That refers to someone who made the decision that another name, perhaps another rose entirely, was synonymous with the original. It wasn't an "official declaration" or anything. You have to remember it was extremely common for the same rose to be "introduced" by various nurseries under differing names, not just a foreign rose brought into the home market and renamed, but existing ones being "introduced" in the sane market by various people under various names. Once someone in authority, such as the National Rose Society, the ARS, a well-known, well versed nurseryman, determines two, or several roses are identical, "synonymous", the decision was printed in books, society publications, etc. and popular use changed to make them interchangeable. If you can read older rose books from the Nineteenth Century such as Ellwanger, Foster-Mellier types, you'll see many such declarations. Kim

Thanks -- I was aware of the practice, but the statement made me think there was some sort of official pronouncement in the rose world that I had entirely missed.

R

Well, HMF's inclusion of that statement regarding a "synonym DECISION" certainly leads one to assume that there's a great deal more to be said on the matter. If nothing at HMF can shed light on this mysterious decision, then why mention it?

I'm not at all sure that I would accept the contemporary opinion of Sam Kedem as being authoritative regarding GJ's prickles or lack thereof. In that matter, I much prefer to defer to the 1885 observation of Max Singer as stated in DICTIONNAIRE DES ROSES: " . . . the branches (of GJ) are slender and divergent; the bark is green, bristling with numerous prickles, which are unequal, short and pointed . . . ".

That there exists much confusion on this important rose, however, is hardly surprising. Exactly 70 years ago, a survey at the Iowa Experimental Station, Univerity of Iowa concluded that at that time there were at least 468 direct-line seedlings and 62 sports (SIXTY-TWO SPORTS!?!?) of GJ! (See "References" entries for GJ at HMF -- "The Rose: An Encyclopedia of North American Roses, Rosarians, and Rose Lore".) One has to wonder if those numbers have increased or remained stagnant during the intervening decades.

Rosefolly ...

This may seem like an odd question, but I am very curious as to why you posted your question here instead of on HMF ?

Smiles,
Lyn

Uh oh, Rosefolly.

But, yeah -- that does seem like a very odd question.

One way to use the question Rosefolly asked for the betterment of hmf is to take the term, "synonym decision" and add it to the glossary. Kim's post could be used as the basis for the definition. It might be an interesting topic for an e-zine article as well.

Jaxondel, you know tons about roses. Maybe you could write that up and submit it to hmf for their e-zine? I'd be thrilled to read something you wrote.

Actually, so would I. You've done the research, apparently have the source materials and obviously have the talent. Including the explanation and your reservations could go far to dispel any potential and existing confusion. It should make a great article and would be wonderful included in the site. How about it? Kim

Seems to me there are two totally separate issues here: one is the "synonym decision" itself and the other is the rose (General Jacqueminot) that spurred this particular thread discussion and whether it has been affected by the synonym decision.

Both/either would be interesting to know more about.

The decision issue fits many roses, with more being added every year. The specific variety is also an issue, as would be all the others. Could open the door for a full time job sorting them out. Kim

Jaxondel.......

It's really not an odd question. Most of the Administration Volunteers who donate hours and hours of their personal time to make HMF a valuable resource do not all visit GW and would never know that the NOTE on GJ has raised a question.

To me, if you have a question like this about HMF, it only makes sense to post that question on HMF because it is far more likely one might get an answer that is more than a guess.

Rosefolly... I am not challenging you at all. I was just curious because questions like these really should be posted to HMF. This gives the volunteer who took the time to post the information and many of the REFERENCES the opportunity to respond. (Of course, volunteers come and go, but in this case I know the volunteer who posted the NOTE is still active.)

The post on HMF could also trigger the addition of a definition in the GLOSSARY.

Jaxondel ... I maybe I should have suggested that the question be posted to HMF, but I truly was curious as to why questions like these are not posted to HMF, so I guess I don't "get" your post. If I have offended you, please forgive me. That was not my intent.

Harborrose .. The GLOSSARY on HMF does need work. Most of the items were put up over ten years ago. Most of the Admins have been spending time working on the roses in the database. Thank you for the suggestion.

Many roses have been confused in commerce over the last few hundred years. HMF has raised rose research to a new level because you can find many references all in one place. Few of use would ever have the funds to have the kind of rose library used to provide the information about roses on HMF.

Often the printed references conflict in several ways. Sometimes the characteristics in the descriptions are very different. Sometimes the linage is different from one reference to another. Sometimes, rose literature will give different breeders for one rose.

Nurseries have commonly re-named roses and they are recorded in printed references as different roses. We do try to refer people to the REFERENCES we do have on the site, but none of us own every rose book that has ever been printed.

The worst one is when a nursery re-uses the same name for a rose. That one drives me nuts !

We do count on the rose community to point out errors or even the inconsistencies and this often leads to corrections, completions of the rose page, notes and more. It's your participation on HMF that truly makes it more valuable.

OK... I'll get off of my soap box.

Smiles,
Lyn

I love that HMF is dynamic. Even if we had the funds necessary to obtain all the required references, who has the time and energy to research them all? And, each is obsolete in many ways very quickly. With multiple libraries, eyes, time and energy, we help keep the site as accurate and up-to-date as humanly possible. Everyone who knows about the site has potentially beneficial, useful and valuable information to contribute. Kim

Why did I post my question here rather than to HMF?

At first I hesitated to even answer this question. Since the beginning of this forum back in the early 1990's this has been a place where any rose history could be asked and answered, and has been, sometimes by me. I would hate to think that this has changed. Re-reading some of the comments carefully, I decided that the question was sincerely asked, so I gave it some thought and came up with this.

I didn't even think twice about it. I have been coming to the Antique Roses Forum for answers to rose questions for twenty years. This is my "home". To me, coming to this place to ask questions about old roses is as comfortable and familiar as looking up a word I don't know in a dictionary. I assumed that this was a well-known term that I had somehow missed noting, not something that needed to be challenged. And I was not challenging HMF; I was looking up a reference, assuming my own ignorance, not their error.

Also, I have enormous respect for the HMF volunteers and the work they do. I am keenly wary of over-burdening them, since it is frequently mentioned how heavy their workload already is. I am grateful for the valuable database they have produced. I use it frequently and I cheerfully support it with a membership. Back when Spike owned Gardenweb, I supported this forum as well.

Finally there it this: I know many of you. I've met some of you in person and many of you are actual, real-world friends. Fewer, perhaps than was once the case, since so many of the other original members have moved off to other venues. On the other hand, I have no idea who any of the HMF people are. They are completely and entirely anonymous to me. I would always come to well-informed friends with a question before I would approach strangers, no matter how knowledgeable those strangers might be.

I think that answers the question in full.

Rosefolly

That's totally valid and well explained, thank you! I don't feel anyone really meant to "challenge" you, rosefolly, and I'm sorry if the questions made you feel that way. Simply to understand why, if something there was a question, you didn't feel comfortable asking it there where the explanation could become part of the "common knowledge" so anyone else who came up with the question could benefit from the answers. Nothing has changed about finding answers here, or there and your feeling this is "home" is perfectly understandable.

Lyn does much data maintenance there, and has for many years. I do some, here and there as time and energy permit, and we both discuss issues, questions and suggestions with each other before offering them "up the line" to make sure we understand all the issues involved so we (mostly 'I') don't make suggestions which are cost prohibitive or require more programming time/effort than the benefits warrant. There are a few others who pop in and out and a few have popped in and out of these forums. It all depends upon the amount of time available at home the individual is able and willing to donate to the site. There are a few European volunteers who seem to contribute much of their free time to HMF instead of frequently visiting here, but the huge bulk of it is accomplished by Lyn. Thank heavens she can find the time and enjoys it!

I know Lyn's hope (and mine) is if something is a question there, it will be asked there (and here, too), so it can be answered and probably satisfy other folks' questions as they arise. You know, if you had the question, someone else is sure to, also. Why not? It's a valid question and one which could easily seem obvious to someone who has dealt with the subject often. Just yesterday, I ran across pages for "Smoky" and "Smokey" with matching information on both, so I suggested they are synonymous and they have been combined. It's something which occurs regularly on the site and has occurred frequently in the "rose world". I can see where the "decision" can make it seem something "official" if you haven't been engaged in the subject much. I'm glad you raised the question, thank you! Kim

Rosefolly.....

Yes, my question was sincere.

That is a GREAT answer and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and feelings. I, too, used to come here every day for several years until I volunteered on HMF. I also know many people who post here regularly and have met many personally. I am getting to know more people as I visit this site again.

The anonymity on HMF is deliberate in that volunteers come and go, and it is the founder's belief that it is the information that is of greatest value.

We are also always looking for volunteers to work on the HMF team because the work is never-ending and each has a different rose library which can help fill in some of the blank rose pages, but database work can be, and is, somewhat boring. However, as I've worked on the site, I have learned a lot about roses. I still have a lot to learn and still consider myself to be a novice, not an expert.

I can understand that the Antique Forum is truly a "home" and someday, I do hope my being flamed will no longer haunt me and the people here will know that I have, nor will, intentionally step on anyone's toes.

That said, it's questions like this one that helps the people who do work on HMF learn what people are seeking when they visit the site. It's another way of saying, "We truly need your participation on HMF."

Thank you for your support of HMF, it does help a lot.

Smiles,
Lyn

You guys totally blow my mind, lol!!

Ooops...

I should have said have NOT intentionally stepped on anyone's toes. That's not my style.

Smiles,
Lyn

Fascinating stuff here. Both the original question and it's answer and the ensuing debate about the choice of where to post the question.

On the original topic, I find it so interesting that many of the name changing practices we contend with now have actually been going on for a very long time and are nothing new. Sadly that doesn't bode well for the future either.

I can relate to why rosefolly came here to ask instead of HMF. I probably would have done the same thing. It wasn't a question of HMF's accuracy but more of any inquiry into the term and it's meaning. And I would have come to a place where I know the people who are answering that question and feel the most comfortable. While I do visit the Q&A section at HMF it isn't like a forum where we can chat back and forth like this. Nor do I think it needs to be. It holds a different place and we already have these forums for chatting.

I do hope that no one takes offense at any thing said here because I truly believe none of it was ever meant to be offensive or disparaging in any way. Just questions asked and answered as it should be.

Totally agreed, Seil. Thanks. Kim

I think we are all now agreed that all is fine.

Rosefolly

Well, all may be fine with y'all, but you still blow my mind with all your knowledge!! I'll never get there...

OGRose, yes you will. Just spend lots of time on the forum and experiment with lots of roses. You will be astonished at how much you learn over time. One day you will be one of the "experts", though very likely you will still be humbled by the knowledge of those around you. That is how I feel myself. People tell me I know a lot about roses, and I even give talks from time to time, but I know nothing compared to the people I regard as true experts. And many of them are, or have been, on this very forum.

Roseblush, I am so very sorry to hear that you were once flamed on this forum. It does happen, and it is always hurtful. We are all human and tempers will flare, but most of the time the tone of this forum is warm and welcoming. Every single person on this forum whom I have personally met (and over the year I have met quite a few) has been absolutely a fine person. Some are quirky (as I am myself at times) but all are united by a sincere love of roses and an enthusiasm for sharing their excitement about our shared passion.

Rosefolly

Ogrose, I had the extreme honor and pleasure of having Ralph Moore as a good friend. He played with, messed with and bred roses for nearly 90 years. He forgot more in the twenty-five-plus years I knew him, than I ever hope to know. Even understanding them, "thinking" like them, he frequently chuckled and said, "Just when you THINK you know the rules, the rose changes them!" That's one of the great beauties of this passion, you can never know it all. Every discovery opens new doors for new discoveries. Every answer conjures even more questions. And, as he loved to muse, the rose DOES change the rules, every chance it gets! Kim

Roseblush1, you framed your initial post here in such a way as to convey that you were fully aware that your question might seem odd. Later, you informed me (specifically) that the question is, in fact, NOT odd. My personal opinion is that it IS an odd question to pose on a forum where participants have always felt at liberty to discuss whatever rose-related matter we please -- including peculiar bits of info that we might glean from HMF.

I'm told that you failed to "get" my post. I'm afraid, roseblush1, that there's really nothing beyond the obvious to "get". I thought it was a very bland, non-confrontational statement I made to rosefolly. Unfortunately, you thought otherwise, and I'm sorry for that. I sincerely hope you'll accept my apology for making a comment that you found to be both abstruse AND offensive. My personal opinion, however, is what it is. (If I may share with you what I don't "get", it's that you took umbrage at one who concurred with you that, yes, it did seem odd to pose such a question here on this forum.)

Probably should have had my first cup of coffee before considering whether to respond to a tempest in a teapot. Reading this morning's paper will undoubtedly give me a more rational perspective on what's important.

Have to confess though, that I'm sure to remain very curious about the synonym decision. (Sounds like a title for a Robert Ludlum novel, doesn't it? The Synonym Decision.) :)

As I'm reading these posts I'm wondering "who sets rules about what questions are posted where"? This forum is about roses and if the question is about that subject and the poster wants to ask, why not ask? I think at times people are hesitant to post questions, etc because it might not be the "right" question, etc. Lyn, when you ask the question "why did you post here?", even with your "smiling" close, it is off-putting, at least to me. Don't we want this to be forum where all are free to post on relevant topics? I do, and find it a little more difficult if I have to worry I am posting to the "wrong" forum!

That does sound like an intriguing title, Jax.

Reading everything from the point of view of a volunteer and knowing Lyn for many years, I understand the whole point is, if you have a question about something posted on HMF, please ask it there, too. Not everyone who reads there, reads here, and vice versa. There is overlap, but people often seem to move in circles which don't always intersect. Of course everyone is free to ask whatever, wherever they wish, but as I stated, if it was a question for you, it's surely going to be one for others. Ask where you want, but if it's there, please also ask it there. Someone else is going to ask it and not know to come here for the answer. It's all about creating as complete an information base as possible, nothing else. Nothing "sinister" and nothing meant to offend anyone. Kim

I can understand the synonym thing in the way that Kim explained it. I have another example. I'm interested in the modern Floribunda introduced in 1999 by Weeks as "Purple Heart" which was reintroduced by Cottage Hill in 2009 as "Marie Osmond," then introduced somewhere else as "New Age." (But HMF doesn't say who, when, or where it was called New Age.)

Are they all the same rose? Maybe. Maybe not. There's some disagreement in the description about whether this rose is "thornless," or "armed with thorns."

Even if two plants look, smell, behave absolutely the same way, they're still not the same plant if they differ markedly in one aspect. Even thorniness. That can make a big difference to some people. (Of course, I've discovered that thorniness, like scent, is very relative and depends a great deal on the person describing it.)

And that's a modern rose--you would think very well documented. There are so many inconsistencies when it comes to the antique ones that have fallen out of commerce to be found and identified decades later.

There seem to be two versions of Marie Pavie in commerce. The west coast apparently has a fully double version. The east coast a more "blowsy" one. Are they the same plant? How could they be if the flowers are not the same? Why is the less double version of "Souvenir de la Malmaison" called "Souvenir de St. Anne's"? SdSA is the same plant as SdlM, just with fewer petals, right? Like the two different Marie Pavies?

I'm not going to name names because I don't want anyone to think I'm attacking any nursery, and I'm not. I want ALL of them to stay in business forever, and I'll buy from ANY of them if they have a plant I want. BUT, sometimes nurseries are inconsistent in their catalogs. There is one that has decided what is being sold elsewhere as "Eugene de Beauharnais" (China) is really "Le Grand Capitaine (Bourbon)." One reason given elsewhere for this is that the growth habit and scent of the plant is more Bourbon than China. BUT if you look at HMF provided for Eugene de Beauharnais, you'll see that in 1844, only six years after it's introduction, that rose was known by two other names, one of them "Bourbon Beauharnais." Were those two roses already confused then, or was Eugene really a Hybrid Bourbon or Hybrid China? Meaning the plant in commerce today could really be Eugene de Beauharnais?

At any rate, the rose is listed only as Le Grand Capitaine in the Bourbon section, though Eugene de Beauharnais is listed as a synonym there.

But at the same nursery, there are listings for both the tea, Francis Dubreuil and the Hybrid Tea, Barcelona. There's a pretty convincing argument by Kim at HMF stating that all roses in commerce as Francis Dubreuil are really Barcelona, but the listings at this nursery show two plants with two different growth habits. Obviously they feel they have two different plants.

Yep, Jaxondel is right in that none of this really matters in the grand scheme of things, but it sure makes the world of roses really interesting.

I do want to say that before roses I "did" orchids, and though I haven't visited the orchid forum in years, it was just as lively as this one. And yes, arguments would erupt now and then over there, too. And people would get banned, etc.

It's quite a bit easier with modern roses from major introducers, bellegallica. Week's, among a few others, lists their roses by their breeder's code names and the better nurseries list them as both the "fancy" or commercial name as well as the breeder's code. When they're listed using both name types, it's easy to state they're synonymous. It's VERY common these days for American nurseries to change the name so it appears they have new things, and/or "exclusives". Armstrong Garden Centers is famous for it. Greenheart is re releasing a number of previously commercial minis under the "Garden Treasures" label, all with new names. Fortunately, they've also listed their breeder's code names so they are identifiable. Then, there is the age old practice of introducing a rose from country A under a different name in country B. Marie Osmond would probably mean much less to an Aussie than "New Age". Elina is far more elegant to our ears than Peadouce, a British disposable diaper brand.

You're right on about various people describing the same rose in different ways. Most of it is terribly subjective. Add that roses perform so bloody differently from one location to the next and it gets really problematic. Add a potential degenerative sport to the mix and it's really muddled.

I agree that it's frustrating and more than a bit irritating when a nursery offers roses which really are the same one, under different names. I've seen one actually list Grandmother's Hat as Cornet and Barbara Worl and these ARE identical roses in the US. Not that the Cornet identity is absolutely correct, but an "expert rosarian" stated Grandmother's Hat was Cornet, therefore the plants produced from that GH WERE/ARE Cornet. Her discoverer pronounced her Grandmother's Hat, while a later nurseryman decided to rename her to honor her discoverer, hence Barbara Worl. All three were in that catalog for several years as separate entries as if they were separate roses.

To your Barcelona/Frances Dubreuil, Irene Watts/Pink Gruss an Aachen, Eugene de Beauharnais/Le Grand Capitaine list, you may also add Commander Gillette/Basye's Legacy. These two roses were initially distinct, but their creator personally identified the only rose in commerce as BOTH varieties. If you grow one, you definitely grow the other as the rose in commerce as each IS identical. Before all of this, there were the Jacques Cartier/Marquise Bocella (one was supposedly an HP, while the other was a Portland), Irish Elegance/Fireflame and the perennial Sombreuil/Colonial White mix-ups. Fun, huh? Kim

Yes, but all of that still begs the simple question asked by Rosefolly at the get-go here: "What on earth was the 'synonym' decision?"

To recap: In the 'Gen Jacqueminot' entry at HMF Rosefolly found a statement indicating that, roughly 120 years ago, a decision was made regarding synomyns. The statement implies that the "decision" was a discete occurance, not a protracted reaction over time to an amorphous conglomeration of confused identities and multiple introductions of the same variety.

It's probably safe to assume that the decision was specific to roses and had no broader botanical implications (synonomy problems, unfortunately, are rife throughout the plant kingdom). Who, or what body, made the decision? Where was it made? Was it broadly deciminated at the time? What was the gist of the decision?

Perhaps such an attempt was not made in the 1880's or at any other time, and there's therefore no basis for the HMF reference, who knows? One thing we can say is that the decision, if made, seems to have fallen far short of its goal.

All of this could hardly be more trivial, it's true, but . . . To Kim: Yes, it is fun. To Bellegalica: Yes, it makes things very interesting indeed! And to Rosefolly: Yes! Inquiring minds have NEEDS. If it takes beating dead horses, so be it . . .

Not trivial to me since I love roses! Very interesting to read all your posts. I love learning about all this stuff.

Your best chance of learning any specifics is to post to HMF on "Comments" for Gen. Jack. As Lyn said, there is a European volunteer with an extensive library who posts references frequently. Perhaps he can provide more information concerning your question? Kim

Here is a link that might be useful: Gen. Jack.

Is/are Nigrette/Louis XIV another example? I did acquire one of each before learning that they were considered to be the same rose, but I don't know whether they exemplify what any "decision" or????

Nigrette and Louis XIV represent a modern consensus. Rosen Schultheis in Germany supplied the Nigrette we have in the US now. Bob Edberg, the Old Rose Book guy, owned and operated Limberlost Roses in Van Nuys, Ca for years. He imported from them and allowed me to add to his import order. Nigrette was one which came on that shipment. Who wouldn't want to see "The Black Rose of Sangerhausen"? It fit the old photographs and descriptions of Nigrette. McFarland wrote not to expect a HT, but more of a poly with those dark, plum-black, very fragrant flowers. It fit. Over the years, the question has been raised and as far as I know, the consensus is everything supplied as one, is identical to the other. Kim

Thanks, Kim.
I love both of them !!!!
I never buy more than one of the same rose, so I'm sorta glad I had no idea these were the same rose when I bought one of each. And anyway, they are so small that having more than one is still like having half a rose....:-))))

You're welcome Susan! There is a lot about that rose to enjoy, and much to groan over. This is definitely one which fits both Hennessey's and Austin's instructions to plant multiples of in the same place. It takes it to make nearly a "whole" one. I love rolling those densely velveted petals between my fingers in bright sun where you can see the pile. The fragrance has the same richness to me that ripe muscadines do. Kim

Diligently following advice, I have read every reference to 'General Jack' listed by 'HelpMe Find', and particularly admired this useful offering:

Appendix to the Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the Legislature of the State of California

Book (1891) Page(s) 5001.
In the Report of the State Board of Horticulture on Floriculture - Rose Culture: Perhaps there is no country in the wide world where the rose can be grown to greater perfection than in California...
What Sorts To Plant:....
Hybrid Perpetuals, or Remontants - General Jacqueminot, deep crimson

:)

Jon

Thanks, Kim. Ralph Moore: "Just when you THINK you know the rules, the rose changes them! . . . the rose DOES change the rules, every chance it gets!"

I love it! Makes the whole dynamic of rose growing more exciting. Lou

"Just when you THINK you know the rules, the rose changes them! . . . the rose DOES change the rules, every chance it gets!"

And, this is why I have generally stopped giving or asking for information about specific roses or even classes of roses. Seems to me there isn't a rose that I grow that someone doesn't despise for its worthlessness. Or that someone else has to shovel prune for BS or Rust or???? I have decided that my roses are just that -- my roses -- and that recommending them to anyone else is just an opportunity to get my knuckles rapped and/or my feelings hurt.

I have no basis for saying this (other than a 'gut' feeling), but I suspect that if there was a synonym decision it did not have the broad application that Jax seems to be wondering about, but rather was developed to be applied specifically - & only - to Gen Jacqueminot. It was pointed out earlier that the General produced many sports in addition to being used extensively in breeding programs. Some of those progeny were/are undoubtedly look-alikes or near look-alikes that eventually may have created confusion and the need for a clarifying "decision" of some kind as to which one was, and which ones weren't, the General.

Jax, Had to chuckle at that reference to Ludlum. Since he's known for series of books, I'm thinking he could follow The Synonym Decision with maybe The Homonym Dilemma, then wrap everything up with The Antonym Divergence. What do you think?

Here is a tantalizing bit about General Jack from J.H. Nicolas's, "A Rose Odyssey," p. 14, published in 1937. Whatever the synonym decision was, it apparently wasn't final in the minds of everyone.

"Several years ago there was a discussion in American Rose Society circles about the genuineness of the American stock of General Jacqueminot. I studied the question abroad and found at Reymond's a line of magnificent everblooming General Jacqueminot, descendants of the original stock he had inherited from his Uncle Roussel, the originator. These had been improved almost to the status of a Hybrid Tea (sic) in floriferousness. We acquired enough plants from Reymond to rejuvenate our stock and the General Jacqueminot stock of Jackson and Perkins is of authentic French origin."

I would love to know what the J&P version was.

There was also a hybrid china released as General Jacqueminot six years before General Jacqueminot, the hybrid perpetual. More plums in the pudding.

Two other old rose books you'll find this type of useful information in are Henry Ellwanger, The Rose, 1982, and Foster-Melliar, THE BOOK OF THE ROSE, 3rd. edition was 1905, so it was of the era and the authors knew the roses. Those books contain much useful information about which roses were similar to others, etc. One, I don't remember which, as it's been some years since I read them and mine are still packed in the garage after moving, actually categorizes many OGRs such as, "Paul Neyron type", General Jacqueminot type", "La Reine type", etc.

What we don't usually understand is MANY of the roses of the Edwardian and Victorian periods were simply raised from self set hips, and the vast majority of those seeds would have been actually selfed, "the variety X itself". So, many of them were so similar as to be virtually synonymous, unless they were significantly inferior, and after several generations of inbreeding, I'm sure many were. It was very common for you to raise a new, successful rose, then for me to propagate it, give it a name I wanted it to have and then sell it as MY new rose. VERY common. Add importing new roses, or even older established ones from other countries and renaming them. THEN, read the story of William R. Smith. That rose was sold something like six times, which is one reason it carries so many synonyms. There was no trade marking or patenting so popular names were used over, and over and over again resulting in much confusion. HMF lists three Napoleons, a China, a Gallica and an HP. Who knows how many others there were we don't have record of?

As I suggested, there really wasn't an "official decree", but older authors such as these two attempted to sort through the mud and straighten the roses out. If you've seen how many variations of Slater's Crimson China are floating around, you will get a feel for how many HPs, Bourbons, etc. have been SO closely similar to so many others, and for the same reason. They're siblings, raised from self set seed of established, popular varieties, and many of them look so similar that, other than glaring defects, they could easily be deemed synonymous. Raise a small batch of self set hips from your OGRs and see. Many will look very much like the seed parent. Most will be inferior regarding vigor, health, rebloom, etc., but when most of the descriptions were the quality of "full, large, pink, fragrant", many imposters have easily been passed off as "the original".

I love that passage from Nicholas, Gean. He illustrated bud selection, a whole other can of worms. There is little in the literature to support it, but the bits you find certainly make a strong point for the ability to perfect as well as destroy a variety, simply by judicious bud selection. If it really IS that easy to improve or degrade, imagine what your chances of getting an improved version are from modern rose production. Kim

Gean.......

Do you mind if I copy that REFERENCE to the Gen Jack rose page on HMF ? We have used the book for a reference for other roses, but I would love to add the GJ reference, too.

Kim, I think you are correct in that probably many of the roses identified as 'General Jacqueminot' were probably self-seedlings and looked so much like GJ in every way, it was probably impossible to determine a significant difference between the roses. Also, if I remember correctly, most roses introduced during the early to late-1800s were open pollenated, so the likelihood of the new roses being selfs is quite high since "breeders" were not making deliberate crosses.

BUT ... I think that is only part of the story. I was reading a German rose book today (translated into English) and the author mentioned several rose organization, breeder organizations as a part of the history of roses.

Since General Jack was introduced in the mid-1800s and rose organizations were more organized in Europe than in the United States during that century, I think the 'synonym decision' was made prior to Nichol's recovery of bud wood from Reymond.

Smiles,
Lyn

Sure, Lyn. I'm interested in the Max Singer book that Jaxondel quoted from. It's on the hmf reference list, but is in French.

I looked the book up and noticed it had been reprinted in 2010, but I don't think that it's been translated into English, although I am not sure about that.

Maybe Jax translated it or has an English copy. If there is an English translation I'd love to know about it. the book is from 1901, I think, but hmf indicated it's 1885. Maybe that is a quote from an earlier edition of the 1901 book. Do you ever add translations of languages to your references or are they always in the original language?

Here is a link that might be useful: Max Singer book reprinted in 2010

Hi Gean......

I can't tell you anything about the book, but feel free to ask on HMF. The volunteer who put up that REFERENCE is still active and can probably answer your question.

"Do you ever add translations of languages to your references or are they always in the original language?"

Some of the volunteers do add English translations, but that is not always the case.

Smiles,
Lyn

Well, I'm glad we have this all straightened out... whew!!

Wonderful! So we owe a vote of thanks to Rosefolly for "posting it here instead of HMF", afterall! Another demonstration of the forum doing what it was designed to do -- and pretty speedily, too.

There's often MUCH good info on the HMF "comments" tab for each variety, but questions can also languish there unaddressed for weeks, months, and way beyond. Rosefolly definitely came to the right place.

LOL, Windeaux. Those are perfect titles for a Robt Ludlum trilogy! Also, I think your thoughts about the "decision" (if there was one) applying only to GJ make a great deal of sense.

A rose can have more than one name.... also, two different roses can share the same name.

So as I understand the synonym decision, it was part of the record keeping of roses, acknowledging that there could be varying names and descriptions in the histories of the roses, and that this information should be kept in the record.

A very interesting thread, and I've been reading with interest, to try to understand it all...

Jax.........

You are so very right. People need to post where they are most comfortable.

Every forum works in a different way, so all of us choose the one we like the best, or play on one or more, and I am all for that.

Smiles,
Lyn