Re: Bronze Beauty
: A recent example of how risky it is is the arilbred registered as BRONZE
: BEAUTY!....I grow the original BRONZE BEAUTY (Barr 1884) and was horrified
: that a modern iris would be allowed to have the name of a great historic
and Tom Tadfor Little replied:
: BRONZE BEAUTY is actually an aril rather than arilbred, and (I think)
: quite venerable itself. I don't have my checklist here, so I may be
: remembering wrong, but I think it dates from around the turn of the
: century, although it was not registered until later. If Sharon is listening,
: I'm sure she can give us the straight dope. But, yes, it is quite a horrid
: coincidence. BRONZE BEAUTY (the aril) is discussed a briefly in _TWoI_.
Actually, this is an example of how risky it is to try to straighten things out,
once one of these mixups has occurred! This particular puzzle is not an
academic one. The aril BRONZE BEAUTY is also a notable historic iris --
probably the first tetraploid aril hybrid to be distributed, progenitor of many
modern arils and arilbreds, and better known to some than it's TB namesake.
When I registered one of its offspring, WERCKMEISTER'S BEAUTY, Kay, Keith & I
realized that we needed to do something to clarify the status of the
recorded-but-not-registered hybrid HOOGIANA BRONZE BEAUTY, aka BRONZE BEAUTY.
Austin's preferred name, HOOGIANA BRONZE BEAUTY, is not acceptable under current
rules. I'm really not sure how BRONZE BEAUTY slipped through, but all of this
happened when Kay was fighting her losing battle with cancer and none of us
caught it until the R&I booklet was done. Keith & I are well aware of the
problem, though, and expect to come up with a solution before the decennial
checklist is published.
As Tom indicated, the aril clone is a very old one. It has been in distribution
for at least 44 years. (It's in the oldest Austin catalog I have, priced at
$1.50 in 1952.) This price is comparable to that of the turn of the century Van
Tubergen hybrids he listed, so it obviously wasn't new even then.
It's harder to say just how old it really is. There has been speculation in the
aril world that this clone actually dates back to Sir Michael Foster's
experiments in the 1880s. I don't subscribe to that theory, because one of its
parent species (I. hoogiana) was not collected until 1913. While I do think
there is a good chance that it had been introduced before the AIS registration
system was established, the TB should certainly have had seniority for the
BTW, to complicate matters further, there was also a Dutch Iris named BRONZE
Sharon McAllister (email@example.com)