Greetings.
I've had a few stray thoughts...
For the record, then, since I have been a lurker here:
I have been a member of AIS and SIGNA for a number of years. I actually joined AIS in order to join SIGNA. My first Iris loves were white tectorum, which I had from Nancy Goodwin, a pseudacorus known locally as "Anner's Handsome Fellow," and my mother's 'Alcazar' (Vilmorin, 1910), which, least we forget, is a species F1 classed as a historic TB. These are righteous posies and I still grow them all.
I don't have much dirt, so my plants must be choice aesthetically, and interesting intellectually. I grow largely species and historic beardeds from before 1935. I also have a few superb modern things. I do not compete, I do not exhibit, and am active in the Society only at the national level. In addition to the science of things, I am interested in the social history of the plants within the broader context of garden history generally. I publish when my personal investigations lead me to insights I think someone else may find interesting or useful.
First, my observation is that what one grows by preference is largely a function of one's sensibility mitigated by one's circumstances. Taste often arises and evolves from exposure to various sorts of influences; but I have observed that hard core antipathy toward some sorts of irises, or any flower for that matter, or the folks who are beguiled by these, often turns out to be about something else other than gardening.
Second, I hope we won't foster a culture within SIGNA where only some sorts of Iris species are considered respectable for a species Iris fancier to fancy. More to the point, I'd think it very unfortunate, indeed, for the bearded species to become marginalized or villanized because they happen to have been used in hybridizing irises in which we have no interest. We are very far from knowing all we need to know about these species, especially the Eupogons. We don't begin to understand the so called natural germanicas.
Quite aside from any other consideration, in nature and in science all these categories the names of which we toss about, these lines we draw and teams we join, are not so clearly cut, so rigid, so inflexible. The Genus is a still-evolving organic whole, and we must study it holistically. For instance, studies at Kew suggest the Junos, than which few things are stranger, are actually more closely related to the bearded irises than to the bulbous species of the reticulata and xiphium groups.
Third, if there is some sort of problem with the definition of SPEC-X as recorded in the AIS Board Meeting Minutes, then take the matter back to the AIS Board and tell them it needs to be clarified because, while you have tried to live with what was recorded, nonsenses are happening, and the people most interested in this general category are rejecting it. That example of 'Dolce' is pretty convincing.
Fourth, say what you will about the AIS, when something really interesting has happened in the world of species crosses in the past decade or so, it has been featured prominently in the Bulletin. Those photos of the Eyeshadow irises created a whirlwind of interest among all sorts of irisarians. When it is highly distinctive, very beautiful, and gets some exposure, the mainstream gets interested. There will always be people who refuse to grow anything but the latest and most expensive TB, although I'd expect them to be fewer by the year, but that, too, is often about something other than flowers. People grow what they know, and they buy what they see in bloom, and they swap stuff around, and they either like to compete in shows or they don't, and they get to do what they want in their gardens and they educate themselves about the plants only to the degree that educating themselves about anything is part of their approach to life. I don't think most AIS members are actively hostile to the notion of species at all. But they are accustomed to getting a lot of visual bang for their buck, and that is a fact.
Fifth, some knowledgeable persons might agree that the AIS Classification System, especially as it is involved in the Awards program, might need to be reexamined. We have learned more since 'The World of Irises' was published. However, it is important to recall that the current taxonomy was conceived by two professional scientists of the very first international importance. I am not a botanist, but I am also not an idiot, and I have read the recent books. I have not encountered any suggested classification that does not present at least as many problems as the one published in 'The World of Irises.'
Sixth. I don't care for all this talk of 'elites.' In my opinion, we are all bozos on this bus.
Cordially,
AMW
Richmond, VA USA
