I had the extreme privilege of listening to Belgium's Ingrid Verdegem and the Mother Lode's Fred Boutin talk about roses together last weekend. One thing discussed was that DNA seems to indicate that Archduke Charles and Old Blush are genetically identical!!! That opens up a lot of thought about what other roses are "genetically the same" that we tend to think of as seedings/hybrids. It also brings into question what we are missing in those DNA tests. Something causes Archduke Charles to be distinctly different from Old Blush on a stable basis - and for Orange Smith to be subtly different from AC. What is not being detected in the tests? And how are the tests that are cited as though infallible being conducted? Apparently there are several ways to do it - testing from chlorophyll is the easiest and cheapest and may be the most incomplete. I am definitely no scientist but listened as carefully as I could.

Ingrid ended her lecture with a quote from Voltaire -Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

Goodness knows, I am sure of less and less, the more that I observe, read and listen about old roses.
Anita

Well, THAT is a poser.

Anita, I cannot grow 'Old Blush' well here. It mildews unceasingly. The same can be said for the closely-related 'Le Vesuve.' It's a disaster here.

At the same time, I grow both 'Archduke Charles' and "Orange Smith." Both not only bloom like mad, but their foliage is dependably clean, at all times.

So -- how can they be genetically the same???

I never think for a minute that what I think I know is certainty. Like you, however, the more I learn, the less certain I am of anything.

Jeri