Greetings.
Some thoughts:
I suppose everyone knows, but perhaps not, each AIS category, such as BB and MTB, has standards unique to itself and these were the subject of much debate when the categories were established, which was all related to the assumption of the role of ICRA by the AIS.
Bloom season matters, but the determinative factor is proportion, that is, the relation of the several parts to the whole. When you look at the exemplars, the living epitomes of the categories as they were developed, 'Pewee' for MTB, 'Jungle Shadows' for BB,and so forth, you can observe the attention to matters of proportion. The MTB, for instance, of whatever parentage, must have stems of a certain quality to meet the category. Now, are these categories too rigid? I am not qualified to say, although it seems to me there must be fixed points of reference in order to even discuss the matter. I think there is a good deal of longstanding discontent among the fanciers of the categories shorter than IB. I am just happy they did not call the SDBs Lilliputs, myself, and it was close.
I honor the correctness of the proportions in the categories with which I am most familiar, but I have always, from my first days reading about irises, found the fact that the AIS also describes the bearded species in terms of these categories in TWOI wholly unnecessary. I think it must just have been a bad solution to an intractable problem in data presentation. I'd like to see the AISdo another book, but I don't think it has it in it right now. I don't care for TWOI because it limits the story of the garden irises in large measure to the story of the hybridizers, and it is much richer if one talks about the plant hunters, the nurserymen, and others. I got interested in Max Leichtlin when I was recuperating from surgery. My friend Dorothy sent me Mathew's book on bulbous plants of Turkey and I lay in bed stoned out of my mind on painkillers reading about the planthunters in that area, and it was a revelation.
The modern TB at its best is a magnificent thing. I sometimes include a photo or two of some of the more amazing ones when I do a presentation on historics, particularly if I think the audience is likely to be inclined to think they are special because just because they like old plants best. The sound of intaken breath is often audible. Gasps of delight. Behold, I say, the gene pool of the rainbow goddess; dig it! There really is nothing to surpass them for color, texture, variety, beauty, and fragrance, with the possible exception of the modern F1 pansy. Not everyone's cup of tea, sure, but that does not make them a bad thing.
I don't know who these horticulturists and gardeners we are talking about are. The gardeners I know are all remarkably individualistic.
I don't like the notion of elites. I did not care for it when there was all that talk about "connoisseur" plants, either, and I think the notion of the celebrity nurseyman has long since left the building. I could be wrong about that because I don't watch TV. But the hard core gardeners I know are all swapping and propagating again, because no one has any money.
But I don't have any problem with being identified as a specialist within an area of inherently less popular appeal. That, I think, is where we as fanciers of Iris species probably fall, and it is in that sort of context which our newly developed cultivars will arise and probably find their greatest appreciation. I think all this talk about SPEC-X winning the Dykes or being denied it because of one factor or another is nonsense. Get some folks working in the class and the distinguished stuff will announce itself in time assuming some is produced, just as it always has.
But there is something in the notion of SPEC-X, understood as a planned hybrid of natural species, of trying to have it both ways.
Cordially,
AMW
Richmond VA USA
Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 27, 2010 8:33 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
Sean; You pose a good question. It has two parts. First part is why it is not judged against the Tbs. The question is not really that it is being judged against other TBs because as a SPEC-X it is when it wins the Medal and competes for the Dykes. The real question is whether it is judged as a TB. Then one has to look at what is the paradigm of a TB. Many of the Median people will tell you that a plant of a certain geight should have a certain size flower to be in proportion.and a certian branching structure. They will adamantly condemn a MDB that has what they consider too big a flower and have an expectation That flower size should increase on SDBs and more on IBs and BBs but a BB should be a smaller flower size than a TB, because it is shorter. This model is violated by the MTBs which have smaller flower sizes than the IBs and BBs but have the same range in height. But the added bra nching of the MTBs restores the balance of flower to Plant. Dolce is a small flowered tall. It has more branching and although it may not be all the way developed to perfection for this new class it is somewhat in balance. But this picture is different than what people accept as TBs. A great many judges find it easy to judge because they have a view in their mind of what the ideal TB or SDB, or Siberian should be. They have a revipe to follow. But this type of judging does not allow for innovation away from that model. This is what the SPEC-X class promotes. It is easy to develop a point scale for a class that has a well defined model but point scales for Species and Species crosses are very vague because they must cover all types of Iris.
The second part of your question also needs rephrasing. Although a Chrythenica and Dolce could appear on the ballot for SPEC-X as competitors you do not judge them really against each other but by their relative value as a garden plant. I expect the Judges Handbook to have a large rewrite in the future. I would very much like to see a section devoted to how does one judge a garden plant and not have a point scale as a crutch. The fact that Chrythenica and Dolce appear in the SPEC-X class actually has more to say about their innovations and is a challenge to judges to think about new directions. Since there are so few plants in this class most wind up with the Randolph-Perry Medal so it is not as if bearded species are crowding out the beardless. The lack of generosity to include both astounds me because it so weakons the interests of the beardless enthusiasts also.
Through the years many iris people have learned to appreciate the diversity of the genus by the exposure that AIS gives all the groups. Most people start out as TB enthusiasts but often become species enthusiasts also. I am one of the exceptions that started looking for Species and grew to accept the TBs. I find it quite rediculous Tha I should have to defend the TBs against species descrimination. I assume it is a backlash from the percieved opposite descrimination. But either way it is not a pretty picture.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean A. Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 1:18:08 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
Well, I don't believe *I* could judge the Dykes, because I completely
lack knowledge of, for example, spuria hybrids, but I get the
impression that many of the people that *do* judge it probably aren't
qualified for the same reason. Judging across very different groups of
irises is always going to be difficult, but the current rules really
are just insulting to the less popular classes.
I didn't make the point of my chrythenica example clear, though. Why
is it a better idea to judge 'Dolce' against a chrythenica than
against other TBs? If 'Dolce' can't be judged against TB's because
it's "too primitive," then how could a previous SPEC-X winner like
'Enfant Prodige', which looks basically wild-type, compete against
something as comparatively advanced as 'Dolce'?
Nobody has yet explained to me why 'Dolce' is disqualified as a TB.
This might make a lot more sense to me if I understood that, and I
can't learn if I d on't ask.
Sean Z.
Michigan
