If you attempt to look up the pedigree of the David Austin roses of the past decade or so, that is what you'll see. As a "fellow explorer" in rose genetics, (No, I am not drawing any comparisons between myself and Mr. Austin) I find that rather annoying and disappointing. I'd like to know what went into the making of some of his current roses. Perhaps he is just protecting what he regards as "proprietary information", or maybe he just doesn't want us to know that he is using the likes of 'Fragrant Cloud' or (gawd forbid) 'Tropicana' to achieve his results. Who knows.
I gravitate much more towards Ralph Moore's way of thinking about such matters. Allow me to paraphrase him: What have I got to lose by sharing information about parentage of my roses? You can see my "recipe" for a rose, but without my personal "ingredients", you can't make the same "cake". And besides, by the time a rose makes it to market, I've already moved ahead by six or eight years or more, and so why would I care if someone tried to duplicate my results?
Makes sense to me. I'd rather describe in a fair bit of detail what I am working on and how I am getting there. Half the fun is getting pleasing results, the other half is sharing what I've learned in the process.
And just because it doesn't feel right to write a blog post without a picture, we have today: 19-02-03 from a cross of 'Joycie' X 'Crepuscule'.