> I do not think whether or not these irises could compete for garden awards is
> as important as recording the names and descriptions into our databases.
> It would be nice to include them as much as possible into our systems so the
> AIS could lay claim to ALL irises as plants of interest.
Absolutely. It seems important to the success of the AIS mission to
promote ALL irises. The bulbous species comprise something like 20% of
the genus, and certainly SIGNA members show a strong interest in them.
> Indeed there is no agreement with the KAVB and AIS to not use
> the same cultivar names for both types of Iris. And there are TBs that have
> the same name as Dutch irises.
An example being 'Bronze Beauty', which on top of that was an aril
hybrid as well. Both registration authorities, tasked with keeping the
names straight, must keep track of all introductions across the genus,
not just registrations. Registration is merely a formality, not a
requirement for a cultivar name to be valid.
Apparently KAVB also has authority over Belamcanda. An IB and a
candy-lily, both introduced in 2003, share the name 'Sangria' - I
suppose AIS can fix that now that the latter is considered pure Iris.
Sean Z
