I should say that I have no opinion regarding 'Dolce' (or 'Alpha Gnu' for that matter) regarding the appropriateness of its registration as SPEC-X or its being awarded the medal. I haven't had an iris garden for a number of years, so I have not grown it or seen it.
However, I do strongly agree with Bob that if this category is to exist at all, no type of iris species should be excluded from it. To do so would imply that there is no place for the use of species in breeding the excluded types. I think some people imagine that the bearded irises are somehow "finished" and that nothing remains but to intercross advanced-generation garden hybrids. This is decidedly untrue; there is a wealth of genetic material from the many bearded species that is largely still untapped.
The option of registering a bearded iris as SPEC-X highlights this fact and helps educate the gardening public to the fact that an unusual breeding approach was involved, and that they may have to check their expectations at the door to understand and appreciate the iris in question. I think this is quite consistent with what the SPEC-X registration does for a wide cross between beardless irises.
If it were limited to types of irises that do not already have an awards category, it would become simply a "miscellaneous" category, rather than one that encourages the use of species in breeding and educates the public about the potential of such work.
I might also point out that it is not unprecedented to have an iris meet the requirements for more than one class. Every MTB also meets the requirements of the BB class, and could be registered as such. The hybridizer makes the decision based on how he or she wants the iris to be regarded; its a matter of establishing appropriate expectations. It's also possible to register an arilbred in one of the bearded classes, if the breeder feels that constitutes a better fit.
Tom
--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, Robert Pries <robertpries@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean A. Zera" <zera@...>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 11:40:52 AM
> Subject: RE: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> 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 < krw25@... >:
>
> > 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 donâ??t think a lot about the awards, like some others, and
> > Iâ??m OK with the looseness and lack of exactitude here. Itâ??s either
> > that or add about 20 more awards. Iâ??m inclined to give a hybridizer
> > like Paul Black, whom I donâ??t 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
> > < robertpries@... <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" < dkramb@... <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 <
> >> irischapman@... <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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
