I'm surprised good candidates haven't been identified and tested. DNA is an easy solution if Smith's is a parent of Devoniensis. I manage a surname project where we answer questions like this about human ancestry.

Lindsey

DNA testing isn't cheap on roses. You can't just get it done cheaply, and there are very few places where it CAN be done.

For people, prices are usually in the hundreds, depending on the type of test ordered, but then the market for genealogical testing is robust. Isn't there an organization somewhere that might get it done if good candidates for important lost roses could be found?

Lindsey

Yes. And they are doing it at Florida Southern. But only when people are available to do it.

OTOH, I'm sure everyone would love to hear about other people who are willing to do it for little or no money.

I would like to hear about anyone willing to test good candidates for Smith's Yellow--or better still--Park's Yellow if there are any good candidates (excluding, of course, the impostor now in commerce.)

I'm not sure how well my candidate for Smith's matches the original. It does have conspicuous veins, and I recall reading somewhere that the leaves of Smith's were "beautifully veined"--whatever that may mean-- and history/provenance are good; however, I've never seen this rose in the right place performing to standard, and that could affect petal count. The rose in your picture looks like Devoniensis whereas my candidate looks like a Noisette.

Lindsey

Lindsey -- We discovered DEFINITIVELY that "Jesse Hildreth" is NOT 'Devoniensis,' when it was planted next to a known 'Devoniensis,' in the Sacramento City Cemetery.

How interesting--side by side is the best way to compare. I didn't mean that it was Devoniensis--only that it looked like Devoniensis or a tea similar to Devoniensis, whereas the yellow rose I mentioned looks like a Noisette.

I'm intrigued by all roses likely to be close relatives of Parks' Yellow. If Spice is Hume's and Belfield is Slater's, then maybe Parks' will be found someday in some elusive corner of the world.

(I have a Belfield/Slater's lookalike which I grow beside Belfield. My instincts tell me they aren't quite identical, although I can't identify that difference.)

Lindsey

Indeed, we had thought it was a particularly vigorous example of 'Devoniensis,' which is why the Sacramento folks planted it where they did. Whereupon, it quickly became clear that "Jesse Hildreth" was "his own man," so to speak.

And I do think it looks to be something in that family of roses. It reminds me to some degree of 'Lamarque' -- and Florence Bower, on seeing a photo of it, made the same connection.

Here is what the plant looked like:

I can't see the resemblance to Lamaque in this photograph, but the earlier close-up of the fully-expanded rose reminded me of Lamarque, although buds and flower together in that picture bore an even stronger resemblance to Devoniensis.

Lamarque has long been a favorite with me. My largest plant was almost as large as climbing Devoniensis planted next to it; however, two harsh winters have reduced Lamarque to a shrub about three feet tall which hasn't bloomed yet. Devoniensis was reduced 60-70% in size, but has two new laterals from its only remaining cane that are now close to two feet in length.

You have seen many more of the roses in this group than I have--which, if any, do you think would most resemble the original yellow tea? I envision flowers like those of Isabella Sprunt on a plant less robust and more like Spice.

Lindsey

How can I know, since we don't really HAVE that? There are too many unknowns.

But it would be interesting to know if "Jesse Hildreth", 'Devoniensis', and 'Lamarque' are all related. And how they are related.

We don't know aboue "Jesse Hildreth", but 'Lamarque' would be like an uncle/aunt to 'Devoniensis'. -- but also a half-sibling, because 'Park's Yellow' engaged in a bit of incest.

:-)

~Christopher

While I don't know which of our roses Parks' would most have resembled, when there is basis for speculation (ie drawings, contemporary descriptions, and closely-related descendants if tradition is correct), I am tempted to speculate but the contradictions are troubling. For instance: how can one say that Parks' never produced a worthy offsping if it was the parent of Jaune Desprez, Lamarque, Safrano, and Devoniensis? On the other hand, the first observation below is equally true of Safrano and Isabella Sprunt.

Lindsey

Buist: Book (1844) Page(s) 112-113.

Flavescens, or Yellow Tea, pale straw colour, extremely large bold petals ; it is very splendid when half expanded, but when fully blown is loose and not fully double ; it bears an abundance of seed, but we have never produced a good rose from it. This plant was introduced into England from China, by Mr. Parks, about the year 1824. In fresh sand rich loamy soil it grows very strong, and flowers profusely, but does not thrive in heavy soils.

Maybe there was nothing great bred from it THEN. Or Buist didn't like them, so concluded they were unworthy.

Also remember that while he said "it bears an abundance of seed, but we have never produced a good rose from it", he doesn't say what the other parents were in his attempts. For all we know, he could have been collecting self-seedlings. I think very many roses bred in the 19th Century derived from OP hips, many of which would be selfs.

I think I remember a contender for the real 'Park's Yellow' on HelpMeFind.

:-)

~Christopher

Do you mean the rose in commerce as Parks' which almost everyone agrees is not Parks or do you refer to something else?

Lindsey

Buist was writing in 1844.

Lamarque was int. in 1830.
Jaune Desprez was int. in 1830.
Devoniensis was int. in 1838.
Safrano was int. in 1839.

It seems hard to credit that he missed knowing about those roses!

Anyhow, here is "Beales Not-Humes-Not-Parks:

I agree. It's hard to believe Buist was unaware of four of the finest roses ever bred! I have them all and love each one.

Lindsey

Yup. I don't have all, but I have two of them. My 'Lamarque' is a clone from a plant brought to my County in 1869.

Maybe Mr. Buist didn't like the people who int. those roses. It wouldn't be the first time personal dislikes were an element in "assesments" of a rose -- nor the last. Or, maybe they just didn't grow for HIM. (Graham Stuart Thomas tends to be dismissive of Tea Roses, after all.)

It's hard to enthuse about a rose that is a pile of *.* in your garden!

lplantagenet -- I don't mean the "NOT Park's Yellow" that's a once-blooming climber, possibly related to 'Fortune's Double Yellow'. I mean that I remember some foundlings which may, in fact, be the real thing.

On the HelpMeFind page for 'Park's Yellow Tea-Scented China' appear two pics of one possibility -- here and here.

Then there's another foundling -- "Molesworth Yellow China". If someone wanted to do a genetic test, one could determine if either contender fits as a parent for roses known to have been first-generation offspring of 'Park's Yellow' -- 'Jaune Desprez', 'Devoniensis', etc.

:-)

~Christopher

Thank you--I wasn't aware of these contenders. The first two look rather like Isabella Sprunt the pink-yellow combination and China-like structure of the third are characteristics I would expect if I were asked to guess.

Lindsey

"Graham Stuart Thomas tends to be dismissive of Tea Roses, after all."

I haven't given up, but I have not had good luck with them which is odd in my zone. So far I am doing much better with European once-bloomers and their closest repeat-blooming kin. They ask for nothing and give so much, if only once a year. I may cut back on teas/Chinas, though , except for the historic four or their closest relatives plus Cramoisi and a few yellows I've acquired along the way. We'll see how they do this year--I've moved eight to a space directly behind the European roses.

Lindsey