HYB: Numbered Seedlings
From: Sharon McAllister <email@example.com>
Walter Moores wrote:
> Having read that, I still don't think it precludes the hybridizer
> from recording the parentage of that super, breeder seedling in the
> pedigree when the iris is registered.
No argument here, Walter -- that's my position, too, if the information is
But it's not always easy....
Seedling pedigrees are elusive. I registered TRIBE OF JUDAH for Gene Hunt,
based on his records. Its pod parent was a Muhlestein seedling and its
pollen parent was a Holden seedling. I finally found the pedigrees of
both, so registered it using both seedling numbers & corresponding
pedigrees -- but it took some serious searching to accomplish that and I
can understand why someone less persistent might have registered it using
the seedling numbers alone.
As an aside: When I grant the requests of garden visitors to harvest some
pollen, I provide tweezers, pen, and envelopes -- but I don't supervise to
make sure they take complete notes. Judging from later requests for
pedigrees, I conclude that they don't always take the time to copy the
pedigree from the garden marker. That makes me wonder how many others
hesitate to ask for the information when they realize the error of their
ways -- and their choice must be to register their creations using only the
seedling # or 'fess up to lax record-keeping!
Seedling pedigrees are really not available. Those of some of the Austin
breeders were lost in a fire. In later years, C..G. White's system
recorded type insteads of cultivar. No amount of searching available
records is going to uncover this information.
Seedling numbers encode the pedigree. Some of these are so well-known that
including the pedigree itself seems superflous. The Wilkes system was
widely used for many years, so "everyone" knew that KBKG5 meant the fifth
clone to be numbered from a cross of KALIFA BALTIS X KALIFA GULNARE. It
seemed like a good idea at the time, but today's beginning hybridizers may
not be aware of the code.
A seedling has been widely used, and it's pedigree frequently reported.
There comes a time when including its pedigree in a registration simply
Therein lies the lesson: if you're interested in the lines of a specific
hybridizer, learn to interpret his or her numbering system. Some number
only selected seedlings, and those systems may or may not include clues as
to pedigrees. Others number every seedling, and these are usually keyed to
cross. For example, I started out numbering only selected seedlings, but
when I computerized my records I changed over to the Year-Cross-Clone
system. So you know that 85-3-12, 85-3-15, 85-3-18, and 85-3-21 are sibs
-- and if you have the pedigree for one you have the pedigree for all:
BOAZ X JEAN RALLS. [Yes, that was my pseudoplicata breakthrough cross -- I
had a higher percentage of introductions from it than any other cross in
over 20 years of hybridizing. But that's another story.....]
Finally, there's the issue of secrecy. It has been suggested that
hybridizers working with color or pattern breakthroughs may not want to let
competitors know the secrets of their success. I won't contend that this
NEVER happens -- but when I've fed all readily available information into
my database interesting patterns emerge.
So Walter & I seem to agree that there's no reason not to include the
pedigree of a seedling in the registration of a descendant.....
Any dissenters? I'd really like to know of any arguments for the other
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.