I’ll be looking forward to seeing how those Rosa canina X Baby Love look when they bloom.
I think this cross is a move in a great direction.
I really like the idea of getting both reduced size and maybe some yellow (flower color). I could be wrong but I’m predicting that in the future you’re gonna be REALLY glad you did this cross!
Best wishes, Tom
Thanks, Tom. I completely agree. When I first considered canina I thought, “Nah, it’s done a million times before.” But I did them regardless because of two reasons: 1. I noticed that the strain here climbs up trees at the edge of the forests. The trait was obviously dominant since it was reproduced everywhere in this valley. 2. there was a huge one at my best friend’s family old farm house, which is where I got my cuttings, that had sentimental value to me. I took cuttings of it when they moved as a reminder of all our memories there.
The idea was obviously a good one. My only qualm is that I have no idea how the ploidy and genetics are playing out. I could theorize, but that really doesn’t have any concrete meaning.
Yup. I could theorize too. But it’s becoming more and more obvious to me (especially with all the ploidy information coming to light recently here at this forum) that we might all be better off worrying a little less about the ploidies. Maybe we should just try what we want and let the ploidies work themselves out. That’s my current thinking with my glutinosa crosses.
While I agree we shouldn’t limit exploration so much with concerns as to compatibility issues, I think we should on some level try to remain cognizant of the reality that genomes are not being shared equally.
Whenever I look at mixed ploidy lineages I assume diploid members of the equation to have contributed no more than half of stated contribution.
It’s sobering to realize how little diploid species influence is actually at times being passed along, despite hybrid species labels.
I’m coming to appreciate how important fertile triploids might be in moving forward species integration, especially if found to produce diploid ovules.
Fertile triploid seed parents capable of passing along repeat to F1 species hybrids when combined with diploids are especially intriguing, especially if diploid offspring can be produced.
Breeding with triploids is a very interesting staightforward method if you like to substitute some chromosomes of a diploid species with chromosomes from a tetraploid parent.
Downscaling the chromosome number by repeating backcrosses with the diploid parent is a safe way, because homology of the chromosomes is better with each new generation.
Backcrossing with tetraploid seems to be much more complex, because you will repeat producing lots of triploids until finally you get a tetraploid.
Using autotetraploid species or amphidiploid hybrids is uncommon in roses though very interesting too.
There is a well known breeding method of crossing an amphidiploid with a third, diploid variety.
By repeated backcrossing with one of the parents of the amphidiploid, you can reduce the number of the chromosomes of the third to exactly one.
Rene, your comments echo my thoughts in regards to potential strategies for manipulating ploidy. Almost anything is possible with time and persistence. Much could be accomplished integrating diploid species.