This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Spec-X?

 

I've sure learned a lot this past year, both from working on the Iris Encyclopedia and from this iris-species group.  I'll be taking better pictures, I hope, of many of my iris, including the foliage and not just the flower.
 
I've also been making extra notes to put in my judges handbook.
 
Plus, everyone learns differently.  Some need to see the information, some need to hear it, and some need to write it down themselves.
 
El, Ste Anne, Manitoba

From: r*@embarqmail.com
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:33 PM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?

 

EL; I have appreciated your help on the Encyclopedia also. There is soooo much to do. I have about six projects that I am trying to complete on the encyclopedia, each is still in a very crude state but keeps improving. I sometimes feel embarassed that there is so much started that is only half done but being a wiki it gives the opportunity for others to help. It is amazing what the wiki workers have accomplished so far in only a year. In December their were almost 200,000 pages viewed. So even in its crude form the world is watching.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eleanor Hutchison" <eleanore@mymts.net>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2011 12:43:46 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?

 

I've noticed you've entered more species on the Iris Encyclopedia, Bob.
 
While I've been updating the Iris Encyclopedia lately, I've noticed some interesting crosses in the species and spec-X groups.  In fact, some of them made me take notes, as I have some of those iris.  Some were also listed as "parentage unknown", from seed exchanges around the world.
 
I have to admit I checked further into the parents of the seeds I was interested in on SIGNA than I have for many of my iris.  I'm hoping to update my own iris database better over this winter, and perhaps plan some crosses ahead of time.
 
El, Ste Anne, Manitoba

From: r*@embarqmail.com
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 10:39 AM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?

 

Jamie' You raise a couple of points and I am back and forth away from the computer so I will try to answer them one at a time. I agree with you that It would have been better to have the registration include Iris aphylla Ostry White than just the cultivar name. The Encyclopdia will ultimately address this but the sheer volume of work that needs to occur there is overwhelming. When I produced the SIGNA checklist I put in an extra line that showed the species backgrounds of each cultivar and ultimately they will be there in the Encyclopedia. They are left out of the original registrations trying to save space in the printed publication. But the Encyclopedia does not have the same cost considerations. Presently under each species the hybrids are listed and ultimately I will have links back and forth between the species and the cultivars but I do not even have all the species cultivars into the encyclopedia. Presently wqe have 31K cultivars but there are approximately 80K so we are about 40% there. Now the stove calls.
----- Original Message -----
From: "JamieV." <jamievande@freenet.de>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2011 11:05:08 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

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index