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

"Colonies" vs. "Little England" (was Black Prince)

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <iris-l@rt66.com>
  • Subject: "Colonies" vs. "Little England" (was Black Prince)
  • From: Croftway@aol.com
  • Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:52:57 -0700 (MST)

In a message dated 24/02/97  17:32:22, Mike says:

<< There is a widely held belief that iris fanciers 'across the water' are
 much taken with older form while those in the 'colonies' are mad about
 grossly expanded flower parts, ruffles, lace and the odd appendage, here
 and there. >>

Speaking as someone who sells irises in the old world, this is generally
true. However, novelties can and do find favour with some, but these people
are in a minority. Fashion changes, and some years ruffled irises are more
popular than in some other years. In my experience, tight lacing does not
find great popularity over here.
Personally, I never met an iris I didn't like, although there are some I
would not put in my garden. ((-;

Graham Spencer
Croftway Nursery, Barnham, West Sussex, UK

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index