The Mayflower parentage? Possible rugosa hybrid?

I bought this extraordinarily cheap today. I waited for a while because roses get hyped, and then dropped. But it seems The Mayflower has REALLY good foilage, although it is covered in thorns.

Somebody suggested that this may be a have a rugosa amphidiploid hybrid (Theresa Bugnet, Pink Suprise, I forgot…)

Does anyone know if the parentage has been released? I’m interested to know what gave it’s really good foilage.

It seems I maybe correct that there is rugosa in this rose (looking at the bristles and thorns makes me believed this).

This is a wonderful opportunity to work with this rose because I have a fertile rugosa/ austin hybrid (though it lost all its foilage… but it survives)


Hi Enrique. I have been wondering the same thing. The foliage has a blue tint to it. Now that you mention it, the foliage reminds me of Therese Bugnet.

Sadly, I have found the rose to be an impossible breeder. No hip set, and no pollen to be found. Have you had any success with it?

This rose has been used a lot by Austin. See link for Conrad F. Meyer details and lineage.


When Michael Marriot came and spoke in the Twin Cities I asked him if The Mayflower is descended from the chromosome doubled versions of Therese Bugnet and Martin Frobisher that they paid to have generated for them. He said no and that lines from those roses won’t have cultivars ready to release for awhile.



Thanks David.

I was thinking that this may have been a Therese Bugnet hybrid because the flowers looks not disimilar to Theree Bugnt, and the foilage looks much like it too (in pictures, of course).

I’ve grown OP hips from Conrad, and I’ve never had a seedling that had similar foilage to The Mayflower. Conrad provides “modern” foilage, while The Mayflower is more matt in appearance (but certainly not like the damasks, or other OGR’s).

But perhaps The Mayflower may have Conrad as a parent.

I just wish there is a way to know for sure.

When I visited the DA gardens in July 2004 I took some pictures of foliage of some roses. I recalled that the foliage of The Mayflower, Lochinvar and Harlow Carr looked interesting. I think all three had small foliage, and I believe the foliage on The Mayflower and Lochinvar were both matt. But I have to check that (I don’t have the picture on this computer). Lochinvar is a Scottish rose hybrid, so maybe The Mayflower is too? (It is unlikely because DA specifically mentions it for Lochinvar, but not for The Mayflower, so if The Mayflower was a Scottish rose than he would have mentioned it in the description).

Oh well, I’ll check the pics in the weekend.


I just removed all of my Mayflowers. It does have great disease resistance and is fairly hardy, but its flaws outnumber its positives. Mayflower lacks the graceful or shrubby habit of a good landscape rose (including most of the Austin roses), and lacks the flower size, fragrance, form, and stems for a good cut flower rose. While not as free-flowering, Therese Bugnet is a much better rose. I think Austin is on the right track, however.

Despite its flaws, if I could have gotten one speck of pollen off of Mayflower, or gotten it to set seed, I might have kept it, but that was not the case. I hope someone else has success with it, but for those that are considering using it, hopefully my experience helps you decide whether or not to spend your money on it.