Hybridised varieties: if you plant the seed they may not be true to the parent plant and you can end up with a different rose through cross pollination or whatever inheritance is in the genetics through the breeding line. Anything more complex than that is probably out of my league. So with open pollinated seeds you can learn what the parent rose might endow its offspring with. They say (speculate) that you can't get a truly different rose this way? Have there been any? http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/ezine.php?publicationID=596&js=0&PHPSESSID=9c694d525f1cb21bb1451377b19bfb88 for a bit of inf on this method.

So in short if I plant my rosehip seeds I'm likely to get seeds that have cross pollinated with some of the other roses around the place?

On bigeneric Hybrids: http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/main_july2001.html Jack Harkness crossed the rosa genus with the Hulthemia species, which are said to be very close to the Rose species. ooh red centers...the latest crosses are very nice. If you cross species like that are they infertile and is he doing the breeding as pollen parents? How did Jack Harkness get the cross in the first place? Do you really have to look for plants in different genus's with a similar genetic makeup? Are Harkness's plants still technically roses?

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hybrid/msg1214135122725.htmlfor a very interesting convo on what genus's might cross as hybrids. So my next question is which genus's are similar enough in strain that people are looking at trying to hybridise them with roses?

If you hybridise from a patented rose are there problems with that?

Actually I just randomly thought that it would be nice to have some of our native flowers cross with roses - surely we have some that are in that rosa genus or closely related or is that too far removed from possibility?

Yes I wonder why I'm thinking about this when just getting them to flower is a technical challenge, but there you go.

Picture
http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/plant_science/field_botany/species/dicots/rosasp/geumtalb.html

SO - when you cross any two roses that are not of the same original species, then you will Always get a different rose. (just as all your kids are genetically different unless they are identical twins). All the seeds in the pod will be different.
Their genotypes will be different, but they can still look virtually identical. The more heterozygous the parent plant, the more variety you will get.

Some plants are tetraploid (some modern daylilies and most modern tall bearded irises for instance). When there are 4 of one chromosome instead of a pair ( as in the case of diploid plants) then the amount of variety is incredible.

If you cross 2 known species plants - where both plants are homozygous, but carrying different genes because they are different species - then the offspring will be fully heterozygous, with each pair being made up of one chromosome from mum and one from dad. These plants are very predictable in type, as they will always have virtually the same genetic make up. These are your F1 (first cross) hybrids. When you cross with each other, you will get lots of variety, with some appearing to "revert" back to the parent type. These are the F2s. Breeding of F1's from species, or from fairly homozygous strains of, say, pansies or petunias, gives us the fairly consistant types of annuals that they offer us each year in punnets. These are often big robust plants, displaying hybrid vigour. Their offspring will generally be a disappointing mixed batch.

Hope that helps a bit. It's just an outline. Here is a page specifically about roses, that i always enjoy visiting.
Cheers, Jan

Thank you for your important input for a layman, and that link to Lammerts. I breed roses in a practical sense, and having had some success there, seek more basic knowledge from my guru Edward LeGrice, through his book 'Rose Growing Complete'. His work with amethyst and tan colourings have inspired me to try and emulate him. Perhaps I'm about ready to try and follow up on his creations. I am chasing brown, with little or no success.

I only know a bit about Orchids and planting out dozens of little plants out of the bottle the seeds were raised in and getting maybe one or two that are true to type and others, at times, better and many not much good at all.

I do admire the breeders with the patience to go on year after year looking for the Perfect Something from all their work and time .

Marion

I think you people are marvelous when it comes to seeds, breeding and such I was always interested in those kind of things when young but the opportunities were not there for me then to even have a go. I also would love to see a Brown Rose Lozza and as much as I like my Julia's Rose it goes pink all to quick. But I am waiting for the True Blue will it ever happen I wonder, probably but not in my lifetime. Good luck with your Brown Rose..Cheers.MM.

- Rose mosaic virus was introduced by someone who was trying to hybridise roses with apples, to see what will happen. In other words, hybridising between different subfamilies and genus of the whole Rosaceae family (plum, peach, almond, apple, strawberry ...) can introduce some unwanted consequences, like new diseases ...

- Some hybridizers in their programmes go in exploring new possibilities, and that's obviously good thing: Rosa Rugosa is especially used nowadays because it's extremely hardy and disease resistant.

- Some rose hybrids, namely first generation hybrids ('old roses, species roses and other spring flowering roses' x 'repeat flowering varieties') you will never see in your local nursery, because they've been used as a genetic pool to hybridize second and third generation of hybrids that are remontant and very much like old roses in their charm and fragrance (see David Austin, Nostalgia roses, etc.)

- It's interesting to observe that it's very hard to hybridize purely white rose; a very carefully chosen genetic pool must be set up first, obviously.

- I'm particularly interested to see some beautiful new remontant rose that resembles 'Leda' or 'Hebe's Lip' -- purely white with dark red outer rim; I find these roses to be very fascinating. Lozza, can you tell us how to hybridize such rose? To keep the charm and fragrance of a Damsk and the remontancy of some newer variety ...
Thanks!

- Tom

Thanks Sparaxis that kind of fixes up the holes in my knowledge. Its a lot more complex than I thought. Yep the ideas were wild Lozza, for where we are at in rose breeding. After I thought about it a bit, I realised they were a little out there. I was surprised to get a response.

Thankyou for the patient expertise of the people on this message board. A bit more reading and I realised from the Australian breeder that he plants so many thousands of roses and it takes years just to develop a hybrid worth having that I gather its something rather scientific and takes consuming patience (the guy who put out some of his roses in the True Blue series of roses, Federation year)....Jack Thompson? The effort of it all was probably enough to quell my interest. Yes, there are some hybridising associations of the hobby kind which you could learn much from that might be interesting to look at.

Can you believe that I have no idea of what a rose hip looks like. Just a lot of curiousity. 3 months ago I had grass, no roses at all. Just lilly pillies with a fungal infection.

There are some great stories with rose breeding: like the guy that spent ten years looking to breed a yellow rose and then just found one growing. The story of tulips and the interestingly coloured flowers that resulted from the mosaic virus is another great one....

An idea that I came across was that stripey roses might be an offshoot of the mosaic virus - but I don't know how they came to that guess.

I did come across the Australian Rose Hybridizers Society an offshoot of one of the state rose growing associations with a little how to book and monthly magazines and I think that might be the place to start getting the basic understandings down. Lozza I think its the same state you hail from so I gather you may be involved in that in some way or have knowledge of it? Alas you cannot order online.

It would be wonderful to cross some of the uniqueness of Australian species into roses - but rather a quantum leap. I'm a little hesitant about the blue rose they are breeding through genetic modifications due to the rampant nature of that method. You'd really want to know what you were doing and I'm not sure scientists really do at the moment. Not that I want to get into a GM discussion.

Tom - some interesting notes I'll have to follow up on there. I'd never have guessed it was hard to hybridize a white rose. Wouldn't you think they were a little more prolific in nature

It surely makes me appreciate all the work that went into creating the little rose plants in my garden.

I think we might consider the nomenclature, is it taxonomy (?), of the rose genus, so we may better understand each other when discussing breeding. I am not a botanist, or scientist in any way, shape, or form, but it might be necessary to be sure about the relationships certain terms have to each other. For example, in roses a species is not a genus, a hybrid is not a species, but these are specific terms relating to sub-divisions of the rose family, and which help us to understand better the relationship of one rose to another.

The hierarchy of roses begins with the 'Family' Rosaceae. Many important fruits belong to this family, such as:
apples, pears, plums, peaches, strawberries, and raspberries, as well as roses. The distinction from these other plants is managed by assigning an indicator to each sub-family member, 'R' for the genus Rosa, 'M' for the genus Malus (apples, crabapples, e.g.). In the West, in the botanical classification of roses, begins with the Genus Rosa L. ('L' for Linnaeus, the botanist who invented the hierarchy of plants). The Genus Rosa L. is followed by 4 Sub-Genera, and within each Sub-Genus is one, or many species. So we have the Sub-Genus Platyrhoden, which contains only the "flaky-bark" roses, with its Species, R.roxburghii. The most important Sub-Genus is Eurosa, which does mean "all the other roses", but also refers to the fact that, whereas the other 3 Sub-Genera have thorny hips, roses of Eurosa Sub-Genus have smooth or hairy hips.

So we have the Genus Rosa and four Sub-Genera, the first three each having only one associated species. The remaining Sub-Genus, Eurosa, has been divided into 10 separate Sections, roses of each of which have unique characteristics. Within each Section of the Sub-Genus Eurosa of the Genus Rosa L. of the Family Rosaceae, there is a "founding species" (my term). For example, in the Bracteatae Section, the founding species is R.bracteata. In the Gallicanae Section, it is R.gallica. In the Lavigatae Section, it is R.lavigatae, which has a Hybrid species R.x anemonoides ('x' for naturally occuring Hybrid Species). The most prolific Section is the Indicae Section. One founding species, R.chinensis spontanea, but some species have one or several varieties, e.g, R.chinensis spontanea (the China Rose), R.chinensis mutabilis, R.chinensis viridiflora. This may also be noted as R.chinensis: var. viridiflora. I am unsure as to when such distinction might be necessary. Equally unsure am I as to the existence today of R.chinensis spontanea. It was classified in the middle of the 18th Century, as the "founding species" of the Indicae Section. I am inclined to the belief that thousands, perhaps millions of years before, there was a R.chinensis spontanea (spontanea for spontaneously arising in Nature, 'normalis' if sometimes used synonymously). However, "In the beginning.....", if you get my meaning. To ascribe Species title to what is most likely a hybrid is perhaps fallacious, but I expect we have to start somewhere.

When species mate, offspring are defined as "R.x" for natural crosses (Hybrid Species), and "Rosa '' for man-made crosses. Further crosses have resulted in a mongrel race of roses, the vast majority bearing no resemblance to their founding species.

At this point the organised mass of horticulturists have stepped in, and arbitrarily built a horticultural classification upon roses of the Indicae Section. Thanks to them we have Tea Roses, Noisettes, Hybrid Musks, Hybrid Teas, Grandiflora Roses, Floribundas, Miniatures, Patio Roses, so-called "Groundcover" Roses (really procumbent shrub roses), and Mini-Flora roses, and a plethora of fanciful groups of roses going under the beguiling names such as "Romanticas", "Meidilland", "English"????, even "Delbard", mostly to try and impose some uniqueness upon roses in each new group. These groupings seem to have at least two functions. One, to define roses uniquely for the purpose of the Rose Shows and secondly, to give an indication as to how the roses can be defined as to usefulness in garden situations. I think that confusion reigns. That quality is improved, or disease-resistance instilled, is unknown, but if it's new mustn't it be better?

So there we are,
1. The genus Rosa L. (All roses).

2. 4 Sub-Genera. (Simplicifoliae, Hulthemia, Minutifoliae, R.stellata, Platyrhoden, R.roxburghii, and Eurosa).

3 10 Sections of the Eurosa Sub-Genus and the species associated within each.

4. Hybrid Species.

5. Horticultural Classifications and the Hybrid Roses within.

I am not pontificating or preaching, just trying to outline the facts. We can hybridise any rose with any other. It is obviously incorrect to refer to the resulting seedling as a Species, or worse as a Genus! I think it too is a shame that one needs to "cover one's back' so to speak, because some people are perhaps a little to ready to criticise.

Lozza, its great to tap into people who know a bit more than I do. Its even better when I don't have enough knowledge to ask the right questions and get them answered anyway *S*.