i think i just found a very similiar post on gw here in june. it seems that it might be genetic. i googled and found another reference to a cecile and the fusing of the leaves.

That's interesting, lens. I hadn't seen that before. Now if I could only get my silver maple tree to put out cecile brunner blossoms.

It does that especially when it is growing vigorously-Cécile is a rose that tends to morph..in this case it is odd because it is a tendency in seedlings to do this-the early leaves are often not compound..odd

patricia

Plants doing that as well as producing large branching heads of sometimes partly misshapen flowers are 'Spray Cecile Brunner' or 'Bloomfield Abundance'. This/these are supplied to garden centers incorrectly as 'Cecile Brunner'.

Bboy, the genetic work was done and Spray Cécile Brünner is Cécile Brünner-it sports to that form. I took particular interest because mine always does that-so annoying. It is possible that this one if doing the same thing.

patricia

I'd like to see the study before I adopt that idea. For one thing, multiple introductions have been made of roses with the same similar general appearance, under different names. First question is what, specifically was sampled as representing 'Cecile Brunner'? Did they really have the true item? And how many clones might there be in circulation or cultivation that fit the bill, but are independent introductions with different genetic makeup? This kind of variation is not rare at all with garden plants, particularly ones that have widely known names and have been around for awhile. Casual mis-application of cultivar (and species) names by growers has been and still is rather common.

Malcolm Manners was the source of the information..if you do a search it might be here somewhere. I didn't earmark it. All I remember is that Bush, Spray and Climbing CB were essentially genetically the same.
From my own experience I owned a house in Mississippi that had a Cécile Brünner in the yard-possibly dating back to when it was introduced(1881) if the family story was correct-the house was certainly old enough. I took cuttings from it and they morphed into a very short extreemly thorny and amazingly floriferous version-exactly opposite to Spray Cécile which is what the next set of cuttings morphed into. I had to leave the first two behind when I moved but I still have a Spray CB that came from this bush...I have been taking cuttings off and on trying to get a piece that will stay a bush-has to be possible...

patricia

Essentially? Men and chimps are essentially the same genetically as well, there is only a slight difference. But as you know the results are quite different...

essentially is genetics speak for the same-you will not get a true scientist to say something is identical..when they do Dna testing they only do a small part of the whole thing-pointless and expensive to do more...However if you dont want to believe you are in good company. I spent some time with Christian Schultheis in Germany at their nursery-they have been breeding and selling roses since the mid 1800's and they had Spray Cécile Brünner which they insisted is Bloomfields Abundance and my relating the results of the test made no impression what so ever...and of course it doesn't matter a bit..

patricia

What I believe is what you have related doesn't really close the book on anything, see the variables I listed previously. In a similar example G. Thomas relates that a recent propagation of R. moschata produced the double flowers of R. moschata 'Plena' for a short time, so here again was the suggestion of the two being actually one. Yet, as with 'Climbing Cecile Brunner' plants that remain constant and distinct are common. You can buy double and single True Musk roses that produce the correct flowers from the start and remain doing so.

Cultivariance may play a role, this is certainly the implication of the findings you mentioned. All the same cultivar but with different propagations behaving differently. But if different sets remain constant through multiple re-propagations then for all practical purposes they are distinct cultivars.

Of course they are distinct cultivars-that being the point of a sport-a genetic variation from the parent and naturally my Spray Cécile is not exactly the same as Christian Schultheis' Spray Cécile of but they would be essentially the same since they sported from the same parent(theoretically)and share all the rest of their genetic makeup-versus a seedling that only shares a part of the parent. I know that in propagation of Perennials the point on the plant where the cuttings are taken can mean the difference between a perennial and a plant that performs as an annual. I have always wondered if the same is true for hardwood plants-Roses that have sported to climbing sometimes never climb again if cut back too far...interesting subject in any case. I wonder what it is in Cécile that makes it so prone to sport. Like The SDLM family of roses or the Kosters.

patricia

I think they usually term that unstable, whatever that means
I would think chemical bonding of the DNA or something, but all that is way over my head.

I am guessing that the stability of a sport has to do with where it happens-which can be in any of several layers in the bud that generate growth or if it is the result of the loss of genetic material or the rearrangement of bits or additional replications of sections and so on. I think we can presume that Cécile has a fragile spot in its DNA that makes similar mistakes over and over again. The possibilities are fascinating-it is amazing to me that Quatre Saisons all semi-double and pink should sport to a very double white Moss rose. That is a famously unstable sport-one of my own has sported back and yet it is a very old sport.

patricia

I had read the thread, then was looking for JB's and noticed one exactly like that on my Evelyn which is not blooming now. HMF says parentage is Graham Thomas and Tamora. Tamora is a cross between Chaucer and Conrad Ferdinand Meyer. Graham is a Charles Austin seed pollinated by a cross between Iceberg and Seedling.

You can see I'm not getting anywhere with this, so I quit there. That is a first with any of my roses that I've noticed.

I believe the "Bloomfield Abundance" theory is mostly supposition based on what was known at one time. If Malcolm Manners says the 'Cecile Brunner' variations were tested and determined to be all from the same genetic source, then I'm rather inclined to believe it.