Schoener's Nutkana again

Roses for Hybridizing
, , , , , , , , , ,
1

I knew that Nicolas used ‘Schoener’s Nutkana’ in breeding.

Leonard Barron. Souv. de Mme. Boullet (HT.) X Schoener’s Nutkana.
Polar Bear. Schoener’s Nutkana X New Century (HRug.).
Shenandoah. Etoile de Hollande (HT). X Schoener’s Nutkana. Climbing.
Mrs. Francis King. Lady Lilford (HT.) X Leonard Barron (HN.).

Just yesterday I learned that Boerner also introduced at least two derivatives of SN:

Pink Glow (Schoener’s Nutkana seedling x Mrs Pierre S. du Pont) x Home Sweet Home
Ernie Pyle ([Royal Red x Talisman] x Seedling) x (Talisman x Nutneyron)

So, what happened to these roses? Maybe they just got left behind in the rush of new and “improved” varieties that come out year after year. Or maybe they were just too vigorous for small gardens. Whatever the reason, it makes one wonder whether “cracking” a species is really worth the effort. By the time the “species-ness” is toned down sufficiently to give a normal looking variety, there doesn’t seem to be much left that is particularly interesting.

I do wonder, however, what might come from ‘Schoener’s Nutkana’ crossed with a Floribunda, or even with a Polyantha. And for something amusing, maybe a cross with Moore’s ‘Sequoia Jewel’ (Sheri Anne x Paul Neyron) to double up on the ‘Paul Neyron’ ancestry and give (maybe) a giant mini.

2

it makes on wonder whether “cracking” a species is really worth the effort.

The founders of the RHA certainly thought it is not only worth the effort but is actually necessary for the survival of the rose industry.

The difficulty in exploiting traits of species roses is that the low hanging fruit have been picked over. The remaining traits are subtle and quantitative and so are difficult to manipulate.

This is the very reason that the RHA needs to keep our fingers in ongoing R&D efforts and push the researchers to develop tools that we can use to exploit those traits.

3

I was not suggesting that we should not work with species. I was merely pointing out the frustration that can accompany the work.

‘Fruhlingsmorgen’, derived from R. spinosissima altaica, is a fine rose in its own right. More importantly, without it we would not have the fascinating “Hand Painted” roses. This result was not anticipated, but we are lucky that it came about. Similarly, Tantau’s hybrids of R. roxburghii are all attractive varieties. Their added resistance to fungal infection is a plus. From them Tantau raised ‘Tropicana’, which was one of the healthiest HTs around, until a particular strain of mildew found it tasty. ‘Schoener’s Nutkana’ is not so appealing, except to specialists. It value is expressed only in later generations. But so far as I can learn, nothing remains of its descendants. At least, not in the more recent garden roses.

Still, I think there is something missing. Maybe it’s just a matter of classification. Aside from Austin’s “English Roses”, which mostly differ from the more common garden roses only in the forms of the flowers, we have no really new “races” of roses. Or, if something new comes along it is shoved into the Shrub category.

Donald Beaton (1861):

Hybridising is the only means given to us by Nature to obtain new races of plants, and by cross-breeding alone can we still further improve all new races. When Nature gives us more than one race in a family, as in these Geraniums and Fuchsias, and we despise them all but one, as florists do in Pelargoniums, and in turned-in-floret kinds of Chrysanthemums, we do not respond to the kindness of Nature for the gratification of our senses. Barring this clause, I would be a florist, and always was, and I hope to continue to be so to the end of the chapter. But the care and kindness of Heaven in supplying us with so many sources of innocent enjoyment I should be the last on earth to ignore in one single instance:

The derivatives of R. nutkana, through ‘Schoener’s Nutkana’, were mostly attempts at Hybrid Teas with a little extra. Similarly, the Pernetianas were bred into the HTs until there was no real distinction. The Hybrid Polyanthas became Floribundas, some of which are scarcely distinguished from HTs.

Why can’t we have new classes, specialized as they may be for particular conditions? Percy Wright raised some tiny rebloomers from R. arkansana (so called) that could replace Polyanthas in the far north. These had no “blood” from the Teas or Chinas to make them tender. Where are they now?

Some of the Russian Rugosas are both hardy and drought resistant, potentially valuable for their own qualities. But there was a rush to breed their good qualities into HPs, and later into HTs, rather than to improve them for their own unique beauty. Crosses of Rugosas with R. blanda and R. foliolosa are known, and might give something both hardy and reblooming that is not a mere shrub.

By the way, Boerner also raised ‘Pink Glory’ [(seedling of Ernie Pyle) x Peace], but so far I can’t find a picture of it, let alone a source for this late derivative of R. nutkana. And no progeny that I can locate.

4

I used to lament the losses to time, too, but since I’ve gotten into the game myself I realize that my own close species hybrids are better to fret over.

Nutkana is probably worth some effort. I use Nutshop in my moss program but have never seen the species itself.

5

Ralph Moore raised several seedlings from Orangeade X Schoener’s Nutkana. The most striking one was a saturated red single with large white “eye”. The plant was a largish floribunda-shrub with three and a half inch to a bit larger, flowers. It flowered much of the summer and had persistent rust and black spot issues, even in my hotter, more arid Newhall garden. I grew it for quite a few years because I liked the parentage and the flowers. Then, I learned how glorious it was to avoid plants which were addicted to disease issues.

6

As every one would know here that I have done a lot of work with R. virginiana, some one asked if the foliage of Virginiana was still dominant in the F2/ F3 crosses. This I do not worry too much over, as it is the hidden traits which I am really after, although they may not look like a Virginiana , hardiness along with other traits have been implanted within these seedlings. One nice trait is , the F2’s are still displaying the very nice Autumn colours, with the F3’s I do not know yet.

I cannot wait until Spring, as I have seedlings of Virg F2’s crossed with Hybrid Musks, Hybrid Multiflora’s and various Rugosa Hybrids. As you can see I am not crossing these with any HT’s or Floribunda’s.

Its good to work with species.

Warren

7

Years ago, the ARA seemed to be devoted to advertisements and articles dealing with fungicides and pesticides, and the roses that needed them. Healthy roses? What a concept!

‘Orangeade’ is a beauty, but Stoddard (1980) reported that some of the offspring from it were highly susceptible to black spot; most had only average resistance.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/orangeade.html

I would not expect R. nutkana to be quite happy in hot and arid gardens. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised that Moore’s seedlings were not quite successful. Hardiness is a valuable characteristic, but we must keep in mind what summer conditions a species prefers. I am reminded of ‘Cahto Maid’, a Hybrid Pisocarpa, that always looked stressed at the SJ Heritage. A species native to cool forests cannot be expected to give offspring that thrive in a hot, dry garden. Certainly not in the first generation.

Then there is the matter of soil. Donald Beaton (1841) discussed this mystery:

We all know that certain plants prefer particular soils and dislike others, but no one can tell the reason. When a young fruit-tree shows symptoms of premature decay or canker, the fault, or rather the misfortune, is ascribed in nine cases out of ten to the subsoil; but this is a hasty conclusion. The worst garden or orchard soil in the kingdom produces some healthy tree; and if only one, why not more of the same species or variety? —simply because there is only one of the stocks used in this instance which prefers that particular soil. Now, if we take pieces of the roots of this particular stock and graft on them, we may reasonably expect that, other circumstances being favourable, they will produce trees as vigorous and healthy as their parent stock on that particular soil, though they might refuse to do so on soil which we would think more propitious for them. This disposition in trees cannot be scientifically explained; practically we can easily account for its effects. Apples and pears are grafted on seedling stocks from the seeds of the wild crab—or, what is oftener the case, from seeds of the common apples and pears, which can be more readily procured. Now seedlings of the apple and pear—indeed seedlings of all sorts, however truly they may perpetuate species in the eyes of the botanist, are well known to differ from their parents and among themselves in constitutional peculiarities, and it is not too much to say that there are as many different kinds of stocks—that is, different constitutionally—for apples and pears in one nursery, as there are different soils in the kingdom to plant them in: this at once explains why a few trees in an orchard are growing vigorously, while all the others are cankered or showing signs of premature debility. We may plant, hoe, and drain our soil as we may, but nature only provides the suitable stock; and when we meet with even but one tree which flourishes in a particular soil, we need not be afterwards at a loss for stocks to suit that soil.

http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Beaton/BeatonRootgraft1841.html