellow colour inheritancy theme” also … .
And added implications of such “minus effects” as you describe them are for sure comparable with such ones for recessive occurency or for QTLs. So its necessary to try out and compare useful specimen. Often this will be diploid species, as their genetics and epigenetics will be much easier to define and understand.
I think it will be possible to understand some of the backgrounds with a bit of luck and if the crossing partners are chosen well to simplify the surrounding as good as possible.
Grx!
Arno
Hi folks!
I do have nice fall foliage on my F1 seedlings of the Rosa rugosa f. alba x Rosa beggeriana crossings.
Its also my first theme on my blog site, the other things will be added step by step.
Also a few more thoughts concerning this special crossing should be discussed in depth there.
Interestingly, the fall foliage colouring is intermedium - between the extremes of the parents.
Rosa rugosa is bright yello here; and beggeriana red to violet.
Grx!
Arno
Link: rosehybridizer.blogspot.com/p/drought-resistance-and-cold-resistance.html
The stem color is unlike Rosa rugosa alba, unless my old clone is atypical.
Hi Jadae!
Yes I know, that also was surprising to me.
But it seems to be an effekt from the beggeriana traits as the stems of beggeriana in fall sometimes also get greyish-violet where exposed to the sun.
Grx!
Arno
Freaky. Nice trait though.
I have a small batch of forgotten seedlings that are healthy and growing. Theyre labeled as Rosa rugosa alba x tetraploid pollen. My memory recalls the male parents being roses like Livin Easy, Baby Love, and somethign else (Home Run?). I forgot. At any rate, they mostly look like Livin Easy was the dominant parent. Everything is lime-green, thorny, healthy, bushy, and glossy. Theyre very healthy, but they still have not bloomed. They look like they might next year. If they ever do, I’ll backcross them as pollen parents to something like Jens Munk.