Personally, I couldn't care less whether there's a blue rose or not, but please don't try to pawn this off as one. Bleh!
« Giving hedera a chance | Main | The Harvest Feast »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451bd5e69e20120a6cfcf09970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not even close:
The comments to this entry are closed.
James van Sweden: The Artful Garden: Creative Inspiration for Landscape Design
Stephen Orr: Tomorrow's Garden: Design and Inspiration for a New Age of Sustainable Gardening
Scott Ogden: Plant-Driven Design: Creating Gardens That Honor Plants, Place, and Spirit
Jeff Gillman: The Truth About Organic Gardening: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Bottom Line
Jeff Gillman: The Truth About Garden Remedies: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why
Fritz Haeg: Edible Estates: Attack on the Front Lawn, First Edition
Sue Reed: Energy-Wise Landscape Design: A New Approach for Your Home and Garden
Janet Loughrey: Saratoga in Bloom: 150 Years of Glorious Gardens
Jeff Goodell: How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth's Climate
Sydney Eddison: Gardening for a Lifetime: How to Garden Wiser as You Grow Older
John Greenlee: The American Meadow Garden: Creating a Natural Alternative to the Traditional Lawn
Suzy Bales: Garden Bouquets and Beyond: Creating Wreaths, Garlands, and More in Every Garden Season
Jeff Gillman: How Trees Die: The Past, Present, and Future of our Forests
Dell: Sustainable Landscaping For Dummies (For Dummies (Home & Garden))
Amy Stewart: Wicked Plants: The Weed That Killed Lincoln's Mother and Other Botanical Atrocities
Julie Moir Messervy: Home Outside: Creating the Landscape You Love
Amy Stewart: Flower Confidential: The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful
Amy Stewart: From the Ground Up: The Story of A First Garden
Not blue.
Posted by: Not So Angry Redhead | November 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Boo, (not boo-hoo, just boo) not blue!
Posted by: Helen Yoest @ Gardening With Confidence | November 24, 2009 at 12:49 PM
This is the breeder I interviewed in Flower Confidential--yeah, they quickly discovered that implanting the gene that makes blue pigment was only the beginning. There's a lot more chemistry involved than that. It's a lilac rose, but not blue.
They used the same technology to breed these carnations, which I often see in grocery stores:
http://www.florigene.com/products/index.php
Posted by: Amy Stewart | November 24, 2009 at 12:59 PM
haha, definitely not blue.
i really don't get what's so difficult about this... The anthocyanin pathway is very well characterized and a blue pigment is a blue pigment. maybe the redox/pH conditions of rose cells destabilize the blue anthocyanin molecules... (like how soil pH affects hydrangea flower color)
Anthocyanin molecules are pretty amazing though - they can have almost identical molecular structure to each other (except for the placement of one or two hydrogren atoms) and be completely different colors.
Posted by: Matt | November 24, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Blue cacti (see Pilosocereus), yes, blue roses, I hope not.
Posted by: cactusmcharris | November 24, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Huh? Maybe they are colorblind.The problem with off color Roses:They look weird.I saw some pale purple Roses in Germany this Summer.They looked ashen.Not what I would expect for the money.But,to each his own.
Posted by: luise h. | November 24, 2009 at 03:17 PM
I'm not sure if it's relevant to this case, but color perception is culturally influenced. Maybe, to the Japanese eye and language, the roses are indeed blue.
I'll take the standard red, though, thanks!
Posted by: Kat | November 24, 2009 at 03:36 PM
I'm with you Matt -- I would have thought it would be simple, but from what I understand, even getting this close to blue was extremely difficult. I think it does come down to a cellular pH thing, but I'm not totally sure.
Posted by: Joseph Tychonievich | November 24, 2009 at 06:03 PM
I don't find its sullen color remotely attractive and it's not blue.
Posted by: Michelle D. | November 24, 2009 at 10:10 PM
The Emperor's new rose!
Posted by: Barbara Hobens Feldt | November 25, 2009 at 03:35 AM
I'm not sure why the quest for a blue rose when there are so many true blue flowers out there.
I do find it funny that they'll spend so much time and money to develop a blue rose and put it into the marketplace and the next week some florist just adds blue dye to the vase and gets a better effect.
Posted by: John | November 25, 2009 at 06:27 AM
Agreed. I actually do quite like the color of this rose. I groove on those desaturated, mauve-y tones — to me they're evocative of antique photographs, faded silks, bygone elegance, and anything that can engage my imagination that way would be welcome in my garden. But blue? Um, no.
Posted by: Karen | November 25, 2009 at 06:27 AM
That is one Ugly rose. I noticed that the people smelling it didn't dip down for a second sniff. So, like so many of the hybrids made in the last thirty years, probably not a decent fragrence either. Strike two. I'll keep my $30.00 a stem, Thanks... Patrick
Posted by: Phrago | November 25, 2009 at 06:48 AM
On my monitor, it looked like lavender-pink.
Posted by: Hilda | November 25, 2009 at 07:01 AM
Commenters sometimes say the most interesting things. "color perception is culturally influenced" says Kat. I googled around a bit and found a number of scientific articles on this subject. My brief reading of the abstracts is that some studies absolutely support this idea. I've ALWAYS wondered if what I call blue is what another person calls blue. The answer, my friend, is apparently in the culture around us. I'm giving Thanksgiving for small but fascinating factoids like this one.
Posted by: Pam J. | November 25, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Ahhh ... the quest for the almighty $$ marches on. Is there any other reason to genetically engineer a rose of a different color - even "blue" one?
Posted by: joene | November 25, 2009 at 09:35 AM
I've seen bluer (lavender) roses in our supermarket (which means they aren't aristocrats), and they have a heady aroma. That rose in the video is more mauve than blue.
Posted by: Kim | November 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Cultural perceptions of colour are indeed variable (and a fascinating study) but to my eye, that rose is no more or less blue than some of the existing mauve roses, so I wonder how much that actually factors in. I'd be rather depressed that 20 years of tinkering with genetic engineering had only gotten me to that shade, were I one of the Suntory people.
Posted by: 'nora | November 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM