Thank you, Ingrid. It really is an adorable little rose, so often overlooked by people going on about their lives. Around here it is considered something of a 'weed' because it grows in fields and along roadsides and most people never even notice it. The blooms are petite but very frilly and charming. I also love the buds with their elongated sepals. I agree with belmont....in the garden it isn't invasive. It does sucker, but it is very 'polite' about it and doesn't overtake the garden. There is a small thicket of it down the road from here along the roadside that gets mowed down each summer but keeps bouncing back. The road salt that gets thrown down all winter long doesn't faze it either. Here's another photo to illustrate the lovely little buds.... Celeste

Here in the PNW we have two types of cane borers--rose cane borers and raspberry cane borers. Rose cane borers are mostly annoying. They kill the top inch or two of the rose cane but new growth will emerge further down the cane and the rose will be fine. Some people will seal the cane but those of us who have lots of roses don't bother--it takes too much time! Raspberry cane borers are a differant matter. They will burrrow all the way down the cane and even into the crown of the plant and maybe kill the rose. Since you say your rose was killed I'm guessing that this is what you have. The good news is that roses are not the prefered food of raspberry cane borers--they prefer raspberries and if they can't get them they go for blackberries. If you have them on your roses it is usually a sign that somewhere in your neighborhood someone has taken out their raspberries or taken out blackberries and the hungry critters ate your roses. After a few years the cane borers will either die out or the raspberries or blackberries will come back and they will go eat those. In the meantime, you can control the borers by keeping an eye on your roses and if you see dieback on the canes below two inches, cut back the cane to below the dieback. You will see a catapillar-ish looking thing at the bottom of the tunnel. Dispose of it. The good news is that since these critters have a one year life cycle, once you have disposed of them, they will not come back for a year. I don't know if a systemic insecticide will work. Systemics cannot be used on edibles and since this is mainly a pest of raspberries, the insecticides will not be labeled for use on raspberry cane borers. But they might work for raspberry cane borers on roses. But it is probably less work to just cut them out when you see them rather than spraying.

The tunneling is done by an adult female solitary bee (more than one species does this). She tunnels down into the cane and then uses the tunnel as a brood chamber. She collects nectar and pollen, forms a ball out of that, places it in the tunnel, lays an egg on it, and seals it shut (if a leaf cutter bee, than with a bit of leaf). She repeats this out to near the surface. If you want to stop the bee you have to do more than prune the cane. You have to make the remaining cane impervious to her jaws. If you don't do that she will just start over where the new cut is.

I had read the comments from the Tea Bag ladies, but will go back to one of the first questions I asked about 'Francis Dubreuil', when this thread first began to drift from its original topic: Was the original 'Francis Dubreuil' a "true Tea", or was he a "Hybrid Tea"? Or was he that other thing, a "Tea hybrid"? The earliest descriptions of FD say his color was a dark red with pink or cerise or amaranth highlights. My assumption is that 'FD' was darker than other red Teas, but would not have looked terribly out of place hanging out with other reds such as 'Gen Gallieni', 'M. Tillier', 'Souv. de David d'Angers', 'Mlle Christine de Nouë', ''Corallina', 'Safrano a Fleurs Rouges', 'Princesse de Sagan', 'Bardou Job' and- of course- 'Souv de Therese Levet'. Here's a 1901 review from a German rose reviewer about Francis: "Francis Dubreuil (Dubreuil 1895) is not only one of the most excellent red Tea roses but also one of the best Tea roses of all. The flower is in fact only of medium size, and sometimes even small, but keeps extremely well. It lasts In bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful. The growth is vigorous and the crown is well branched. What I like most about this rose, is its capacity to produce solitary flowers on long, upright stems, I do not like roses in flower umbels (in clusters). Its floriferousness (flowering period) is very long, it lasts right up to the frosts." That mention of "solitary flowers on long, upright stems" makes me think we might find some HP ancestry in Francis' background, no? And it accords well with other early mentions of FD having "diffuse growth"... Here's an early discrepancy, though; the review above says 'FD' "lasts in bud form for a very long time, and is then at its most beautiful". Contrast that with an earlier British review- Francis "is described as full flower of a fine form, opening very readily, perhaps too much so"... So if Francis was dark red and had diffuse growth, he seems to be quacking like an early HT, and not a "pure Tea"? Was he classified as a Tea because of his fragrance? According to Guillot, 'FD' is descended from 'Souv de David d'Angers' (described as "deliciously fragrant" in 1864) who is in turn descended from 'Caroline', the Tea that may be synonymous with 'Bermuda Spice'. Some early reviews of 'FD' say he is fragrant, most say nothing, and at least one reviewer says "not fragrant". This assortment of varying opinions shouldn't be surprising, given humans' different capacities for smell, and given the way odors can vary according to temperature, time of day, etc. The scent of Tea roses seems to be especially elusive, and elicits a confusion of descriptions, so I'm inclined to believe that the original Francis probably had a Tea scent and was fragrant to some people and not to others. However, I think it's also possible that if there were an early confusion with at least one grower offering a different rose as 'Francis D', the differences in opinion about form and fragrance could stem from an early switcheroo. Just because there was a later mix-up with 'Barcelona' doesn't mean there wasn't also an earlier mix-up somewheres down the line. And if there were an earlier misidentification, this early imposter might be the rose that was later sent from Sangerhausen to Oz in 1981? Another question I have relates to size. The Tea rose grown by Mr Knight just outside of Sydney was a large rose bush. The roses grown in the U.S. and Oz as FD today both seem to be more compact and HT-like (although the Aussie plant that hails from Sangerhausen seems to have a earlier HT look than 'Barcelona' does?) I'm trying to get things straight in my own head, so if I'm off-course in my suppositions, please get me back on track. Virginia