RE: Re: SPEC-X

 

It seems fuzzy to me where a cultivar of Iris stops being a "Species X" and becomes a member of another class.  I suppose it depends on the opinion and preference of the person registering the plant more than anything.  Technically, there is almost no cultivar of the subgenus Iris (i.e. Bearded, Aril, Regalia, most Crested, etc.) that isn't an interspecies hybrid by ancestry, and if they weren't, then they could technically be a "Species Iris".  In the Beardless classes there are many more that are pure species (sometimes depending on the who's definition of each particular "species" is followed though - how many "real" biological species of Siberian or Spuria or - - - Iris are there anyway?), but even here a majority cultivars are interspecies hybrids by ancestry.  So, technically nearly all Iris we grow are "Species X" Irises.


Ignoring that, and getting a bit more realistic, I don't think individual biases should affect what is allowed in the class.  It is a very broad class that can include most plants that don't fit anywhere else.  If there were enough of them grown, it could be broken down more  (perhaps roughly by subgenus), but since it's generally such a small class, I don't mind seeing Bearded crosses (which I like) alongside Beardless (which I actually like less), or other types of crosses.

I think that the SDB X I. aphylla is a perfect example of what might be included as a "Species X", even though one parent is a member of another well-established cultivar class.  A number of other I. aphylla crosses are listed as such, and some of those really are hard to see I. aphylla in at all (others are MTB, or something else - see comment below).  'Paltec' is another good example of what fits well in the class (though if one gets picky, it could be called "just another Bearded Iris" too, depending on how broadly one defines "Bearded Iris", after-all it really only stands out as "different" to a connoisseur [also, most Crested Iris are very closely related to Bearded Iris]).  One could argue that any cross between Beardless Iris species is "just another Beardless Iris" (that's sort of how I react to them).  So, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and one can indeed pick and choose which ones he/she likes best.  What I'd like to see is something like a Bearded crossed with a Juno.  By the way - does anyone know if Junos have been crossed outside of their group?  I can't remember.

There are issues with other classes used in shows as well.  I personally think that some of them need to be redefined - probably split.  A good example is the MTB class.  Most of the older and some newer hybrids in this class are derived primarily from Iris variegata crossed with various tall bearded species (mostly I. pallida), and they tend to range in appearance from nearly pure I. variegata to I. x sambucina (the later in the botanical sense [= I. variegata X I. pallida], not the cultivar sense).  These Irises were nearly all diploid and formed a neat and distinctive class together (a few of this type were in the TB or IB class originally, based on their measurements).  However, the more recent inclusion of many tetraploid hybrids involving different species as "MTB" has changed the class to the point where it seems that any of the "traditional" cultivars rarely stand a chance in competitions.  The class is starting to "look" like TB and BB Iris with smaller flowers, and it is loosing it's identity.  I would favor a simple split of perhaps something like diploid vs. tetraploid into two different classes, so that the diploid types aren't lumped in with the tetraploid types and so that they can maintain their identity as a very distinct class.  Obviously some cultivars might not fit this well either, but not many.  There are other such cases where the trend to make everything look like a modern TB in miniature, is swamping out the unique identity of how the Iris in those other classes look.  I know that trends and fads change, and that this affects the appearance of how the new plants look over time, but I also think it is time to think about how they are classified so that some very distinctive groups of plants are not ignored as simply "old and undesirable".  The IB class has similar issues, with things that genetically are and (to me) in appearance look more like what would have been called BB in days gone by; though, IB's always did look a little more like small TB anyway.  I don't keep up with the Beardless classifications much, so I don't know what is going on there, though it does seem to me that the distinctions of the classes are getting a bit more fuzzy with all the hybridization going on.

I'm not sure if I expressed that well, and it's not that important to me anyway (I don't often show Iris), but it just makes sense to my mind.  I'm a botanist and zoologist, and prefer to classify things by how they are related (makes for more uniform and logical groupings), and not just with a ruler.  The classifications currently used to group Iris cultivars (especially Bearded) seem almost random to my mind.

Dave

To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
From: eleanore@mymts.net
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:08:39 -0600
Subject: RE: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X

 
Good job at paraphrasing, Tom.
 
It's certainly much clearer to me now.
 
Because we had such odd weather this year, at our annual CWIS iris show this past June in Winnipeg, we had a later group of iris blooming than we usually do, so it wasn't all MDB's and SDB's with very few TB's this time around.  Some of us brought species iris, 1 SPEC-X iris, plus other iris the public didn't get to see in other years.  I'm sure it was quite an eye opener for many.
 
El, Ste Anne, Manitoba, Canada Z3
 

To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
From: irises@telp.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:58:05 +0000
Subject: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X

 
Thanks for the replies! I hope a few others chime in too, as it is interesting to know how people think of the category in practice, as well as the "official" intention of it.

I'll attempt to paraphrase what I gathered so far about the intention of the class from Bob, along with El's quote from the handbook and Chuck's observation.

The SPEC-X class serves two functions: 1) to provide a category and awards system for irises involving more than one species that do not meet the requirements of any other existing class, and 2) to encourage creative use of species in breeding, especially when the resulting plants do not neatly conform to the expectations of existing classes.

When it comes to the bearded and aril irises, the existing dwarf, median, TB, aril, and arilbred classes in principle cover the whole territory. Any iris with this kind of ancestry can be placed in one of these classes, even if the fit is very awkward. Any of these could also be registered as SPEC-X.

It seems to me that the spirit of the SPEC-X class in these cases is best served if the hybridizer has used species in breeding with some other end than creating irises that conform closely to the expected qualities of the existing classes. So Chuck's aphylla hybrid makes sense as a SPEC-X, because it is not much like existing SDBs or IBs and would clash with gardeners' expectations for these two classes. On the other hand, the Hager and Craig aphylla-based MTBs are appropriately registered in the MTB class because the intention (and result) of the hybridizing effort was to produce plants that conform to the expectations of the MTB class as closely as possible.

Here's another way of articulating this, which was in my mind before I posed the question. If the primarily interest of the iris to gardeners is that it is a nice example of an existing class, it should be registered in that class. If the primary interest is that it displays unusual qualities resulting from its species ancestry, then SPEC-X is more appropriate.

I would also say, on a gut level, that the spirit of the SPEC-X category is properly served when the hybridizer has deliberately brought the species into his or her breeding program, with the species being prominent in the iris's recent ancestry. So if a plant that doesn't conform to either SDB or IB class came from crossing a modern SDB and modern TB, both of conventional breeding, then it should just be registered in whichever existing class it fits best, even if the fit isn't ideal.

One has to wonder, though, if most iris growers don't think of SPEC-X as representing first-generation interspecies crosses that are outside the bounds of all other existing classes.

--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, Robert Pries <robertpries@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> A bit of history might help. I guess it was about twenty years ago I noticed that the judges handbook had a section on judging species. But there were no awards for species so why would you judge them. Many others thought this strange also and I was able to get a movement going to provide awards. One important aspect I felt was that there should be two awards and that no iris would fall outside the awards system. It was obvous to me that better garden worthy plant existed among the species and hybrids because people had been registering special plants from the beginning of registration. Also the classes of irises have developed through time. When the text for the judges handbook describing these new classes I was not pleased. It did not reflect what I had fought so hard for, and that was that no iris would be exempt from the awards system.
>
> Sadly the judges handbook and AIS perpetuates a problem. By creating point scales they imply a formula for judging each class. I often get upset with the judges handbook because it does not explain why something is done. For example the reason more points are given in a class to a certain atribute compared to the points given in another class for the same attribute is that that character is weak in that class and the point scale is calling attention to its development.
>
> Ponder this. Why is there no section for judging Iris and not just judging a class of Iris. If one attends a dog show there are hundreds of types of dogs. The judges judge each dog by how well it meets the standard for that breed. The classes we create for iris tend to move judges towards this when judging the various classes. The have been only three irises that were not strictly tall bearded that have won the American Dykes. In Britain there are many classes that have won their Dykes medal, including the first Dykes whivh was a Cal-sibe. I suggest that there is this intrinsic difference between the judges in both countries. In England much is done with trials in the garden. I would suggest that Americans do not really know what constitutes a good garden plant but what best fits the class they are judging. I know we give llip service the Garden judging but how many gardens does one see. usually you see collections not plants integrated into a garden. Our mindset is what is the ultimate plant in its class. We ignore the problems that class may have fitting into a real garden.
>
> I was not happy with the term interspecies cross as a description of SPEC-X. When I presented the concept of species cross to the board 20 years ago I tried very hard not to use that term. Unfortunately the secretary used it in summing up the motion in the minutes but that term is not what the board voted on. The original text only implied that there was  more than one iris species in the background and not a first generation cross. The wording was not doubt changed because the original was cumbersome in that it also included the possibility of an iris and another genus, Gladiola whatever. At the time Iris dichotoma was being crossed with Belamcandra. Of course now Belamcandra is considered an iris.
>
> Perhaps it would have been better to name this the micellanious hybrid award and forget the species. Intellectually I thought I was doing the Species enthusiasts a favor by emphazing the contributions of species to hybrids. I had hoped it would encourage more people growing species if only to utilize them in crosses. Sadly i believe the more the species enthusiasts root for a first generation concept of species cross the unintended consequence will be even fewer people working with species.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "El Hutchison" <eleanore@...>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:46:36 AM
> Subject: RE: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> Paul, this is what the judges handbook has to say about SPEC-X:
>  
> "SPEC-X is the class for interspecies crosses.  These hybrids have a mix of species traits creating a new plant.  Any cross involving an iris species as one of the parents and another plant not of that species is a species cross.  Also included in SPEC-X are further hybrids from interspecies crosses.  All of the above crosses are included in the SPEC-X class.  Even when a specific class exists for an interspecies cross, the hybridizer may elect to register his/her iris as SPEC-X if he/she feels it is more "species-like" and not representative of the definition of the specific class."
>  
> It probably answers your question too, Chuck.
>  
> It also appears to me that many hybridizers are also AIS judges, Bob, but thanks for somewhat clearing up the confusion about SPEC-X.  I'm going to print off your comments and put them in my judges handbook.
>  
> El, Ste Anne (near Winnipeg), Manitoba, Canada Z3
>  
>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> From: robertpries@...
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:48:04 -0500
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom; You have asked some good questions about SPEC-X as a class. Even though I lead the campaign for this class and chaired the committee that presented it to the board, I do not believe many people have a clear understanding of this class. I am interested also in what other judges think and how they consider this class.
> I know there has been considerable grumbling among some species enthusiasts that have not been happy with the fact that two bearded crosses won the Medal. There was always an undercurrent of thought that these iris should only be first generation crosses with a species and  that if a plant should qualify for an extablished class it should not go into the SPEC-X. I strongly disagree with these thoughts because the consequences of making the class more restrictive would discourage a great deal of experimentation. One of the reasons why hybridizers bother to grow species is to bring new genes and characters into the gene pool. Presently the established classes have become more and more rigid in their expectations. For example, you can always find the ruler police out to get cultivars that exceed a size limit on one side or the other. Because of this if an SDB does not grow right around 12 inches, it has little chance of winning an award. If it tends toward one side or the other of the size scale chances are it will bloom out of class in some season and get a bad rap. Most all the bearded classes have become very formulaic when it comes to what is considered good. Plants are not judged on whether they make good garden plants, but on how well the fit the set paradigm created in each judges mind. SPEC-X is troubling to many judges because there is no paradigm and they have to think. 
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Waters" <irises@...>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:21:37 PM
> Subject: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
>  
>
>
> Thanks for the tip, Bill - I had seen the seed exchange page but got the impression it was for 2011.
>
> --- In i*@yahoogroups.com , Bill Chaney <billchaney@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > SO good to hear someone else is working with bearded species! I will let others
> > with more experience address your questions, but I wanted to point out that the
> > Median Iris Society just posted the first of the seed lots they are offering in
> > their new Seed Exchange. Several great species crosses from Cindy Rust. Check
> > it out!
> >
> > Be aware that more seed lots will be added soon, but you can order now! The MIS
> > is a great source of information and seed, and check out the other great offers
> > they have for the spring, including a chance to buy Paul Black unnamed seedlings
> > before they are named and introduced!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > http://www.medianiris.com/got-seeds.shtml
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.medianiris.com/auction.shtml
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Tom Waters <irises@>
> > To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, November 22, 2010 6:28:02 AM
> > Subject: [iris-species] SPEC-X
> >
> >
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I've been acquiring various bearded and aril species to begin hybridizing with.
> > Naturally, my thoughts are running ahead to some future time when I may have
> > seedlings to be considered for registration and distribution.
> >
> > When I was last involved in the iris world, the SPEC and SPEC-X classes and
> > there respective awards were just getting going. Now that they have been around
> > for sometime, I wonder if a consensus has developed around when it is
> > appropriate to register a hybrid as SPEC-X, as opposed to another established
> > class that it also meets the requirements for.
> >
> > My understanding is that this is entirely at the registrant's discretion, but I
> > would still like to hear everyone's thoughts. As a species enthusiast, how do
> > your expectations differ if an iris is registered as SPEC-X rather than, say,
> > MTB, AB, etc. Do you have in mind some notion of "distance from species" in
> > distinguishing SPEC-X from other classes? If you are a judge, do you view
> > award-worthiness differently for SPEC-X cultivars than for those registered in
> > the established classes?
> >
> > Although I am working with bearded and aril irises, the same questions arise
> > with respected to the beardless classes as well.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>



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