So it was never the primary purpose of SPEC-X to allow hybrids outside
existing classes that were previously ineligible to win anything? Its
purpose was to allow hybridizers of existing classes to escape the
ever-narrower definition of their own class? If this is true, then I
suppose I agree that 'Dolce' belongs there (though I still don't see
what aphylla characteristics it shows). However, it would also
reinforce my impression that AIS could care less about *all* irises,
and in turn my opinion that I would not be welcome there. I retract my
opinion of SPEC-X, as I'm clearly not qualified to give one.
Sean Z.
Quoting Ken Walkup <k*@cornell.edu>:
> 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. Itâs 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 reasons for choosing to go with the species-x
> class.
> Ken
>
> From: i*@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:i*@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean A. Zera
> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 12:36 PM
> To: i*@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<mailto:robertpries%40embarqmail.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<mailto:dkramb%40badbear.com>>
>> To: i*@yahoogroups.com<mailto:iris-species%40yahoogroups.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<mailto:irischapman%40aim.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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
