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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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

Re: TB: awards (was Decadence)
iris@hort.net
  • Subject: Re: TB: awards (was Decadence)
  • From: Linda Mann <lmann@lock-net.com>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:03:44 -0500

Yes, this discussion is mostly not about DECADENCE - she's just the current example of a spectacular iris that doesn't grow well in several places. If you check the archives, you will see this discussion has come up repeatedly over the life of this forum (starting in 1996) (!). I think SILVERADO was the last primary victim of discussion.

And, as I said before, I'm NOT a judge, NOT going by the handbook, therefore not confused by what the rules say the voting is <supposed> to be about, just a long time backyard pollen dauber trying to figure out how to USE the existing/ongoing results of the awards system.

Apologies to DECADENCE (and KK and BB!) for picking on this particular iris re: the awards. The point I was trying to make is that (from my viewpoint as a dauber and gardener) some irises make exceptional contributions to the advancement of irises in ways that are <not> necessarily related to how well they perform in a variety of growing conditions. Currently, the awards system and (as Betty pointed out) frequency of appearance in pedigrees by several (in the case of DECADENCE, a <lot> of) hybridizers help me identify those irises.

The reason I wanted to make the above point is because my view of award winning irises has changed considerably from what it was before I spent a few years pollen daubing. It (usually) takes more than one generation to get back to 'Zurbrigg vigor' here in my growing conditions when I use some of the top award winners, but the improvement in form and increase in diversity of color/pattern is worth it. Also, my experience has been that often the stronger growers from other, more challenging, climates, are much less cooperative about blooming & producing viable pollen & won't set pods here than some of the weaker growers from Oz et al. So I mostly grow the 'good stuff' as expensive annual producers of pollen.

I think we are all in agreement that the current awards system doesn't give top awards to the most widely adaptable irises. We can bring it up every two years and talk about it till we are sick of it and the weather improves and irises start blooming and we go do something else, but is anybody suggesting a means by which things will change?

I.e., what would the process be? Submit a petition to the AIS board of directors?

Since the award system hasn't changed (apologies if I'm wrong on this, since I don't know the rules) in decades (at least for the life of this forum), I'm just explaining how <I> find the current awards results useful. Nothing more intended.

Linda Mann east TN USA zone 7

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS



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



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement