RE: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

Tid-Bit is described in the AIS 1929 checklist as TB-B1M (Sturt 1925); Sturt 
1925 (cengialti X pallida).
However, in the AIS 1939 checklist it is described merely as DB M-B1M (Sturt 
1925); Sturt 1925; Callis 1939 $.
So, what does this all mean? Does the 'superceded' symbol ($) indicate that 
this is not the plant in the 1929 AIS Checklist? But that does not make 
sense, if both the 1929 and the 1939 checklists have 'Sturt 1925' as the 
hybridizer.
And the parentage: Was it left out by mistake?

Laetitia

>From: irischapman@netscape.net
>Reply-To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
>To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [iris-species] Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:01:52 -0400
>
>I followed up on some information here.Tid-Bit doesn't have parentage 
>listed in the AIS registration books. In The Iris Chronicles No. 12 on 
>Grace Sturtevant's iris they list  parentage as Cengialti-pallida, they 
>referenced their source of information as BAIS issue 13 pg 12. I pulled out 
>that issue to check this referene and immediatly spotted the  error.
>
>1) This list was an attempt to classify iris by their colour and size 
>referencing known species colour. It was not a reference to actual known 
>parentage.  To quote "the author "To classify our garden pogoniris 
>according to their color has entailed a great many arbitrary decisions on 
>the part of the complilers"
>A look through the list shows many plants classified with no reference to 
>parentage, only to their colour.
>
>2) re Tid-Bit listing
>"Type 3.b. Cengialti-pallida. Blue-purple selfs, flower often smaller. , 
>more numerous: stalk slender and more branched; rarely over 30": foliage 
>less glaucous." Included in this class is Iris alberti
>
>Another classification sample
>
>"Class 4b Tom tit Cengialti hybrids, very deep purple, small flowered falls 
>usually flaring. Beard ofen bluish due to aphylla blood. "
>In this class is Blue Boy
>
>It was assumed that this was a list of known parentage when in actuallity 
>there was no attempt to classify parentage, only colour. Thus it got listed 
>in the Iris chronicles with parentage in error.
>
>Thus parentage is still not known.
>
>Chuck Chapman
>
>Robt R Pries <rpries@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >have not reviewed this whole thread but just wanted to point out today we 
>consider cengialti as a subspecies of pallida and so Tid-Bit would be a 
>pure pallida species but in Mrs. Sturtevant's time they where considered 
>separate species and by that 'Tid-Bit' would have been a hybrid.
> >
> >skyland 1 <lmmunro@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >TID-BIT is registerd with the parentage of cengialti x pallida. Which 
>means
> >its only half cengialti.
> >Laetitia
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
>As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at 
>http://isp.netscape.com/register
>
>Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
>
>New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
>Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
>Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/2gGylB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    iris-species-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index