B. ‘Bruanti’

Culture

Original Botanical Description or Link to

About an unnamed seedling from B. Bruanti Deutsche Garten-Zeitung. Berlin, Hof-Verlags-Buchhandlung Beuckert & Radetzki. 1886. Page 216. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/165001 The Head Gardener Bruant to Poitier, (Vienne) France, has brought up a new hybrid by crossing the Begonia Bruanti with Begonia roezlii. The female parent is portrayed in the growth, with bright green, powerful branches and splendidly shining scarlet flowers. The breeder describes the plant, as follows: "This variety is so rich-flowering that, besides the customary method of producing flower-stems from the leaf-blades, there are still those which develop on the margins of the leaves and since the form of flowering has so far been preserved, it may be regarded as a permanent characteristic feature of this varietal. The flowering is most frequently observed during the winter, when the plants are full-bodied. " The French Societe Nationale d "Horticulture gave a testimony in January of this year. From meetings of technical committees a. V. E.g., G.Revue horticole. Paris: Librairie Agricole de la Maison rustique 1829-1974. Anne 1883: Page 8- 9 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196490 On this curious plant, whose birth has given rise to a singular example of synchronicity, we receive from Mr. G. Bunting, Poitiers, the following letter, which we hasten to give hospitality. In the review of the 4th of December, which I have just read, M. Carriere points out, under the title of 'Spontaneite simultanee', a remarkable fact which consists in the spontaneous appearance of a new and the same form of Begonia at many horticulturists. To this question 'Has there been hybridization?' you reply with a reference thus made: M. Bruant has affirmed to us that he obtained his plant by artificial fertilization. - Ed. Andre [I affirm that the operation has been done, and if we doubt it, which I do not admit, I could give the foretold of it, since it is consigned to its date (1881) on my fertility record. When I told you about this new hybrid, I absolutely did not know that it existed elsewhere, and I could say, as I still believe, that my plant came from the fertilization I had made. Not having left my Begonia Schmidti outside, but which I thought sufficiently isolated by her distance, that the seeds artificially hybrid, I do not know if the others would have given me the same variation; however, I may add that my Schmidti seeds harvested in the greenhouse have simply given me the type species. I have found in my pots of Begonia semperflorens and B. Schmidti some plants identical to my hybrid; but since all these seeds had been sown on the same day, at the same time and in pots placed next to each other, the mixture was easily explained because of the small amount of seeds that had to be sown on neighboring pots. As far as my hybrid seeds are concerned, they have given me more than a hundred plants absolutely alike, except a few semperflorens and some pure Schmidti, as mentioned above. M. Thibaut and Keteleer have recently sent me a plant identical with my Begonia Bruanti. I suppose it comes from M. Vallerand, and I write that all those who are almost everywhere, in the neighborhood of semperflorens, are very similar; if so, it would be useless to baptize them differently. I consider that one of the names given to my plant should remain to it, since it has the priority; it seems to me to be a consecrated custom. We should call it either B. pictavensis, first name by M. Andre, or Bruanti, as I thought I could. I have repeated this year, on a Begonia Schmidti carefully isolated and castrated, the fertilization by B. Semperflorens; the ovaries remained adherent to the plant until complete desiccation; the seeds seem well constituted, and I do not think they have been able to receive the influence of any other foreign pollen. We shall see next summer what they will produce. I have thought I owe these explanations to you, who have kindly devoted to my new Begonia an article as scholarly as it is interesting; you will make use of it as you please.] G. Bruant, Horticulturist in Poitiers M. Bruant's observations seem to us absolutely justified, and in conformity with the law of botanical priority, the plant having been first named and described (Revue Horticole, 1882, p. name of B. Pictavensis, this name will have to be preserved at the plant of Poitiers like all identical ones that have been observed since. From DeLeuil: Revue horticole. Paris: librairie agricole de la maison rustique,1829-1974. Anne 1883: Page 52-7 http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196490 Begonia Pictavensis. We received from M. JB Deleuil, horticulturist at Marseilles, the following letter, which we hasten to insert, although the fact of the simultaneous production in question remains always of the most curious: Marseille, January 5, 1883. In the issue of January 1, 1883, of your estimable Revue, which I have just received, I find a communication by M. Bruant, claiming on his behalf the priority of the hybrid Begonia of B. Schmidtii by B. semperflorens, have named this B. x Pictavensis, a name to which my honorable confrere preferred, it seems, to that of B. Bruanti. It is evident that if M. Bruant had already introduced into commerce this remarkable product of hybridization, under one or the other of these two names, no one among the breeders of this beautiful plant would dispute its priority. But here is a fact, doubtless unknown to M. Bruant, and which gives me, I believe, an incontestable right to this priority. I have crossed B. Schmidtii by B. semperflorens in 1880, as I have already had the honor of telling you some time ago, while M. Bruant did not practice the same crossing until 1881. In addition, I presented a flowering example of this crossing at the meeting of December 13, 1881 of the Societe Horticulture of Marseilles, where it was rewarded, as the report of this meeting justifies, published in the number of January, 1882, of the Horticultural Journal of the Bouches-du-Rhone, organ of the said Society, where you will find, my plant under the name of B. semperflorens superba, the name which the council gave it at that time. I should like to point out that at that time the plant which was later the B. Pictavensis or Brunati was still only the state of dusty seed and was to reveal its existence only in September 1882 by the excellent description you have given him. In October 1882, when I was well supplied with this plant, I launched it in commerce under the name of B. semperflorens Massiliensis; it is a right that no one will dispute. Should I announce it under the name of B. Bruanti? I had neither the right nor the duty. B. semperflorens Massiliensis is presently widespread, while B. Pictavensis or Bruanti has not yet emerged from the breeder's greenhouses. Finally, of all that has been said of this hybrid, and according to the consecrated use, who is the priority of this Begonia? On this point, I refer to your high loyalty and that of my honorable colleague, M. Bruanti. J .B. DELEUIL. Our opinion is that the priority of name would be acquired to M. Deleuil if he had considered his plant as an intermediate production between the Begonia Schmidti and semperflorens. The question is whether there has been hybridization, which does not seem to be the case. Without attempting to fix the predominance of one of the two parents, it can be considered that their joint action is undeniable, since the new form did not occur until the one or both plants were cultivated side by side. There are two hybrids, whatever the defnition or the value attributed to this word. In this case the new plant can not be given the name of a variety of one of the types; this name must recall them both or be absolutely distinct. That is why Pictavensis had been proposed. Free to our readers to decide the question according to their own lights; they have in hand the documents of this innocent litigation.