Re: Re: bias?

---

Hi Sean.

I'm afraid I don't see how a numerical count of species tells us much about where awards are needed or appropriate for horticultural varieties.

Categories for registration and awards of garden irises do not exist in some abstract botanical world; they exist because they are (in intention, at least) a way for the gardening public to sort through the many varieties in commerce and get a sense of (1) what its basic characteristics are as a garden plant, and (2) how well regarded it is by trained iris judges.

The more of a given type there are, the greater is the need for a process of discrimination among them. With hundreds of TBs being introduced each year and destined for places in many thousands of gardens around the world, there is clear value in making the effort to identify the best ones and to distinguish them clearly from, say, BBs, which have quite a different role in one's garden. At the other extreme, there would be little value in say, a three-tiered award system for I. unguicularis cultivars. I think a new one of these is introduced into commerce perhaps every decade or two on average, and they are found in the gardens of a small handful of iris cognoscenti.

Somewhere in between these extremes is a cross-over point where there is enough need for a separate class and award system to make it meaningful and viable. It's really up to the enthusiasts for a particular type of iris to popularize the type and generate demand for new varieties. If the demand is there, hybridizers will respond, and eventually it will become clear that a new awards category is needed. This has happened a number of times since the formation of the AIS, as you can see by looking at the history of each award on the Iris Encyclopedia, for example. As my last post explains, the fact that the beardless categories are less competitive indicates that the AIS has had a strong willingness to support these categories.

I've been around the iris world for 30+ years, and I've met many judges. I've heard stories of judges who refuse to vote for non-TBs for Dykes Medal, but I've never actually met one. Most of the judges I have known would very much like to see a non-TB win this award, but (except for medians), there is no other category that is grown by enough judges to give it a chance. Most judges grow non-TB irises, but *which* ones they grow tends to be a very regional thing. Here in New Mexico, you can find arilbreds but not many Japanese, Siberians, Louisianas, or PCNs. So if an excellent Siberian is in competition for the Dykes, it simply will not get many votes from this region of the country. This is not because the judges are biased--rather the opposite: they are being ethical in not voting for an iris they have not grown or seen growing over a number of years in another garden.

Regards, Tom

--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, "Sean A. Zera" <zera@...> wrote:
>
> 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 <irises@...>:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>