I’ve a question about rose classifications. You’ve the old garden rose groups (Centifolia, Damask, Bourbon, …) and in 1966 the ARS created the new modern classes. The old classes are the classes that existed prior to 1867 (°La France).
Is following statement correct?
There shouldn’t be any roses - created after 1966 - classified in one of the old garden rose groups? So you shouldn’t have any new Bourbons after 1966?
You of course have some sports that are genetically identical and were discovered after 1966. Maybe these would make an exception?
Some examples:
‘Shropshire Lass’ (Austin, 1968) and ‘Morning Blush’ (Sievers, 1974) should be classified as ‘Shrub’ and not ‘Alba’?
‘Marie Nordinger’ (Dr. Brian, 1983) should be classified as ‘Shrub’ and not ‘Centifolia’?
‘D’Artagnan’ (Fankhauser, 1969) should be classified as ‘Shrub’ and not ‘Damask’?
‘Huntington Brocade’ (Lowe, 1984) is a Bourbon, being a sport of Variegata di Bologna?
Is there any consensus on this topic? Any rules defined by ARS maybe?
I’ve got these links:
Old Garden Roses — In 1966, the American Rose Society defined old garden roses as those classes (not roses, but classes) that existed prior to 1867. Within the class of Old Garden Roses there are 22 subdivisions based on natural historical developments and characteristics.
For better or worse historically, the classification given often followed that of the female/hip parent.
Thus Frau Karl Druschki is classed as an HP, even though its pollen parent was an HT, AND it was created after 1867. That confusing issue aside, the “old vs. modern” classes themselves exist arbitrarily so that we can fit like with like. The individuals included may or may not have been created before that date.
That statement would not be correct–new roses, whether bred or raised as sports from parents belonging to OGR classes, are still members of those old garden rose classes, assuming of course that the combination of OGR parents isn’t itself non-OGR.
Of course, the whole concept is more than a little arbitrary. As has been pointed out by others, like Brent Dickerson, there were roses that were in fact hybrid teas before ‘La France’, even if you find that sort of delineation useful.
Paul Barden (I think that’s the guy) is on here and has created a few very nice “New” Gallicas. Search out the threads for more insight into this area.
The confusion came when the ARS decided to classify old garden roses for exhibiting, not so much for classification. In 1975 I believe, they added Victorian to those old garden roses introduced after 1867. Were there hybrid teas before 1867? Yes, several, but they selected 1867 for La France. The hybridizer of a rose determines what rose class their seedling should be in. Your example could be a hybrid gallica or even a shrub.