 |
|
Albas |
NOTES
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE MOSS-ROSE,
Part 2 Reprinted
from the JOURNAL of the ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Printed
for the Royal Horticultural Society Origin of the Moss-Rose We have reviewed the history of the Old Moss-Rose and have traced it back to about the year 1696, when it wets apparently in cultivation at Carcassonne, in the south of France, until it was found there by Ducastel, and introduced by him to the gardens of three districts in the North-West of France. We have seen that it was in cultivation in Holland in 1720, in England in 1727, and in Italy in 1755. Andrews (1805) states that ". . . The origin of this beautiful Rose has ever been considered as enveloped in obscurity, but we have no hesitation in assigning it to the ProvInce, to which it assimilates in every particular - - with the addition of a rich luxuriant Moss, that gives it a decided superiority, and at the same time a specific distinction. There can be little, if any doubt, that this beautiful variety is the spontaneous effusion of Nature in this country." Rivers (1840) states: "The Moss-Rose or Mossy Provence Rose is most probably an accidental sport or seminal variety of the Common Provence Rose." Vibert (1844) of Angers, France, states, curiously enough, that the first Moss Rose, the Common Moss, was discovered in England. He quotes the statement of Mine. de Genlis in her Botanique Historique that she brought the first plant of the Moss Rose to Paris from England a few years before the Revolution of 1789, but he seems sceptical about her further statement that in Germany, round Berlin, the Moss Rose grew as high as Cherry trees! Vibert proceeds to say that the Moss-Rose is evidently a sport of Nature, a happy accident that Art has fixed, and that the date of introduction has not been preserved in a positive manner. He remarks that in France in 1810 only the Common Moss was known, and that the species R. centifolia has produced more sports or side-steps ("jeux ou écarts") than all the other species of Rosa put together. Loiseleur-Deslongchamps (1844) also states that the Moss Rose originated in England, and that Miller is supposed to have been the first cultivator of it in 1724. Paul
(1848) states: "The history of the Moss Rose is wrapped in obscurity.
It was first introduced to England from Holland (in the 1888 edition
he adds "in 1596") and it is generally believed that it was
a sport from the Provence Rose: that it was not originated by seed,
as most new varieties are, but by a branch of the Provence Rose sporting
. . . flowers enveloped in Moss. Finally Darwin (1893) who devoted considerable attention to the question of the origin of the Moss Rose, states: "Its origin is unknown, but from analogy it probably arose from the Provence Rose (R. centifolia) by bud-variation." After a careful survey of the facts available to him in 1868, Darwin concludes: "That the original Moss-Rose was the product of bud-variation is probable." Many facts have come to light since the time of Darwin, which more fully confirm this conclusion. Records show that on three distinct occasions the Moss Rose mutation has appeared among the Cabbage-Roses. First, about 1696, the Old Moss-Rose appeared, as we have seen, in the South of France. Second, in 1801 the Moss de Meaux appeared in the West of England as a bud-mutation on the Rose de Meaux (Hare, 1818). Third, about 1843, the Unique Moss appeared in France, as a bud-mutation on the Rose Unique (Vibert, 1844; Paul, 1848). Both the mother parents probably originated as bud-variations of the Old Cabbage Rose, the Rose de Meaux about 1637 in France(Willmott, 1912), and the Rose Unique in 1775 in the East of England(Shailer, 1852). A confirmation of this view is found in the fact that both the Rose de Meaux and the Rose Unique reverted by bud-variation to the Old Cabbage-Rose (Andrews, 1810; Rivers, 1840). Origin of the Rose Unique The Rose Unique, or White Provence, is a white Cabbage-Rose which differs from the Old Pink Cabbage-Rose in colour only. As a matter of fact it is not a true albino, but a tinged white with pink buds. Usually
the flower is pure white when expanded, but the five outer petals are
tinged with colour, and occasionally the centre of the flower too. There
is an excellent coloured drawing of this Rose in Redouté (1817) under
the name of R. centifolia mutabilis, or Rosier Unique. Andrews (1805)
also figures it under the name of R. provincialis alba, White Provence
or Rose Unique. This Rose was apparently found in a garden in the Eastern
Counties in 1775. Andrews (1805) states that "its introduction
in 1777 was entirely accidental, through the medium of the late Mr.
Greenwood, Nurseryman, a great admirer and collector of Roses, who,
in an excursion which he usually made every summer, in passing the front
garden of Mr. Richmond, a baker near Needham in Suffolk, there perceived
the present charming plant, where it had been placed by a carpenter
who found it near a hedge on the contiguous premises of a Dutch merchant,
whose old mansion he was repairing. Mr. Greenwood, requesting a little
cutting of it, received from Mr. Richmond the whole plant; when Mr.
Greenwood, in return for a plant so valuable, presented him with an
elegant silver cup with the Rose engraved upon it; and which in commemoration
has furnished food for many a convivial hour. It is of dwarf growth
and remains in flower nearly six weeks longer than the other Province
Roses, which renders it still the more estimable. Darwin (1893), referring to Shailer's version above, states: "Many other instances could be added of Roses varying by buds. The White Provence Rose apparently originated in this way," with which we agree. The statement that Greenwood paid a guinea for one flower and three workable buds distinctly suggests that only one small shoot of this new White Rose was available at the time, and that it was a bud-variation growing on a Common Pink Cabbage Rose as Rivers suggests. The "stock" that Greenwood bought for five guineas in the autumn was no doubt the original plant from which he cut the sport (cf. Andrews' account), because from his two budded plants and the old "stock" plant Shailer would, with ordinary good fortune, get his 1,200 plants in the three years stated. Origin of the The Rose de Meaux The Rose de Meaux is a miniature Cabbage Rose which differs from the Old Cabbage Rose only in the smaller size of all its parts. There is a good coloured drawing of this Rose in Redouté (1817) under the name of Rosa Pomponia or Rosier Pompon. This Rose is an old inhabitant of French gardens, but its precise origin is not known. Miss Willmott (1912) suggests with good reason that it may have come from the garden of Doménique Séquier, Bishop of Meaux (1637), who was a great cultivator of Roses in his day. In any case, wherever it arose, there can be little doubt that it originoted from the Old Cabbage-Rose and probably as a bud-variation. Aiton (1789) mentions two 'Rose de Meaux' as varieties of R. provincialis Mill. (i.e. R. centifolia L.), viz. 'the Great Dwarf Rose,' which is no doubt the Spong Rose (R. provincialis hybrida) of Andrews (1805), a half dwarf; and the 'Small Dwarf Rose,' which is clearly the 'Rose de Meaux.' Both these forms are figured by Miss Lawrance (1799) under tt. 31 and 50 respectively. During a period of more than 2,000 years, only three Moss-Roses have been recorded that were not derived from Moss Roses. Two of the three are definitely recorded as bud-variations of Cabbage Roses, viz. Moss de Meaux (1801) in England and Unique Moss (1843) in France. The third is the Old Moss Rose whose origin is in question. Each of the two is identical with the particular form which produced it, except in the 'Moss' character, which is additional. Further, the 'Moss' character is apparently identical in the three Moss Roses. None has been recorded as a seed-variation and all are sterile, like the forms which produced them. Further, on at least seven occasions between 1805 and 1873 the Old Moss-Rose has reproduced the Old Cabbage-Rose by bud-variation or 'bud-reversion' (Andrews, 1805; Hare, 1818; Lindley, 1820; Shailer, 1822; Piper, 1842; Jumain, 1873; Darwin, 1893). The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the original Moss-Rose mutation arose as a bud-variation of the Old Cabbage Rose (R. centifolia L.). We conclude, therefore, that the original Moss Rose first appeared at Carcassonne, in the south of France, about the year 1696, as a bud-mutation of the Old Cabbage-Rose (R. centifolia L.). The second 'Moss' mutation was the 'Moss de Meaux,' which appeared in the West of England in 1801 as a bud-mutation of Rose de Meaux. The third and last 'Moss' mutation was the 'Unique Moss' which appeared in France about 1843 as a bud-mutation of Rose Unique. All other Moss-Roses have been derived directly or indirectly from one of the three original mutations. As a matter of fact, between 1788 and 1832 no less than seventeen distinct Moss Roses appeared as bud-variations of the Old Moss-Rose in England and France. One of these had single and fertile flowers (Shailer, 1852), and became the ancestor of many hybrid Moss-Roses raised in England and France between 1824 and 1860. Further confirmation of the origin of the Moss-Rose may be found in the interesting fact that twelve of the distinct bud variations of the Old Moss-Rose which appeared between 1788 and 1832 have precise parallels in twelve bud-variations of the Old Cabbage-Rose which appeared between 1637 and 1813, the only difference between them being the presence and absence of 'Moss' respectively. This can only be due to their like factorial composition in all respects except in the presence or absence of the 'Moss' factor. Presumably this implies a common origin, and here we seem to get a glimpse of the true nature of related species and varieties, for these twelve bud-variations are indistinguishable in kind from the seed-variations that normally arise among seedlings of related species and varieties of Rosa. Another noteworthy fact has become prominent in the course of this inquiry, and that is the comparatively few bud-variations recorded in the fertile R. gallica L., and R. damascena Mill. compared with the large numbers found in the sterile R. centifolia L. Is it possible that there is a definite connexion between sterility and bud-variation? Are we to regard bud-variation as an alternative mode of expression of variation in the prescence of sterility? The facts in Rosa certainly point In that direction. It is interesting to note that no other species of Rosa presents the 'Moss' mutation but R. centifolia L. No trace of it is ever seen in the closely allied species or sub species R. damascena Mill. or lies. L. The nearest analogues to the mossiness of R. centifolia L., are the extreme hairy and glandular forms of R. rubiginosa L.(Sweet Briar) and R. moschata Brunonii (Musk Rose), which, however, are quite distinct from R. centifolia muscosa Seringe, both in their structure and their glandular secretions. Genetic Significance In concluding this inquiry, it may be of interest to add a few genetic notes on the probable nature and significance of the three definite appearances of this "specific" bud-mutation, after more than 2,000 years of intensive cultivation and vegetative propagation. That the 'Moss' character in Rosa is a genuine bud-mutation, and not a fluctuating variation, or bud-variant, is evident from its somatic persistence through many bud-generations, and its germinal persistence through various seed-generations. Rivers (1840) states that: "Plants produced by the seed of the Moss-Rose do not always show Moss; perhaps not more than two plants out of three will be mossy, as I have often proved." Again, Darwin (1393) states that: "Mr. Rivers informs me that his seedlings from the old Single Moss-Rose almost always produce Moss Roses." We do not yet know definitely whether the 'Moss' character in Rosa is to be identified with a single Mendelian factor or not, though all the evidence so far is in favour of its being a simple dominant. If it is, and Rivers' matings of the Single Moss-Rose were, on the average, one-half selfings and one-half crossings with other Roses, as they probably were, judging by his methods, the Mendelian expectation, on the average, would be the actual ratio that he obtained, viz. 2 Moss; 1 Plain. It is evident that 'Moss' is a dominant character, for if it were recessive no hybrid Moss Roses would have the 'Moss' character, and we know that some have. It is also clear that the Single Moss, a bud-variation from the Old Moss-Rose, is a heterozygous dominant, for according to Rivers (1340) and Darwin (1893) it throws "Plain" as well as 'Moss' Roses from seed in the proportion of about one in three. We have already seen that the Old Moss-Rose produced "plain" (i.e. "unmossed") Cabbage-Roses. So that it is probable that the first mutation of the Moss-Rose was itself a heterozygous dominant for 'Moss'. In view of the important results recently reported by Morgan (1919) and his colleagues, in their experiments with Drosophila, which have led them to formulate the chromosome theory of heredity, it seems on this hypothesis that if the first mutation of the Moss Rose was a heterozygous dominant, the mutational change would take place in one of the chromosomes in a single locus. In accordance with the "presence and absence" method, this mutstional change in a single locus from m to M involves the presence of an additional factor M, which is dominant to the normal allelomorph m from which the factor M is absent. This conception, however, does not necessarily imply the actual presence or absence of a structural gene as Morgan seems to infer, and in the present state of knowledge it seems safer and sounder to continue the use of the non committal term "factor" with its "presence and absence," which need not necessarily involve any assumption as to the nature or constitution of either the factor or its allelomorph, though it does provide an indispensable symbolic method of denoting the difference between them. On the other hand, the reversionary change by which the Moss-Rose reproduced the Cabbage-Rose by bud-variation involves the absence of the factor M in a single locus of one of the chromosomes, either by somatic segregation with a reduction division, or it is evident that in view of Morgan's discoveries bud-mutations take on a new importance, and in the case of the Moss Rose is clearly one of considerable genetic significance; for in a simple way it seems to narrow down to a fine point the difficult and usually complex problem of the origin of a definite mutation, and may brIng us within measurable distance of the possibility of tracing the origin to a certain cause. For the present, however, we must be content to work and wait patiently for the genetic and cytological facts, which alone can offer even an approximate solution. Editor's note:
There
have been |
|
