Re: Spec-X?


 

No, no. Don't rush to do that, Sean.
 
John is embarked on a project to scan the Bulletins, all of them. You may need to buy an AIS electronic membership to see them when he finishes--and here I have no idea what AIS plans are--but if so, the cost of the membership will be modest, and you would get the access to the electronic check lists and so forth. Also, much of the more sophisticated--dare I use that  term?--material is in the Section publications. HIPS, for instance, published a piece in which some of the older diploids were reclassified according to modern systems. I don't know how much it would mean to you unless you knew the plants and gave a damn, but it is in there.The whole classification thing was a sticky wicket, of course, right from the beginning. The British wanted to classify everything by color, and the French had a fondness for a Vilmorin system so bizarre I can't even follow the description and I read French, but it appeared to have derived from odd presumptions about species qualities.
 
John---hi, Happy New Year---have you given any thought to putting up a Greatest Hits articles page on the AIS webpage in the interim, or as an adjunct to the Bulletins thing?
 
I was thinking about that the other day when I was reading an older BAIS and came on Hager's "Shoulders" article which I knew was famous, but I'd never read it. There must be more--like Keppel's thing on glaciatas--and the Krelage article from BAIS 2-- and, if I may be so arrogant to suggest it, my own article on Dr. Hosack's botanical garden circa 1810--- and that piece on the eyeshadow irises. There was something about plant hunting from Waddick wasn't there? You know, things that are either classic and important or speak to the garden history community's needs, or public curiosity---maybe a dozen articles. Some of Fitz Randolph's stuff maybe. There is an important one about the classification system from the mid-fifties which I just used in something I wrote. Anyway, I bet if you asked about you could come up with some more interesting titles that have something engaging or unusual or uniquely informative about them. Timeless stuff. Use that one with Ethel and the Rareits, maybe. I think it is hilarious.
 
I think this would be a good idea.  
 
AMW
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean A. Zera <zera@umich.edu>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?

 
Thanks. I've poked around the site on a number of occasions and didn't
find that even though I found where to buy back issues. It is not a
particularly intuitive website to navigate. Perhaps I will buy some
back issues, but I really don't have the space to devote to them.

Sean Z

Quoting John I Jones <j*@usjoneses.com>:

>
> On Jan 1, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Sean A. Zera wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you really feel that I need to have purchased and read every single
>> AIS bulletin before I can express an opinion about anything here?
>>
> I am sure no one means that and I do not think that is what Anner
> meant (not that she needs me to defend her).
>
>> As
>> far as I can tell, there is no index to back issues from which to pick
>> specific topics.
>>
> Actually there is an index available on the AIS website under: Iris
> Information/AIS Bulletins. Unfortunately it is not the most current
> (my fault) and I have attached the current version.
>
>
> John | "There be dragons here"
> | Annotation used by ancient cartographers
> | to indicate the edge of the known world.
>
> List owner i*@hort.net and i*@yahoogroups.com
> ________________________________________________
> USDA zone 8/9 (coastal, bay)
> Fremont, California, USA
> Director, American Iris Society
> Chairman, AIS Committee for Electronic Member Services
>
> Online Iris Checklists at: http://www.irisregister.com
>
> Subscribe to i*@hort.net by sending:
> Subscribe iris
> To: m*@hort.net
> Archives at: http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-talk/
>
> Subscribe to iris-photos at:
> http://yahoogroups.com/subscribe/iris-photos
> Archives at:http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-photos/
> ________________________________________________
>
>
> ï
>
>
>>
>> SZ
>>
>> Quoting C*@aol.com:
>>
>>>
>>> I think people here have risen to the challenge of answering your
>>> many questions as responsibly and generously as anyone might
>>> reasonably expect. How many have you thanked?
>>>
>>> And yes, I reiterate that some of the responsibility for your own
>>> education lies with you.
>>>
>>> AMW
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sean A. Zera <z*@umich.edu>
>>> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 1:46 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Spec-X?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> God forbid that anyone would try to learn something from other people
>>> on this forum, instead of earning that knowledge themselves.
>>>
>>> Quoting C*@aol.com:
>>>>
>>>> This is what I think:
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing the least bit unusual that a classification system
>>>> of anything would need to be, or benefit from,being refined over time.
>>>> Change is simply a positive response to ongoing thought, and may be
>>>> necessitated by the need to refine the system, or because that which
>>>> is being classified is changing, or because our understanding of
>>>> things changes. This is certainly not only the case of the AIS
>>>> system, it is also the case in the botanical world, rather
>>>> notoriously so.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason whatsoever that if an iris meets the criteria for
>>>> IB and also a SPEC-X then it cannot be classified as both, or either.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to think that if one seedling is classed one way
>>>> its sibling---which it may or may not resemble closely--must also be
>>>> classified the same way. They are discrete and unique botanical
>>>> entities.
>>>>
>>>> There is no good reason to reclassify things every time something
>>>> changes. People who have an interest in these issues keep up with
>>>> the changes. People who don't keep up with them but who care about
>>>> the issues need to educate themselves. Nothing in life is static,
>>>> especially information.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of the AIS classification system is to effect cogent
>>>> communication. It is an attempt by the collective to derive and
>>>> achieve concord towards an accurate descriptive vocabulary to be
>>>> used in discussions of a broad, numerous, various and ever expanding
>>>> body of unique cultivars reflecting highly personal tastes and
>>>> responses to a collective aesthetic vision which rewards
>>>> distinctiveness. It also defines what at any given time is
>>>> understood to be the ideal of a certain class, so that that ideal
>>>> may be understood and discussed, as a standard for evaluation and
>>>> comparison, and as a goal.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a compost heap, it is a quasi-casuistic dungpile. My
>>>> suggestion to anyone who seeks enlightenment here is: Read the
>>>> resources that AIS has published for you; buy or borrow the Check
>>>> Lists so you can see what they actually contain before carrying on
>>>> in an angry and paranoid manner; prioritize owning the basic
>>>> literature beyond the AIS publications and read that too; abandon
>>>> the idea that there is some boogeyman in the rainbow drama, and base
>>>> your education and opinions on verifiable facts.
>>>>
>>>> AMW
>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



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