RE: SPEC-X
- Subject: RE: SPEC-X
- From: &* R* W* <k*@cornell.edu>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:10:41 +0000
|
Ken, Sean, and all, I recall that this was intentionally left a little vague to allow flexibility. To amplify what Ken said, a hybridizer might categorize an iris as spec-x because
it might attract more attention in that category, compared with another category which it might also be eligible for. For example, I believe the Schaefer/Sacks iris “Floating Candles” was listed as spec-x for this reason, even though it could also have been
listed as a Siberian hybrid. (It’s sanguiea x sibirica or the recip.) It’s a lovely little species-looking thing which doesn’t resemble modern Siberians very much. Ken From: iris-species@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-species@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Walker 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.
|
- 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* &*
- SPEC-X
- Prev by Date: Re: SPEC-X
- Next by Date: Re: SPEC-X
- Previous by thread: SV: SPEC-X
- Next by thread: Re: SPEC-X