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

Re: AIS: registration, out of class

On Sat, 24 May 2003 18:41:53 -0600, you wrote:

>First I want to make it clear that I'm not really arguing for nor against
>anything when it comes to judging Iris, I was stating an opinion as to
>something that seemed silly to me.

I'm sorry to revive something that others may be tired of, but I think
this is an interesting discussion.  I felt that the different
categories of iris in the bearded family were for a combination of
factors - and one was for garden value.  The dwarfs and MDB usually
bloom early - the BB and MTB and IB are usually shorter than the TB
and therefore the shorter iris can be planted in tiers so that they
all can be seen.  

If you have a dwarf that grows to 24 inches, it's obviously not a
dwarf.  And if many gardeners have a cultivar of a BB that
consistently over most culture conditions grows as tall as or taller
than the TBs, then it seems like it isn't fulfilling it's part of the
bargain which is to be shorter than the TBs in the same garden.  

>Part of the problem with the animal comparison is that plants are inherently
>variable and are influenced by their environment as a normal part of their
>being.  An animal is not the same at all.  Of course it is influenced by it's
>environment, but it is done growing when it is done growing, it does it once,
>and that is that.  Generally an animal that does not meet standard can indeed

This is not entirely true.  A regular non-characteristic solid color 
Appaloosa must have at least one parent registerable as colored if not
registered with the ApHC or some other valid breed registry in order
to be registered.  So if you have two registered solid color Aps that
have a solid color foal then that foal would not be registerable.
>be registered, and actually if it is a pure-bred it usually is.  They are
>usually registered long before they are grown.  The registration basically
>just certifies that they are pure bred, not that they meet the standard.
>However, such an animal will generally be disqualified in a show (that doesn't
>keep some unscrupulous people from breeding them; there are cases where "bad"
>parents have produced "champion" offspring too.).  We have a Great Pyrenees
>that only weighs 40 lbs. and is likely under 20 inches tall at the shoulder
>(never measured here, but she is a genetic dwarf).  She is indeed registered,
>but she will never be bred.  {Some think these dwarfs should become a new
>breed, but that's another story}.  There is no option to register it in
>another class, it is the breed it is.  In Iris each cultivar is not a "breed",
>it is an individual plant; plus, it re-grows from the root (sometimes
>differently) every year, which no animal can do.  There is really no such
>thing as a "breed" in a modern bearded Iris cultivar, as their genetics are
>all mixed up (you might argue that there are breeding lines, but they are not
>pure). Of course the whole Bearded Iris group might be considered a breed, but
>it would be a mongrel breed, as each individual is different with highly
>varied and mixed heritage (in animals the idea is that members of a breed all
>be the same).  I guess the point is that a plant cultivar is generally not the
>same as a breed in the sense of animals.  In a plant a cultivar is usually one
>clone or individual.  In animals all individuals within a breed are different
It is also not really true that animals are one size once they are
grown for life.  I know I am shorter now than I was when I was
younger.  Ponies are measured at shows to be sure they meet the height
requirements and dogs are weighed and measured for height at every
show to determine if the dog fits within the requirements of the

>The comparison doesn't work, as they are totally different situations; plants
>and animals be two different beasts.  I'm not trying to argue any particular
>way in judging Iris.  It is interesting to here different opinions.  I'm just
>offering mine.
>[There are exceptions where a "strain" is sometimes mistaken for a "cultivar"
>in plants, where for instance an annual flower or vegetable crop is raised
>anew from seed each generation.  Here we really are talking about the same
>thing as a breed of an animal.  To my knowledge, no such thing has been
>developed in Iris yet?]

There are strains of mice and research animals which have been inbred
for generations which are basically genetically pretty close to

I think Mendel's peas were also pretty close to homogeneous.  I think
it would be possible to do the same thing in iris if we wanted to.
But would be a pretty boring thing to do IMHO.  
>I suspect that many BB's would grow to be TB's under exceptional conditions,
>and most TB's would be BB's under less than optimal conditions.  That's a
>problem if you want to show a short plant registered as a TB, but with a BB I
>think most of us would just chop the stalk off short.
I wondered about that - how would one tell if one was a judge?

>I do think that some Iris cultivars have been registered before their
>potential was known, and that some have probably been misrepresented when
>registered.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to correct these situations.  I
>think it is important not just for meeting show qualifications (which is of
>little concern to me), but also for properly representing a plant to the
>public, which they will be buying.  I have been greatly disappointed by
>numerous plant cultivars (not just Iris) which were registered or represented
>to be one thing, and turned out to be something else entirely.  To me this is
>a form of false advertising.

>This is the same as say a Shetland Sheepdog or miniature horse, or any
>breed where are standards for height that may not be exceeded.  A
>animal that gets too big probably cannot be registered.

An animal that doesn't meet the height requirements can not be shown
in breed of conformation divisions but can be shown in obedience and
performance classes.  

In the case of equines - pony heights are both breed and performance
requirements.  A breed such as a Connamara pony may be 15 hands, which
is a horse by height for performance classes.  But it is a pony breed
and that height is OK AFA the breed association standards are
concerned for conformation.  And a western pony can only be 14 hands
or shorter while an English pony can be 14 hands 2".  So the same
animal might be eligible for hunter pony classes, but not for pony
western pleasure.

I'm not really familiar with miniatures - I've seen some shows and
read a bit, but I don't know the registration requirements.
>Border bearded as I understand it (not being a judge) is a class which
>is supposed to be shorter than TB.  If it isn't shorter than a TB,
>then it isn't a good BB.  That's one of the ways the standard is
>written and that standard is what it should be judged by.
Rosalie Beasley in MD

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

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