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: Re: NOIDS [was: Just in from seller]

  • Subject: [iris-photos] Re: Re: NOIDS [was: Just in from seller]
  • From: "Neil A Mogensen" neilm@charter.net
  • Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:43:44 -0400

J.I.Jones commented: " I guess I would say that it is reasonable to say one
iris is obviously  not a particular cultivar (e.g., Splashacata is obviously
not Edith Wolford) from two pictures, but unless you had some additional
information such as "I think I switched name stakes on these two irises,
which one is which?" you can not identify either one absolutely."

I quite agree with the trying to identify a NOID from photos, but pointing
the person inquiring in a general direction can be useful and *may* help
lead to a positive ID.  Some family lines are so distinctive they can be
recognized often as not--not the specific cv, just narrowing the search on
where (or when) to look may be of considerable aid.

I would like to remind those responding to the "Just in from ..seller"
thread that the variety CHILI PEPPER, an oxblood red on light (white?)
ground was sold--and bloomed a Progenitor-derived bitone/bicolor in apricot
and pink over lavender with tangerine beard-- to one, and no one knows to
how many other buyers.

Despite two or more attempts to intervene by members of the list who
supplied Check List data describing CHILI PEPPER, the seller, when contacted
by the customer, was adamant that the variety was correct *both from the
photograph AND from the R&I (CL?) data!*

The buyer took the responses from Iris-photos seriously, but no note was
made, to my knowledge, that the seller *ever* corrected the error at the
vendor end.

This is certainly a case of "Splashacata is obviously not Edith Wolford"
that certainly would take only one photo to acertain.

I feel ill.  The monumental problems we face in keeping nomenclature
accurate is something we address constantly.

I purchased two different historics with which I am quite familiar last
year.  Neither was correct.  I contacted the vendor, one of whom checked out
in the field comparing my description of the authentic item with what he
found in his field and agreed they did not match.  I had told him I not only
had known the now deceased originator quite well, but had grown the variety
many years and described two distinctive characteristics of the original his
item did not have.

He did not have a replacement available, apparently.  Whether he continues
to list his NOID as the historic will be interesting.

The other vendor *does* have the authentic item, but did not recognize the
iris I had received from the photographed item when it bloom this spring.
It had been labelled the historic but fell far from the authentic item.  It
hardly took two photographs to tell the difference.  I had one with a
conspicuous tangerine beard, yet the variety was supposed to be PATIENCE.
What I had received looked like something possibly kindred to MARY RANDALL.

I have yet to receive a replacement of the item for which I paid.

The problem with "mart" irises is something no one has been succesful in
challenging.  We warn new collectors constantly that those are no bargains,
just pretty flowers and only occasionally labelled correctly.   I bought
four just for fun a few years ago, and one of them might be correct.  The
other three conspicuously are not.  One of them proved to be a rather pretty
red with decent texture and some conspicuous faults.  I liked it anyway, but
it certainly wasn't "Superstition."

A supposedly reputable vendor or trader, on the other hand, refusing to
correct an error of an astonishingly obvious nature in the CHILI PEPPER
incident is unconscionable.

Neil Mogensen  z 7  Reg 4  western NC mountains

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> 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

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