Re: SPEC-X
- Subject: Re: SPEC-X
- From: R* B* <r*@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:51:05 -0800 (PST)
|
Hi all, Any official definition of SPEC-X will be in the Judges Handbook, which I don't have. I looked to see what was in back SIGNAs. The
best long definition I found was this from #59 page 3096, fall 97 from a article on Judging Species. (This was shortly after the SIGNA medals were approved but before any were awarded. ): SPEC-X is the class for inter-species crosses. These
hybrids have a mix of species traits creating a new plant. Any cross involving
an iris species as one of the parents and another plant not of that species is a species cross. Also included in SPEC-X are further hybrids from
interspecies crosses. All of the above crosses are included in the SPEC-X class. Even when a
specific class exists for an interspecies cross, the hybridizer may elect to
register his/her iris as SPEC-X if he/she feels it is more
"species-like" and not representative of the definition of the specific class. So Ken is correct and it's important to note that it's the hybridizer that decides in which class an iris is registered. There is also a detailed discussion in #65 p3348, Fall 2000 (after the first medals were awarded) by Bob Pries. (Bob was instrumental in getting the awards established.) His short definition is: "SPEC-X refers to a plant with more than one species in it's background". As Ken correctly states, it was intentionally vague and would include most of the irises from the major classes except
species and JIs. There has already been controversy that some of the winners were too far removed from species. The thinking was that hybridizers were hedging their bets by registering their irises as SPEC-X if the form wasn't modern enough to cut it in the other class that they would fit. Rodney
From: "ChatOWhitehall@aol.com" <ChatOWhitehall@aol.com> To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X Yes, that is more or less the general drift of what I imperfectly recall as well. But I thought it might be useful to know the wording of the official definition. Is someone able to offer a citation, please?
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Walker <kenww@astound.net> To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 10:56 am Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X As I recall, those who worked to create
the category (I don't remember exactly who now) intended it to be
a broad category for hybrid iris that did not fit well into other
categories. This includes those that might be placed in another
category but did not meet modern expectations despite being judged
worthy of introduction by the hybridizer.
Ken On 1/9/2014 8:18 PM, Sean Zera wrote:
|
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SPEC-X
- From: C*
- Re: SPEC-X
- References:
- SPEC-X
- From: D* K* &*
- Re: SPEC-X
- From: C*
- Re: SPEC-X
- From: S* Z* &*
- Re: SPEC-X
- From: K* W* &*
- Re: SPEC-X
- From: C*
- SPEC-X
- Prev by Date: Re: SPEC-X
- Next by Date: Re: SPEC-X
- Previous by thread: Re: SPEC-X
- Next by thread: Re: SPEC-X