As a member of the American Rose Society's Old Garden Rose committee, representing the Northern California/Nevada/Hawaii district, I have been involved in consultations about the re-writing of Modern Roses 10, the ARS "bible". The new volume, Modern Roses 11, should be even more complete than previous printings, and will include more of the Heritage Roses and more accurate information about their classification. In an attempt to glean input about this important work from the folks who are growing the heritage varieties, I wrote the following article which was published in the Heritage Roses Group Newsletter. I have received a wide range of responses to my outreach. If anyone reading this article has some suggestions to add, please do so. I welcome your comments.

In a recent poll conducted among the members of the American Rose Society, a whopping 47% of the respondents reported an interest in Old Garden Roses. I expect this statistic took the ARS somewhat by surprise. However, the oldest rose society in the United States has been aware for some time of a burgeoning interest in the old roses and has altered some of its policies to include more and more articles on this subject in the pages of the American Rose, a magazine that for many years focused strictly on very modern exhibition roses. The ARS is trying to make the next printing of Modern Roses, its huge compendium of roses "of botanical and historical importance," as complete as possible, and to this end has gathered a committee of rosarians from all parts of the country to address the sticky, confused, and chaotic listings of OGRs within its pages. I have been selected to represent the Northern California/Nevada/Hawaii district and, as part of my approach to this somewhat-daunting task, am putting out a call for help to all of my friends and associates in the Heritage Roses Group.

In all of my correspondences with the committee heads of the ARS I have found a great willingness to listen and learn from the experts who comprise the membership of the HRG and who, in many cases, are not included in the membership of the ARS. When I question many of these "rogue rosarians" about their reluctance to participate in the ARS I am deluged with reasons for this abstinence, many of them very emotional. A schism has grown between the rose societies of the "old" and the "new" which has come to threaten wide dissemination of information that would be useful and interesting to everyone who grows and loves the Rose. I am hoping to be instrumental, through my committee work, in breaking down some of the communication barriers currently in existence and in bridging the chasm which separates many lovers of roses from their peers. The best way to correct the misinformation and omissions that have plagued previous editions of Modern Roses is to provide improved, updated results of the research that is being conducted by many of the eminent students of Old Roses who are among our membership. This article is a plea to these HRG members to share the exciting discoveries they are making with the people who are extensively revising Modern Roses, in the hope that Modern Roses 11 will be far more complete and accurate than any previous edition. Already the ARS committee includes a few members of the Heritage Roses Group. But I know that there are many serious researchers among our wide membership who have "a piece to speak." This is your opportunity to speak it and to make a difference.

One of the issues being debated by the ARS is the date that has stood for some time, marking the division between the OGRs and the "modern" roses. This date of 1867 is appearing to be more and more arbitrary as we approach the 21st century. Surely the Pernetianas, the Wichuraiana ramblers, and other large groups of roses which were introduced around the last turn of the century are "old" roses by now. The roses that graced my grandmother's garden were the classic old Hybrid Teas like General MacArthur and Lady Forteviot. And what about the early Polyanthas such as La Marne, and the Hybrid Musks which appeared in the 1920s and 30s? Are these "old" or "modern" roses? I would very much welcome comments on this question.

Another "hot" question among old rosarians regards classification. Until recently, for example, the designation of Hybrid China was applied to those roses hybridized around the middle of the 19th century, blending the genes of the Old European Roses and the newcomers from China, and producing a beautiful line of roses with some characteristics of both lineages of parents, but still short of the remontancy sought by these early rose breeders. Many HRG researchers are now convinced that there are many OGRs still designated as Centifolias (among other classes), which are actually Hybrid Chinas. It would be most helpful to be able to present a list of mis-classified Hybrid Chinas to the ARS committee with a request for correction in their listings. And what about the more recent hybrids that have been made from old China roses? For example, in a data base that is being prepared by the committee, I found a listing for Mateo's Silk Butterflies among the Hybrid Chinas. I suppose that, strictly speaking, this rose could be called a Hybrid China. But that is not how I would have classified it. This seems, to me, to be a designation which confuses it with a much older classification of roses with very different characteristics. Could there be a better name for modern China hybrids which rebloom? Are there people out there with opinions on such matters? I'd love to know!

The ARS sorely needs to be updated on the ongoing HRG discussions regarding names of roses, both those which have remained in commerce for many years and the "found" roses which are slowly being identified and re-named. *What about Sombreuil? What do you think it "really" is? I'd love to take a poll on this very confusing subject. *And what about Bloomfield Endurance/W. Freeland Kendrick? Different roses? Mis-named roses? What are your sources for your choices? Raise your voice and offer your opinion. *What about all the roses the ARS has already declared "extinct?" Some of them are probably growing in your gardens at this moment. I would like to receive lists of rarities which you grow yourselves or which you have seen in other gardens, both public and private. Some of these questions can be cleared up if enough people offer their personal knowledge on the subjects. *How many of you miss the pictures of rose hips that once decorated the inside covers of Modern Roses? *How many would like to see the listings of hybridizers with all of their introductions returned to those pages? These are features that I am lobbying to restore to Modern Roses 11. Do you have any favorite "gripes" about the changes that have been made over the years? Here is your chance to air them!

I am putting out a call for any information that would serve to improve the accuracy and scope of Modern Roses 11. I'll be traveling to the ARS convention in Albuquerque in early June and would like to have piles of data to offer to the committee. I am happy to travel around Northern California interviewing people who have large quantities of input to offer. I also welcome comments mailed to me at P. O. Box 191, Elk, CA, 95432 and am soliciting information sent to my email address of: roses@mcn.org. Consider this article a first step in the widespread revision and improvement of Modern Roses, as well as an opportunity to take part in the creation of a complete, accurate, in-depth reference book that should be invaluable to all rosarians, whatever their rose society affiliation or personal approach to the complex subject of the Queen of Flowers.