I was just wondering how can the parentage of a floribunda rose be two miniatures? For instance The Disneyland rose's parents are Sequoia Gold x Hot Tamale. These are both miniature roses. Is it inherited from the parent's parents?
I'm sure someone can enlighten me.

Hi Carly ...

The classification of a rose is up to the breeder. Sometimes, a breeder will classify a rose in a way that has nothing to do with the lineage of a rose, but will use a classification that is currently in fashion in the market place.

'Sequia Gold' happens to have 6 doses of floribunda, 3 doses of miniature, 1 climber, 1 hybrid musk, 1 hybrid tea, and 2 moss roses. (I didn't classify the miniature moss roses as miniatures for this post.)

In 1986 when the rose was introduced, miniature roses were in fashion. The rose was shorter than most floribundas of the time, so Moore classified it as a miniature rose. These roses that were larger than a true miniature rose, but smaller than a floribunda are now classified as mini-floras.

Are you completely confused, now ?

Likewise, Mr. Moore classed 'Mr. Bluebird' as a Miniature, although as the product of 'Old Blush' x 'Old Blush' is is actually a China Rose.
http://www.helpmefind.com/gard...
Breeder's choice.

John Walden bred 'Disneyland Rose' but I'm pretty sure that J&P made a corporate decision to introduce it as a Florrie.

No I'm actually not confused anymore. Well said! So basically roses lineage is so mixed now, that just because it looks like a floribunda doesn't necessarily mean that a hybrid tea and a polyantha were used as parents. It's more just that it acts and resembles a floribunda so that's what it is marketed under. Do I understand correctly?

Yes, you could say that's true for some roses.

If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck, it's a duck, if the breeder says it's a duck ... even if it doesn't have duck parents ...

In the case of 'Sequoia Gold', it has more floribunda in its lineage than any other class, but could not be called a floribunda because, at the time it was introduced, the plant did not meet the standards of what was classified as a floribunda.

The line between classes has blurred a lot as the rose genes got more homogenized, so you are correct.

There's another, easier-but-geekier explanation. Based on what I've learned from rose hybridizers and other readings, Miniatures typically are heterozygous for an incompletelly dominant dwarfing mutation. Basically, what makes a Miniature is having one copy of this dwarfing mutation. If the rose has two copies (in the case of diploids), three copies (in the case of triploids), or four copies (in the case of tetraploids) -- in other words, the rose is homozygous for the dwarfing mutation -- the rose is a Micro-Miniature, like 'Si'. As far as all the Micro-Miniatures I've looked up, every one had Miniatures for both parents. If a Micro-Miniature was crossed with any other rose, all the offspring would be Miniature.

ETA -- I think the "Patio" or "Mini-Flora" roses may be in-between because they have only one copy of the dwarfing mutation and are triploid or tetraploid -- in other words, they have only a 1/3 or 1/4 "dose" of the mutation, the rest being "normal", and so their dwarfing is less than in Miniatures, which would be 1/2 or 2/4. So diploid Miniatures would have one copy of the dwarfing mutation, tetraploid Miniatures would have two, or maybe three.

So what does this have to do with two Miniatures having a Floribunda seedling? Well, first of all, a little bit of history for the Miniatures. The earliest ones arose as mutations in China roses -- I think 'Rouletii' was one of the first, and others descended from it. Some were bred with small Polyanthas, of which the really tiny ones likely also have the dwarfing mutation. So the early Miniatures were basically tiny Chinas and Polyanthas. But as the 20th Century moved along, hybridizers like the late Ralph Moore bred these miniatures with Hybrid Teas and Floribundas, with the idea of creating Miniatures with "classic Hybrid Tea form." Since Miniatures were heterozygous for dwarfism, this meant that, on average, half of the offspring with Floribundas and Hybrid Teas also received a copy of the dwarfing mutation, and thus were also Miniatures. Ralph Moore, in particular, did a lot of these crosses, and his Miniatures have quite a diverse genepool as a result of him crossing Miniatures with all sorts of types. If the non-Miniature offspring seemed worthwhile, they were introduced as well.

So, now let's look at what would happen if two modern Miniatures were crossed. Both parents being heterozygous for the dwarfing mutation, some of their seedlings would be Miniatures (heterozygous for the dwarfing mutation), some would be Micro-Miniatures (homozygous for the dwarfing mutation), and some wouldn't be Miniatures at all (no copy of the dwarfing mutation). It works sort of like how two brown-eyed people can have a blue-eyed child, if both of those parents were heterozygous for blue eyes.

:-)

~Christopher

Oh, and this reminds me of my "if I had it my way" opinion on the Moss class of roses. As with the Miniature class, the Moss class is defined by one trait -- having moss. The earliest ones were sports of Centifolias, then came the Damask Mosses, then the Perpetual Mosses which resulted from crosses with Damask and Hybrid Perpetuals, then the few "oddball" Pernetiana Mosses, then Ralph Moore introduced Miniature Mosses.....because the moss trait was transmissible to offspring. So now, with the moss trait found on roses that, if they didn't have moss, would otherwise be Centifolias, or Damasks, or Damask Perpetuals, or Bourbons, or Hybrid Perpetuals, or Pernetianas, or Miniatures, etc., saying a rose is a Moss says nothing about its habit of growth or rebloom anymore -- only that it has moss. It's almost like creating a class for roses with yellow blooms.

If I had my way, the Moss class would go away, and instead, the term "Moss" would be a trait-adjective added before the class. So, for example, 'Salet' would be a Mossed Damask Perpetual, 'Communis' would be a Mossed Centifolia, 'Mme Louis Leveque' would be a Mossed Hybrid Perpetual, 'Robert Leopold' would be a Mossed Pernetiana......you get the point.

Miniatures are similarly defined by what amounts to a single mutation, but its effects on the rose are more pervasive than is the moss trait. Being small "works" as a class, since it also informs the rose-buyer how to "use" the rose. But, if that's the defining trait for the class, then some Polyanthas would also fit, if they weren't already classed as Polyanthas. I don't think those Polyanthas should be re-classed, but it's a shame that someone looking at Miniatures because they want something small would be missing out on the small Polyanthas, which would function just as well.

OK, that's enough geeking-out for tonight.

:-)

~Christopher

That's some good geeking-out!

Christopher, I second that ! Excellent geeking out. I'm definitely bookmarking this. Well written, the history of roses is so complex and interesting. I agree with you on how Moss roses should be classed. I've always thought that, I think your way would be much more straight forward.