Grafting Quince (Cydonia Oblonga) onto Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) ?
will it be compatible.

Any ideas

chili-girl writes
Grafting Quince (Cydonia Oblonga) onto Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) ?
will it be compatible.

Have a look at R V Rogers web site - I got a quince form them recently
and if I remember rightly they were advertising some on hawthorn and
some on quince rootstocks. I might be completely wrong though.
--
Kay

In message , K
writes
chili-girl writes
Grafting Quince (Cydonia Oblonga) onto Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) ?
will it be compatible.

Have a look at R V Rogers web site - I got a quince form them recently
and if I remember rightly they were advertising some on hawthorn and
some on quince rootstocks. I might be completely wrong though.

Digging around Google, I found a place selling Crataegus pinnatifida
grafted onto quince, which would be a positive sign.

However, while quince is commonly used as a rootstock for pears, not all
pears are compatible with quinces. So perhaps not all hawthorns would be
compatible with any particular (or even any) quince rootstock.

However, why not graft onto hawthorn rootstocks? - hawthorn hedging
plants are cheap.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Have a look at R V Rogers web site - I got a quince form them recently
and if I remember rightly they were advertising some on hawthorn and
some on quince rootstocks. I might be completely wrong though.

As far as I can see they only do Quince onto Seedling Pear or Quince A
rootstocks.

I am sure I have read it somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot
find it.

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

So I assume they are compatible, but I still seem to think there was a
problem.

In message , chili-girl
writes

Have a look at R V Rogers web site - I got a quince form them recently
and if I remember rightly they were advertising some on hawthorn and
some on quince rootstocks. I might be completely wrong though.

As far as I can see they only do Quince onto Seedling Pear or Quince A
rootstocks.

I am sure I have read it somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot
find it.

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

So I assume they are compatible, but I still seem to think there was a
problem.

Most botanists include them in Rosaceae. But the group known as
Maloideae or Pomoideae, or lately Pyrinae, seems to be a closely knit
group (there are a lot of intergeneric hybrids) and might well have wide
graft-compatibility. (Cacti are another group with wide graft
compatibility, as in all the achlorophyllous clones grafted onto
Cereus.)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , chili-girl
writes

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

So I assume they are compatible, but I still seem to think there was a
problem.

Most botanists include them in Rosaceae. But the group known as
Maloideae or Pomoideae, or lately Pyrinae, seems to be a closely knit
group (there are a lot of intergeneric hybrids) and might well have wide
graft-compatibility. (Cacti are another group with wide graft
compatibility, as in all the achlorophyllous clones grafted onto
Cereus.)

Nope, sorry. One of the disagreements between horticulturalists and
botanists was whether Malus and Pyrus should be one genus or two.
The former claimed two, because they are graft-incompatible.

I don't know where the Craetagus/Pyracantha/etc. group fits in; it
might be closer to Pyrus.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

chili-girl writes

Have a look at R V Rogers web site - I got a quince form them recently
and if I remember rightly they were advertising some on hawthorn and
some on quince rootstocks. I might be completely wrong though.

As far as I can see they only do Quince onto Seedling Pear or Quince A
rootstocks.

I told you I could have been wrong!

I am sure I have read it somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot
find it.

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

But I don't think you can graft apple on to pear, and they're both
Rosaceae

--
Kay

The message
from contains these words:

One of the disagreements between horticulturalists and
botanists was whether Malus and Pyrus should be one genus or two.
The former claimed two, because they are graft-incompatible.

I don't know where the Craetagus/Pyracantha/etc. group fits in; it
might be closer to Pyrus.

Might Pyracantha/Pyrus be a clue?

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

In article ,
Rusty_Hinge wrote:

One of the disagreements between horticulturalists and
botanists was whether Malus and Pyrus should be one genus or two.
The former claimed two, because they are graft-incompatible.

I don't know where the Craetagus/Pyracantha/etc. group fits in; it
might be closer to Pyrus.

Might Pyracantha/Pyrus be a clue?

No. Pyrus comes from the latin for a pear, and pyracantha from
the Greek for fire+thorn. Yes, I had to look those up :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message ,
writes
In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , chili-girl
writes

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

So I assume they are compatible, but I still seem to think there was a
problem.

Most botanists include them in Rosaceae. But the group known as
Maloideae or Pomoideae, or lately Pyrinae, seems to be a closely knit
group (there are a lot of intergeneric hybrids) and might well have wide
graft-compatibility. (Cacti are another group with wide graft
compatibility, as in all the achlorophyllous clones grafted onto
Cereus.)

Nope, sorry. One of the disagreements between horticulturalists and
botanists was whether Malus and Pyrus should be one genus or two.
The former claimed two, because they are graft-incompatible.

I said wide, not universal.

I don't know where the Craetagus/Pyracantha/etc. group fits in; it
might be closer to Pyrus.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Feb 2, 11:10*pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message ,
writes



In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , chili-girl
writes

Now seedling pear must be a 'Pyrus communis' and Quince "Cydonia
Oblonga" was reclassified a few years back and used to be called
"Pyrus Cydonia" . So they are both in the same family related to
Rosaceae.

So I assume they are compatible, but I still seem to think there was a
problem.

Most botanists include them in Rosaceae. But the group known as
Maloideae or Pomoideae, or lately Pyrinae, seems to be a closely knit
group (there are a lot of intergeneric hybrids) and might well have wide
graft-compatibility. (Cacti are another group with wide graft
compatibility, as in all the achlorophyllous clones grafted onto
Cereus.)

Nope, sorry. *One of the disagreements between horticulturalists and
botanists was whether Malus and Pyrus should be one genus or two.
The former claimed two, because they are graft-incompatible.

I said wide, not universal.



I don't know where the Craetagus/Pyracantha/etc. group fits in; it
might be closer to Pyrus.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Sorry I don't know about quince. But there is a long and successful
tradition in Roscommon of using Rowan as a rootstock for apple. Long-
established rowans were selected from "down in the wet", dug out and
the trunks cut. Then the "rootstocks" were transported to their new
location on the farm to receive the grafts.

I don't believe the ubiquitous hawthorn was overlooked as a rootstock
due to superstition - rather that the rowan was much better.

In article ,
wrote:

Sorry I don't know about quince. But there is a long and successful
tradition in Roscommon of using Rowan as a rootstock for apple. Long-
established rowans were selected from "down in the wet", dug out and
the trunks cut. Then the "rootstocks" were transported to their new
location on the farm to receive the grafts.

I don't believe the ubiquitous hawthorn was overlooked as a rootstock
due to superstition - rather that the rowan was much better.

That would imply that Sorbus and Malus are fairly close; I know that
Pyrus, Cydonia and Chaenomeles are, and that Craetagus, Pyracantha
and Mespilus are. I don't know where Cotoneaster, Amelanchier etc.
fit in.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message ,
writes
In article ,
wrote:

Sorry I don't know about quince. But there is a long and successful
tradition in Roscommon of using Rowan as a rootstock for apple. Long-
established rowans were selected from "down in the wet", dug out and
the trunks cut. Then the "rootstocks" were transported to their new
location on the farm to receive the grafts.

I don't believe the ubiquitous hawthorn was overlooked as a rootstock
due to superstition - rather that the rowan was much better.

That would imply that Sorbus and Malus are fairly close; I know that
Pyrus, Cydonia and Chaenomeles are, and that Craetagus, Pyracantha
and Mespilus are. I don't know where Cotoneaster, Amelanchier etc.
fit in.

The latest study, AFAIK, is Campbell et al, Phylogeny of subtribe
Pyrinae (formerly the Maloideae, Rosaceae): Limited resolution of a
complex evolutionary history, Pl. Syst. Evol. 266: 119-145 (2007) - at
least there's nothing newer in the citing papers proffered by Google
Scholar.

There's a severe shortage of clear groups. Eriobotyra and Raphiolepis go
together, as do Crataegus and Mespilus, and Amelancher, Malacomeles and
Peraphyllum. The last two groupings appear to join together as well.

The other two groups identified in the paper are Docyniopsis, Eriolobus
and Malus, and Cydonia and Pseudocydonia.

IIRC, more focused papers adduce further evidence for the relationship
of Cratageus and Mespilus, and also for the monophyly of Crataegus.

Sorbus s.l. fits together in cpDNA data, but is scattered all over the
place in nuclear DNA.

Pyracantha doesn't appear to be close to Crataegus and Mespilus. (I was
under the impression that it was closer to Cotoneaster, but that isn't
borne out either.)

I don't think that it's safe to use interfertility or
graft-compatibility (on their own) to infer relationships between genera
in this group; chance, reticulation and the uneven distribution of
primitive and derived traits all confuse the issue.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley