On 2/26/2009 2:58 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Gerrit wrote:
And maybe I should explain: I do not have a garden, as I live in a
three up appartment. I do have lots of potted plants though, and I
buy cut flowers too. Right now a few hyacinths are in full bloom on
my window sill, and I love the scent.
BUT:
Is scent as such ever used as a selection-criterion by the
professional propagators / cultuvators to 'create' any new variety?:
"Yeah Ma'am, I know this rose, well it looks kind of plain, but now
just smell it. Now ain't that gorgeous?"

Yes there are cultivars that have been selected on this basis. We have
roses that we chose for both looks and perfume where we could have had more
showy looks but no perfume.

David


Unfortunately, most developers of new rose varieties seem to put scent
at the bottom of their priority lists. Higher in priority are color and
form of the flower, resistance of the plant to disease, and adaptability
to as large a variety of climates as possible.

When roses were developed regionally for a local climate, scent had a
much higher priority. Now some of the most fragrant roses from 30 years
ago are no longer available commercially. These include climbing
'Chrysler Imperial' (which, however, might still be available as a
bush). Last year, I searched and searched for this one. I couldn't
even find anyone who had one growing in their garden who might be
willing to send me a cutting for me to root.

Another peeve is the fact that most nurseries no longer sell roses
bare-root. If you plant them correctly, bare-root roses adapt more
readily to the soil in your garden than do roses that have been allowed
to root in a container. The worst part of this is that the growers ship
their product bare-root; it's the nurseries that pot them up.

--
David E. Ross
Climate: California Mediterranean
Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean
influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19)
Gardening diary at http://www.rossde.com/garden/diary