Reprinted from The Australian
Rose Annual, 1969
By Herbert C. Swim, California, D.S.A.
I wish to make it quite clear at the outset that I
make no claim to any original discovery from my
experiences in the hybridizing of roses. I would
like to discuss them only because they seem, from my
point of view, to have been the most useful of the
many observations made over the years.
In looking back, it seems to me that among the most
significant of my early realizations was one that
made itself apparent after a series of frustrating
experiences which ended in failure.
My first experiences in the making of exploratory
rose crosses, while not entirely failures, were
sufficiently such as to make it appear expedient to
evaluate the factors involved in these failures and
further to try to place some priority on these or,
in other words, give them a rating as to importance.
For my own use an apt title for this procedure is “A
Priority of Limiting Factors.”
I shall try to illustrate what I mean by using some
actual experiences and relating them in the
approximate order of their influence on the success
or failure of a given objective. It seems to me that
the clearest way to do this is to name a problem and
then proceed to discuss it.
Vigour.
I noticed in my first years of hybridizing that many
of the families of seedlings were disappointingly
lacking in vigour to the extent that often as few as
10% of a family were vigorous enough to be
acceptable on this basis alone. In the early stages
of any plant-breeding programme one must do some
close inbreeding in order to explore the inheritance
traits of the prospective parents, and it naturally
followed that there were a number of such
populations (families) in my early crossings. I
noted that almost without exception these seedlings
displayed a major regression in vigour. I soon
discovered also that this result could be predicted
with a high degree of accuracy. Beyond this,
however, I discovered that unless I was very careful
to use parents that were not only distantly removed
from one another in origin, but had more than
ordinary vigour in themselves. I could again expect
no more than a small proportion of the resulting
offspring to be acceptable in vigour.
Flower petallage.
As a result of selfing (using the same cultivar for
both seed and pollen parent) I discovered in the
early years that the single petalled cultivars bred
completely true to this trait; in other words, all
singles when crossed with singles (providing they
had no petal aids) gave only single petalled
offsprings. Since there are, of course, a great
many levels of petallage in rose cultivars, it would
seem probable that the inheritance of the quantity
of petals may be due to a complex of factors. Be
that as it may, it became apparent that a generality
in this area could be made with a reasonable degree
of accuracy. If the breeder were expecting or
desiring rose progeny with double flowers, he had
best make sure that any semi-double cultivar he used
as the parent be complemented by another parent that
had a good degree of doubleness - not necessarily
fully double, but at least adequately so. I
discovered that if one fails to do this, very few of
the progeny will be acceptable in quantity of
petallage - again a “limiting” factor.
Mildew Resistance.
This quality, together with the next two, rank about
equally in the degree to which they limit the
breeder to selecting parents with an acceptable
level of each given quality. It is generally felt
among the rose breeders to whom I have talked that
this quality is a dominant one which covers up the
alternative quality, mildew susceptibility, when
both are present in a given cultivar or seedling.
Unfortunately, the wild roses that formed the basis
for much of the early breeding work, particularly in
the larger flowered cultivars, have a fairly
substantial degree of susceptibility to mildew. As
a result we have very few garden cuItivars today
that can be considered immune or nearly immune to
mildew.
This inevitably means that in our eager search for
advance or novelty with respect to the flower
qualities of our larger-flowered garden roses, we
are working with parents on both sides with at least
some degree of susceptibility to mildew. This means
that we will produce very little that is more
desirable than either parent, and with most of the
seedlings being only equal or somewhat worse than
the better parent with respect to this quality.
Here, again, if we find it expedient to use a parent
cultivar with some susceptibility to mildew, then we
would be wise to use a mate for it that has a
corresponding resistance to the same disease.
Otherwise, our resulting offspring will be useless
because of their susceptibility to this disease. I
am glad to report that in this field some very fine
progress is being made by various breeders, and I am
confident that in the next decade or so we shall see
some substantial progress, especially in resistance
to powdery mildew.
Flower Form.
I would incorporate in this category the form of the
bud also. The rosarian of today seems to like most
of his flowers to be regular in form, in spite of
the fact that the classic rose is very informal in
the arrangement of the petals. Perhaps the rather
globular buds and informal open blooms of
yesteryear’s roses are the more natural form-pattern
for the flowers of this great plant. Be that as it
may, the rosarians of today seem to prefer cultivars
that have long, slender, pointed, or urn-shaped buds
opening to perfectly imbricated flowers of not less
than semidouble petallage and preferably double or
very double in this respect. (I have often wondered
if the form of the “first Hybrid Tea”, La France,
could have set the style for the roses of today).
The bud form which is popular today is not very
difficult to achieve, as many of the present
prospective parent cultivars have this
characteristic. However, the form of the open bloom
tends to the informal and irregular, and
unfortunately often a confused or lopsided effect is
created. If one does not have both parents with fine
form in the open flower, then it is prudent to have
at least one of them with such form or the breeder
will preclude the possibility of having a meaningful
quantity of progeny plants with acceptable open
‘flower form.
Size and Shape of Foliage.
As near as I can determine, most rosarians prefer
foliage that is more or less flat in character,
large, heavy, leathery, and perhaps glossy. All of
these qualities except the last seem to be difficult
to attain and, in combination, this is particularly
so. Experience has shown that it is very difficult
to obtain foliage of medium to large size from a
cross where even one parent is afflicted with small
foliage.
Some growers contend that this is not such a
handicap in the Floribunda class, but most would
concede that it is a handicap in a popularity
contest among Hybrid Teas.
Finally, I should point out that I do not intend to
imply that these observations, either singly or in
combination, may be considered total objectives in
breeding roses. Obviously, the form, colour,
substance and so on of the flower itself must be the
final measuring stick of a rose-cultivar’s value.
The foregoing qualities are merely shown as the
principal road blocks to reaching our final
destination.
A most important experience, from my point of view,
is fairly frequent contact with buyers of rose
plants, particularly those sufficiently interested
to show them at flower shows or to judge them. Such
experience is for me a “must”, not only for
inspiration but for education. To know what my
fellow rose lovers see as beautiful in the rose sets
a pattern for my own effort, and it is always
satisfying to see some of the cultivars from one’s
own effort appearing in a rose show accompanied by a
blue ribbon.
COLUMBUS QUEEN. H.T: (La Jolla x Unnamed Seedling).
The light pink blooms with darker outside tones are
produced on long stems by a strong growing. disease
resistant bush. One of the best garden cultivars to
be released over recent years. Geneva Gold Medal
1961.
Raised by Armstrong and Swim.
-Photo by courtesy Armstrong Nurseries