Luminata (was Suttons luminata sdlg)
<Mike wrote: ......
<"I like that one, although it challenges my understanding of what a
<is again. Oh well."
There was recently a big discussing on this subject (which I have to admit
that I instigated), but a clear answer still seems to be alluding many of
us. I was bothered at the time that what I called a Luminata often
conflicted with what are called Luminatas in catalogs and at shows. So, at
the risk (I'd like to think of it as a good thing) of starting this up
I still seeing mixed signals on just what a Luminata is, and I think it
will continue for some time. I think some have jumped to a conclusion as
to what "Luminata" means through false impressions of what they are seeing
in the real thing. There seem to be two conflicting definitions going
around. One definition seems to do with the over-all impression created by
a flower with the center of the falls looking to have a very light "signal"
of ground color contrasting with and surrounded by a darker (usually "ray"
patterned) broad border. To me, many of these so-called "Luminatas" are
actually pure Plicatas!!! Although many, perhaps most true Luminatas also
have this over-all coloration theme, and give the same first impression.
The other definition is more related to the structure of the coloration
pattern. My understanding is that basically (but perhaps not strictly
speeking and perhaps over simplified) a Luminata has the darker
pigmentation lying between the veins and absent from the hafts as apposed
to Plicatas with dark pigmentation mostly following the veins and with at
least some such patterning on the hafts. And this patterning can be on
both the standards and/or on the falls. I also see a great many of these
"lum-plics" that Keith mentioned in February, where the two patterns
I've heard the Plicata and the Luminata patterns described as the
compliments or oposites of one another. So, if you were to lay a Luminata
pattern over a Plicata pattern, one would tend to cover up or erase the
light areas left by the other pattern. However, in both patterns there is
a tendency to have a light "signal" area in the flower that is dominated by
the light ground color and has very little dark pigment; so, not all light
areas are always erased by this complimenting of the two patterns. [I know
that a true signal is patch of darker pigment around the beard, but this
light area that Plicatas and Luminatas have often gives the same general
contrasting affect as if a signal.}
I often see in catalogs where what are clearly Luminatas are labelled as
something else (Blends, Bitones, Amoenas, Variegatas, Plicatas, etc.).
They can of course have a Luminata pattern and also fit into one or more of
these other coloration and pattern categories as well, but some seem
totally misplaced to me, and are just pure Luminatas.
I also often see Plicatas labelled as Luminatas, when I can see absolutely
no Luminata pattern in them at all! These usually follow the visual
pattern of falls with a pale signal area that contrasts with surrounding
Another thing is that it seems that coloration and pattern are confused
too. While related, the distribution of the coloration (such as in
Variegata, Bicolor, Bitone, Blend, or Amoena) is NOT entirely the same
thing as pattern (such as Plicata or Luminata). Even so, the coloration
and pattern classifications tend to be equated or confused. You can have a
Variegata that is a Luminata, a Plicata, a Lumi-Plic, or that has solid
colored falls that are difficult to class as to pattern, and so on with all
sorts of similar combinations in the other categories.
I don't know if the definition of a Luminata has in any way been
standardized, but there is sure a lot of conflicting information out there
on the subject. You can tell that I tend to follow the more exacting
definition. Keith Keppel's message in this forum on Feb. 6 under the title
"Luminatas (very long)" was great and you should look back at it again.
To sign-off this list, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS