I groused about the registration fee, I hemmed and hawed about
going, but I gave in and went to the Heritage Rose Foundation
meeting at Florida Southern College (how refreshing to see a
college that still calls itself a college, rather than switching to
"university"!). Dr. Manners was a gracious host, the lectures
were interesting and informative, and the academic types and
the professional growers were unfailingly polite to an enthusiastic
if bumbling amateur like me. I'd like to thank the organizers and
the other participants for making my weekend most enjoyable.
The tours of FSC's rosebeds, greenhouses, and even some of the
Frank Lloyd Wright buildings simply added to the experience.

Now to do my damnednest not to kill the rare rose I won in the
raffle, and the oddities I bought in the plant sale this morning...

Mark.

In article , Mark. Gooley
wrote:

I groused about the registration fee, I hemmed and hawed about
going, but I gave in and went to the Heritage Rose Foundation
meeting at Florida Southern College (how refreshing to see a
college that still calls itself a college, rather than switching to
"university"!). Dr. Manners was a gracious host, the lectures
were interesting and informative, and the academic types and
the professional growers were unfailingly polite to an enthusiastic
if bumbling amateur like me. I'd like to thank the organizers and
the other participants for making my weekend most enjoyable.
The tours of FSC's rosebeds, greenhouses, and even some of the
Frank Lloyd Wright buildings simply added to the experience.

Now to do my damnednest not to kill the rare rose I won in the
raffle, and the oddities I bought in the plant sale this morning...

Did you attend the talk about genetic research? I was interested in
hearing the results.

"Cass" wrote:
wrote:
[HRF meeting]
Did you attend the talk about genetic research? I was interested in
hearing the results.

Two undergrads did the work and presented the results, but despite
youth and inexperience they did a good job. Lemme see if I can find
the summary handout...meanwhile, from memory:

The big result is that "Spray Cecile Brunner" is almost certainly a sport
of "Cecile Brunner" -- Peter Beales and others seem to be wrong. Two
other roses were shown to be identical with "Devoniensis." I think that
the other results were inconclusive.

Mark.

To add to Mark's summary:

1. 'Spray Cecile Brunner' (a.k.a. 'Bloomfield Abundance') matches almost
perfectly with Cecile Brunner and Climbing Cecile Brunner, using 5 RAPD
primers. This is very strong evidence that it is a sport, and it virtually
rules out the possibility that the rose is an unrelated hybrid ('Bloomfield
Abundance').

2. My seedling 'Xanadu' -- the question was, who is its father? It's an
open-pollinated seedling of 'Carefree Beauty'. I had suspected from color and
flower form that it might be crossed by 'Fragrant Cloud', but the PCR-RAPD
analysis indicates that that cannot be the case. On the other hand, 'Carefree
Beauty' DNA accounts for all of the 'Xanadu' bands, suggesting that it was a
self-pollination.

3. 'Devoniensis' as sold by nurseries (e.g. Vintage Gardens), "Tradd Street
Yellow" (discovered in Charleston SC by Ruth Knopf) and "Katie Bell's
Devonianthus" [sic] were compared. The importance of this test was that KBD
has been grown by that family since the mid-late 1800s as "Devonianthus,"
surely a mispronunciation of 'Devoniensis', and so giving some historical value
to our current concept of which rose is 'Devoniensis'. All three tested
virtually identical.

4. "Bremo Double Musk." At the 9th International Heritage Rose Conference in
Charleston, 2 years ago, we reported that all of the musk roses (R. moschata),
including all finds from the US as well as Graham S. Thomas's British find
tested identical, indicating their extremely close relatedness (e.g., sports of
each other for level of doubling), EXCEPT that we reported that the "Bremo
Double Musk" from Monticello was quite different and apparently unrelated.
Folks from Monticello present at that meeting suggested that they may have sent
us the wrong plant to test. So we got a new plant from them, of definitely the
right thing, and we retested it. This time, it comes out exactly like all the
other musks. The importance of this test is not only to clear up the identity
of the Bremo musk, but, because it is the best historically documented of the
bunch (records of its purchase from the early 1800s), it adds to the belief
that we really do have the original, "real" musk rose, in all of its forms.

5. Continued comparison of the found old Noisettes in the Hampton Park Garden,
Charleston. Previous research (reported in the proceedings of the 9th Intl.
Conference mentioned above, and available from the Antique Rose Emporium, $10
plus shipping) showed that the 'Champneys' Pink Cluster' being grown and sold
in the USA by several nurseries is, indeed, a direct offspring of the musk rose
(R. moschata) and 'Old Blush', as historical records say it should be. Also in
that previous research, we showed that 'Blush Noisette', as currently grown and
sold, is a direct offspring of 'Champneys' Pink Cluster', and some other
parent. This newer research reported last week tested many "found" Noisettes
from the Carolinas, and found that, while none was identical to 'Champneys'
Pink Cluster' or 'Blush Noisette', they all share enough DNA with those
varieties to indicate that they are seedlings (or possibly grandchildren) of
those two original Noisettes, supporting the concept that they are a swarm of
seedlings, likely bird-sown, from that area of the country.

"MMMavocado" wrote:
To add to Mark's summary:
[summary of genetic tests presented at HRF meeting
omitted]

That covers it tidily and saves me the trouble of typing
in what's on the handout we got at the meeting (which
I found in my car ten minutes after I posted).

I think that breeders will be particularly interested to
know whether a new rose is likely from the cross they
made, or from an accidental self-pollination or a stray
grain from some other plant. That'd seem to be relatively
easy for tests to show. Old-rose enthusiasts: well, it's
not always so cut-and-dried. Determining whether a
found rose is the same as an extant variety shouldn't be
too hard, but showing conclusively that a found rose is
a variety thought extinct will be another kettle of fish.
Sure, IF we know the purported parents and they're
still around, and IF the original hybridizer didn't make
a mistake...yeah, maybe. Still, it's better than guesswork,
and running these tests looks like a great way to get
students' feet wet doing science that actually has results
that people care about.

Mark.

Excellent! Thank you. Yes, I want the proceedings and will happily buy
them.

Some interesting conclusions there and lots of room for thought.

In article , MMMavocado
wrote:

To add to Mark's summary:

1. 'Spray Cecile Brunner' (a.k.a. 'Bloomfield Abundance') matches almost
perfectly with Cecile Brunner and Climbing Cecile Brunner, using 5 RAPD
primers. This is very strong evidence that it is a sport, and it virtually
rules out the possibility that the rose is an unrelated hybrid ('Bloomfield
Abundance').

2. My seedling 'Xanadu' -- the question was, who is its father? It's an
open-pollinated seedling of 'Carefree Beauty'. I had suspected from color and
flower form that it might be crossed by 'Fragrant Cloud', but the PCR-RAPD
analysis indicates that that cannot be the case. On the other hand, 'Carefree
Beauty' DNA accounts for all of the 'Xanadu' bands, suggesting that it was a
self-pollination.

3. 'Devoniensis' as sold by nurseries (e.g. Vintage Gardens), "Tradd Street
Yellow" (discovered in Charleston SC by Ruth Knopf) and "Katie Bell's
Devonianthus" [sic] were compared. The importance of this test was that KBD
has been grown by that family since the mid-late 1800s as "Devonianthus,"
surely a mispronunciation of 'Devoniensis', and so giving some historical
value
to our current concept of which rose is 'Devoniensis'. All three tested
virtually identical.

4. "Bremo Double Musk." At the 9th International Heritage Rose Conference in
Charleston, 2 years ago, we reported that all of the musk roses (R. moschata),
including all finds from the US as well as Graham S. Thomas's British find
tested identical, indicating their extremely close relatedness (e.g., sports
of
each other for level of doubling), EXCEPT that we reported that the "Bremo
Double Musk" from Monticello was quite different and apparently unrelated.
Folks from Monticello present at that meeting suggested that they may have
sent
us the wrong plant to test. So we got a new plant from them, of definitely
the
right thing, and we retested it. This time, it comes out exactly like all the
other musks. The importance of this test is not only to clear up the identity
of the Bremo musk, but, because it is the best historically documented of the
bunch (records of its purchase from the early 1800s), it adds to the belief
that we really do have the original, "real" musk rose, in all of its forms.

5. Continued comparison of the found old Noisettes in the Hampton Park
Garden,
Charleston. Previous research (reported in the proceedings of the 9th Intl.
Conference mentioned above, and available from the Antique Rose Emporium, $10
plus shipping) showed that the 'Champneys' Pink Cluster' being grown and sold
in the USA by several nurseries is, indeed, a direct offspring of the musk
rose
(R. moschata) and 'Old Blush', as historical records say it should be. Also
in
that previous research, we showed that 'Blush Noisette', as currently grown
and
sold, is a direct offspring of 'Champneys' Pink Cluster', and some other
parent. This newer research reported last week tested many "found" Noisettes
from the Carolinas, and found that, while none was identical to 'Champneys'
Pink Cluster' or 'Blush Noisette', they all share enough DNA with those
varieties to indicate that they are seedlings (or possibly grandchildren) of
those two original Noisettes, supporting the concept that they are a swarm of
seedlings, likely bird-sown, from that area of the country.

In article , Mark. Gooley
wrote:

"MMMavocado" wrote:
To add to Mark's summary:
[summary of genetic tests presented at HRF meeting
omitted]

Old-rose enthusiasts: well, it's
not always so cut-and-dried. Determining whether a
found rose is the same as an extant variety shouldn't be
too hard, but showing conclusively that a found rose is
a variety thought extinct will be another kettle of fish.
Sure, IF we know the purported parents and they're
still around, and IF the original hybridizer didn't make
a mistake...yeah, maybe. Still, it's better than guesswork,
and running these tests looks like a great way to get
students' feet wet doing science that actually has results
that people care about.

Consider the situation of a rose found here that resembles a cultivar
whose only labeled and know plant is found in Germany at Sangerhausen.
It's found under several names here and yet the definitive
identification could be years away with the current import situtation.
What a great resource. The issue of Fortune's Double Yellow (maybe
sterile, maybe not, a species rose or near species, crossed with what
and what?), the identification of "Grandmother's Hat," of "Mlle de
Sombreuil," it goes on and on.

Excellent!

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.roses:96617

Are there plans to make the proceedings and commentaries generally
available to the public?

And when is the next conference scheduled? This sounds too good to miss
out.

TIA.

JD

"Cass" wrote in message
.. .
Excellent! Thank you. Yes, I want the proceedings and will happily buy
them.

Unfortunately, there will be no proceedings. I had hoped to tape-record at
least some of the talks and turn them into newsletter articles, but didn't get
to do so. We do hope to publish an article by Dr. Nancy Morvillo, on her DNA
work that was presented at the meeting.

The 2004 meeting has not yet been decided; when we know the dates and
location, we'll publicize it.

"MMMavocado" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately, there will be no proceedings. I had hoped
to tape-record at least some of the talks and turn them into
newsletter articles, but didn't get to do so. We do hope to
publish an article by Dr. Nancy Morvillo, on her DNA
work that was presented at the meeting.

I tried to "tape" things on my PDA, only to discover that I had
the hardware but not the software...

Mark.