I would not be so cynical. We do not discard something just because we do not take the time to understand it. When a checklist is published it is correct in its time but If we are going to change definitions than we have to go back and publish a new checklist with the corrections. Actually to some degree this has happened. The Median Society checklist had a panel of experts Ben Hager and Bee Warburton Etc. review many of the historic registrations and they were corrected to the modern classifications in the Median Checklist. The AIS has never reprinted a comprehensive checklist that would redefine the old antiqated registrations mainly because we could not find the money and the volunteers to get it accomplished. The Encyclopedia has been trying to address these problems and provides a new venue for updating.In it there are sometimes entries of a cultivar in two categories each refering to the other and explaining the current classification. A big problem is that somehow people go back to the old references thinking they are sacrosanct without reading newer references. Somehow they think the older references as absolute or think that they should have all the new information, or that it may not be outdated. The judges handvook is updated on a regular basis and explains each classification as it is currently viewed. And as that viewpoint changes then the handbook is again revised. Classification systems of the natural world are always somewhat flawed because they are forcing things into pidgeon holes that are man made. But with out these classifications man finds it even harder to communicate. What makes sense to one person may seem crazy to another. But somehow we try to find ways to make communication possible.
So what exactly is the purpose of the AIS classification system? It
seems to be contrary to the very idea of classifying something that
the definitions of the classes change with time, or that two nearly
identical plants can receive seperate classifications.
Wouldn't it make more sense for older cultivars to be reclassified
under the modern system, if definitions have changed? Likewise,
shouldn't 'Alpha Gnu' and 'Blueberry Filly' be classified as both
SPEC-X *and* IB, not one or the other at the whim of the hybridizer?
It seems to me that at the moment, even the most knowledgeable person
in AIS can't walk up to a cultivar they're unfamiliar with and
determine with certainty what class it's registered as. If not, why
bother classifying them?
Sean Z
Quoting C*@aol.com:
>
>
>
> 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. <j*@freenet.de>
> To: i*@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: Paul Archer
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> amie V.
> _______________________
> KÃln (Cologne)
> ermany
> one 8
>
>
>
>
>
