Area 5B – Notes.

‘Bella Romana’. (5B-002) There is so much confusion around this variety as to make it impossible to be sure whether it is right or wrong. It is described as pink with red stripes, which this is not. It is very similar to ‘Picturata’ (5A-054) and may turn out to be the same.

‘Bella Romana’ (5B-003) is labelled ‘Romana’, which is given as a synonym of ‘Bella Romana’, so it should be the same as (5B-002) but is not. It seems highly likely that this plant is ‘Comte de Gomer’.

‘Campsii Alba’. (5B-004) The register description is “full, spherical, regular and formed like a perfect rosette. 7-8 rows of petals, rounded, close set, regularly imbricated from circumference to centre.” This would appear to be wrong and the plant at (5D-004) more likely to be correct. I have been unable to find another name for this form, which seems to have been in cultivation in Cornwall under this name for many years. It may be that there are two varieties bearing the same name.

‘Eximia’ (5B-008) is described in the Register as of a deep rose colour, with notched rounded petals. I have my doubts. ‘Eximea’, ‘Dinotta’ and ‘Imbricata Rubra’ at various places in the collection all appear to be the same.

‘Morning Glow’ (5B-026) was labelled ‘Tricolor Siebold’, an invalid synonym for ‘Tricolor’, which it is nothing like. It is one of five of this variety that have emerged, under four different names, all of them wrong.

‘Sultana’ (5B-009) was labelled ‘Frans van Damme’ but is nothing like the plant of that name at (5A-027) which I believe is correct. I believe this to be ‘Sultana’, the same as (1B-013), (1J-038) & (1J-039).

‘Otome’ (5B-022) was labelled ‘Frau Minna Seidel’, a recognized synonym.

(5B-027) was labelled ‘Trionfo di Lodi’ but does not match the description. It is the same as (5A-058), (5A-059) and (6-016)