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
>
>
>
>
>
