hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: TB: escaping the compost pile

  • Subject: Re: TB: escaping the compost pile
  • From: Betty Ann Gunther <bettyg@cybermesa.com>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:44:05 -0600

Why not name it and introduce it?   It obviously has many good traits.  
Is there any thing wrong with it that you haven't mentioned -- other 
than not being an AB?   It looks wonderful to me.  
                                                          Betty Gunther
                                                          Los Alamos, NM.  

Donald Eaves wrote:
> This is a sibling to the velvet top RUSTLER X SATAN'S MISTRESS. And 
> sort of
> an answer to Griff's hope I'm working with that one. TB seedlings are 
> more
> at risk of being tossed on the compost pile than any other seedlings. AB
> seedlings have the advantage of containing aril genes and that buys them
> more time and elicits more patience. The TB seedlings are basically just
> grown so they can be grown with AB seedlings for comparison. I was musing
> about those that have managed to remain here and assessing the reasons 
> why.
> In the case of the velvet top sibling, it the quirky velvet top. So some
> kind of quirky trait that interests me or that I like will buy them time.
> In the case of this one, it's a combination of plentiful bloom and 
> foliage
> that tends to be healthier than most iris here. Most TB seedlings get 
> a 2nd
> year before they're tossed, but there have been some that were so
> unappealing they went immediately after bloom. After the 2nd year, they
> either have that appealing quirk or they have to do what this one does 
> - and
> they have to do it every year barring natural disasters that prevent it.
> I've had some that did this multiple seasons and then skipped and they 
> are
> gone. It's so much easier to toss one when the memory of how they looked
> isn't recent. But I don't really daub around with them much. Even when I
> do it's mostly with AB pollen. This one has earned another year here.
> Aside from reliable bloom, this plant gets high marks for healthy 
> foliage.
> Everything here always has incipient leaf spot that is waiting to get 
> out of
> control if the weather conditions are right. This plant has very few 
> spots
> and when leafspot is rampant, it's been highly resistant. I do hope those
> that made it Austin saw things blooming like this.
> I don't know how the size of these photos fit with what's allowed. If I
> check the properties in my photo storage the kbs are different than if I
> open them and check the properties. I sent this to my own email before
> sending here to the list and the kbs were yet different again. Not
> significant differences, but different. I don't understand that. Unlike
> Linda, I do like to see the whole clump because that tells more about
> performance and the overall structure of a blooming plant. Bloomstalks 
> give
> varying effects - caps, open and airy, bunching and on and on. But taking
> her suggestion I posted details of the clump photo. The clump photo is
> reduced 80-85% (not exactly sure because I continued to reduce and not 
> sure
> if the subsequent reductions are the same as with the beginning picture),
> The foliage section was reduced 50% (one more 5% reduction and the leaves
> began to have serrated edges), and the detail of the bloom was reduced 
> 60%
> (or maybe a bit more, but I know at least 60%). Frankly, I don't think 
> the
> reduced size of the clump photo was worth posting, but without it these
> details from it wouldn't tell as much either. Not a satisfactory 
> tradeoff,
> but something.
> Donald Eaves
> donald@eastland.net <mailto:donald%40eastland.net>
> Texas Zone 7b, USA
> __________ NOD32 3041 (20080419) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statements made on and attachments (including but not limited to photographs 
of irises or people) sent to this list are the sole responsibility of the 
individual participants and are not endorsed by, or attributable to, or under 
the control of the moderator of this list. Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement