Tricoloured trials.

Camellia-Dainty

There is a plant in Area 1G labelled ‘Dainty’. All the above blooms were photographed on the same occasion. They are not the full extent of its repertoire.

The name ‘Dainty’ has been used for at least three different varieties and this one should correctly be ‘Dainty’ (California). It was selected as a sport of ‘Tricolor’ in California in the 1940’s. It is described in the Camellia Register as “blush white striped red with fringed and ruffled petals” and I assume this is how it was described when registered. The implication is that a flower or flowers appeared on a plant of ‘Tricolor’ with the characteristics of ‘Dainty’. Propagation material was taken from this part of the plant and new plants raised. The flowers borne by these plants were consistently of ‘Dainty’ with little or no tendency to revert to ‘Tricolor’ or any other form.

‘Lady de Saumerez’ is also a sport of ‘Tricolor’ with solid light red flowers. A fimbriated (frilly edged) sport of ‘Lady de Saumerez’ occurred and this was named ‘Fred Sander’. This is described in some detail in the register and there was an accompanying painting with the original description. The description reads “Flowers measure 12-14 cm across with petals slashed and curled at the rim, undulate, of a brilliant scarlet. They resemble large carnations. The edges of the petals are indented and curled,”

LDS-Fred

‘Lady de Saumerez’ (1G-060) and ‘Fred Sander’ 

 

In the 1950’s a sport arose on ‘Fred Sander’ with white flowers blotched and streaked with pink. It retains the fimbriated petals, which are also twisted. This was named ‘Cinderella’. The register description is “White with streaks, veining and blotches of rose madder. Medium size, semi-double with irregular, cupped petals, the edges deeply lacinated, fimbriated and wrinkled.” It seems that ‘Cinderella’ is similar to ‘Dainty’, differing in the petals being more distorted and giving the impression of a more fully double flower, but that said, ‘Dainty’ is supposed to have “fringed and ruffled petals” so perhaps that characteristic has been lost in the 1G plant. ‘Raspberry Ice’ and ‘Robert Strauss’ have arisen as sports from ‘Cinderella’. They are supposed to be similar or identical and ‘Raspberry Ice’ is described as having petals that are “large, emarginated and crêped’. Perhaps ‘Robert Strauss’ (1N-064) is not as it should be either.

Cind-Rob

‘Cinderella’ and ‘Robert Strauss’ (1N-064)

 

The plant of ‘Dainty’ in Area 1J has only red flowers, with and without fimbriated petals. If ‘Dainty’ derives from ‘Tricolor’ direct, it has not so much reverted back to ‘Fred Sander’ as stepped sideways.

Dainty-1J-019

‘Dainty'(?) (1J-019)

‘Cinderella’ in 1L is all red flowered, with fimbriated petals. The flowers are perhaps a bit less opened out with more twisted petals. It has a tendency to take a very long time to open and the exposed petal edges are often damaged by the time it does.

Cinders-1L-004

‘Cinderella'(?) (1L-004)

When I worked on a nursery a customer brought back a plant of ‘Fred Sander’ because it was not a sufficiently bright shade of red. He was adamant that we had sold him the wrong plant. I am still not sure whether this is another possible genetic variant or whether the depth of colour is a response to environmental factors. I would certainly not deny that the colour varies.

It  is likely that the nursery trade is responsible for producing significant numbers of plants that are not true to type. Taking large numbers of cuttings increases the number of mutations in chimaeral varieties and also reduces or stops flowering which would allow a check to be made on the stability of the variety. With camellias, it may be that many are sold before they flower or that wrongness is overlooked or ignored. Customers are often unaware that a plant is not true to type and it is not unusual for plants to have no picture label or to carry a generic picture.

I know of a large bush of ‘Lady de Saumerez’ which produces “normal” flowers on some branches, out by March, and fimbriated ‘Fred Sander’ blooms on the other branches, opening at least a month later. The fimbriated petals are trying to burst out of the buds and are very vulnerable to frost or wind damage. The owner does not know what was planted and you could now call it by either name or both, the two forms being about equally prominent. The occasional white blooms appears now and again, to complicate matters still further.

 

 

As far as the National Collection plants go, it seems it is not possible to be absolutely certain that a variety is exactly as it was when it was selected and named. The descriptions generally available are not detailed enough and even if they were, who could say that a difference in flower size or colour tone was not due to it growing in Cornwall rather than California where it was raised.

Equally, when a plant appears to have mutated away from what it is supposed to be, is it possible to say with any degree of certainty that it is now something else already described? Can the same end point be reached by different routes?

‘Lady de Saumerez’ seems to be the only variation in this particular tribe that usually stays the same, perhaps suggesting that it is the original form and that all the others derive from it, even though ‘Tricolor’ is the form that was first introduced to the west from Japan.

Tricolor

Camellia japonica ‘Tricolor’ (5B-025)

More wind damage.

caudata-1This was the first thing I saw when I reached the species section yesterday, Camellia caudate, around 3m tall, lying on its side. Though rarely flowering, its superb foliage has made it one of my favourites.

caudata-2

It was growing in an area that is always wet, probably from springs underground. Looking at the base of the stem it is hard to see how it was ever standing in the first place. Sadly it was the only specimen of C.caudata in the collection though I hope I have a young plant to replace it with in a few years time.

caudata-4The only picture I have of it in flower dates from 2007, a sorry specimen. Hey ho.

Another small step

I have put pictures up for another section at Mount Edgcumbe, 1L. It is a bit longwinded to slot in pictures to an existing entry so I am waiting until I have the majority in a section before putting anything up. A lot of stuff is starting to flower now and I am snapping away, but still have a long way to go. It will be necessary to replace some of the earlier pictures with better ones as the first flowers can be atypical or damaged by bad weather.

section-1l-view

Section 1L, ‘Kramer’s Beauty’ and ‘Show Girl’ on the left.

On my last couple of visits I’ve taken around a thousand pictures each time and have barely sorted them out before the week has gone around and I’m back up there for more.

It is my intention to bring together all the varieties that are unidentified into a rogues gallery. Hopefully Camellia enthusiasts the world over will dip in and see if they can recognize anything. I will try to put together as full a description of each of them as I can, with multiple pictures.

This would be typical; both are labelled ‘Katie’ but obviously they cannot both be. Unless there are two varieties with the same name, which does happen; or one has produced a sport of a different colour which hasn’t been recognized or named yet, which could happen…… ‘Katie’ is described as a very large, salmon, rose pink semi-double so it is very likely the pink one is right and the white one wrong. But what then is the white one?

The first step is to check if there is an identical white in the collection with a different name. A job for Tuesday when I’m back up there. I have a lengthening list of jobs for Tuesday.