Apologies if this has already been discussed but it seems not and this will no doubt be of interest to some people here.
There are two trees presented based on slightly different techniques (scroll down past the techspeak). It gives mostly species, but omitting R. chinensis and R. gigantea, and includes a few older hybids.
If anyone knows of other such trees published online I’d like to be alerted.
Don
Link: library.wur.nl/file/wurpubs/wurpublikatie_i00363585_001.pdf
Am I correct in seeing that Rosa roxburghii and Rosa hugonis are closely linked?
i find this fascinating because the first year I saw saw Rosa roxburghii normalis I thought, “Wow that’s almost the same foliage Rosa primula has”. Rosa primula and hugonis are "relatively similar so I imagine Rosa primula is somewhere in bracket 71.
the only real surprise to me is that I thought rosa rugosa and rosa acicularis would be closer. However, we have no clue which Rosa acicularis was used. What if the different subspecies arent the same species?!?! dun dun dun dunnnn lol.
Thanks for posting this Don,
Perhaps you could give a synopsis of it for those of us whose eyes glaze over when reading technical papers like this.
Thanks,
Paul
The link to this has changed. It is now here (full paper): http://www.amjbot.org/content/95/3/353.full.pdf
I wouldn’t mind seeing this one either: Phylogenetic analyses of the genus Rosa using the matK sequence: molecular evidence for the narrow genetic background of modern roses - ScienceDirect