Acacia Rose

H.P. Sass, 1928
Iris Class:
Bearded Class:
Tall Bearded
Fall Color:
Standard Color:
Beard Color:
Orange/Deep Yellow
Sass HP
GG eligible - protected

Full Description


From Chronicle #30, The Sasses: “Toedt 1929. Acacia Rose (Sass-Toedt 1928). Similar in color to the Rose Acacia (not quite so pink) and a general favorite with garden visitors. Medium large flowers with a flush of white on the center of the falls. I am using with the rose acacia under the white honey locust in the yard.”

From Chronicle #30, The Sasses: “Sheets 1930. Acacia Rose (Sass, H.P. 1928) E86 G82. M. S. 32″. A rose pink self flushed lighter at the center. A lighter shade then the Acacia Rose. Wild rose in color.”

Note from sdt: The entry below from the AIS Chronicle #30 caught my eye as an example to discuss the error of correcting ‘mistakes’, and highlight some details that can be confusing if you have yet to come upon some of the explanations of the early AIS system.

ACACIA ROSE, (Sass, H.P. 1928); TM-M-RIL; Toedt 1928; Doub. 1938; Wasserman 1938; R., 1928 Rose Acacia.

At first I thought Sass had initially registered it as Rose Acacia, in which case RA would have a listing and explanation in the Check Lists, cross referencing it to AR. No reference at all to RA in the 1929 Check List. Checking the 1939 CL, I see it is a combination of a dropped semicolon and the lack of bold text throughout the Chronicle, something I was not conscious of before.
The 1939 CL entry reads: R., 1928; Rose Acacia. Thus,
‘R., 1928;’ is the registration year for the cv ACACIA ROSE
and ‘Rose Acacia.’ is put on record as a Synonym.

In the ‘1st descriptions, references and nursery listings’, someone erroneously presumed Daub was part of a name, when in fact it is the full name, and typed: Doub. 1938;

Regarding the two text sources included above for the cultivar page:
With neither Toedt nor Sheets, and not knowing roses, which might be the correct entry regarding the rose’s name? Are we simply seeing the difference between formal, and general use.

Here’s a situation for someone else to explain:
Sheets uses (Sass, H.P. 1928), and Toedt uses (Sass-Toedt 1928).
This section in parenthesis is for “Originator; or Introducer, Collector, Botanist or 1st Describer & date of introduction or ‘N’ indicating no introduction”. Toedt’s name is added for being, probably, the Introducer as it appears that Sass registered it, though is not listed to have introduced it. To me, the key word is OR; “Originator; or Introducer…” leading me to believe Sass alone should have been used.

From Sheets quote: Not knowing what E86 G82 refers to (Sheets uses these in many entries) I thought it may be a great bit of information for someone who does.
S. 32″ – I just recently read that the ‘height shown is to the tip of the standards of the terminal bloom of a typical bloomstalk’ in the 1959 CL. My bet is the S. stands for stalk!

Follow-up: I lose my own bet! In the entry I was reading, the ‘S.’ was at the beginning of a new line. Further reading of other cv entries, looking specifically for the Sheets entries, showed it should have remained with the ‘M.” preceding it, thus ‘ M. S.’. In some typed entries it is M.S., or simply MS, indicating Mid. Season.

But it’s a reminder to myself that reading new information, in this case regarding height measurement to the standard tip, can easily sway interpretation – especially when applying it to only one or two examples.