I thought I had seen mention of that somewhere. Access to electronic
back issues might tip my interest in favor of joining AIS. I said a
while back that I'd be willing to scan the SIGNA bulletins. I've been
procrastinating, but I think I finally figured out how to do it right.
Sean Z
Quoting C*@aol.com:
>
> 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 <z*@umich.edu>
> To: i*@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
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
