Hi Dennis,
Sorry about ignoring your elephant! It was an unintended oversight. As for Sean's about JI, I think Anner answered well, and I had also pretty much covered it in my remarks that it is often possible to register an iris in more than one class, and the hybridizer makes the decision based on where he/she thinks the iris will be best understood and appreciated. I see no problem or contradiction in any of this.
>
> But let me ask you this... if AIS can't do a better job to promote growing
> different kinds of irises to its own judges.... then what hope does AIS have
> to achieve this mission with the public at large? There's a white elephant
> in the room. ;-)
I've been sort of trying to unravel your perspectives on these questions. Alas, having been away for so long I don't know you well, except through your work on a couple of my favorite websites. :)
Is it a mission of the AIS to have people grow as many different types of irises as possible? I'm asking because I truly do not know. There's no kind of mission or goals statement on the AIS website, and in the Bulletin it just says that the sole purpose of the AIS is to promote the culture and improvement of the iris.
I noted your comments about deciding to leave AIS, and your feeling that the SIGNA website did not produce the results you had hoped for. Trying to connect the dots between the different things you've said, I'm inferring that you would really like to see lots of people trying many different types of iris from all the parts of the genus, and that you hoped to see AIS and/or SIGNA make this a reality. Is that a fair summary?
For myself, I do not see anything wrong with people being interested in particular kinds. My own interests are eclectic, but it doesn't bother me when others' are more focused.
I think an iris society succeeds when it provides *opportunity* and *information* for people who want to broaden their experience. I think AIS does this, in many cases through its sections rather than as a whole. I don't think anyone is being held back from trying PCNs, say, because of the AIS. In fact, if I had not joined AIS many years ago, I probably would not know that they existed. (Same with any number of other types).
I don't think the large number of votes for TBs vs. the small number of votes for PCNs represents a failure of some kind, and I would like to know why you do. What is the harm in having a lot of people interested in TBs, and few interested in PCNs? I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with some plants appealing to a wide cross section of growers, while others appeal to a small group of dedicated enthusiasts.
If you feel that there is something very wrong with the degree of interest people have in the different types, what would the "correct" distribution of interest be? Exactly the same number of people growing each class of iris? Everyone interested in the same irises Dennis Kramb is interested in? ;)
I do understand your frustration in trying to promote the species, and not having the effort translate into more people growing them. I experienced something similar in regards to my hybridizing interests. It has been known for decades how important developing a fertile family of tetraploid arils would be for the improvement of the arilbreds and for the creation of whole new types (such as fertile aril-pumila hybrids). Fifteen years ago, John Holden and Sam Norris had already produced a large assortment of tetraploid arils. I had hoped that by now many people would have jumped on the bandwagon and that the group would have really taken off. Alas, the opposite is true - fewer people care about them and most of the Holden/Norris tetraploids are gone for good. I wish more people had taken an interest in this, but I can't blame anyone for having their interests lie elsewhere.
It is a sobering to realize that few others share one's own special interests. But it's how it is. We can share our own enthusiasms in our personal contacts or via the web, but at the end of the day some will end up joining the cause and many others will not.
Regards, Tom
