No interactions present.
...I would agree with "it's a wild rose", and would say probably Dog Rose but I would prefer to wait until flowers arrive to decide if it's Dog Rose or Field Rose.
The general stoutness of the stems suggests Dog Rose to me.
This looks like a sturdy new plant, not yet long enough to arch over in the traditional manner. Give it time....
I don't think that stem colour/marks or thorn shape/size/position can be used to make an ID, sorry Pete! I think (unsubstantiated opinion from experience) that stem colour/marks are indicative of growth conditions, light levels, etc, rather than of species.
How to take close-ups with cheap phone and hand-lens:
Field Guides for Budding Botanists:
... which has slender green stems and a sprawling habit.
Many thanks for your ids and comments lavateraguy and Rachy. I guess I'll have to wait until the flowers come out!
For information, the plant is neither completely "in the wild", nor in a location where I would have expected someone to have planted it intentionally.
..of course, Stewart, you are quite right (as always), Field rose would have green stems. And - according to Rose - "narrow based thorns" as opposed to Rosa canina's "broad-based thorns".
OK, Dog Rose it is!
What characters would I be looking for in order to determine this plant to species level rather than section level? Or would that be too difficult without microscopic examination?
Secondly, I see this listed elsewhere as "Rosa canina agg.". What are the pros and cons of either using this nomenclature or that of "Rosa sect. Caninae"? Is the latter more scientifically accurate?
The boundaries ofRosa sect. Caninae and Rosa canina agg. are different, unless one takes a very wide concept of the latter.
Rosa sect. Caninae can be divided into several aggregates - the dog roses (Rosa canina agg.), the downy roses (Rosa tomentosa agg.) and the sweet briars (Rosa rubiginosa agg.)
Rosa canina agg. consists of Rosa canina, Rosa caesia and Rosa obtusifolia (and several more species according to some splitters), and practically speaking, anything else the recorded can't distinguish form these.
At this time of the year I wouldn't be confident that I could distinguish the various aggregate groups.
[Rosa rubiginosa does have a different jizz from Rosa canina, but I rely on the presence of apple-scented glands on the underside of the leaves to confirm identification of the former. To add to the problems Rosa x nitidula is a moderately common amenity planting around here - I was beginning to get my eye in for distinguishing Rosa x nitidula from Rosa rubiginosa last year, rather than record them both as Rosa rubiginosa agg., but I've probably lost the knack over winter.]
Several types of roses turn up in semi-wild situations, whether bird-sown, or as throw-outs, or deliberately planted.
Around here the commoner ones are Rosa rugosa, Rosa pimpinellifolia (which might be genuinely wild in your area) and Rosa multiflora), but I've also seen plants related to Rosa alba and Rosa gallica.
Many thanks indeed for all this info. A very complex group indeed - I didn't realise that "a rose by any other name" would involve so many names! I look forward to seeing this rose again when its foliage appears.
.. this was recently drawn to my attention, an extract from the Kent BSBI group Journal, whcih you can check for yourselves at http://www.bsbi.org.uk/kent.html Newsletter number 8:
"Roses will feature in Kent Botany 2015, following a visit to Kent by Roger Maskew, the BSBI referee for Rosa. It is worth drawing attention to a major implication of his discoveries, however, even though rose recording season has now more or less finished (the best time for recording is from the last week in July to the end of September, so that both foliage and hips are available).
We have probably all thought that Rosa canina (Dog-rose) is the commonest rose species to be found in Kent, reinforced by Eric Philp’s New Atlas of the Kent Flora (2010), which gives it in 947 tetrads, out of 1043. Neither the New Atlas nor its predecessor Atlas gave any current records for the hybrid between Rosa canina and a rose not found wild in Kent, but with a northern distribution, namely Rosa caesia subsp. vosagiaca (Glaucous Dog-rose). This hybrid is known as Rosa x dumalis and has been confirmed from historic gatherings in Kent. It was also claimed by John Palmer in 1979 from near Longfield, according to the BSBI database.
It now transpires that Rosa x dumalis is often as frequent, or more frequent, than R. canina in our county. This assessment is consistent with findings by Roger Maskew in Surrey/North Hampshire/West Sussex in 2009. It is a fully fertile hybrid which behaves in the county as though a species From now onwards Kent recorders should record Rosa canina only when sure the plant is not Rosa x dumalis; otherwise it would be safer to record as Rosa canina agg."
A rose by any other name, indeed!
... some people treat Rosa dumalis as Rosa canina Dumales group.
Lat/Lng: 57.16, -2.2
OS grid ref: NJ880076