On Saturday I saw a white-flowered shrub on the far bank of a canal.

http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05a.jpg
http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05b.jpg
http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub06a.jpg

I interpret it as having opposite foliage, which eliminates all the
various rosaceous shrubs. The venation pattern of the leaves is wrong
for Philadelphus, or at least the common forms (and more obviously the
flowers have the wrong number of petals). I don't think it's Deutzia
either.

At this point I run out of ideas. Any offers?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Jun 13, 12:43*pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
On Saturday I saw a white-flowered shrub on the far bank of a canal.

* * *http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05a.jpg
* * *http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05b.jpg
* * *http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub06a.jpg

I interpret it as having opposite foliage, which eliminates all the
various rosaceous shrubs. The venation pattern of the leaves is wrong
for Philadelphus, or at least the common forms (and more obviously the
flowers have the wrong number of petals). I don't think it's Deutzia
either.

At this point I run out of ideas. Any offers?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

It's a rose, no question in my mind
Look at this and see how similar it is
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...lclimber03.jpg
Another even smaller single climber is this
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...eclimber02.jpg
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...eclimber01.jpg

In message , Jeff Layman
writes
On 13/06/2011 12:43, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
On Saturday I saw a white-flowered shrub on the far bank of a canal.

http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05a.jpg
http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub05b.jpg
http://www.stewart.hinsley.me.uk/Images/Shrub06a.jpg

I interpret it as having opposite foliage, which eliminates all the
various rosaceous shrubs. The venation pattern of the leaves is wrong
for Philadelphus, or at least the common forms (and more obviously the
flowers have the wrong number of petals). I don't think it's Deutzia
either.

At this point I run out of ideas. Any offers?

A decent pair of waders?

Thumb a lift on a narrow boat?

I'm puzzled by your comment that it can't be rosaceous as it has
opposite foliage. According to my RHS Dictionary of Gardening,
Philadelphus has "Leaves usually deciduous, opposite, simple". In any
case, are you sure that the leaves are not compound? Some in
Shrub06a.jpg about half-way down on the extreme right appear to be
opposite leaves, but could be a compound leaf. Agree with you about
the number of petals, though.

Philadelphus is not rosaceous (it's a member of Hydrangeaceae). I had
eliminated rosaceous plants (principally Pyrinae) on the grounds of
opposite foliage; I then proceeded to eliminate another alternative -
Philadelphus.

I take your point about the possibility of a compound leaf, which in
theory would bring Rosaceae back into the reckoning. It's not Sorbus;
and it didn't shout out Rosa either - any other possibilities?

But I see that other people are convinced that it's a rose, and now I
know what I'm looking for I can see the thorns, and stipules of compound
leaves. Rosa multiflora is the most likely - it does occasionally turn
up in wildish contexts.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On 13/06/2011 15:22, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In , Jeff Layman

I'm puzzled by your comment that it can't be rosaceous as it has
opposite foliage. According to my RHS Dictionary of Gardening,
Philadelphus has "Leaves usually deciduous, opposite, simple". In any
case, are you sure that the leaves are not compound? Some in
Shrub06a.jpg about half-way down on the extreme right appear to be
opposite leaves, but could be a compound leaf. Agree with you about
the number of petals, though.

Philadelphus is not rosaceous (it's a member of Hydrangeaceae)

If it looks like a rose, and smells as sweet as a rose... You are
right, of course, but there are some genera I just will never be able to
associate with certain families!

I take your point about the possibility of a compound leaf, which in
theory would bring Rosaceae back into the reckoning. It's not Sorbus;
and it didn't shout out Rosa either - any other possibilities?

Not really, but if you have some time on your hands (like many years...)
you might want to consider Rubus - and then quickly reject it!

--

Jeff

Can I get a prize for getting it right? :-D

Philadelphus lewisii ....I thank you! *bows*

Hmmm. changed my mind .

Now I think it's a shrub rose... maybe 'Kew Gardens'?

Rosa ‘Kew Gardens’ (Ausfence) In the Garden

Sacha wrote:
Any chance it could be R. Wedding Day escapee?

Sacha, I think the flowers are a bit too small and the clusters of
stamens not prominent enough for 'Wedding Day', although there's some
similarity. It is also very similar to a lot of species type
ramblers, but doesn't quite match many of those familiar to me. I
think chance seedling/garden escape is probably as close as we'll
get. It's a very nice thing to discover, I wonder what the hips are
like.

In message
,
Dave Poole writes
Sacha wrote:
Any chance it could be R. Wedding Day escapee?

Sacha, I think the flowers are a bit too small and the clusters of
stamens not prominent enough for 'Wedding Day', although there's some
similarity. It is also very similar to a lot of species type
ramblers, but doesn't quite match many of those familiar to me. I
think chance seedling/garden escape is probably as close as we'll
get. It's a very nice thing to discover, I wonder what the hips are
like.

There were two plants growing on the east bank of a canal. The east bank
of the canal in this area is bordered by a line of fields lying between
the canal and a railway line, but this particular point is where a
corridor of woodland along a brook coming down from the ridge to the
east reaches the canal.

This is not a plausible location for a throwout, so I conclude that the
plants are "wild" (spontaneous).

Since all the suggestions are for members of section Synstylae, I
presume that we can take it that it is a member of this section. Apart
from the native Rosa arvensis, which this clearly isn't, three species
of this section are recorded from the wild in Britain - Rosa multiflora,
Rosa setigera and Rosa lucieae. Rosa setigera has fewer leaflets in a
leaf.

Rosa multiflora isn't exactly common in the wild (while I have 8 records
locally, one could probably question the wild status of all of them*),
but Rosa lucieae would be a first county record (and only has
half-a-dozen records this century). So it would seem to me that the
immediate question is whether Rosa multiflora can be eliminated. (And
does the number of flowers on an inflorescence eliminate Rosa lucieae
syn wichuraiana? - Stace says few-several.)

Looking at the figures in Stace all Synstylae hips look much the same -
except to experts.

In theory Rosa arvensis hybrids could complicate the issue.

*3 country parks, 3 urban canal side locations, an old railway line
converted to a footpath with a wide variety of species roses, and next
to a football ground.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley