Poll about a new rose (hypothetical case)

David,

The use of the word 'remontancy' is a case of semantics.... Remontancy has a wide range of different forms. It can range from being once-flowering, which is called non-remontant, right through to continuous flowering, which might be called fully remontant. Note the words remontancy and remontant do not mean the same thing and the word remontancy does not mean repeat flowering. The word remontant does mean repeat flowering.

To use an example of what I mean consider a rubber band. One of the properties of an rubber band is elasticity. I can measure its elasticity by measuring HOW elastic it is. If I have three rubber bands and compare their elasticity I might find one to be poorly elastic, another to be moderately elastic and the last one to be very elastic. All three are ways to describe their elasticity.

It's the same for roses. Remontancy is a term used to describe HOW remontant a rose is. If I have three roses and one flowers only once in spring, another flowers in spring and then with scattered blooms until winter, and the last flowers its head off all year then I can describe their remontancy as non-remontant, partially remontant, and fully remontant respectively. So when I say I am only referring to remontancy I am not referring to repeat flowering. I am, instead, referring to its flowering habit which in this case is once flowering.

Nope.... not at all... scouts honor

So far there has only been 12 votes... 3 for yes, 4 for maybe, and 5 for no. I have not voted yet because I did not want to sway the vote. My vote, however, will be for yes. Remontancy is not an issue for me if the plants are great.

Here is the reason behind the poll.

As someone who wants to make rose breeding a major part of his life my underlying values are that the plant MUST be healthy and be able to grow strongly on its own roots and the flower is secondary to all of this... that will come in time. A wise person once advised me that in breeding anything you need to build your house first and THEN paint it. If a rose flowers only once, but is superior in all other respects then it should be grown and should be able to compete in trials on an even playing field. I do not believe non-remontant plants should be judged against fully remontant plants because they are different types of roses with different purposes. Seasonal gardens where roses are but part of the scheme are an example of how they are used. I won't go into why I think this. Suffice to say that I don't value a once flowering rose any less than a continuously flowering rose.

The national trial garden is trying to promote itself as a place where new roses should be sent for trialling where suitability to Australian conditions is assessed. That's great. The whole concept of roses suited to Australian conditions is one I embrace myself. However, I don't believe this is what they are assessing. One of their criteria is remonatncy. A fully remontant rose gains more points than a non-remontant rose. I want to know why? I have asked them and had no reply. If I bred a terrific non-remontant rose it will never score as highly as a non-remontant rose because someone deemed once flowering to be a negative feature. So I wanted to know what others thought.

Spot on...

LOL