Re: esthetics (was Re: Double iris-a plea for circumspection)
- To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: esthetics (was Re: Double iris-a plea for circumspection)
- From: ECPep@aol.com
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:15:37 -0600 (MDT)
In a message dated 97-10-08 04:03:04 EDT, you write:
Cheers and the best of good wishes to all hybridizers who strive for simple
elegance on sturdy plants.
Imostly agree with all you have written in this essay. The usual example
written of is the rose. Beautiful, to some, roses on plants that won't grow
well in the garden. Huge roses, strange sunset colors never found in nature
on roses, all from the hybridizers art.
Daylilies are fiddled with as well. This appendage thing is rampant there.
There is a penchant to turn every flower into a pom-pom thus stealing it's
natural form & grace - the quality that attracted the flower grower to love
The graceful trumpet shape of the species and early daylilies is now passe'.
A flat faced multicolored and ruffled flower is "what's happening". I
belong to a daylily chapter which embraces the new wholeheartedly. There is
little talk of better foliage, longer bloom period, etc.
Irises "improved" to me mean plants of better health, stronger flowerstalks,
disease resistance, colors deeper and richer, hardiness extended, length of
bloom extended, etc. An iris that begins to look like something else will
not grow in my garden but will probably in the cult of "what's new" in the
catalogs become a hit.
I do not think we are in the majority.
East Nassau, N.Y. - zone 4 - Berkshire area with sunny dry days for fall