| Sharky, Suz, Chriss, Both “Joshua Bradley” a HT yb, 1998 and “Phoenix” a HT dp, 1973 are in the 2004 AEN, giving then an official ARS “AEN”. Both roses are still in commerce in North America and should be listed in the 2004 handbook. Both roses are sold at Armstrong’s 35 Garden Centers in Southern California, shipping bare root roses from mid-January through April throughout United States. (Per. CRL) Both roses have appeared in Roses In Review (RIR) surveys. Phoenix ended up with a National Garden Rating of 6.9. Joshua Bradley appeared in the 1998 surrey, ending up in the 1999 handbook with a “t” symbol as it did in the 2002 handbook. “A “t” symbol indicates the rose is new and is being tested by rose gardeners under the ARS (RIR) program. A rating has not yet been established; your feedback on this rose through (RIR) is welcome”. How can Joshua Bradley be evaluated, if it has never appeared in any later (RIR) evaluation programs since the 2001 surrey? The primary purpose of the handbook is to focus on roses still in commerce in North America, with an established rating derived from the (RIR) program. That a new rose grower can use, to find a good or average rated rose for his garden. “The handbook states it contains information on more than 3000 roses witch are in commerce in North America
have been included, not only the National Garden performance ratings etc.” Yet in the 2003 handbook 1189 roses are without a National Garden rating, based on 3000 roses that is 40 % with out a rating. In 2004, the number was 1108, or 37 %, and in 2005, 1271 or 42 %. It seems like roses with out a rating are on the rise, in the 1968 handbook ARS listed 1000+ roses, and the figure for rated roses was less than 1%. Of the 300 roses deleted from the 2005 handbook, 189 are still in commerce with 64 having a National Garden rating. Some were less than two years old, replaced with many OGR, and other older roses. Like Mme Laurette 1887; Mme De Parabere 1874; Mme Driout 1902; Mme Berkely 1890; Narrow Waters 1883; Orphein De Juillet < 1874 etc all without ratings. The list could go on and on, the point being, # 1 Roses without ratings in the handbook are of little help to a new rose grower in selecting a new rose, the handbooks primary purpose. #2 These are not the type of roses carried by your average local nursery, Lowe’s or a K Mart. Being the presenter for ARS’s Rose Day America at Lowe’s this Saturday, thought it would be helpful to new rosarians select their roses, by supplying them with National Garden rating of roes they intend to purchase. Many of the J & P roses did not have ratings or were listed in the handbook. Researching my files did manage to come up with ratings from past RIR surveys on the majority of them. Chris inquired as to how and the mechanisms of roses that remain in the handbooksworks? This could also be a question asked of the Combined Rose List (CRL). Using only the years 2003; 2004; and 2005, during these years there has been many 1000,s and 1000,s of new roses hybridized, introduced etc, into the market from all over the world. Common sense would indicate with all these new roses introductions, the size of the Handbook or (CRL) increase in size. Yet running the numbers for both publications, in 2003 the (CRL) contained 13,909 roses on 256 pages; 2004, 14,282 on 260 pages; 2005, 14,527, a total of 8 new pages. One reason as previous stated in another article, was every 3 to 4 years roses are removed, such as roses no longer in commerce and some “Found” roses, replaced with new roses. This allows the (CRL) to publish at a reasonable price, and yet contain all roses in commerce serving its primary purpose. The handbook has a similar problem, keeping the publication confined to a limited number of pages, making it feasible to publish. The 2003; 2004; and 2005, publication each has 96 pages, containing 3000+ roses.
Even though many new roses in North America had been introduced, they were not included. The handbook is under no restriction, and has the option to publish what it wants; this is why it can deletes roses still in commerce in NA, with good garden ratings. Or list any roses name it so desires. ARS stated it had removed “Found” roses from the 2004 AEN, claiming additional space with out increasing its size. On ARS part this was a very smart move. ARS does have an obligation to publish all roses with an AEN, in commerce or not in commerce. A reason ARS still lists the handbook as a publication listing roses with an AEN, along with the (CRL) as having roses with a temporary AEN until published in an ARS publication.
Using three publications to list roses having an AEN, each serving a different primary purpose can become a source of future problems. Ron S |
