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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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:Form

  • Subject: Re: [iris-photos]TB:Form
  • From: "The Lobergs" loberg@adelphia.net
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:32:31 -0800

Betty and Margie,
    We have to remember, that the Judges' handbook goes through revisions over the years.   It's quite possible something taught 20 years ago would not be valid today.   I certainly don't believe today there is any requirement for standards and falls to be of equal length.   The handbook says "The falls should be large enough in relation to the standards to produce good balance, but not so large that they dominate the standards and destroy proportion."   One specific no-no that I can think of, is as the book says, "narrow, rectangular or strappy falls are not acceptable.     I could never think of any iris I knew that had rectangular falls, that would have been interesting.   Anyone have a picture of an iris with rectangular falls?
    I too have noticed several introductions which appear to have noticeably short standards, and I do find that to be out of balance.  But there are irises which have distinct size differences in falls... take for instance, Dusky Challenger.   The obvious way to me to identify this iris in a row of navy purple irises, is to look for Dusky's famous elongated falls.  And of course it's one of my favorite irises. 
    What forms do you suppose we'll be looking at in 100 years from now?   I try to imagine what the iris lovers of a 100 years ago thought...they were in love with the historics then... which were narrow in the falls, and you could even describe some of them as strappy.   Can you imagine the delight those iris lovers would have had were they time-warped into our century, to see our ruffled, laced, and different colors we have now?   Believe it or not, I have a hard time imagining what we could possible have in 100 years.  What do you all think we'll have in 100 years?
Kitty Loberg
 
I've been to a couple of judges training sessions in the past few years, and I too was told that the standards and falls had to be of equal length. Drawn sketches to further illustrate the point were used. As a result - - I look to see if it is balanced and I won't grow the iris if it looks lopsided.  I've noticed that some newer introduction in the past several years more seem to be being introduced. 
 
Margie V.
Several recent introductions appear to have shorter standards than falls.  I was taught, 20 years ago, that the standards and falls should be of equal length.  A plant was inferior if there was a noticeable difference. 
I've quickly scanned my judges training book and can't find this under either balance or form. (garden section) Is there anything in the book about short standards?  Something I'm missing?
 
Betty W.


Yahoo! Groups Links



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



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