Tom, you accused those of us claiming a bearded bias of making an
argument based on an "a priori notion that the bearded irises are
somehow a small faction of the genus." My point was that clearly they
*are* a small faction, from a species enthusiast viewpoint. This is
reality, not a priori, and you did ask the question. Indeed it's
surely not the best way to break down horticultural awards, nor did I
claim it was. You've got to admit, however, that for an organization
that claims to promote all iris, it's pretty biased for hybrids
derived from half a dozen or so species to take most of the awards
when the genus offers 300+ to work with. It's not intentional, but
it's there.
Sean Z.
Michigan
Quoting Tom Waters <i*@telp.com>:
> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
