Yesterday I started to collect ploidy info from roses which are mentioned on this board. I was wondering if a ‘rose-ploidy database’ is usefull for all hybridizers.
Is this a good idea or useless subject?
If it’s usefull, are people willing to sheare their ploidy knowlage?
Regards,
Timothy
I fell that it will be very useful. Thank you for starting it. I will definitely add to it as I find new information.
I’ve been encouraging Helpmefind to add this to the information provided for each ploidy confirmed cultivar. I think it would be very useful tool.
Robert, did they answered allready?. They got all the roses listed and have a search engine. Would be a lot easier if they insert a place for ploidylevel.
Hi Timothy. Yes, they did respond and asked where they could get such information. I suggested older issues of Modern Roses as a place to start.
There are of course other sources of information including those counts reported by David and others.
I think citing source information important.
Listing ploidy levels in HMF would be great. Would it make sense to have the ploidy field accessible by anyone as long as they are registered on HMF and are able to cite a source?
Robert (and all),
I really think that HMF should cite a source for any ploidy they put on their site.
Without the citations, there’s no way to put credibility to the reports.
This might avoid confusions similar to the problems HMF has with some of their pictures at present.
There are also the current scientific papers that should be included. Again with citations.
Ann
Am I right that counting ploidnumbers is possible for a selective group of people? How many roses are roughly been identified for their ploidylevel?
We can make a start with information which is available now.
If you have a list of roses with ploidnumbers just sent them to me and I’ll put all the information together.
If you arrange them by ploidynumber it’s easy to copy past in Excel. I’ll put them on a little site with links to google spreadsheets.
My mail is:
One can always add the ploidy level in the comment box of each rose. HMF can decide what to do with that information.
When i give HMF information, I just either email it to them or put it into the comment section of each cultivar. I do this because I know theyre busy people working for beans, and figure they will get to it when they can.
Great suggestion Jadae. HMF is a free resource and depends almost entirely on the generosity of volunteers, rose lovers, who do an amazing job editing the database and keeping it current and constantly expanding.
No doubt eventually ploidy information will be formally integrated.
I have been doing the same thing Timothy on an Excell document. I started it because I could not find this information all in one area. And I add to it every time I find the ploidy of a new rose. Some of my list may be wrong because I did not find the ploidy myself but used information I found on this forum or other web sites, and so I must reley on these. But I am sure 95 percent of it is correct. I could email the start of my list if you want. It is not complete plus I added alot of species names that I do not have the ploidy for. I like using microsoft excell because I can arrange my catagories alphabetically by cultivar name, species group or type.
Yeah, there are a lot of species that are not well-documented. There are supposedly 2 or 3 rare species n Oregon thatIve never seen, and have only seen the names in rare books…
Adam, you can sent your file to:
I appreciate your contribution!
Regards,
Timothy
I’ve already compiled a bit of data on the ploidy of species and much bit less on cultivars in anticipation of adding ploidy to HMF. I am currently listing name, ploidy and source of the information, as sometimes there are conflicts. The list is rough. I simply add another line for each rose when I run through a reference with ploidy information.
Why not two google spreadsheets to which people here could contribute data, one for cultivars, one for species?
Jadae, which Oregon species are you talking about?
pisocarpa is tetraploid.
durandii (syn. nutkana var. nutkana) is supposedly tetraploid
gymnocarpa is diploid
californica is tetraploid
woodsii and woodsii var. ultramontana are both diploid
yainacensis is diploid
nutkana is hexaploid
Other Oregon species?
yainacensis was one of the rare ones. There were 1 or 2 others.
Timothy I emailed you the list. I hope that helps you out.
Adam, I received it.
Thank you so much! It’s a lot information and I’m sure we can use your information. Lots of credits to you. I’ll put your name on the ‘Contributed by’ area.
Regards,
Timothy
diploids:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe0II4pIBrfFuw3SvNpJsdA
Triploids:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe0II4pIBrfG9kyOomxnTYA
Tetraploids:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe0II4pIBrfFlFkJ52Ya-BA
Penta/Hexa/octoploids:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe0II4pIBrfGDBRsefcucVg
Thanks to adam!
Thank you Timothy and Adam for providing these resources to us. I’ve downloaded the files and wanted to know if I want to add something to the list how do I do that? I saved them as web archive files, .mht file. Thank you!
I just checked in Gerd Krussman’s “The Complete Book of Roses” for R. pisocarpa.
It is listed as 2n=14,21
Which is correct? Is it diploid, triploid, or tetraploid?
I am watching its flowers develop with the idea of crossing both ways with “Lorraine Lee” ( diploid )
Now???
Rod