Hey, great question! And did they come directly into the US, or Canada first and then southward? Somebody out there must know!

Suay Verrier's book Rosa Rugosa is a necessity for anyone enamoured of the rugosas.
In her introduction, she cites the late 18th century import to Europe where "one is struck by the lack of enthusiasm with which the Europeans greeted the rugosas."

She says it took a century before hybridizing began in the colder countries: Germany, France and America.
Canadian and USA hybridizers working at the same time included Carmen, Van Fleet and Budd, they were followed by Sanders, Hansen and Skinner. (Thanks to Suzy for stating it so succinctly.)

These hybridizers talked among themselves and shared what worked and what didn't. The Canada/US boundary wasn't a boundary to stop shared enthusiasm.

Hansen was the first us Plant explorer funded by the government to search Russia and China for plant stocks that would survive in the cold of the great plains. He did wonderful things.

Paul Olsen has written a series of articles for National Roses Canada on the early rose hybridizing efforts in Canada. They are a great read and I hope that the effort to bring them together and produce a book about these folks and their roses comes to fruition.

My own limited knowledge of the US cold hardy breeding programs of the mid twentieth century found some files left behind in North Platte NB that showed how actively hybridizers shared knowledge and plants that late in the effort.

This is an interesting topic and brought some surprises for me. Evidently, R. rugosa was found and collected by Sir Joseph Banks on Captain Cook's final voyage. It was named by the Swedish botanist Carl Per Thunberg and listed in his 1784 publication _Flora Japonica_. It was released into commerce in 1796 by Lee and Kennedy of Hammersmith, England.

So, the question remains: who brought R. rugosa to the US? A cursory skimming of the books of Parsons, Buist, Ellwangler, and Prince, our great 19c. rose collectors, reveals nothing about R. rugosa even though they are familiar with the China, Tea scented, Banks, and Multiflora hybrids. Is it possible that they had rugosas in their collections but neglected to mention them because it was only a species rose?

Looking at the dates of introduction of rugosa hybrids the earliest appears to be 'Parnassine' introduced by none other than Etienne Noisette in 1825. None seem to follow until the 1880s and 1890s when several hybrids appear, all in Europe.

There is one that caught my eye, however; 'America' released by George Paul in 1893. Thanks to Brent Dickerson, we know that The National Rose Society's (British) publication for 1915 quotes Mr. Paul as asserting that the rose was sent to him by Professor Sargent of the Arnold Arboretum (Boston, MA). The Arnold Aroboretum is renowned for having sponsored numerous plant collecting expeditions in China during the 19c. It is quite possible that they collected their own specimen of R. rugosa.

Further, we know that Jackson Dawson, plant propagator and hybridizer for the Arnold Arboretum was working with multiflora and wichuriana crosses as early as 1880. He released 'Dawson' a multiflora hybrid in 1888 and 'Lady Duncan' in 1900, possibly the first wichuriana hybrid. We know that he released 'Arnoldia' a rugosa hybrid in 1914. Is it possible that the Arnold Arboretum brought R. rugosa to the US in the mid 19c. and 'America' was an early hybridizing effort? Or was 'America' found in China as a hybrid by the Arnold Arboretum and passed on to England? Why would they name a Chinese hybrid 'America'?

The first rugosa hybrid to released in the US is 'New Century', hybridized by Dr. Van Fleet and released into commerce in 1901 with much fanfare by Conard & Jones. Where did Van Fleet get his breeding stock? I'm betting Professor Sargent or Jackson Dawson.

Well, I have asked more questions than I have answered. It is possible that the answer to the original question of who first brought R. rugosa to these shores resides deep in the archives of the Arnold Arboretum.

Thanks, Ann and Palustris. I didn't know the rugosa came to Europe so early. It seems odd that a scented, continuous-blooming, and fairly showy rose would attract so little interest.

For Van Fleet to have released a rose to commerce through Conard and Jones, we have to work around his rather strange life at that time, including his sojourn at the Ruskin Colony in Tennessee, which he left just before its collapse. But I'm still trying to find if he had any roses at Ruskin, or just left that part of his breeding program at his farm in New Jersey.

Counting backwards.
Introduced to commerce 1901. which I interpret as plants for sale.
Stock ready for propagation ......1899, summer...big rose with bud eyes ready to take and graft. Would have to be off of a two year old plant.
1897...plant growing , maybe propagated because it's good.
Which means seedlings started ....maybe 1895.
Seed set 1894 on a rugosa given to him in '92 or 93.
And for at least a year and a half in the mid to late 90s he and his wife were off at Ruskin where he was crossing plants that weren't roses.
So, as I see it, we're looking for someone sharing rugosas in the early 1990's.

(FYI, Rosa rugosa is described in a recent European paper as an invasive alien species in Scandanavia.)(Possible references to how long it has been there and where it can be traced.)

Very interesting. . . thanks for all the background on rugosas.

So what's your opinions on how did the rugosa end up being planted and settling in all up and down our coast? Do you think someone back in the 1800s saw how rugosas grew wild near the shores of northern Asia, and tried to replicate that effect in New England? Or could it have started with some rugosas purchased in commerce that escaped their gardens and subsequently thrived when they found the sand and salt of our shores?

Or maybe they arrived unannounced on a merchant ship, undocumented souvenirs picked up in the Far East and transplanted in coastal villages?

I wonder if Arnold Arboretum or anyone else has documentation, recollection of how long the rugosa hedges have been prevalent in New England. They seem like they've always been there. Maybe they were started in the 1700s, 1800s?

First, I should have typed "so as I see it, we're looking for someone sharing rugosas in the early 1880's." And Van Fleet left Ruskin in late spring of 1899.

The link below is to a beautifully illustrated paper on rugosas as invasive alien species in northern Europe. And they have documented details of the timing of spread there. (The picture of a blooming spinosissima being overwhelmed by a blooming rugosa is both sad and interesting. Don't they interbreed, if they bloom at the same time. Did you know that the hips are buoyant? Could they have gotten to Alaska on their own? )

Here is a link that might be useful: NOBANIS fact sheet

>so as I see it, we're looking for someone sharing rugosas in the early 1880's

This seems very likely. It could easily have taken 15 - 20 years for the process of starting with rugosa seed, growing those into plants, hybridizing them with other roses, raising those seedlings until a good one is found and then building up stock for commerce.

I was lucky enough to find in Baily's _Cyclopedia of American Horticulture_ an article written by Jackson Dawson in 1901. He describes his efforts to hybridizes R. multiflora, R. rugosa, and R wichuriana, primarily with hybrid perpetuals over the course of 16 years. He mentions that the "Arnold Rose" received a Mass. Horticultural Society medal in 1893 (this rose was not introduced into commerce as 'Arnoldiana' until 1915) and that he had many other successful seedlings from the cross of R. rugosa and 'General Jacqueminot'. So one of these crosses was probably sent to George Paul in England by Charles Sprague Sargent (Dawson's employer) in 1893 as 'America'.

At any rate it appears that R. multiflora, R. rugosa, and R wichuriana probably all came from England about 1880. Who received them and how they were disseminated is the big question.

As to the naturalization of rugosas along the eastern seaboard, it seems probable that this began about 1900 with the introduction of the species into commerce then. Neltje Blanchan in her book _The American Flower Garden_ of 1905 mentions that R rugosa had become a popular shrub in Newport, RI for growing along the coast due to its accommodation to the sea air. At the time Newport was the wealthiest summer community in the country and would have been the first to make use of expensive new plant introductions. It is easy to see how this hardy plant in its favored environment could naturalize over the course of 100 years all along the coast, particularly as it became more widely distributed in commerce.

Palustris,
Van Fleet also had wichurana to work with, I think. But I keep looking for any records he may have left behind and I have found nothing specific. But his big climbers with big healthy smooth leaves are too healthy and un-picky (HPish) to depend on HPs for their health.
Have you done a search through the other years of Cyclopedia for rose articles?

(And speaking of adaptation to sea air, could multiflora have preceeded rugosa along Long Island sound? At least around Groton and the parts of Long Island I've seen, multiflora seems to predominate. Multiflora is almost a thug along some of the coastal area (with its roots in salty water at least part time.)
I do know that in the 1890's multiflora was sold as a rose for yards (I was called to Jefferson Co. TN to identify an old rose that was planted when the Victorian was first built; I had great Wallter-Mittyesque dreams of how wonderful this rose must be, only to find it was a haystack sized R. multiflora.)( They even had a picture of the house with the small multiflora in front of it.)

Back on topic. There's another major rugosa paper, but I can't find it on my memory stick. I'll try to relocate it tomorrow to see if it has more info.

Did Robert Fortune encounter rugosas?

There are quite a few rugosas in Alaska. The story I have heard is that the Russians brought them over when they established trading stations in Alaska, before they sold it to the United States. That would mean they have been there for over 150 years, if true.

The Swedish botanist and disciple of Linnaeus, Carl Peter Thunberg did not travel to Japan with Sir Joseph Banks and Captain Cook. He travelled with a Dutch ship, the Stavenisse, from the Cape Colony where he learnt Dutch so he could pretend to be a Dutch doctor to the suspicious Japanese. He met Banks a couple of years later. Daniel Solander was the Swede who travelled with Banks. Solander Bay in Australia is named after him.

Carl Peter Thunberg's herbarium with 28,000 plants is still here in Uppsala and anyone may see the first specimen of Rosa rugosa he brought on his return home in 1779.

Marianne in Uppsala, Sweden

The oldest Canadian connection I can find upon a quick skim of materials is

Agnes 1902 by Dr William F Saunders

Will have to dig a bit more and see if anything surfaces.

cathy

First time trying to post a link. Hopefully it will work.
An interesting article on rugosa's, Agnes and some Canada US connections.

cathy

Here is a link that might be useful: Wm Saunders & F. Bennett

Were you checking your early USA rose sources under the rugosa synonyms? The Ramanas rose and Rosa ferox were widely used in the UK.

"Goats are the only animals that seem to be able to graze Rosa rugosa enough to control it efficiently." We need more goats in Ames, IA.

Perhaps we could plant Rugosas in the hedgerows and it would choke out the Multiflora. Just an idea!

Susan Verrier's book on rugosas sounds good. I have just started her book on gallicas.

This is a fun thread! Sorry my Googleing left something to be desired.

Foghorn

Some probable timelines from a Google search:

Carl Thunberg visited Japan in 1777, courtesy of the Dutch East India Company, and collected and later described rosa Rugosa. He is generally credited with the introduction of the rugosa rose to the West.

A book published in 2004, "Restoring American Gardens: An Encyclopedia of Heirloom Ornamental Plants", by Dennis W. Adams, claims that the earliest American citation of rosa Rugosa was by M'Mahon in 1806.

M'Mahon turns out to be Bernard M'Mahon, who started a nursery in Philadelphia and published a classic plant encyclopedia, "American Gardener's Catalog", in 1806. The link below gives a brief history of M'Mahon. I don't know if M'Mahon actually offered seeds or plants of rosa Rugosa in his catalog, but it does seem likely that this was just about the earliest possible date for the introduction of the rose on the eastern side of the United States, at least.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bernard M'Mahon

Adding to my post above:

Turns out that M'Mahon's 1806 catalog, all 666 pages, can be read online and Rosa rugosa, "the wrinkle-leaved rose", is listed on page 593. Still not sure if it or its seed was actually for sale at M'Mahon's nursery in Philadelphia.

Here is a link that might be useful: American Gardener's Calendar, 1806

It is at first glance amazing for me to see Rugosa as an invasive plant in Denmark. However, after struggling to grow more plants than I care to admit, I am reminded that all plants (non man-made hybrids) came from somewhere in the world, where they grew naturally for eons. It is also a reminder that if we garden within the biology of our landscape, success is far more likely. Having said that, trying to "bend" that biology is just what makes gardening all the more challenging and fun.

Hansen was born in Denmark. Could be that's what made him go looking for cold-hardy plants.
It says on this website he introduced 41 types of roses.
Though he could not have been the first, he might have been a promoter for rugosas, who knows?

Here is a link that might be useful: Hansen

We've been interested in Hansen here on Antique Rose Forum for a number of years.
I can't find it by search engine now (grrr) but I've seen and copied a large paper he did for the South Dakota ag publication of his roses in the ??? 30s' ..over a hundred pages of roses he'd hybridized, many of which are lost.
There's a paper in July 1998 Rosebank Newsletter on Hansen and Wendy Lawrenson (who used to be active here) wrote up her Hansen searches there in a later paper, after that became National Roses Canada.
Hansen has been mentioned in talk over on rose hybridizers forum, linked below.

Margaret in Wisconsin was also interested in Hansen and met some of his (IIRC) granddaughters who may have been working on his papers and memories and who still had a rose of his that hadn't been introduced.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rose Hybridizers Hansen search

In my opinion, the ultimate rugosa paper is
Bruun, H.H., 2005, Rosa rugosa Thunb.ex Murray. Journal of Ecology 93:441-470.
It includes distribution maps in England and in Europe, detailed physical descriptions, cultural notes about where it grows best (sand dunes) and worst (acidic soils) as well as a comment that when chlorotic, it hardens off for cold weather better.
Part X lists the additional synonyms R. ferox, R. kamtchatica and R. regeliana. Also Turkestan Rose, Rugosa Rose, Potato Rose and Saltspray Rose. It also give transliterated Japanese, KOrean and Chinese forms and for the different Chinese wild form and cultivated form.
It says "In any cae, R. rugosa seems to have been forgotten, and when reintroduced to Britain from Japan in the 1870's under the name R. regeliana, it was hailed as a novelty and soon spread in gardens.(Bean 1980)."

Further, "In the USA ,R. rugosa was introduced as a garden ornamental about 1845 (Rehder 1927). It was first reported as escaped far from cultivation on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts in 1899, and described as 'straying rapidly' only 10 years later (Bicknell 1911)." (page 462)

Kaylah, what zone is Iowa? I was intrigued by your comment on Dr. Hansen's Danish origin and it's possible bearing on his search for coldhardy roses. Denmark is USDA zone 7, or varying between zones 6 and 8, depending on distance from the sea. It's a maritime climate all over, though.

Iowa is hardiness zone 4-5, but in summer it is as hot as southern Italy.

A question for the more informed - who and how is it determined that a species is native or non native? And is this like everything historical - that history is only what we have actually found? I personally, from observing and being involved with rugosas for quite some time now, find it difficult to believe that this species has distributed itself to the degree it now exists in the possible time allotted.
I also, don't put much stock in introduction dates as more than rough guidelines.I am descended from a long line of sea captains and know from family history that these people were keen observers of plant material and brought back all sorts of plant treasures (rugosas in seed,or plant form would have traveled well and there was no USDA then.) Plus sailing the Maine coast for example, I've found rugosas in the most remote and never inhabited locations. Having grown at least 500 rugosas in my gardens for over 25 years, I really can't fathom that this species could have distributed itself so thoroughly in the possible 400 year time frame.
A couple of other tidbits that regrettably I can't remember sources for or there simply weren't any:
Somewhere I read that there were 'rugosa farms' in New England for the production of rose hips for vitamin C aboard the sailing ships.
Also, apparently there are confirmed native colonies of rugosas in Alaska.

Could birds eating seeds, and traveling explain some of the remote colonies?

I'd always thought that rugosas were brought back by ship and probably in the early 1700's - three hundred years or so should be enough to explain their spread from the Canadian maritimes south.
There are two different time lines being discussed here - when the species was first introduced to the east coast and when interest in hybridization started - much, much later.
Seed distribution by birds would explain the rapid spread - those hips are prime bird feed.
As for multiflora - that's a fairly recent development. Around 1940 it was being distributed by our Dept of Agriculture for use as wild life habitat (just another ecological crime for which the Dept is responsible). About then my parents got bundles of little plants free from Cooperative Extension to put in around a reforestation project. At that time it was never seen in the wild here - it was being sold as a living fence' by mail order nurseries. Now of course, we have thousands of acres infested with the stuff. It took only about 30 years to go from an important introduction to a curse.

From Rose G. Kingsley's book "Roses and Rose Growing" published in 1908 or 09 (no date on the frontspiece) there's the following:
"ROSA RUGOSA, THE RAMANAS ROSE OF JAPAN,
was introduced into England in 1794. But this fact
may, I imagine, as as great a surprise to some of my readers as it was to myself, when I discovered the statement on unimpeachable aurhotiry an hour ago. I will remember the first plants of the common pinkish-red variety, which I first saw in 1876."

The wording of "an hour ago" is what is so strange. The publication had been in the works long enough for her to have lined up many roses from sources other than her gardens, "for Mesrrs. Swain and Son of Barnet to have done their new proces of colour-printing", for her to have gotten a chapter on exhibiting roses written by her neighbor The Reve. F. Page-Roeberts, Vice President of the National Rose Society and F.R.H.S.
So to write that she heard about the earlier origin of rugosas only an hour ago from an unimpeachable source makes me want to raise my hand and ask Miss Kingsley for more of the story.

oldroser is correct. Are we talking about the species or hybrids? I'm talking the species and if we are thinking about the wild form, then consider the rugosas as a food plant and given our actual history on the northeast coast, that 400 year figure is not out of line at all.