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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: Wabash

From: "Harold Peters" <harold@directcon.net>

My sense of logic is getting me involved in a technical question I know
nothing about.  Wouldn't Jan be able to easily determine in the field the
difference between an MTB (Mini Wabash) and a TB (Wabash) simply on size?
Neither Mike nor Jim have this advantage but Jan does if I understand this
thread. Photos can easily be deceiving on size unless a clearly defined
reference is placed in the photo and that was not the situation.

Harold Peters
Beautiful View Iris Garden,
El Dorado Hills, CA      USDA zone 9
harold@directcon.net    http://www.beautiful-view-iris.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Lowe" <mlowe@worldiris.com>
To: <iris-photos@onelist.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:39 PM
Subject: [iris-photos] Wabash

> From: Mike Lowe <mlowe@worldiris.com>
> Hi Jan
> Iris societies, particularity the older, presumably wiser members of
> such, have a sly way of asking for a seminar, lecture, article,
> training, slide show or job-fulfillment at least a year in advance.
> (some things such as registrar for a national convention are filled
> several years in advance)
> It is distressingly easy to say "Sure, ya betcha, I can do that, no
> sweat!" And then, when the time to deliver rolls around, you find
> half a dozen tasks piled one on top of another. Sixteen hour days, a
> lot of heavy lifting and you swear, "I'll never be so stupid as to
> agree to ______ (fill in the blank) again!" But you find yourself
> doing it over and over.
> Anyway, I have looked at all and just feel impelled to say a few
> (ha!) words concerning your Wabash.
> First, it is easy to see why Jim suspected Mini Wabash. Here is the
> registration data of M. W.:
> MINI WABASH (Riley Probst, R. 1993). Sdlg. 89PQX37OP2. MTB, 22" (56
> cm), ML. S. white; F. dark violet-blue (RHS 89A) overlaid on white
> ground creating effect of purple veins radiating from the yellow
> beards and slight rim of lighter purple. Pretty Quirky X Ornate
> Pageant. Miller's Manor 1996.
>  From the fact that your photo was taken from a high angle it would
> appear that your Wabash is very flaring. (rest easy, it is not M. W.)
> Wabash has a 'lilt' to the falls, certainly for its day (1936) you
> could say that it flared. But nothing like M. W. Still, the decided
> flare that seems to show in your photo is a bit disquieting.
> Also lending credence to a suspicion of M. W. or some such other
> cultivar is a lack of discernable scale and/or an 'impression' of
> your Wabash photo, of representing a smallish bloom.
> Wabash has probably been the most popular iris ever introduced.
> (Dykes Medalist, longest on the AIS Symposium than any other iris,
> number one on the HIPS Popularity poll, never out of catalogs, traded
> often, etc., etc.) As such, there is ample room to have 'impostors.'
> The real Wabash has evanescent purple bases, dark during spring
> growth, fading to almost invisibility later in the year. The falls on
> Wabash have a more rectangular 'look' than do many of the lookalikes.
> The style crests are fairly heavily tinged violet on the real Wabash,
> although Bright Hour, Gaylord and others also have this to a more or
> sometimes lesser extent and (confusing the issue!) the style crest
> and standard's midrib coloration varies somewhat, year to year.
> Immediately after posting this, I will upload a 640 by 480 JPEG of
> three 'Wabashs'; the 1948 and 1987 images almost certainly Wabash,
> the 1998 image most probably not. The 1948 Wabash and the 1998
> 'Wabash' are from the same large commercial firm's catalog, just
> separated by a half century. And no, 'Wabash' has not dramatically
> 'improved' its form in 50 years. And if this sort of thing can happen
> with a large, well established, extremely capable, iris firm, what
> chance the struggling amateurs?
> The only surefire way to render an opinion where there are subtle
> differences from the expected norm is an 'in the ground,' more than
> one season, side by side comparison of the suspect cultivar and a
> 'test cultivar' with an impeccable (as possible!) provenience.
> Cheers,
> Mike
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
> forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
>   <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime?
You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it.  Sign
up today at X.com.  It's quick, free, & there's no obligation.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/xcom ">Click Here</a>


 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index