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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: Cult: hafts

  • Subject: [PHOTO] Re: [iris-photos] Cult: hafts
  • From: Laurie Flynn amnemachin@yahoo.com
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:40:54 -0700 (PDT)

Griff -
Great response, thanks.  I just wasn't sure if it's aesthetic trend, or if haft marks are associated with some sort of flaw or weakness to the flower, such as poor form.  Sounds like it's the former.
Thanks again,

jgcrump <jgcrump@erols.com> wrote:
Laurie  --  I think it's undeniable that some flowers look very nice without haft marks.   I think the progression has been from with-haft-marks to without-haft-marks, so, falls without haft marks represent an "improvement".  We're all for improvements, aren't we?  Especially if we are judges.  So, cultivars without hafts become the "in" thing, and hafts become "bad".   At least, that's my theory on how we got to where we are.  It's sort of like the fashion world.  Yesterday's knockout is today's old hat.  But beauty is beauty, as far as I am concerned, and if haft marks contribute to the beauty of a flower, they are welcome.  One of our great musicians (Lionel Hampton? Duke Ellington? ) said it best:  "If it sounds good, it is good."  So, if it looks good, it is good.  --  Griff
zone 7 in Virginia
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: [iris-photos] Cult: hafts

Mike, Harold, anyone -
I was wondering if you would mind clarifying this issue for me.  Why are haft marks so undesirable, even 'detrimental', when hybridizing?  Is it that most folks think they don't look good (and therefore I must be all alone, or at least in a minority, in thinking that they look kinda cool on some flowers - interesting in the way that broken color patterns are), or are there some other specific reasons why they shouldn't be there?

Harold Peters <harold@directcon.net> wrote:
My first impression was doubt about the haft marks being detrimental. So I checked out the white with yellow haft marks. Agreed that the yellow haft marks were complimentary. Went back to first seedling and after a little more study agreed with the compost decision.
Harold Peters
Beautiful View Iris Garden
2048 Hickok Road
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
harold@directcon.net  www.beautiful-view-iris.com
-----Original Message-----
From: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-photos@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Michael D. Greenfield
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:29 PM
To: iris-photos
Subject: [iris-photos] Cult: hafs

Now this seedling has some haft marks even on the standards and style arms.   Good compost!!!
Mike Greenfield
Zone 5b
SW Ohio
Region 6

Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement