Maybe I'm a stickler, but I do think on the less informed (which is sometimes myself) who may think Ostry White is a hybrid, as well as future generations, when Ostry White may be a lost entity. Also, not knowing the history of this clone, there may be other factors involved.
The registration information published in the 1999 AIS Check List addresses these issues perfectly clearly, and preserves the data into perpetuity. From page 319-20, then.
OSTRY WHITE ( Eric & BOb Tankesley-Clarke, R. 1994) SPEC (Aphylla, 6-8" (15-20cm), E. Cold white self, beards pale yellow. Collected at Mt. Ostry, Bohemia; distributed by Blazek prior to 1971 and in commerce as I. aphylla B66-2.
One can't be a stickler without doing one's research and educating oneself fully on the issues, and in some cases also the history of the issues. I can tell you from personal experience that just because one doesn't understand something it does not necessarily mean others don't understand it, or that that there is a problem with the inherent logic and utility of the system.
The issues here, from my perspective, are these:
1) What are the plant habits of the two Kasperek introductions. I'm inclined to the notion that Kasperek sent out the second cultivar as a breeder's iris. Someone might write and ask him what his thinking was.
2) What is the rationale, if any, the necessity, if any, the ethical issues, if any, of registering under a "fancy" name--a term of art, dig it--a highly distinctive wild-collected Iris clone which has circulated and entered commerce under collection number. Is the intent, perhaps, simply to document the clone using the best means at hand?
To answer your question about purposes, my understanding is that the registry--by which I mean the official record of introductions published by the AIS --is oriented toward achieving for new garden cultivars precisely what valid and effective publication accomplishes for a new Iris species or subspecies thereof. It documents and publishes the appearance of a new Iris taxon, and provides a description of the plant with which it is associated, and identifies the originator of the name.
AMW
--------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: JamieV. <jamievande@freenet.de>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?
Not ot keep stirring up this compost pile, but two items strike me as either sloppy or misdirected.
First, Ostry White is a selection of I. aphylla and should be so noted in the parentage. Simply using a clonal name is insufficient information for a registry! Is this a typo in the Encyclopaedia entry, or was the registration so made? OK, this can be easily corrected in the Encyclopaedia, but what about the registry itself? Maybe I'm a stickler, but I do think on the less informed (which is sometimes myself) who may think Ostry White is a hybrid, as well as future generations, when Ostry White may be a lost entity. Also, not knowing the history of this clone, there may be other factors involved.
Second, if one sibling is to be considered a species x, then both must be considered as such. Appearance is less important than genetics in this case.
If the reason was, that one sibling fell just outside of the class description for IB due to height, then we have a problem with the class definition! The other possibility that falls to mind is not placing all ones eggs in the same basket and registering sibs in two categories. I find such thinking illogical in supporting Iris classes, especially species x.
As a non-exhibitor, I find this type of information misleading and confusing. One must ask themselves, is the registry oriented to exhibition classes, or is it oriented to recording facts as we know them?
Just some thoughts...
Jamie
From: p*@mindspring.com
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 2:55 AM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?
Not to dwell on the matter, especially since the whole matter and apparent frustration has died down. But I just noticed something in the Registry for two Introductions. It was touched on that a Hybridizer could vie for certain awards by how they classified their Introduction. That was only relating one cultivar to one class. However, these two specific cultivars were not mentioned together. They are 'Alpha Gnu' and 'Blueberry Philly'. AG is Registered as a Spec-X and BF is Registered as an IB with only a difference in height of an inch, base color.
BLUEBERRY FILLY
(Brad Kasperek, R. 1998) Sdlg. 94-13-67. IB, 23" (58 cm), VE
Blue violet (RHS 89B/C), silver white streaking; style arms violet blue; beards light yellow; broken color pattern; slight fragrance. Batik X Ostry White. Zebra 2000.
ALPHA GNU
(Brad Kasperek, R. 1998) Sdlg. 94-13-20. SPEC-X, 22" (56 cm), VE
Red violet (RHS 88A/B) streaked silver white (155C); style arms violet lavender; beards light yellow; broken color pattern; slight fragrance. Batik X Ostry White. Zebra 1999. HM 2002, HM 2003, AM 2005, Ran-P 2008.
Has anyone seen them side by side or at least in person to be able to tell a difference?
So, we are to guess Mr. Kasparek, is attempting to vie for two awards by classifying them differently?
Is that fair? Can that be justified? Another loophole for Hybridizers to wiggle through?
Please don't misunderstand me, Brad is a very nice person and very hard working, but at what point will AIS draw the line assuming there is no real difference morphologically between them?
--
Jamie V.
_______________________
KÃln (Cologne)
Germany
Zone 8
