I apologize for not seeing this thread sooner. There are several issues I would like to touch on.
First AIS is in the process of making the registration information available to the world through the Iris Encyclopedia. Each month between 1500 and 4000 entries are added. We attempt to do much more than the Iris register ever did. The Iris register contains Most registrations after 1939, but does not contain; botanical names, the 1939 checklist, Irises registered by the KAVB or unregistered cultivars. The Iris Encyclopedia tries to include all of these and is free to the world. Presently there are 28,000 cultivars listed and at our present pace I expect to have a relatively complete list within two years.
In the past the AIS charged for the Iris Register. It was used mostly by hybridizers to see if a name had already been used. Mike Lowe as registrar creates the Iris Register and John Jones loads it up onto the register website. It contains reserved names that the Iris Encyclopedia does not include since they may never be used. The Register is an electronic version of the printed checklists and has the characteristic that it can not be modified except by those two.
The Iris Encyclopedia uses the information of the printed checklists but has an advantage and risk that the information can be modified. This can be of enormous value. For example the horticultural system of Iris classification created by the AIS has not been static. Many of the classes in the 1939 checklist have been changed through the years and presenting what was understood in 1939 may not be understood today. MB stood for miscellaneous bearded and was often used for what we now call arilbreds but was also used in other ways. Because the Encyclopedia does not have to worry about space and printing costs, it has the luxury of explaining that something 18â tall that was originally registered as a TB would now fall into possibly the MTB class.
The goal of the AIS in the 39 checklist was to bring all the information known about irises together in one volume. To do this it has references to all the literature on each cultivar/species listed. Today the Encyclopedia can go to these references and display the information itself. But it can do much more. Images can be displayed and observations from people growing the plants can be recorded. If Gerald Darby had been introduced five years from now when the Encyclopedia will be fully functioning then the information would have been complete enough to eliminate the type of confusion we see from the past.
Sadly all this takes work, and the cooperation of hundreds of people. The Iris Society is its members and the construction of the Encyclopedia is a demonstration to the world of what we are made of. Of course you do not even have to be a member to contribute.
On another note Tony Avent has written extensively in support of the registration system, and I feel some have misread the intent of the small post. He acts as a conduit for bringing rare plants to the public. I have talked with him about the original sources of his plants and he has given me the information needed to encourage the creators of the cultivars, who should be the people registering these creations. Some of these people have actually registered other plants in the past. I suspect one in particular in his nineties may be just too tired to make the effort. I am not letting Tony off the hook, but we should first try the originator for proper registration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "JamieV." <jamievande@freenet.de> To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:49:54 PM Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Gerald Darby': Seeds, Descriptions, Nomenclature
It was not my intent to anger you, if I have.
As I see it, paying for the information is not the reason to collect it in the first place. Even with a 'nominal' fee. That one does not gain a financial profit is not the point. Why bother with a registry, if it is not freely available to all who may require it? This sound elitist to me. We are talking about a bisic reference that should be planned to collect registration information and make it abailable to any that may wish to access it. Registering a cultivar is a personal decision, but if one cannot research previous cultivars through such a registry, I see no reason to take part in it. And I am not alone in this thought. I have spent many years attempting to get Europeans to register their cultivars and many don't, as they feel this brings them no benefit. I tend to agree with them, especially when they then need to pay to access this information. Even then, there are many people who would like access to such information for research and they are certainly not interested in yet another expense. It simply becomes too expensive.
Although I hybridize Iris, Hemerocallis and a few other genera, I am not a large scale producer and see no reason to compete on that level. If I would like to do a name check, and then find out this will simply cost me money, I would tend to just use the name of choice and forget any controls or registration. After all, if I'm selling only a few dozen plants, I am certainly going to keep my costs low. Why should I care about some registry that hides itself from the general public and only opens its portals for those that wish to purchase rights to use it. I have to applaud the American Hemerocallis Society for keeping its registry open to all who may wish to peruse it. I feel this has increased the awareness of registrations and their purpose and the price of registration is still affordable for the hobbyist, as well as the big producer. Mistakes and duplications are much easier to identify and control. There are winners all around.
I get the feeling you either miss my point, or simply believe everything must have a price attached. Just because it doesn't cost, doesn't mean it is not of worth. I don't feel we need to pursue this further. We simply differ in our viewpoints. Fine, and you present a good arguement. I simply don't agree. Were you in the debate team in school?
Jamie Vande
Cologne
Germany
Am 08.12.2010 00:57, schrieb C*@aol.com:
Actually, the point to which I responded was your inaccurate statement that one had to be a member of AIS to obtain access to the Registration information. I see you now wish to make some other points.
I have already spoken to the inaccurate notion that any charges are a fund-raising activity for AIS. AIS is by definition not in it for the money and the rules of the International Registrations scheme are clear as to what is permitted, and what is not.
The policy of the AIS to charge a nominal fee to registrants for registrations is one at which many people also balk, yet you suggest that the normal and expected expenses for running the office should be passed on to them as fees, as distinct from spreading the costs around to all who wish to enjoy access to the information. How, then, is that consistent with making the information available to everyone on an equitable basis? I find I am much attracted to the notion of people helping pick up the bill for that part of the process which benefits them directly.
That said, I think it is only a matter of time before you will get your wish, free electronic information, all you want, if, in fact, AIS survives. But even then there will be a lot of work to be done, and there will be no shortage of people making sure their voice is loudly heard about how best someone else should do it.
-----Original Message-----
From: JamieV. j*@freenet.de
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Gerald Darby': Seeds, Descriptions, Nomenclature
Actually, you have reinforced my point. The registries should be a part of public domain. Especially, today, with the internet, there is no reason to purchase a printed document to research names. As much as I love books, this is a waste of paper, IMO. Any costs involved in making this information available should be part of the registration costs in general. The idea of a registry is not to simply record the registrations, but to make this information available. In the past, when printed document was the only method of record transferal available, I understand the need to charge for documents. Today, I find this is no longer a factor. This new tradition of making information a financial good to raise funds is simply not forward thinking. There is already much too much important research locked behind internet portals, that could make life a lot more interesting and future research more relevant. I see no good reason why one should pay a fee for imformation that is intended for the public domain. The ASI needs to re-think this policy.
Jamie Vande
Cologne
Germany
Am 07.12.2010 22:35, schrieb C*@aol.com:
" I wish more of them were available to the general public, which the Iris registry largely isn't. One must be an AIS member to access most of it. --"
--------------------
You do not have to be an AIS member to register an Iris name, or to obtain information about registered names or Irises.
The whole purpose of the registration system is to make information available to everyone, everwhere-- the nursery industry, gardeners, hybridizers, and the general public-- for everyone's common benefit and education.
The AIS publishes the registrations for each year as a booklet called "Registrations nd Introductions", and publishes a ten year compilation each decade called a Check List, and these records are available for purchase by anyone. The R&Is are available in the spring of the subsequent year. The AIS Storefront sells Check Lists for each decade back to the 1939 edition, and the prices are very modest. They make excellent gifts for libraries.
The team of proofreaders is working on a new ten year compilation as we speak. At this time, under the agreement by which AIS serves as ICRA for Iris cultivars of the non-bulbous kinds, the Society is mandated to continue to publish the registrations information in hard copy. This publication serves notice to the interested world of the registration or introduction of a unique new cultivar.
There is also an electronic edition of the Check Lists on line, by which I mean the internet, which includes several decades, with more information being added all the time. So far as I am aware, this resources is available to anyone anywhere who pays the small annual fee. If I err in this statement, someone who uses it will, I am sure, correct me. I prefer to use the paper copies, myself.
The fees for either the hard copy, or the electronic copy, are charged not to make profit for AIS, but to offset the expenses of the registration activity, and publishing the information to the world. This is not some shakedown racket AIS has cooked up, it is an honor accorded to it by the knowledgeable members of the international plant community, and, like many such honors, it boils down to a tremendous amount work.
I don't like to refer folks to my own essays since I figure that is sort of tacky, but if someone is interested in this subject, and does not understand how AIS came to be registrar in the first place, they might want to look at the second story down on this page.
AMW
--
Jamie V.
_______________________
KÃln (Cologne)
Germany
Zone 8
--
Jamie V.
_______________________
KÃln (Cologne)
Germany
Zone 8
|
