Your statement is not true. These are not inconsistant goals. Just because you do not wish tall-bearded species to participate does not help any others to do so. There is plenty of room to allow hybrids that fall outside of the system and could not be included and hybrids that those that could fall in the system but are not consistant with their class. If you apply your logic of exclusiuon then the pseudacorus/ensata crosses should be registered as Japanese Iris and the SinoSiberians should be registered as siberians and second generation crosses such as Tony Huber's biversatas should then not be allowed because they only have species as grandparents. Be careful what you wish for.
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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
