Area 5A – Notes

This area was always going to be difficult. There are several plants with no labels and the original map is not always accurate enough to be sure what something is supposed to be.
Most of the plants were pruned hard about four years ago and some are still not flowering again, even though they are starting to crowd each other again. I think that less than ideal growing conditions may be adversely affecting the quality of blooms produced.
This is one of the oldest sections of the collection and it seems clear that either there were many inaccuracies in the original naming or they have happened since. Since many of the plants are very old varieties getting a definite identification is likely to be difficult.

‘Alba Plena di Casoretti’ (5A-002) is labelled ‘Alba Casoretti’ but in the collection records is listed as ‘Alba Plena di Casoretti’, the description of which it matches.

‘Angel’ (5A-003) is American, not Italian as on the label.

‘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 is. This is very different from the ‘Angela Cocchi’ at 1M-001, which is also wrong.

‘Anna Bruneau’ (5A-005) should be red, so this is wrong.

‘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.

‘Comte de Gomer’ (5A-012 & 5A-013) should be pink striped with crimson, suggesting that 5A-013 is correct and 5A-012 a solid pink sport.

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

‘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’ should be pink with white veins and edge, making 5A-020 and 5A-021 correct and 5A-019 wrong, at least by colour. None is a good fit for the description of medium size full peony.

‘Elizabeth White’ (5A-022) is given as a synonym for ‘Dom Pedro V, Rei de Portugal’ in the Register. This should be a formal double white with pink streaks. I believe this bush is the same as ‘Elisabeth’ 5A-023, which seems to be correctly named.

‘Faustina’ (5A-025 & 5A-026) should be white, lined or mottled with carmine rose, making both of these plants wrong.

‘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. There is another plant under the same name at 5B-009, which seems to be quite different.

‘Fred Sander’ at 5A-028 and 5A-029 are both wrong. ‘Fred Sander’ is a fimbriated semi-double red, as it correctly is at 5B-010.

‘Charles Colbert’ (5A-033 & 5A-034) were labelled ‘Hekla’, given in the Register as a synonym for ‘Arajishi’ and an orthographic variant of ‘Hécla’, both of which are red. I believe that both of these are ‘Charles Colbert’ and they are now labelled as such. THey are out of place in this European section, being of Australian origin.

‘Hectotiana’ (5A-035) is described in the Register as semi-double, whereas this is consistently single. It is perhaps the best spring flowering single white in the collection.

‘Imperator’ (5A-036) is a name that has been applied to two varieties, so one is now known as ‘Imperator'(American). Both are red and neither is a formal double. I think in this instance that ‘Imperator’ is a corruption of ‘Imbricata’. This plant is very similar to ‘Imbricata’ at 2A-027.

‘Italiana’ (5A-037) should be vivid red. This is wrong.

‘Lalla Rookh’ (5A-038) 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.

‘Maman Cochet’ (5A-041) is an American, large, white peony form variety. ‘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.

‘Madame de Strekaloff’ (5A-042). The plant at 6-016 appears to be correct, so this is something else.

‘Masayoshi’.(5A-045) There is a plant at 3C-021 labelled ‘Masayoshi’ and another at 1G-120, which was originally labelled ‘Ville de Nantes’, a sport of ‘Masayoshi’. These are I believe correct, making this one something else.

‘Lady Vansittart’ (5A-047) was labelled ‘Migali’, as was another similar plant at 2A-041. ‘Migali’ should be a small shell pink single. Both have now been relabelled as ‘Lady Vansittart’.

‘Picturata’ (5A-054) is described as a large, very double peony form, white with red stripes. This is small, formal or rose-form double with pink stripes.

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

‘Tricolor’ (5A-057) has at last (2019) produced a few blooms, having been pruned hard some years ago. It is a formal double white that appears to be the same as ‘Tricolor Siebold’ (5B-026) and therefore not ‘Tricolor’ at all. It is similar to ‘Alba Plena’ (2A-003) and I will be comparing them forensically.

‘Trionfo di Lodi’ (5A-058 & 5A-059) should be formal double, delicate pink with deep pink and red speckling. These appear identical to Madame de Strekaloff (6-016).