Talk:Rose

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rose article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 150 days

Forever Young Rose

Does anybody know a lot about the famous Forever Young Rose? What category does she belong to? HansenFlensburg (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "famous" about it; it's just a variety of miniature rose. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type species.

Please note that the type species for Rosa L. (1753) is Rosa cinnamomea L., Sp. Pl. 1: 491. (1753) nom. cons. (typ. cons.). The taxon page does not have a type and WP maintains R. cinnamomea as a synonym of Rosa majalis or Rosa pendulina, both of which appear to be incorrect. However, this is understandable as a quick search demonstrates that many other sources show a similar confused picture. Please see this link for the typification. I offer this in order to generate a discussion in order to improve the page for Rosa. Andyboorman (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The type of a genus doesn't have to be an accepted species. If a genus was typified with a particular species, but that species was found to have been described earlier in a different genus the early described epithet has priority, but the epithet of the type remains unchanged, as the other name has a different type specimen.

This seems unlikely to be case for Rosa. However POWO has Rosa cinnamomea as a synonym of Rosa pendulina. (But I followed your link to Taxon, and it does have Rosa cinnamomea as the conserved type of the genus. Nomenclatural proposals are (or were) usually open access, but in this case the proposal is paywalled at both JSTOR and Wiley, so I can't look into the rationale.)

According to Rydberg (1920) Linnaeus did not consistently apply the name Rosa cinnamomea. Rosa majalis offers some information. I could imagine Rosa pendulina being a conserved name, because of the historical confusion over the application of Rosa cinnamomea, but a web search failed to find any confirmation of that hypothesis. The conclusion that WP is incorrect is unsafe - more research is needed to clarify the situation. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Wikipedia Library, which has access to Jstor and Wiley (although access has been buggy recently). — Jts1882 | talk 09:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have managed to do some more work/digging. As an interim POWO have updated their database, but these will not appear until the next scheduled update. I have added R. cinnamomea as type to the page, but it will redirect to R. pendulina for now. Once POWO update I think it is fair for a new WP page to be created. Hope this is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got access via the Wikipedia library, but it didn't clarify things. Rosa cinnanomea is in the ICNafp appendices as a conserved name, but I couldn't found out was it was conserved against. (I found it plausible that Rosa cinnanomea has been informally supressed as a nomen confusum due to the contradictions between the first and second editions of Species Plantarum, but found it likely that was overridden by conservation of the name; you've beaten me to it, but I was about to contact POWO to inquire about the status of the names.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eating rose hips

Currently the article says that these can be eaten raw, without any further qualification. This ought to be revised; there are some authorities that would describe the seeds, with their irritating properties, as being poisonous. 82.69.76.104 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desert rose 1.44.145.90 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]