Well, using a species list I had a hand, lumping as you did the arils
with the beardless, I get almost the opposite effect. Approximately
15% of iris species are bearded, and 85% are beardless+aril. So yes,
they are a small fraction of the genus. Putting the arils with the
bearded bumps up bearded to 37% of the genus. Comparatively few
bearded species were hybridized to create the current garden beardeds
available, so they're overrepresented even more than they seem,
species-wise.
Sean Z.
Michigan
Quoting Tom Waters <i*@telp.com>:
> It's not at all obvious to me that the AIS or its membership are
> "biased" in favor of the bearded irises. This has been tossed out as
> though it were a simple fact, when actually I think it is very much
> a matter of subjective perspective.
>
> The fact that about half of the classes eligible for AIS are bearded
> classes has been offered as evidence of this "bias". But how so? It
> makes sense only if one has some a priori notion that the bearded
> irises are somehow a small faction of the genus. I don't know how
> one would go about quantifying such a thing.
>
> Here's one way to put the discussion in objective terms. One could
> say that an awards system is "fair" to the different types of irises
> if a new introduction has about the same chance of winning an award
> irrespective of its type.
>
> I did a quick random sample of two hundred registrations and
> introductions from 2009. I found that about 83% were bearded and
> about 17% beardless (I put arilbreds in with the beardless, but
> there were only a couple of them, so it does not much change the
> picture). In other words, there are about 5 times as many bearded
> irises being introduced into commerce each year as all others put
> together.
>
> Now consider that those bearded irises are in competition for six
> awards, and the beardless and arilbreds are in competition for seven
> awards. These means a beardless iris is about 5 times more likely
> than a bearded iris to receive an award in the current system.
>
> How can anyone claim that this state of affairs does not encourage
> the development and recognition of the beardless irises?
>
> In an earlier post, I made this same point a different way, but it
> doesn't seem to have had much effect on the discussion. Maybe this
> attempt at quantification will make it clearer.
>
> If bearded irises represent 5/6 of each year's introductions, it's a
> fair guess that they represent 5/6 of the irises acquired and grown
> by the iris growing public. Is it any wonder, then, that they
> receive the most attention in the AIS Bulletin, and that conventions
> are timed for peak TB bloom?
>
> In my view, the AIS is to be commended for promoting the beardless
> irises *in spite of* their being considerably less popular with the
> iris buying public.
>
> Any discussion of bias that does not acknowledge the large numerical
> disparity in the number of irises being bred and grown in the
> various classes is not very meaningful, in my opinion.
>
> Regards, Tom
>
>
