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

haft marks

  • Subject: [PHOTO] [iris-photos] haft marks
  • From: "Donald Eaves" donald@eastland.net
  • Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:01:52 -0500

I think that the definition of haft marks needs to be redone or have some 
modifying adjectives added.  When someone says 'haft marks', I think of 
something along the lines (pun intended) of this seedling.  I don't conjure 
up the pattern exhibited by Ruby Delight.  Lines on the 'haft' of the fall 
are what comes to mind.  Like what can be seen in Indian Chief or Coralie. 
Personally I've never understood the fuss or the objection.  Most of the 
time I find haft marks innocuous at worst.  Throat markings are so much a 
part of so many blooms, especially those from bulbous type plants, they just 
seem natural.  Lines that cluster around the beard but aren't on the hafts 
don't really seem like haft marks to me.  Nor does strong expression of 
lines such as Panama Hattie or Notorious bring anything remotely mindful of 
what I think of as haft marks.  Does the extensive lines that emerge more 
and more strongly as the bloom fades on Vibrations quality as haft lines? 
Crossed with a solid red that has a tendency to remove lines they recede to 
an area around the beard and down the fall, but not so much on the hafts. 
That's what happened when it was crossed with Satan's Mistress. I went to 
the HIPS webpage and just went down the list of photos in alphabetical order 
for a while.  Some of those oldies wouldn't have much character if the lines 
were removed.  I tried to imagine them gone and what was left wasn't better 
all too often.  There is a lot of variation in what can be seen there.  It's 
not really enough to just describe something as having 'haft marks'.  I 
chose this seedling for an example because I think the marks on it really 
qualify as haft marks.  I also think they don't add anything to the 
appearance of the bloom.  On the other hand I don't look at the bloom and 
start going "Egad, look at the awful haft marks".  They aren't the feature 
that jumps out when viewing the bloom in the garden, though this photo 
caught them pretty strongly.  I didn't want to select an intro by a current 
or past hybridizer, though I was sorely tempted to use Olive Orchid since 
the 'olive' part of the name was surely derived from the strong haft 
markings.  Somehow, and I know it may be impossible just from perusing the 
photos on the HIPS site, there needs to be a more comprehensive description 
when referring to haft marks.


Donald Eaves
Texas Zone 7b, USA

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

JPEG image

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

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement