The third picture isn't a BC flower. It just looks a little streaky/veiny because of the size of the pic format which is too large. I attached the wrong files. I'll post the correct ones in a couple hours when I can get to them on my comp at home.

Their growth patterns are deficient in bud placement, narrow leaf width or just not vigorous enough. The third one's flowers get floppy by the start of the second day. Its branching is ok but way too close to the stem. Coming from 'Beverly Sills' they shouldn't have these problems (in theory) and near sibs to these that aren't plicatas don't. But she seems to be contrary in allowing some bad traits to show up in my crosses.

--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, Jan Lauritzen <janicelauritzen@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I think they are all nice flowers (don't know anything about the rest of the growth patterns,etc) but really like the color of #2 and the fact that # 3 appears to have broken color standards. Open standards don't bother me.
>
> Jan in Chatsworth
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Archer <pharcher@...>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 9:25:48 PM
> Subject: [iris-photos] carotenoid plicatas!
>
>
> Here are some pinkish orange plicatas that turned up this year. They aren't Introduction worthy so will be used as breeding stock.
>