Area 5A – Notes

This is the most difficult section in the collection by a wide margin. It is one of the oldest sections, the original planting dating from the 1980’s; that’s plenty of time for labels to get lost or muddled up. The material seems to have come from a variety of sources, mainly as cuttings; presenting more opportunities for things to get mixed up. Most of the varieties in the section are old European varieties where there is something of a lack of consensus about what is really what, not just in the UK but in the rest of Europe as well. Many of them are bicolors, so genetically strongly disposed toward producing sports of different colours.

When planted they were spaced about 10 feet (3m) apart, which probably seemed generous at the time. They have grown into big bushes and have on at least two occasions been cut back hard when they were touching, and shading, each other. Hard pruning affects different varieties very differently, with some back to flowering freely in as little as two or three years, some taking very much longer. Often the first flowers produced after such treatment are not typical of the variety. Some varieties have barely flowered at all in the last ten years, making it difficult to verify their identity.

Some plants have been relabelled since they have been recognised as something other than what was on the label, some have not. Some I am still not sufficiently sure of to relabel; another flowering and growing season should hopefully sort out most of those dilemmas. Some I am pretty certain are not what the label says they are and those have now been relabelled with just a number tag and come at the end of the picture gallery below.

‘Angela Cocchi’ (5A-004) should be white with red stripes. There is a self red sport called ‘Angela Cocchi Rouge’ which may be what this has largely sported to, but last year (2023) it produced just a few flowers with the correct colouring, among a majority that were solid light red, perhaps with a pale central stripe.

‘Bella Romana’ (5A-009) has no label but is in the collection record as ‘Bella Romana Pink’. It has both solid pink and striped flowers on different parts of the bush.

‘Bonomiana’ (5A-010) should be white with carmine streaks and flecks, a pattern that I haven’t observed yet but which seems possible, given the variety of patterns it has produced.

‘Charles Colbert’ (5A-033 & 5A-034) were labelled ‘Hekla’. Of Australian origin, they are out of place in this European section.

‘Comte de Gomer’ (5A-012) has mostly solid red flowers, though there are streaks of lighter and darker red on some. The flower form and foliage confirm it at least started out as what it says it is.

‘Comte de Gomer’ (5A-013) is a young and vigorous bush which produces almost nothing but flowers typical of the variety. Even so, they are far from uniform, with red stripes on a white through to deep pink ground. I tend to treat it as my “type” bush and compare others to it.

‘Comte de Gomer’ (5A-042) was labelled ‘Madame de Streakaloff’ (sic). I have concluded after a few seasons of comparing flowers and foliage that it is ‘Comte de Gomer’. It produces a mix of typical striped flowers and solid red flowers.

‘Comte de Gomer’ (5A-061) is still labelled ‘Vittorio Emanuele II’, as is another plant at (5D-014). This seems to be almost as common a name for this variety as ‘Comte de Gomer’, though the descriptions I’ve seen of ‘Vittorio Emanuele II’ make it very clear this is not it.

‘Dinotta’ (5A-015) appears almost identical to ‘Eximea’ (2C-019, 3C-002, 5B-008) and ‘Imbricata Rubra’ (5C-015). I cannot see a convincing difference between them.

‘Duchess de Berry’ (5A-018) is not a good match for its description of “large formal to rose-form double” so I have my doubts.

‘Duchessa di Montpensier’ (5A-017) is described as a large formal double white with pink streaks. This is pure white so is either a sport or something else. The flowers are quite small and the foliage exceptionally glossy.

‘Duchesse Decazes’ (5A-020 & 5A-021) both broadly match the description of the variety but appear not to be the same as each other. (5A-021) always produces formal double blooms, some of them solid pink. Based on pictures I have seen from France, (5A-020) is more likely to be the correct variety.

‘Elizabeth’ (5A-002) was labelled ‘Alba Casoretti’ but doesn’t match descriptions of that variety closely. Comparison with ‘Elizabeth’ (5A-023) shows it to be the same so I have relabelled it accordingly. ‘Elizabeth’ (5A-022) is labelled ‘Elizabeth White’ but is the same as (5A-002) and (5A-023). Since the variety ‘Elizabeth’ is a white variety, putting “White” in the name is superfluous, though the (5A-022) plant has produced solid pink flowers in the past.

‘Frans Van Damme’ (5A-027) was originally a bicolor, pink striped white. The version in circulation now appears to be a solid pink sport, which may be what this is.

‘Gladys Wannamaker’ (5A-031) is not a success here or elsewhere in the collection, only very rarely producing good blooms.

‘Hectotiana’ (5A-035) should be semi-double but it seems that something indistinguishable from this plant is currently grown in France under this name.

‘Imbricata’ (5A-036) was labelled ‘Imperator’ but was a poor match for descriptions of it. I relabelled it as ‘Imbricata’ as it matches two plants in section 2A but it may be that they are all something else as ‘Imbricata’ should be clear red.

‘Lady Vansittart’ (5A-047) was labelled ‘Migali’, which is described as having small single, shell pink flowers.

‘Mathotiana Alba’ (5A-046) appeared to have died completely after hard pruning around 2018 but shoots came from below ground and have now flowered as per the variety.

‘Mercury Variegated’ (5A-045) was labelled ‘Masayoshi’ but didn’t match other plants bearing that name or its various sports.

‘Morning Glow’ (5A-011) was labelled ‘Bonomiana’ and ‘Morning Glow’ (5A-057) was labelled ‘Tricolor’, making five of this variety that have emerged, under four different names, all of them wrong.

‘New Dawn’ (5A-049 & 5A-050) may be ‘Cleopatra’, the two names having recently been described as synonymous. I’m not wholly convinced and will leave them as ‘Dawn’ for now.

‘Niobe’ (5A-051) seems to be too deep a red to match pictures and descriptions I have seen. It had no label and I have only given it a number tag, pending a more confident identification.

‘Picturata’ (5A-054) only has a number tag, pending a more confident identification. It is described as a large, very double peony form, white with red stripes. This is small, formal or rose-form double with pink stripes. It may be correct but hard pruning has meant it has produced only a few, not fully formed, flowers.

‘Valtevareda’ (5A-060) has very similar flowers to ‘Valtevereda’ (5D-013) but distinctly different foliage. The (5D-013) plant closely matches a plant at NT Lanhydrock and I am inclined to think it is the more likely to be correct. This plant may be the same as ‘Monsieur Faucillon’ (6-019).

(5A-005) In collection records as ‘Anna Bruneau’, which should have red flowers.

(5A-014) In collection records as ‘Conte Bouturlin’, which is described as a bright salmony red formal double so this is clearly something else.

(5A-025 & 5A-026) In collection records as ‘Faustina’, which should be white, lined or mottled with carmine rose, making both of these plants wrong. Verschaffelt shows anemone centred bloom, white with dark red stripes.

(5A-028 & 5A-029) In collection records as ‘Fred Sander’, the fimbriated form of ‘Lady de Saumerez’, correct at (5B-010). 

(5A-037) In collection records as ‘Italiana’, which should be vivid red. In France a formal double pink is grown under this name.

(5A-038) In collection records as ‘Lalla Rookh’, which should be a formal double, pink marbled white, a virus variegated form of ‘L’Avvenire’. This is wrong. The plant of the same name at 5B-013 is very different and better matches the description. There are several formal double whites elsewhere in the collection but this doesn’t seem to match any of them. There have been occasional pink streaks in some blooms.

(5A-041) In collection records as ‘Maman Cochet’, which is an American, large, white peony form variety. The similar sounding ‘Madame Cachet’ makes a bit more sense in that it is a bicolored formal double’, but it should be white with some fine pink stripes. This may be a sport, there being one called ‘Madame P. de Pannemaeker’ which is described as bright pink with paler veins, bordered white. Most of the blooms on this plant are pink with white edge but there are also some solid pink blooms. It is similar to, but not the same as 5A-021 ‘Duchesse Decazes’. Flowers 8-9cm across.

(5A-055) In collection records as ‘Pink Audusson’, which is listed as a synonym of ‘Adolphe Audusson’ but this is not that, the flowers are too small and its flowering time and foliage different.

(5A-058 & 5A-059) In collection records as ‘Trionfo di Lodi’, which should be formal double, delicate pink with deep pink and red speckling. They are the same as (5B-027), also recorded as ‘Trionfo di Lodi’ and (6-016), which was labelled ‘Madame de Strekaloff’, another name that appears to be wrong. They are tantalisingly similar to ‘Press’s Eclipse’ (2A-053) in flower and foliage, but not the same.