OK, I just realized I asked the same question back in 2015 when that thread popped up in a search on here........

Anyway, I found two pics from this year. This is what Rogue Valley Roses sells as 'Miss Lowe'.

First to bloom 2017

Whole plant May 2017

Going back in time, this is July 2015 -- about a month after coming as a band from Rogue Valley Roses. Color is much more accurate here than the blooms in the first and second pics were.

Two months later, still in a 1gal container.

November 2015.

March 2016 -- removed from my enclosed back porch, where it sat through Winter, and repotted into a 2gal container.

And that's all I've got. So, is this really Miss Lowe or is it Sanguinea? I realize either may not be accurately named, but apparently there are two different red five-petaled Chinas out there -- not including Emmie Gray, which I also have, and which is really dark pink and finishing red. I just want to be sure that what I have is accurately identified, since this may end up being propagated for the cemetery.

Thanks in advance.

:-)

~Christopher

good luck.... lol

What I grew in Newhall back in the eighties and nineties had smaller single, cerise petaled flowers and was called "Miss Lowe". It was rooted from the "Miss Lowe" grown at The Huntington. What I grow currently is what Vintage sold (the plant came from Vintage) as both names, and it is a large, floppy, dark red single. Take your first photo of the larger flower and make it the color of the smaller, darker flower in the second plant shot. The Vintage Miss Lowe is a huge plant compared to what the one from The Huntington was years ago. Fun stuff, huh?

I'm pretty sure that there are many more than 2 such Chinas in commerce worldwide going under such names as Sanguinea, Miss Lowe's Variety, Bengal this or Bengal that etc etc in a pretty much haphazard manner.. Mine, bought as Bengal Beauty has a colour similar to your 3rd pic but the petals look more elongated and twisted. Identification is made even more difficult by the known tendency of Chinas (and Teas) to produce very different looking blooms depending on climatic conditions.

Trying to definitely ID very similar (and quite variable) roses whose names have been confused in commerce long before any of us was born? I don't think it's possible to say for sure which rose you've got.

My own thought is that Rosa indica sanguinea was a type (or sub-type) of rose, rather than any specific variety. I would class the dark pink to red single Chinas as sanguinea-type roses, but saying for sure which variety is, for example, 'Miss Lowe's Variety' may no longer be possible...?

If you must label it, 'Miss Lowe' ex Rogue Valley Roses is probably as accurate as you can get.

Virginia

Plus, I wonder how many "Miss Lowe", et al. were distributed as seeds, as was often the case with Slater's Crimson China and others?

OK, but "the books" described two basic forms of single-flowered red Chinas -- one grows to nearly the size of 'Mutabilis', while the other stays much smaller. Am I to suppose that mine is one of the larger type? Or was the size difference just some artifact of them growing in the UK?

I wonder if I got this from Rose Petals Nursery if it would be different from what I have now.

:-)

~Christopher

Maybe.

The confusion for these really starts at the beginning. *What* exactly was brought from China in the first place? A species selection, a naturally occurring hybrid, a complicated garden hybrid? It matters because of the next part . . .

How was it distributed? Cuttings have a limited viable lifespan with modern refrigeration. Transporting them over distances in an era when ten miles an hour was lightning fast was just a non-starter. Potted suckers would be a good way to transport roses that naturally sucker, but chinas don't. So we get to seeds. And when you start getting to seeds the exact genetic makeup of the roses matters, as does the makeup of anything it might be crossing with. The generally accepted history of the first polyanthas is an example of this. There are people who think the first 'multiflora' examples introduced to Europe were actually multiflora-china hybrids. So the early crosses were much more prone to repeat bloom than 'pure' multiflora seedlings would have been. If you have someone who is expecting scarlet red roses from the seeds they were sent, they might cull any pink seedlings, but keep all the red ones ignoring any differences in growth habit.

Yes, I agree that the earliest roses brought from China were likely seed-raised in Europe, and any which were close enough to the original were given the same name. I think of this when people brought forward putative 'Hume's Blush' candidates -- that they may all hold valid claims, being as there were likely a few self-seedlings floating around under that name in Europe.

So with the two names in question for this thread, are there two different "types"? I realize that there are likely more than two individuals, but is one "strain" significantly different from the other? I keep seeing two different single red Chinas described in old-rose books. The one I have seems rather like 'Mutabilis' in habit, except that the blooms are red. In this way, it "behaves" more like a Tea than like my other Chinas. Is the "other strain" something more like a single-flowered 'Belfield', which remains much more petite for me here?

Kim, I'm hoping mine is more like the one you got from Vintage -- that was the form I wanted, and being that mine is growing larger and faster than my other potted Chinas, I'm thinking that's what I got. I guess I'll have to get the one Rose Petals Nursery offers and see if they're significantly different for myself -- if not, I'll just plant the other at the cemetery.

:-)

~Christopher

The thing is -- what I was trying to say is -- I don't believe there are just two. I think there is a group descended via seeds that turn out smaller, and another group that turn out larger -- and that, overall, they all look a good deal alike. And when they DON'T look alike, they are called something else entirely.

OK, I did some sleuthing, and will do some more. I found one difference mentioned by Phillips & Rix in The Ultimate Guide to Roses:


‘Sanguinea’ (also called ‘Bengal Crimson’, ‘Miss Lowe’, ‘Rose de Bengale’) A single-flowered China of unknown origin, with flowers with firm petals, around 3 1/2 in (9 cm) across, deep red, or pink in cold weather. Leaves smooth and bluish-green. Smaller-flowered forms are often called ‘Miss Lowe’s Variety’.


This is the opposite of how HelpMeFind describes them -- over there, 'Miss Lowe' is described as having "large" flowers, while 'Sanguinea' has "small" blooms of 2.5 inches. Then again, it also says "small, very double, globular bloom form", so I think there's some confusion with another rose that went by one of its synonyms.

I think I'm going to try the Rose Petals Nursery version to see if the blooms are larger than mine.

:-)

~Christopher

Jeri, I was typing before reading your post.

Yes, I agree with you. I was trying to figure out if I get something called 'Miss Lowe', will that be a big plant or a small plant? Will it be one with big blooms or small blooms? Is there any consistency as to which name is used? Or, at this point, do nurseries just pick either name for their single red Chinas, regardless of bloom/plant size, and you get what you get? Mine grows rather like a more upright 'Mutabilis', but perhaps it's of the "smaller-flowered form" as per Phillips & Rix, and that's why it was called 'Miss Lowe's Variety' by RVR. Or maybe it was just a flip of a coin whether Janet named it that or 'Sanguinea'. It certainly outgrew the size RVR describes for it after just a few months.

So I guess my question really is whether or not there's some characteristic used to assign one of these roses to either name, or if it's all just willy-nilly at this point.

:-)

~Christopher

Perplexing isn't it? I can show you the rose I have as 'Bengal Crimson' which is the same as grown in the Chelsea Physic Garden, if that's the same one as your supplier Rose Petals has. I see on the link they state that's where it came from.

I've had this rose about 15 years covering two gardens, but it seems to me that I get both the larger growing 'Sanguinea' and the short growing 'Miss Lowe's' on the same bush, all according to how I cultivate it.

In the first garden it grew just 2 to 3 foot tall without ever getting any bigger, that was in full sun on dryish soil and was there for several years, a group of 3 actually.

The same plant grown in deep moist rich soil in my 2nd garden here [a small creek runs under the bed], the rose shot up to about 8 x 4 and wasn't stopping, everything about it was larger, I wasn't expecting that, and I had to move it, and now it's back in another dryish spot, less rich. I did cut it back to about 2 foot at the move, and it's stayed that way ever since, I feel it's reverted back to 'Miss Lowe's' type again, and smaller in all its parts. The blooms, foliage everything.. I'm still waiting, and hoping it goes back to ''Bengal Crimson'/Sanguinea' type again, but I'm not sure it's going to do that. No sign so far, and it's in bloom right now, as is typical of this rose at this time of year.

Make of that what you will. It's just my observation. If it does decide to shoot up to 8 foot again I'll let you know Christopher..

'Bengal Crimson' in rich conditions [the creek flows under]

..the same, as a climber through Ceanothus, it got twice this size

before I had to move it.

..after the move, and it's had about 18 months to recover. Maybe not long

enough, but as of now it still looks like this, about 2 foot and in bloom. To me this is measly, grumpy 'Miss Lowe's'.

I do wonder if whether she grew it in dry soil in her garden in South London, one of the driest parts of this country, probably similar conditions to mine away from my creek bed. At RHS Wisley in Surrey, I saw it about 3 foot, not much more.

You might be interested in reading this. They call it 'Bengal Beauty'. It's a copy of an article by Martyn Rix.

The Teddington Gardener blog

Thank you for those pictures, since it shows the same plant I'd be getting from Rose Petals Nursery. I'm still scratching my head about if there are differences warranting the retention of two different names for what is likely a population of very closely related self-seedlings. I think I'll think of them as the same, and if I put together a bed at the cemetery needing some symmetry, I'll get the one from Rose Petals Nursery and pair it with mine. If they're the same, they'll work. If they're slightly different, I'll be able to detect that in the bed -- though I get the feeling that any differences would be too slight to throw off symmetry. I'll keep them labeled as I got them just in case.

Thanks to everyone -- I would be so lost without all of you.

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, if none of them turn out to be the larger plant with darker, larger flowers, you're welcome to cuttings.

Mine, bought as 'Bengal Beauty', as I have already mentioned, from Trevor White in England, is growing very near my Mutabilis plants. During our 'winter' it competes with Mutabilis in growth, blooming rate and flower size but almost shuts down during the summer. Unfortunately this is not a very valid comparison since, despite of these growing very close by, BB is in a very sandy spot with root competition from nearby trees while Mutabilis are in superficially clayish soil with much better water retention.

I'm with the camp who believe the Sanguinea type roses, at least the larger ones if such a difference really exists, have more Tea makeup in their genes (i.e. gigantea influence) than other common Chinas and this is attested in their leaves and hips. I remember Maurizio in this forum writing an essay regarding this, complete with comparative photos. Maybe somebody good in using GW's search facility can unearth that thread.

Quest-Ritson in the RHS rose encyclopedia, only has an entry for Sanguinea not Miss Lowe's or Bengal xxxx, and mentions that this should really be regarded as a family of roses rather than a single variety. He also thinks that they often grow pretty true from seed.

Kim, I just may take you up on that offer -- after I sort through the plethora of pots back there. I'm still waiting to meet with Ellie at the cemetery to discuss planting plans -- and I'll be bringing quite a few of my potted roses down there, which will clear up much-needed space.

I agree, Nik. I also remember a genetic comparison study which featured quite a few Chinas, and it showed that 'Mutabilis' and 'Miss Lowe' (or 'Sanguinea') clustered away from the other Chinas. I'll have to search for those papers again and post them here. But off to bed for now.

:-)

~Christopher

I thought it was a general thing that the colour of the flowers changes with the season or temps. from dark red to pink. Mine are at their darkest in May/June, lighter at other times.

Marlorena, quite true. One can only compare very similar looking roses by growing them side by side.

These are my photos of the Vintage Miss Lowe's which, as Kim says, is a humungous plant (like 9' x 12' in relatively few years!) -- to the point that I removed it earlier this year -- too big, by far, and I needed the space for other roses.

April 2013 (she looks so innocent, "Ferndale Red China" on the right):

Feb. 2015 bloom:

March 2016:

She got far bigger after this photo....the height even here is well over my head, and this after a fairly good winter pruning to restrict width:

Including a bud and leaves -- she always had great leaves:

Beautiful, catspat! So sorry she had to go.