Found roses are unidentified roses and they receive a temporary name, usually based on where they were found, that is displayed with semi-quotes. As far as I know, anyone can name a found rose. Once the rose is identified--by comparing it to others, thru old books, tracing its history in the area, paintings, etc--its original name is restored. Some found roses may be chance seedlings and an official name cannot be restored.

I think the Australians do this best.

What we call "Found" roses are there labelled "ROR" -- "Recovered Old Rose." That makes it very clear that this is not the original name.

The names given to Foundlings are "Study Names." They are something to call the rose, while it is being studied, with an eye toward eventual identification. We TRY to match up Foundlings discovered by different people, perhaps in different places, so that people will know that they are the same rose.

EXAMPLES:

"The Portland From Glendora" is a rose whose study name is widely-known. It has at last been agreed that it is probably 'Joasine Hanet.'
You can see all of its names in its HelpMeFind listing, at:
http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.3512.3

Now, look instead at:
"Grandmother's Hat" -- it has a passel of study names, and some guesses (unconfirmed) at identification. There has been general agreement that "Grandmother's Hat" is the best-known study name, and so that name is preferred.

Find this history at:
http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.3096

Does that help to answer your question? If not, ask again.

You should also know that Internet communication has really contributed to the effort at identification, as rose folks from all over the world ring in on discussions about what a rose may be.

Jeri

OK, so a name is arrived at by a sort of vague consensus.For me, it doesn't matter that much what sort of variety a plant is - because I don't sell them or have any need to know a specific variety apart from curiosity....but for those who do, how would that work? I don't know if we have many of these found roses in commerce (Sophie's Perpetual and Surpassing Beauty are a couple I do know about, having been 'discovered' by Humphrey Brooke. Suppose any old non-expert decided they had 'found' a rose and was going to 'name' it - could this be done....or do you have to be accepted as a well-known or expert rosarian. So, say, Pulich children, named by someone at the cemetery where it was found, right? Now when you say a study name - who is the registrar of that name? Is it all a bit more informal and there is no official register of names, study names or possible cultivars? and why are there not hundreds of 'found ' roses? I can see what role the internet would play in publicising such a rose (and therefore, giving it some legitimacy through a general agreement to go with such and such a name) - is that roughly how it works.
I grow a couple of roses which seem to have heaps of names - Hebe's Lip for example, has about 10 and I was always a bit peeved that Julia Child was not available here....till I discovered it was....but was called 'Absolutely Fabulous'.

There is also a bit of history anomaly to this.

Apparently, when people first started 'finding' roses after WWI, there was this sense of optimistic naivete that all roses had names and could be reconnected with those names. So a lot of the found roses of the eastern US are in commerce under supposedly correct, assigned IDs. I believe this is also true about most of the UK foundlings. Sissinghurst Castle being one of the exceptions I know of. At some point, the ID may be questioned, but you have to be pretty hard core to even understand the issues.

The reality is that I don't think we have an undisputed evidence chain that connects the names and plants for most roses introduced before about 1900.

Gallica -- You're right.

The purpose of a "study name" -- really -- is to allow us to all know what rose we are discussing, when we are discussing it. We could call them "Stove" and "Refrigerator," but that's not much fun, now, is it?

Campanula -- if you are bothered that study names are not "officially" assigned, you are certainly at liberty to call "Pulich Children" -- instead -- "That dark purple rose from *** Cemetery That Liz And Catherine Collected From The Pulich Children's Grave."

If that works for you, have at it.

I personally find it a great deal simpler to just say "Pulich Children." (And the Pulich family approves.)

"Study Names" work very well for those who are finding roses, propagating them, and studying them -- particularly since such folks communicate widely, and share information. And that, really, is their purpose.

Jeri

You have "found roses" in Britain, Camp. Most often, they appear to not be spread around until someone names them. The Rose, the RNRS magazine, contained many stories of rediscovered older roses being supplied to the RNRS and, particularly, Mr. Beales, for identification. "You Are My Sunshine" is one where someone bought a house whose garden contained the rose. The article chronicled their quest to identify it. That article led to my quest to find it here and re establish it in commerce.

The roses Francis Debreuil/Barcelona and Irene Watts/Pink Gruss an Aachen are two other well known roses which had been 'found' and supplied to Mr. Beales, then released with his identification. So, you have them, it's just they are handled quite a bit differently there than here. Kim

Good grief, Jeri - I think there has been a misunderstanding - the officialness or otherwise means nothing to me - I think the idea of found roses is utterly charming and seems to go right to the heart of gardening - find something really good, pass it on.

I have been reading the Thomas Christopher book (because I am basically a practical gardener with only the barest knowledge of history or science) so obviously, my curiosity has been piqued by this idea. In the US, where copyright laws are much stricter, it is bound to play out a little differently, but I just wondered about the 'mechanics' of it all.

Thanks, Kim, I admit to being woefully vague about the entire hybridising, marketing, selling....and in the UK, as ever, I find myself grinding my teeth looking at pages of white male rose people....but ain't it ever so.

Almost all the Old Roses we have now in commerce (in the UK) were once 'found' roses - just that it happened a generation or two ago. Some are still sold under their 'study' names, like 'Fantin Latour'. Our 'rediscovery' happened largely between the wars, and was headed by Graham Thomas at Hillings, then Sunningdale nurseries, then Thomas in his capacity of Gardens Advisor to the young National Trust cataloguing the roses found in the gardens of great estates as they came into the Trust. The majority of those roses were growing neglected and wild and without identity, but through his own research and the records of the properties he was often able to identify cultivars, sometimes make 'best guesses' and sometimes be defeated and have to resort to a 'study name'.

Thomas, together with Arthur Wyatt, Humphrey Brooke, James Russell and others including Constance Spry and Vita Sackville-West formed the nucleus of the Old Garden Rose passion - collecting where they could around the UK, Europe and farther afield, though there was not so much interest at the time in the US or Australia. Their legacy, and most of their collections, passed down in the next generation to rosarians who had worked with or been friends with them, like Peter Beales, Keith Money and David Austin. Thomas in particular developed links with several American enthusiasts and a number of the 'British' collection came from amateur growers, mainly on the East Coast. As interest continued to grow around the world, the net was spread wider to include Bermuda, South Africa and - the greatest haul of all - communist East Germany. I remember several hundred un-named or wildly optimistically named cultivars from the then-derelict nursery at Sangerhausen propagated and grown-on and studied at Mottisfont, Wisley and Kew - those re-identified have gone back into commerce.

But above all, this has been a work of dedicated amateurs in all our countries, and therefore prone to mistakes and gaffes. I hate to see people jumping with glee at some genuine error of identification.

Since the American Rose Society took over the job as classifying authority, a gloss of professionalism and standardisation has been painted over the process, but still 'vague consensus' (totally undefined) has ruled. Note Jeri's ' ...It has at last been agreed that it is probably 'Joasine Hanet .' ... No slur intended, Jeri! Often collections, especially national collections, will be highly conservative in regard to re-assigning names and may stick with the 'incorrect' name for what may seen a frustratingly long time to the enthusiats whose local favourite experts have 'agreed probably' :) The rose Jeri refers to is still labelled 'Amande Pattenotte' in the collection at Mottisfont, for instance, causing some notable foreign rosarians to jump up and down and write to Head Gardeners - but that is the name of the accession, the name it was received under. The change will come, though through what arcane deliberation I know not. I could name half a dozen cultivars in the same interim condition at Mottisfont alone - as Kim mentions 'Irene Watts' - from Sangerhausen under that name - was one. When a plant of that reverted to 'Grus an Aachen' (I could point out the very shrub!) and the reversion held, nurseries who had that rose from Mottisfont were informed, as was the RHS and the RNRS, and after an interim stage where the labels held both names in quotes it was finally accepted as 'Pink Grus an Aachen'. Problems in getting that accepted in other countries, and indeed in persuading nurseries to change the name in their catalogues went on for years. Still, I have been just as guilty when visiting gardens and muttering 'wrong!' under my breath :)

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I'm bored!

Best wishes
Jon

Jon, thank you for putting sense, names and a historic place to the process! Portions of it have been eluded to elsewhere, but now it's there for all to understand. Much appreciated! We also have the resistance to putting the names straight. Nurseries have long continued selling the same rose as different roses under the different names, even after being notified by a number of people and provided the documentation. We have the same issue with Dr. Basye's species hybrid, Basye's Legacy, being listed as both the earlier hybrid (Commander Gillette) as well as its offspring. That confusion can be traced directly back to their creator having provided the same rose to both a visitor and a botanic garden as both roses. Straightening such things out is an extremely frustrating proposition, as you state. I do appreciate your setting the history to thread. It's nice to hear from someone who has lived part of it and known some who were involved. Thank you! Kim

Jon, thank you. That was fascinating. Lou

Oh, thanks heaps for that, Jon. On one level, it matters not one whit to me what a rose is called but I realise that is a terribly selfish way of failing to recognise the enduring work you and others have done to bring these lovely plants into commerce

A few years ago, I took a course on apple identification (since an apple was either red or green, eating or cooking, and that was as far as my knowledge stretched). What an eye-opener, clarifying the points of identification into a clear and logical key (shape of crown, type of skin, overall shape of fruit and so on - a very interesting aspect (for me) was the idea of a 'king' fruit - often the largest of a cluster, and always avoided when attempting an ID because it can be so anomalous. Is there such a thing in roses - one apical bud which is bigger or more vigorous than other buds in the cluster?

Obviously, I am getting to be an old woman.....but still a very young gardener.

One of the lovely things about gardening for me is that no matter how old one becomes, or how long or extensively one has gardened, because of the depth of the subject one is always in the position of being a "young" gardener in the sense that there is always so much more to learn.

I also like the history that lies within the garden walls and no plant is more rife with that aspect than the rose. Jon's exposition was both lucid and very welcome. It is obvious that we who love roses owe a great debt to those who have tried to return at least a portion of that history to everyday life.

Camp -- The apical bud in a cluster, or spray, or inflorescence, is almost-always larger than the others. It opens first, too. It's clear where most of the hormones and energy flows to.

Exhibitors, in particular, tend to remove the apical bud in a spray, so that the OTHER buds/blooms will develop more evenly, and the whole thing will develop with an even, balanced shape.

I wouldn't say, though, that they are DIFFERENT. Just, usually, bigger.

But if you want to learn a little more about the steps taken in the attempt to identify a Found Rose, you could start with Mrs. Keays -- one of the first in the U.S. -- early in the 20th-Century -- to begin looking at "lost" roses, and attempt identification.

Go to the Gold Coast Heritage Roses Group website (see link).
Click on ARTICLES. Click on "What Old Rose Is This" at the bottom of the list. Once you've absorbed that -- you might be interested in a more modern Field Guide, using some of the same techniques.

Jeri

Here is a link that might be useful: Gold Coast Heritage Roses Group