I came across an interesting theory which might explain why antique roses tend to perform better. A fellow named Punnett studied in 1932 three groups of sweet pea mutants (or cultivars), which had arisen at different times (ca. 1800, 1880-99, and early 1900s). He found that the older the group, the greater the viability of their seeds. The hypothesis Haldane suggests is that due to breeders' selection, the cultivars accumulate beneficial mutations over time. So older cultivars tend to perform better.

(When a cell replicates, it's possible that the DNA mutates due to some sort of foul-up in copying the DNA. Mutations occur all the time, much more frequently than I had thought, but most mutations turn out to be neutral, that is, having little or no apparent effect. Occasionally, the mutation can change dramatically how the cell looks or behaves. This how "sports" arise, as well as cancer. I used to think that all individuals in a particular cultivar had identical DNA. That turns out to be highly improbable. Even a new-born baby has many mutated cells within it.)

This is the way I imagine it would work with roses. If you have two plants of the "same" rose, say "Old Blush," when you want to take cuttings, you'd select cuttings from the better performer (assuming there is one). When the difference in performance is due to mutation, one mutant is being selected over another. So after a couple hundred years, you have a group of roses around the world, called "Old Blush," which has been propagated from the better plants available. Perhaps after a while, some of the modern Hybrid Teas will improve their performance.

I had always felt an attraction in my heart to really old roses (pre 1800, say). [Hope I got the biology right!]

- Mike

REFERENCES

Haldane, J.B.S., The cost of natural selection, J. Genetics 55, 511-524 (1957).

Punnett, R.C., Further studies of Linkage in the Sweet pea, J. Genetics 26, 97-113 (1932).