William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

'William Shakespeare 2000' is the only Austin I currently own, all my previous Austins have, for whatever disappointing reason, been culled.

I never expected its flowers to have many anthers due to its enormous petal count, however I have noticed that its carpels are quite thready and lacking proper stigma at their ends (rather they just seem to taper out into fine points instead of swollen stigma).

Is this normal for this varietal, or can this be explained by the fact that my specimen is a very weak plant at the moment (it definitely has mosaic virus, and it is only just establishing in mid-summer from an early summer planting out of its original nursery pot).

Has anyone bred anything from 'WS2000' on this forum using it either way? (I know HMF lists it as having no descendants)

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Looks like its time for the shovel, again.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I used the prior red-purple incarnation of the Austins, Falstaff. I chose it because it didnt show disease like all of the other red Austins (or most Austins, really). I was strongly disappointed. Not only did it only bloom once a year with maybe 1-3 blooms for rebloom in the fall, it dominantly passed on this lovely trait to its seedlings. Also, they were disease prone. I think it must be at least 1/4 hybrid perpetual.

I have kept a watchful eye on the red Austins since then. The reason for this is because I think that the bloom form, color and fragrance would be wonderful on a true climber. However, I have pretty much concluded that every red Austin before Falstaff and every red Austin since Falstaff pretty much suck in all different ways. The red Austins seem to be lagging far behind some of the other Austins in terms of holism and reliability. So, Im not going to hold my breath that WS 2000 is any better a breed than Falstaff is. I guess most roses are better than Chianti, though, lol.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Rebloom on WS2000 seems good, to be honest.

I was hoping it passed on fragrance, good flower repeat, "English rose" flower structure and a dose of purple tone to progeny.

It looks like it has not been a good subject for breeding experimentation for whatever reason.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

'William Shakespeare 2000' is the only "red" Austin that has earned my respect. It is a reasonably shapely shrub, has an excellent perfume, wonderful bloom form and color, and doesn't defoliate from Blackspot. Sure, it gets some, but it doesn't go leafless.

I have never used it in breeding because it is unlikely to set seed, and gathering pollen (I tried a couple of times) is nearly impossible. If you can get pollen, then I would definitely use it and see what comes. I'm disinclined to use any of the red Austins in breeding for a number of reasons, but if I had to pick one, I would probably acquire 'The Dark Lady', one of 'William Shakespeare 2000''s parents. 'The Dark Lady' is unfortunately descended from 'Chateau de Clos Vougeot' as well, a plant I blame for many of the red line's troubles. Perhaps it has escaped the worst genetic faults of that part of its ancestry? 'Chateau de Clos Vougeot' is a dreadful plant to turn to for building a line of modern red shrubs; one of the worst red HT's I have ever had the misfortune to grow.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

George,
If you can get 'Prospero', I would suggest that as an alternative for breeding. It is compact, almost to the point of being runty, but it flowers reliably and doesn't go all "Octopus" like so many Austins do. It has played a role in the breeding of some of the better Austins, so we know it has a capacity to produce worthwhile offspring.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Hmm.. thank you for those very logical thoughts Paul.

This is another example where knowing accurate pedigree can be so helpful.

What I might do for the rest of this season is let this WS2000 flower and see if any pollen shows up, then shovel prune it come winter if there has been no success...Alas, such a masterpiece of a rose (I just dont have the space to justify its existence if it is not going to be helpful in breeding).

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Has 'Tradescant' been tried as a breeder and found wanting? It's my only red Austin and I enjoy it as a garden plant but have never tried breeding with it.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I have used 'Tradescant' often enough to know that it definitely has merit as a breeder; I have several breeding lines that come from it which have excellent vigor and bloom with abandon. (See link) I would suggest culling for any seedlings showing the slightest inclination to Rust, as 'Tradescant' is known for getting Rusty.

Link: http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=2.58108.1

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

In relation to WS2000, here is what it written in its patent (direct quote from USPTO Patent)

".......Stamens.--Number: 50. Anthers: Size: 3/32 inch. Color: Yellow Group 13B. Arrangement: Mixed with petaloids. Filaments: Color: Yellow Group 5C. Pollen: Color: Yellow Group 13C. Pistils.--Number: 100. Styles: Color: Green-Yellow Group 1C. Length: 0.3 inch. Stigmas: Color: Red Group 47B. Length: 1/32 inch. Hips.--Repeats flowers too long to have hips....."

What do they mean about "repeats flowers too long to have hips"??

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Odd phrasing, George. I'm not sure what to make of that!

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

lol :0)

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I think it implies that it repeats to quickly to care about hips, hence they have not tested for hips. I can think of other possibilities, but I think that is probably the implication.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Well, although I agree that this is what it sounds like they are suggesting, it doesn't make sense since: some of the best seed setters I have are also ridiculously quick to repeat.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but there is no saying that a patent is as accurate or detailed as it should be. Also, there is a lot of divorce between hybridizer, marketer and patent filing. In other words, to me, it sounds like whoever recorded that for that line item is basically saying, "I don't care. It doesn't really matter for our needs regarding this rose."

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

lol... it sux

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Jadae, you wrote-

"....I guess most roses are better than Chianti, though, lol..."

What is it that you don't like about 'Chianti'?

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

It defoliates during spring, it isn't a rebloomer and its fairly nondescript except for its color.

I can understand why Constance Spry, Chianti's pink counterpart, is popular and aesthetic despite being a once-bloomer. But Chianti doesn't even come close to its beauty.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Thanks for your critique on 'Chianti', Jadae.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Although I don't like how my 'Chianti' performs in this climate (same as Jadae's), I have seen spectacular specimens that nearly put 'Constance Spry' to shame. But I think 'Chianti' must be grown in a climate that has a longer, colder Winter than we get here on the Wet Coast if it is to perform well. It is true that 'Chianti' has a fairly serious problem with Blackspot, moreso than 'Constance Spry', but for me, it is no worse than most modern shrubs in that regard.

I have obtained some extremely healthy offspring from 'Chianti' when bred back to other Gallicas. I wouldn't rule it out as a breeder based on its disease problems. Its all about how you use it. I think Austin chose some poor varieties to breed forward with. (including the nightmarish 'Chateau de Clos Veugeot') I feel that 'Chianti' could have led to much better roses if different choices had been made. JMO, of course.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Chianti is an impressive plant here (z5): tall upright plant covered with fragrant, well-formed blooms is June, hips in fall; completely hardy; suckers some but not much; the only Austin remaining in our garden.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Hmmm....thanks all for offering various descriptions re: 'Chianti' based on your climates, and breeding experiences!

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Keeping in mind that when they say 'Chianti' needs extra cold... it isn't going to get that in Sydney LOL

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Too right, Simon.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I had 'Constance Spry' here several years before I finally gave up. It simply refused to flower.

It did however, grow like a weed.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Yeah, I wouldn't attempt to grow 'Chianti' in a climate any warmer than mine. The Gallicas in general don't perform as well here as they do in colder climates where they get many more hours of chill. Here, they do OK, but they don't make the same massive displays, nor is bloom quality as good. The Gallica-China hybrids do better. ('Hippolyte', 'Duchesse de Montebello', etc) The best plant of 'Chianti' I ever saw was in a zone 4b or 5a, where it spent four months of the year buried up to its waist in snow.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

What is your USDA climate zone Robert...?

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

9 or 10 depending on the year.

This year definitely 10. We've hardly had any Winter at all.

I still have Plumeria with leaves on them. The Bananas still look great.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Btw, fyi, I've experimented with stripping the leaves off of those that wouldn't blossom in the past to see if it helped induce dormancy. It seems to have made no difference.

Checking today I noted that I have flower buds forming on "Secunda" for the first time. There are also buds forming on 'Manipur Magic'.

The mild Winter is moving things along. I should have first blossoms from 2009 crosses in the next few weeks.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

lol... we both live in a harsh climate zone for most roses, Robert.

Summer heat here combined with several days of drenching rain have given a tropical feel here lately...most uncomfortable weather!

The snail bait around my newly sprouted rose seedlings is growing furry mould over it, at a faster rate than the seedlings are growing.

:0)

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

George, actually we have great climate zones for roses but we can't expect to grow all the same roses those do in cold Winter climates, or for even those that grow and flower to perform in the same way.

'Westerland' is a great example. I look forward to hearing how it does for you there.

Strangely enough some very hardy types do thrive here and I've had good luck hybridizing with them.

I'm guessing the Teas would do better for you than they do for me. They seem to enjoy humidity.

I live in a mild climate but most of the year humidity is quite low.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

My enquiry regarding 'Chianti' was purely out of interest in the cultivar, after all it is relevant to the breeding of WS2000. Outside of that, I was NOT contemplating on ever growing it here in Sydney, nor would I ever grow 'Constance Spry' here. Both are too close to Gallica ancestry to expect much out of them in this microclimate.

The Teas are a mixed bag here as far as performance goes, Robert. Some do dreadfully here in the heat and humidity, and others are evergreen and thrive. The group is too diverse to generalise about, IMO.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Nice to know George. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who has trouble with some of the Teas.

'Lorraine Lee' was not good here but was strangely very fertile as pollen parent. I only used it for a very short time one Spring.

Descendants do better but all mildew to some degree.

See link for example.

Link: http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.136557

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Hmmm.. That's interesting work, and observations you have there, Robert.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

'Lorraine Lee' (Tea/Gigantea) does very very well here in Sydney, it flowers into winter and keeps a lot of its foliage in winter, from memory (I never pay much attention to it, as it is one of those roses you tend to see too much of here, and "get over it" as it were..lol). It seems to love the local climate and soil chemistry.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

"It seems to love the local climate and soil chemistry."

George, I figured it was good where you are. That's the reason I used it as example.

It's interesting that it's so good for you and yet it suffered much of the year here from the low humidity and high heat.

Location makes all the difference.

I also want to point out the seedling I linked is a triploid x diploid cross.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Have you had a chance to assess RBXLOL for fertility, Robert?

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

It sets OP hips and they contain seed. I'm sure it's fertile.

The growth habit is open and floppy. If I carry it forward I'll probably try it with a mini to try to increase branching.

Winter flowering is good which is one of the things I'm breeding for. Too many roses and too many tangents to explore.

We'll see.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

good luck :0)

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

I have hips forming on 'Lorraine Lee' this year with 'Mutabilis'. I was looking at increasing the branching with this.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Simon I used the same strategy with 'Amber Cloud'.

Unfortunately the only surviving seedling primarily took after the seed parent in terms of growth habit.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.

Link: http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.121954

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Very similar crosses... hmmm... only one generation further from gigantea... bet that's what is affecting the density of the branching too... wish we had 'Oakington Ruby' readily available... maybe that would be a good cross. I have a plant being marketted here as chinensis 'minima' on order for this season... maybe that would be a simialr option to also do what you are doing if the LL x 'Mutabilis' line falls though... ahyway... as how about that 'Chianti' huh LOL

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

These conversations do tend to drift.

Long story short, not all roses are going to work in all climates.

In the end we shouldn't worry about it and grow what works best for us.

I'm guessing the "Fairy" roses will also be another option for you Simon.

I tend to try to take the road less traveled, mainly because I find it more interesting and have the luxury of doing so.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

No anthers were found on 4 flower buds of my WS2000, when I looked yesterday. Earlier here, I noted what I thought to be an absence of easily discernible stigma at the centre of the flower, however I looked really close at the ends of the styles this time with the webcam, and could see tiny stigma at the ends.

Are these rudimentary/non-functional, or is it impossible to say based on the tiny size they have?
Has anybody actually TRIED to pollinate WS2000, here?

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

George,
I suggest that if you find what you think might be stigmas, then put some pollen on 'em and see what happens. What have you got to lose?? You may be able to provide the rest of us with some definitive information on the "breedability" of this rose!

By the way, many roses do not produce anthers during the first half of the growing season, but something changes as the season wears on and they make anthers later. I find this tends to happen with very double flowers; early blooms are far more double than the late season blooms, and the late ones suddenly support formation of anthers. With plants that I know this to be true of, I plan on collecting pollen very late in the season and freezing it to be used at the appropriate time the next Spring. (Dry the pollen thoroughly before freezing, of course) So, you may want to continue searching 'William Shakespeare 2000' through to the very end of the season, expecting to save that pollen for the following year. I have an entire drawer in my freezer filled with containers of rose pollen, waiting to be put to use in May!

Good luck,
Paul

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

"the late ones suddenly support formation of anthers"

So true.

Believe it or not I've got a young seedling from 'Out of the Night' created from just such a fluke.

I hope it lives.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Paul, and Robert, this is quite fascinating to hear about. How weird?!

Some time in the future I hope to revisit this thread and report further observations on WS2000, along the lines you suggest, here!

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

UPDATE..

My WS2000 plant had started to behave weirdly, to say the least.. It kept wilting on me lately despite adequate watering, and cooler weather..Other roses in the same plot had been planted in mid-summer and at least one month later into the summer, without any such troubles..

I got sick of this, and pulled WS2000 out a few days ago, to see what was going on underneath...

The rootball was as dry as a chip, and there was absolutely no new root growth.. (no surprise LOL!!)..

An example of how the rootball of potbound potted plants repells water, if allowed to dry out in the pot over time. Such a rootball WILL NOT RE-WET easily as a result (I would love to throw this rose back at the grower, but I pitty him for his poor culturing skills)....So I threw it in the bin.

So looking back at what I had done, I had unwittingly plonked the water-repelling rootball into the Earth, without actually LOOKING first at the rootball and what was going on with it...I should have hit the rootball and dislodged all of hte the potting mix, and soaked the darned thing in a bucket of water for a few hours at least, before planting in the ground..lesson learnt!! :(

One professor at university once taught me the following very simple idea...."More is missed by not looking than by not knowing"..wise words, sir!

BTW, I am not going to bother with WS2000 in rose breeding for the time being, all the "signs" are telling me not to bother.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Yet ANOTHER of a long list of roses that have lived in my garden and now can R.I.P

:0)

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

The best way to deal with that is to soak to bound ball in water for a day and then wriggle all of the soil matter off of the root structure while it is still in the water/bucket.

Re: William Shakespeare 2000... is it fertile?

Thx Jadae :0)