Thank you for the kind words!
I do understand a lot of plants are not registered, but some of the types of plants are religiously registered, such as the irises. I think if a society takes the effort to register, it should be acknowledged, and respected. And the JI registry is free to the public, where it is up to date.
We certainly had some good discussion on here.
Thanks to all.
--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, ChatOWhitehall@... wrote:
>
>
> I'm rather surprized to read Avent's note.
>
> I'd say he certainly should know better, and I think it is well that someone called him on it. He apparently has influential supporters within the Society, and perhaps they will see to it he gets up to speed on the matter. That parable of the pets was very poor.
>
> Unless something has changed about which I have not heard, while the JI Society maintains an strong interest in these matters, the International Registration Authority for all Iris, except bulbous, is the AIS. The AIS Check Lists are thus those which matter, and
> I have checked all those, and the name does not appear.
>
> There have, indeed, been instances of someone in AIS registering an older cultivar which was strongly believed not to have been registered previously, Edinger's registration of 'Drady' comes to mind, but it is rare. As a rule, AIS and its members have been mindful of these sorts of issues, particularly with regard to the JI, which come with a long history of just this sort of commercial complications.
>
> I don't know a thing about Austin's stock other than I have some recollection of a photo in one of her books being clearly wrong, some older iris, and not a very rare one. I only saw her last book, the big one, one time, at a bookstore, and did not take to it because it featured a lot of those colored photos that look like they were taken at high noon on a hot sunny day. That sort of thing does not seem to bother some people, but I find I dislike it a good deal.
>
> I think you are to be commended on being scrupulous about the identity and provenance of what you sell. It's a matter of personal integrity, I think, to make it your business to know what the rules really are, to understand their intent and purpose, and to honor them.
>
> AMW
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polly <pollykinsman@...>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:15 pm
> Subject: [iris-species] Re: 'Gerald Darby': Seeds, Descriptions, Nomenclature
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The English base of Gerald Darby is one reason I thought Claire Austins iris might be more accurate.
>
> Just in case you would like to see it here is my discussion with Tony Avent. There is also quite a bit about it on the JI robin. Dennis Hager contacted Tony Avent also.
>
> Where Mr. Avent says try to get these irises registered makes no sense, and he knows it. If you buy five of those irises you probably will never get the one you ordered.
>
> Another thing he states, "Once a cultivar name and image are published, that name is established and valid. " So, in essence that would make my Gerald Darby established and valid, since it has been named and an image published, at least as far back as 1998.
>
> First my email, then Mr. Avents.
>
> Hello there,
> I am a beardless iris grower, and I was looking at your site for something nifty to buy, and saw Queen's Tiara. A lovely picture.
>
> I checked the Japanese iris registry, and there is no iris registered under that name. I then searched for it on the internet, and came up with only your listing and Van Bourgodien.
>
> Please tell me that it's an old registry or some such, and that your company is not selling no named, made up named, or incorrectly named irises from the Dutch growers, which is becoming a huge problem in the Japanese iris industry, and has been the subject of many a discussion in the Japanese Iris Society.
>
> i would truly love to know the origion of Queen's Tiara.
>
> i was able to find Tora Tora listed under Tora-Tora, so I'm hoping I'm just not finding Queen's Circle for some odd reason.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Polly Kinsman
>
> Dear Polly:
>
> Thanks for your note about the Japanese iris. As you are most certainly aware, far less than 1% of all perennial cultivars are "registered" with the proper authorities. Once a cultivar name and image are published, that name is established and valid. Proper registrations certainly make my job catalog writing easier, but any nursery who decides to only carry "registered" cultivars would quickly be out of business. I would suggest that you encourage the Japanese Iris Society to work to register these unregistered varieties, as has been done by groups such as the American Hosta Society. It's the only way to make this happen since many breeders often have no reason or interest to register them themselves. Think of this as you would purchasing a pet....a tiny handful of folks will only buy a "registered" pet, while the majority of people could care less and buy one because it looks nice and performs well. I hope this helps.
>
> --- In i*@yahoogroups.com, ChatOWhitehall@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm coming late to this discussion, so forgive me, please,?if I repeat other contributions. I'm just lining out some Check List data?here for my own information, so will share a few thoughts.
> > ?
> > Regarding pods, note that the?revised entry for Iris 'Gerald Darby' in the 1989 AIS Check Lists says?"Sets few good seeds." It reads, in toto,
> > ?
> > GERALD DARBY. (G. Darby by Coe, R. 1968) Change of classification, description, and parentage, to: LAEV?apogon hybrid, up to 6' (183 cm). Blue violet with violet-colored leaf bases. Appears to belong to I. xrobusta, E. Anderson, the cross of I. veriscolor with I. virginica. Sets few good seeds. Chromosome count 2n=88-89.???
> > ?
> > And the original Check List entry, from the 1969 volume:
> > ?
> > GERALD DARBY. (Coe for G. Darby, deceased, R. '68). Sib-LA, 30",? June, V1D. Blue-purple self; twisted red stems. Flowers of Siberian; growth hapbit of I. foliosa. Orientalis x prob. two LA hybrids. Norton Hall '67.
> > ?
> > Norton Hall is?identified as Norton Hall Nurseries, Cold Norton, Essex, England.??
> > ?
> > Regarding color charts. At various times several different charts have been favored by people and institutions?in registering the names of Iris cultivars. There has, however,?been some thought that the RHS chart was of limited utility as too often the colors did not match those of the flowers, and the cost was so high that it was not to be assumed that most people reading the?descriptions would have the chart to hand to translate the codes.
> > ?
> > Registrations?for cultivars do differ sunstantially in kind and in form?from the descriptions required for the?publication of a new species, which are much more regimented.
> > ?
> > About botanical drawings: I always feel very frustrated when the images in Curtis's or wherever do not show the root system, or bulb. It is uniquely annoying with the Junos; the plants look hacked off, and implausible.
> > ?
> > I'm surprized to hear Plant Delights was reportedly?insensitive to the issues at hand.?I don't worship at the Plant Delights shrine, or have not since my personal?vision has?matured in another direction,?but I know that they are, or were, AIS members, and that Avent has often articulated?firm resolve with regard to ensuring correct nomenclature of his offerings?from other genera. I can't see him going off the ethical rails for a bunch of?subprime ensata seedlings.?
> > ?
> > AMW
> >
> > ?
> >
>
