This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

SV: SPEC-X

 

Hi Chuck you should introduce it!! An ever bloomer wow â I would love to cross it into my Aril hybrids.

 

Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

 

Lars HÃpfner

Langengen 38, Svogerslev

4000Â Roskilde

Denmark

 

Fra: iris-species@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-species@yahoogroups.com] PÃ vegne af Chuck Chapman
Sendt: 23. november 2010 16:26
Til: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X

 

 

Why not  for plants that  don't fit other classes that has has a species for one parent (or both)  ?

I have a seedling, that is a cross of an SDB  x  aphylla. This seedling has flowers that are typical aphylla,  flower stalks are 12-17" tall. It  has 8-12 flowers per stalk, blooms for about 4-5 weeks per stalk, and is a rebloomer, near everbloomer. 

I've been encouraged to introduce it.

So if I can't put it in Spec-X , where would it go?   As SDB it is often too tall, as IB is often too short, and flower shape  would  make it unsutable for either?  And it isn't a species  as it isn't pure blood.


Any suggestions as to how to classify it, if not Spec-X

Chuck Chapman

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:05 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] SPEC-X

 

to me, SPEC-X should be reserved for unusual or wide crosses.  if you cross brevicaulis x fulva, that's an LA not a SPEC-X.  but if you cross prismatica x chrysographes, well then you've got something unusual on your hands.

i get annoyed when i see SPEC-X applied to unimpressive crosses... especially bearded irises.  to me, "true" SPEC-X have a wow factor that you don't find in the other classes.  Paltec is a great example, or Little Caillet, or the eyeshadow irises.

Dennis in Cincinnati

JPEG image

JPEG image

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