Re: SPEC-X

 

As for the IRISwiki, you wrote

There is a lot of grumbling about the Wiki, too, you know, chiefly about the perception of cumbersomeness, the lack of authoritativeness, the abundance of apparently dubious material, the navigational oddities, the gaucherie of the interface, &c.

I was using it to look at all the seed parents of the LA seeds on this year's seed list.  I have spent many hours on it, since the seed list was posted  And on the SIGNA list describing all the species.  Those lists are great tools.  I have posted links to them on the adenium discussion group, as examples of how wonderful such a list is.  Every time I do, I have written to the aril group thanking them for such a useful and fun tool,  I have never said so on this group, partly because I'm newer here than on the aril group.
The wiki is more cumbersome than the aril checklist, but I attribute that to the aril list covering 100's of varieties, while the wiki covers 1,000's.
So thanks again to all who have worked on any of these web sites.  They are marvels that the pioneer breeders never even dreamed of, nor did we until just a few years ago.
One question, is it possible to download the SIGNA species information, and/or the IRISwiki?  I have the aril checklist on my home computer and use it often.  But I have to go to the library to use the SIGNA site and the wiki.  Put them on a flash drive and I'd buy it.
Walter


On Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:01 AM, "ChatOWhitehall@aol.com" <ChatOWhitehall@aol.com> wrote:
 
Well, I think this is not a very well-considered assessment, and as one of the contributors to the AIS webpage--I've written several essays on organizational history and have promised another, not to mention reprints of some articles on Iris history--I note your dismissal of much hard work by my colleagues.
 
I wonder what your reaction would be if someone here made an assessment of your project along these same lines. There is a lot of grumbling about the Wiki, too, you know, chiefly about the perception of cumbersomeness, the lack of authoritativeness, the abundance of apparently dubious material, the navigational oddities, the gaucherie of the interface, &c. How might you and your workers feel to read that? Would you dismiss it as the raving of those with no vision, with personal agendas, with incomplete comprehension of the challenges met and overcome?  Surely all these online pages are in continual development so that their strength lies in their great potential for refinement and improvement? What is so often wanted is constructive criticism, and praise.  
 
As for peer review--so called--to my knowledge that process is not a factor in AIS publications generally in any medium.  My understanding --which may or may not still be accurate--has been that such review as may be deemed necessary to determine the soundness of a contribution is arranged quietly by the Editor of the publication who has enjoyed the discretion to assess the merit of what is published, and who is held responsible for the soundness of everything appearing under his or her name.
 
I publish on seminal subjects, so you might expect some questions to arise, although I try to write to head off problems. Had a nice complementary note about my article on the planthunter Thomas Hogg not long ago-- with a question. I'd tossed a morsel in the text which I thought someone might find piquant, and, sure enough, the Arnold Arboretum picked up on it and bustled on over for a citation. They had found the article on the AIS webpage, you see. 
 
Few things are perfect, but people do try to make things worthwhile. It is not to be expected that everything in these Society efforts will please us. I personally could say many nasty things about the aesthetic redesign of the AIS Home page, which I deplore, but other people think it looks just lovely. And so it goes.
 
I think that the AIS classes as currently promulgated can only be made so comprehensible. From the beginning, the rhetoric surrounding them has been remarkably cumbersome and ineffective. Everyone knows this. What we need is more geniuses to figure out a better approach.
 
Anent the SPEC-X definition: Do we like this? Does it work for us? Is it written in stone, or  might it be revisited in light of changes of perception as to what is considered appropriate? Or do people here--AIS judges, for instance--think it works fine.
 
There is a body of thought, you know--particularly strong in the AIS--that in these sots of situations codified ambiguity makes for longtime flexibility and superior utility.  I think that is nonsense, myself, but, as I say, so it goes.
 
Cordially,
 
AMW  
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X

 
I have never been happy with the AIS website's description of Iris classes. It has been too much work to change it. Most people find the AIS website as rather difficult and incomprehensible. There is so much I wish were improved there I just do not even try. Essentially the website is the work of one or two individuals and never has had much peer review. In the past just getting the correct phone numbers and contact information has been a challenge.
From: "Sean Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:18:03 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X

 
I'm curious to know that as well. Various AIS sources seem to indicate that it covers any iris hybrid, technically encompassing all the other AIS classes except Species (and Japanese, since they're one species). I was unable to quickly figure out whether there is one official name for the class outside the abbreviation SPEC-X. It is referred to as Species Hybrid, Interspecies and Inter-species on the AIS website. It is not mentioned at all on the Classifications page there. Interspecies is used on AIS ballots. The AIS wiki mentions Species Cross and Species Hybrid.

Sean Z


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:24 PM, <C*@aol.com> wrote:
 
Someone remind me, please: What is the official SIGNA definition of a SPEC-X?
AMW
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kramb <d*@badbear.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 9, 2014 11:41 am
Subject: [iris-species] SPEC-X

 
I added a new section to the SIGNA web page for Spec-X irises.  Please take a look & then let me know if you have any material you can contribute.  I need photos for the gallery. & names of other websites/nurseries that have good Spec-X related stuff (like Tomas Tamberg's site).  Also let me know if I made any mistakes in my explanation of Spec-Xes!

http://www.signa.org/index.pl?SpecX

It's all "under construction" so please excuse broken links & broken photos as you browse.

By the way, if you want to see an insanely cool new Spec-X check out this Cal-Sib on Cascadia Iris Garden's website.  I about fell out of my chair!  (The red one on the lower right.)  I hope they give me permission to use the photo on SIGNA.  :-)

http://www.cascadiairisgardens.com/laevigata.asp

Thanks,
Dennis in Cincinnati





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