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: Re: TB: (Photo) Timewarp

  • Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: TB: (Photo) Timewarp
  • From: "James Ennenga" jrennenga@outdrs.net
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:55 -0500

Very nicely put, Neil !!
Jim Ennenga
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: [iris-photos] Re: TB: (Photo) Timewarp

Betty, I do recall a time when howls were raised at calling PINNACLE an "amoena" in yellow.  The exact same remark as you cite could well have been said about "amoena."
"An amoena by definition carries anthocyanin."  I.e., WABASH.
Then to make matters even worse, PROGENITOR and its descendants came from the work of Paul Cook.  I recall when the major BAIS article appeared with the origin of WHOLE CLOTH laid out in family tree form, Mary Tharp, one of my mentors, not only hit the roof--she just plain said "Not so!  Amoenas are recessive."  She was furious and never budged a bit before she died.  I don't think she was the only one.
The issue is a semantic one.  Do "plicata" and "amoena" refer to pigments or do they describe patterns?  Originially they were limited by both.  An amoena was a WABASH type, and a plicata was in anthocyanin colors only.
Now we are faced with carotene distributions that have some characteristics shared with anthocyanin-only plicatas.  What do we call them?  Do we invent a new word?  Or do we follow the redefinition of "amoena" and shift the meaning from pigment to pattern?
You might enjoy taking a look at the registration data for HEY JOE, a registration in 1967 by someone who's name you will recognize.  It is classed as a W2Y, yellow on white plicata.  The registration was done quite deliberately to test the waters over this same issue--are we talking about pigments, or are we talking about pattern?  Hey Joe had its yellow laid on in discrete dots gradually merging to solid yellow in the petal edges.  Garden visitors loved it, and I do wish it were still extant.  Never introduced, it had limited distribution and has disappeared into the mists of time.
I wasn't very happy at first at Jean Stevens calling PINNACLE an amoena, nor were a lot of others, but the majority didn't seem to mind, and the redefinition took hold.  Now an amoena is anything with white (more or less) standards and falls of ANY contrasting color.
Doing the same with "plicata" will disorient or disturb the more verbally conservative of us, but I suspect the majority of folks in the iris world will not blink an eye at the change.
Neil Mogensen  z 7 western NC mountains

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