Talk:Rose

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

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

Hi, botany badger here. I noticed that the LONELY GUY (LOG) gene that's responsible for the thorns is in the article without its full phrase spelled out, even though LOG is a shortened form of LONELY GUY. Maybe the full phrase doesn't matter, and I haven't seen any prior discussion on the gene itself, but how exactly is the LOG thing approached? Carlinal (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add rosa berberifolia Fica caricus (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you can't just add like that. You should create a new page. Arkenstonian (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

i don't know whether a coincidence or not but i was just randomly seeing talk there is a request from other a minute ago. Arkenstonian (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

pure timing Fica caricus (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply