I ask you how can anyone vote for the Dykes Medal if they are incapable of considering all types of Iris? Perhaps it needs redefinition also. I believe it is possible to judge all plants for garden Merit from Chrysanthemums to Pansies to Iris.
Here I thought I was articulating my concerns about SPEC-X clearly and
politely. It seems the definition of the class is clearly overly broad
- how can you accurately judge the merits of 'Dolce' against, say, a
chrythenica hybrid?
I favor a narrower definition simply because advanced bearded hybrids
already get most of the attention from AIS. If I understand the
current judging system, it seems that if the bearded hybridizers
become interested in SPEC-X, they will always win that medal as well.
Why not fight to broaden the definition of the TB class instead? Why
must SPEC-X be broad enough to encompass TBs?
Sean Z.
Michigan
Quoting Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>:
>
>
> I would not expect someone who does not like Tbs to see when a plant
> that could be registered as a TB is distinctly different from the
> rest of that class. Making fun of others opinions, reflects
> ignorance rather than sophistication. I might suggest That the
> SPEC-X definition be removed from SIGNAs purvue since so many in
> SIGNA do not seem to have a wide knowledge of Irises, either hybrids
> or species. And in its present form the class requires a very broad
> understanding which it seems is not something that they choose to
> gain.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Kramb" <d*@badbear.com>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:01:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you serious?!?? I just fell out of my chair laughing!
>
> How is that SPEC-X and not TB??? Wow. Just, wow.
>
> Coming soon to an AIS near you... arilbreds registered as
> Louisianas! Reticulatas registered as tall beardeds! Hahahaha...
>
> Sorry AIS folks, but your definitions & rules are incomprehensible
> to me and I've been an iris enthusiast for a while now! Y'all might
> want to consider renaming this category. Seriously, .....
>
> I'm sticking with my own definition of SPEC-X. Sorry, Dolce, but
> you're a TB.
>
> Dennis in Cincinnati
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Chuck Chapman < i*@aim.com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> DOLCE
> (Paul Black, R. 2002) Sdlg. I290C. SPEC-X, 34" (86 cm), EM
> S. and style arms pastel pink; F. pinkish ivory, narrow pale pink
> band; beards medium tangerine; small-flowered; slight spicy
> fragrance. F175BB: (Northern Jewel x 91196A: (8864B: ((Navy Waves x
> Bride's Halo) x sib) x C. Palmer aphylla sdlg.)) X B194C: (Abridged
> Version x 91135D: ((Centerfold x Wings of Dreams) x Birthday Gift)).
> Mid-America 2003. HM 2005, AM 2007, Ran-P 2009.
>
> In this cross you have aphylla as a grandparent, and even then it
> is a selected seedling. So great grandchild of a species. I would
> think there is some argument for excluding this sort of cultivar
> from SPEC-X.
>
>
>
>
>
