Thorny thrills. I know: A first this sounds like a lisping
double entendre. But no, truly, this is about thorns that thrill. No
really.
Take a look at the stem in the center, with huge weird half-circle wings topped by sharp central spine—like a silhouette of the Hollywood version of Gengis Kahn's helmet.
This is clearly a thorn-proud rose. And it also has the prickliest name of any rose:
Rosa sericea subspecies omeiensis formae pteracantha. Literally, the rose that's silky (stems in this case, and not showy enough to worry about), from wherever Mt. Omei is in China, with (pter) winged (acantha) thorns. Whew:
Rosa pteracantha is just fine for me.
Let's put aside the unknowable practical question here: Why ever would a rose need such thorns— aren't the regular viciously sharp pointy thorns good enough? Let alone the unknowable existential question here: Why ever would a rose want such thorns?
Instead, let's look at the even odder reality: All of the stems in the picture above are from the very same rose bush. Why does this rose get the Genghis Khan thorns on some stems but the more normally vicious thorns on others?
Another shot, showing just one stem. The wide thorns are lower down on the stem; after the stem branches out, the thorns become narrow.
Well well: The wide thorns form when the stem is still young and (clearly) rambunctious. They are the thorns of a (t)horny youngster. Later in the growing season, after it's mostly done with growing up (literally), the stem starts to branch out, settle down, and grow boring adult thorns.
No surprise that many gardeners have wondered if there's a way to convince this rose to put more energy into growing the stems with the flashy juvenile thorns.
Is serious Spring pruning the answer? True, as is usual with plants that tolerate or even welcome such tough love—catalpas, smoke bushes, tulip trees, some elms, paulownias—the resultant growth is even more vigorous than usual. Leaves are bigger and stems grow much faster as well as farther before branching out. But the real news is that those same stems also don't flower: The plant's energy is put into growing fast, lush, and "pre-flowering"—i.e., immature—growth.
And this rose's Genghis Khan thorns also occur only on young and immature growth. So yes, Spring pruning is indeed the trick to maximize production of the showy juvenile stems, as well as encourage them to stay juvenile longer into the growing season.
For a plant, then, the quest isn't for the Fountain of Youth but for the Hand-tool of Youth: a pair of pruners. Pruning seems to rejuvenate the plant not just by removing older growth but by resetting the plant's biological clock: It now thinks it's a kid, and needs to grow accordingly.
It's not at all clear, though, if pruning is truly the miracle cure or not. Do pruned plants really live longer? Or do they just look like they're kids again. My sense is that pruning is basically just plastic surgery: It only makes the plant
look younger. And sometimes its effect is more like that of steroids: The quick results are thrilling and enormous, but the long-term health may well be degraded.
Even so, I wouldn't grow many of my plants at all if they didn't get pruned. I wouldn't have the space if they were full-sized, and I also wouldn't get the kind of show from them that I want. And so I wouldn't have planted them in the first place, and so there would have been fewer of each in the world. (And a lot less media coverage for them too.) There are definitely benefits to being pruned, for the plant and for my garden.
Rosa pteracantha's thorns are even more visual than what you've seen so far: That first season that they're grown, they're not just huge and weird, they're also translucent and red.
If all it takes for this kind of knock-out display is ten minutes with hand pruners each Spring, what rose could resist? And what gardener?


