I disagree with your assessment of my logic, but okay, by your logic
*any* iris hybrid from any existing class should be eligible for
SPEC-X as long as it can trace its ancestry on paper to a pure
species, no matter how far back. Just so we're not being arbitrarily
exclusionary, why not allow advanced JI to enter SPEC, since they're
pure Iris ensata?
Sean Z.
Quoting Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>:
>
Your statement is not true. These are not inconsistant goals. Just
>
because you do not wish tall-bearded species to participate does not
>
help any others to do so. There is plenty of room to allow hybrids
>
that fall outside of the system and could not be included and
> hybrids
that those that could fall in the system but are not
> consistant with
their class. If you apply your logic of exclusiuon
> then the
pseudacorus/ensata crosses should be registered as Japanese
> Iris and
the SinoSiberians should be registered as siberians and
> second
generation crosses such as Tony Huber's biversatas should
> then not be
allowed because they only have species as grandparents.
> Be careful
what you wish for.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: "Sean A. Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:40:52 AM
> Subject: RE:
[iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So it was never the primary
purpose of SPEC-X to allow hybrids outside
> existing classes that were
previously ineligible to win anything? Its
> purpose was to allow
hybridizers of existing classes to escape the
> ever-narrower definition
of their own class? If this is true, then I
> suppose I agree that
'Dolce' belongs there (though I still don't see
> what aphylla
characteristics it shows). However, it would also
> reinforce my
impression that AIS could care less about *all* irises,
> and in turn my
opinion that I would not be welcome there. I retract my
> opinion of
SPEC-X, as I'm clearly not qualified to give one.
>
> Sean
Z.
>
> Quoting Ken Walkup < k*@cornell.edu
>:
>
>> Dear iris people,
>> It was my impression
that the species-x category was
>> created to give the hybridizers
the most flexibility in choosing how
>> their creation should be
considered, in reference to the awards
>> system. I donât think a lot
about the awards, like some others, and
>> Iâm OK with the looseness
and lack of exactitude here. Itâs either
>> that or add about 20 more
awards. Iâm inclined to give a hybridizer
>> like Paul Black, whom I
donât know, the benefit of the doubt and
>> assume he had his reasons
for choosing to go with the species-x
>> class.
>>
Ken
>>
>> From: i*@yahoogroups.com
>>
[mailto: i*@yahoogroups.com
] On Behalf Of Sean A. Zera
>> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 12:36
PM
>> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
>>
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re:
SPEC-X
>>
>>
>>
>> Here I thought I was
articulating my concerns about SPEC-X clearly and
>> politely. It
seems the definition of the class is clearly overly broad
>> - how
can you accurately judge the merits of 'Dolce' against, say, a
>>
chrythenica hybrid?
>>
>> I favor a narrower definition
simply because advanced bearded hybrids
>> already get most of the
attention from AIS. If I understand the
>> current judging system, it
seems that if the bearded hybridizers
>> become interested in SPEC-X,
they will always win that medal as well.
>> Why not fight to broaden
the definition of the TB class instead? Why
>> must SPEC-X be broad
enough to encompass TBs?
>>
>> Sean Z.
>>
Michigan
>>
>> Quoting Robert Pries
>> < r*@embarqmail.com
<mailto:robertpries%40embarqmail.com>>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
I would not expect someone who does not like Tbs to see when a
plant
>>> that could be registered as a TB is distinctly different
from the
>>> rest of that class. Making fun of others opinions,
reflects
>>> ignorance rather than sophistication. I might suggest
That the
>>> SPEC-X definition be removed from SIGNAs purvue since
so many in
>>> SIGNA do not seem to have a wide knowledge of
Irises, either hybrids
>>> or species. And in its present form the
class requires a very broad
>>> understanding which it seems is
not something that they choose to
>>>
gain.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message
-----
>>> From: "Dennis Kramb" < d*@badbear.com
<mailto:dkramb%40badbear.com>>
>>> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:iris-species%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Friday,
November 26, 2010 9:01:18 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re:
SPEC-X
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Are you serious?!?? I just fell out of my chair
laughing!
>>>
>>> How is that SPEC-X and not TB???
Wow. Just, wow.
>>>
>>> Coming soon to an AIS near
you... arilbreds registered as
>>> Louisianas! Reticulatas
registered as tall beardeds! Hahahaha...
>>>
>>> Sorry
AIS folks, but your definitions & rules are
incomprehensible
>>> to me and I've been an iris enthusiast for a
while now! Y'all might
>>> want to consider renaming this
category. Seriously, .....
>>>
>>> I'm sticking with
my own definition of SPEC-X. Sorry, Dolce, but
>>> you're a
TB.
>>>
>>> Dennis in
Cincinnati
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Chuck Chapman <
>>> i*@aim.com
<mailto:irischapman%40aim.com> >
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
DOLCE
>>> (Paul Black, R. 2002) Sdlg. I290C. SPEC-X, 34" (86 cm),
EM
>>> S. and style arms pastel pink; F. pinkish ivory, narrow
pale pink
>>> band; beards medium tangerine; small-flowered;
slight spicy
>>> fragrance. F175BB: (Northern Jewel x 91196A:
(8864B: ((Navy Waves x
>>> Bride's Halo) x sib) x C. Palmer
aphylla sdlg.)) X B194C: (Abridged
>>> Version x 91135D:
((Centerfold x Wings of Dreams) x Birthday Gift)).
>>> Mid-America
2003. HM 2005, AM 2007, Ran-P 2009.
>>>
>>> In this
cross you have aphylla as a grandparent, and even then it
>>> is a
selected seedling. So great grandchild of a species. I would
>>>
think there is some argument for excluding this sort of
cultivar
>>> from
SPEC-X.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
