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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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: TB:Form

  • Subject: RE: [iris-photos]TB:Form
  • From: "Dana" DanaBrown@peoplepc.com
  • Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:14:25 -0600
  • Importance: Normal

Walter,

            I agree!  We grow a lot of arilbreds and a few Louisiana’s.  Thanks for reminding us that the accepted form on these flowers is vastly different than what is “preferred” in TB’s and thank heavens they all aren’t supposed to look alike!! 

 

>Several recent introductions appear to have shorter standards than falls.  I was taught, 20 years ago, that the >standards and falls should be of equal length.  A plant was inferior if there was a noticeable difference. 

 

>I've quickly scanned my judges training book and can't find this under either balance or form. (garden section) Is >there anything in the book about short standards?  Something I'm missing?

 

This is the question I was attempting to answer, and I didn’t do a very good job of it.  They were talking about a TB with shorter standards and per the handbook on garden judging of Tall Bearded iris pg 60,  “Variability in form is acceptable as long as the standards and falls meet minimum requirements, producing flowers of good balance and proportion.”   The handbook goes on to say (3 paragraphs later), pg 62,  “The falls should be large enough in relation to the standards to produce good balance, but not so large that they dominate the standards and destroy proportion”.  If the standards are noticeably shorter then, IMO, the falls would be “so large that they dominate the standards and destroy the proportion”. 

 

One other thing to remember is that the handbook also says “Grow whatever varieties you wish, but cast ballots only for those varieties which clearly excel in all areas”.  So we could grow, and love a variety that doesn’t meet the requirements for form, we just shouldn’t vote it an award.  I personally grow several iris that I don’t intend to part with anytime soon that are not worthy of an award but still deserve a spot in my garden.

 

Hope this explains a little better, what I was trying to say.

 

Dana

 

Dana Brown

AIS Region 17 RVP

Director ASI, TBIS

AIS, ASI, MIS, RIS, SPIS, TBIS

Malevil Iris Gardens

http://www.malevil-iris.com/

Lubbock, TX

Zone 7 USDA, Zone 10 Sunset

mailto:danabrown@peoplepc.com

 

 

The first thing I thought of was that some of the LA iris and Japanese iris I like have standards much shorter then the falls.

Some aril species have standards much bigger than the falls.  Some of those I like too.

 Having a small difference between standards and falls may make an iris seem out of proportion.  But if the difference is great enough, you don't compare them, and can accept a different look.
Walter

 




Yahoo! Groups Links



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement