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: Mary McClellan

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Sharon McAllister wrote:

> Walter Moores asked:
> :  I would like for our aril expert in-residence to comment on the C.
> :  G. White Award winner of 1959, MARY MCCLELLAN.  I know MM is an old timer
> :  and so is OYEZ for that matter, but they are widely grown.
> Mary McClellan (Craig, 1952) and Oyez (White, 1938) were recorded as arilbreds
> before the quantum system was adopted in 1969.  MM was disenrolled at that time,
> because it didn't meet the requirement for 1/4 aril content. (It is 1/8 onco.)  
> :  MM, as far as I can tell, has no aril characteristics whatsoever,
> Her "aril trait" is wide falls -- but this is notable only if she is compared
> with TBs of her own era, not with newer ones.  (It's certainly not the whole
> story but, IMO, this improvement in the TB class is one reason the Mohr-class
> oncobreds fell out of favor.) 
> :  and does she ever cause confusion at a show!  If she is correctly placed
> :  in the aril section, there is always a judge who insists MM is a tall and
> :  is in the wrong class.  Older judges who 'know' MM will tell the
> :  complainer (younger judge) that MM is correctly classed.  The complaining
> :  judge is usually amazed that MM is an aril-bred.
> It's basically a staging problem -- so either opinion could be correct,
> depending on how the classes are set up in the show schedule.  BUT it's a fine
> point that the show schedule does NOT always address.  
> 1.	If the show stages cultivars using their registered or recorded
> classifications, MM belongs with the arilbreds.
> 2.	If the show stages cultivars the way they would be classified if
> registered today, MM belongs with the TBs.
> 3.	If the show stages historic cultivars separately, MM belongs there.  
> In case you haven't guessed, I favor the third approach.
> Sharon McAllister (73372.1745@compuserve.com)
> Who hopes no one was expecting a simple answer!
	Sharon, I wish I had read this post before I posted previously.  I
knew I could rely on you to sort out this mess.

	I would agree with point 3 above.  That should answer any
classification questions.

	Your answer was 'succinct'!


 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index