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

RE: Re: SPEC-X

 

Dear iris people,

 It was my impression that the species-x category was created to give the hybridizers the most flexibility in choosing how their creation should be considered, in reference to the awards system. I donât think a lot about the awards, like some others, and Iâm OK with the looseness and lack of exactitude here. ÂItâs either that or add about 20 more awards. Iâm inclined to give a hybridizer like Paul Black, whom I donât know, the benefit of the doubt and assume he had his Âreasons for choosing to go with the species-x class.Â

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Ken

 

From: iris-species@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-species@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean A. Zera
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 12:36 PM
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X

 

 

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.
>
>
>
>
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to: i*@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional, i*@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest • i*@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.

__,_._,___
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index