Thanks, Anita.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Moran <avmoran1@earthlink.net>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 1:07 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X
I think one parent needs to be a species or hybrid of that species i.e. RH (Regelia Hybrids)
I think the generational acpect would depend on the offspring.
A
-----Original Message-----
From: C*@aol.com
Sent: Jan 24, 2014 10:29 AM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X
So, you are saying that you think SPEC-X should be used for the cross of two --different?--species, or a cross of one species and something else the offspring of which does not fit the physical definition of any of the AIS classes. Correct?
How many generations from the original cross where one parent is a species and the other parent isn't is it reasonable to use the term?. Suppose subsequent hybrid generations derived from the cross involve modern hybrid material?
And while we are making sure everyone's hard work is well understood and appreciated, please note that the AIS Iris Register is not incomplete-- as in faulty-- it is just not yet completed.
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Moran <a*@earthlink.net>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 8:23 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X
Hi All
I have to defend the Wiki big time as well. I make ALOT!!!! of presentations every year and the Wiki has been instrumental in getting the latest and greatest information. The docents have been exhausting in the review of the material removing any questionable entries as they find it and notifying the donor of that material.
I do the website for Region 4 and use links excessively to the wiki as an informative tool there is NOTHING! like it available. Even the on line Iris reqester is not as complete or as useful as the Wiki. Those problems are few and far between and all are correctable as the docents work to improve the site which included a HUGE! movement of all the information to another server, not a light task.
I also want to thank all who have worked so hard on the wiki to give us this resource.
Back to the SPEC-X discussion. I have several seedlings remaining (did not end in compost) that are from Iris lutescens X Chanted. Even though I have always thought of them as SPEC-X they are all too close to MDB and SDB peramiters that those that make the final cut will be registered in that class. I believe that SPEC-X should be reserved to those wide crosses that produce seedlings that have no distinct connection. The cross above can essentially be just a species MDB X registered SDB. I think had this been Iris lutescens X Iris pallida I might think those as SPEC-X and register them as such no matter the class they resemble.
my 2 cents
:)
Anita
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Pickett
Sent: Jan 23, 2014 9:04 PM
To: "i*@yahoogroups.com"
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 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, "C*@aol.com" <C*@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 <r*@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <i*@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.
Anita Moran
Pilmore Gardens
USDA 6B
Maryland
FSKIS, AIS, ASI
Anita Moran
Pilmore Gardens
USDA 6B
Maryland
FSKIS, AIS, ASI
