Why Are These Roses Misfits?

With so many roses introduced through the years one way gardeners and growers keep them straight is to sort them into "classes" of roses with similar characteristics. You've heard the names "Hybrid Tea", "Floribunda" and "Damask" - but what on earth is a "shrub" rose? Aren't all roses shrubs anyway? It's a catch-all category to lump together the roses that don't fit in with other classes - either because of their characteristics or genetics.

Here's my problem: for these classes to remain relevant and useful, they need to keep up with the needs of the hobbyists. When my customers are asking about David Austin roses, and it's confusing that they're lumped in a class with a hodgepodge of shrubs they share very little in common with. Meanwhile, there are roses with very similar form and genetics offered by other breeders, and they're lumped into different classes.

IMO for the same reasons the Hybrid Tea roses were created as a new class as distinct from the catch-all Hybrid Perpetuals (because they're distinct enough, very popular, and it's useful to talk about them as a different class) the David Austin-influenced roses should be split off from the shrubs.

TBH, I honestly think the Rugosa hybrids and the Hybrid Musks are also "different enough" to warrant their own classes, but I know opinions will vary on the matter.

If you find these videos useful, here are a few things you can do to help us out:

Send a tip: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/fvrosefarm

Have a look at our Amazon shop: https://www.amazon.com/shop/fraservalleyrosefarm

Drop us a "Like" on our Facebook business page:
https://www.facebook.com/FraserValleyRoseFarm/

Leave a review of our farm on Google:
https://g.page/r/Cfi8qXv8QReZEBE/review

Photo Credits:

Belinda’s Dream by Malcolm Manners CC BY 2.0

Abraham Darby by T. Kiya CC BY-SA 4.0

Raubritter by 掬茶 CC BY-SA 4.0

Robusta by Stan Shebs CC BY-SA 3.0

Felicia by A. Barra CC BY-SA 3.0

Bliss by Salicyna CC BY-SA 4.0