Very well then... first, good luck with the surgery; second, leaving
all other questions aside, I think I can crystallize my concerns about
SPEC-X down to one question:
If SPEC-X becomes popular with advanced bearded enthusiasts who'd like
to inject some species qualities into their hybrids*, what's to stop
the medal from becoming a TB- or bearded-only award like the Dykes? It
seems likely that those same judges that only judge TBs may grow them
because they're TB-like, to the exclusion of wild-type or obscure
crosses.
*which I do indeed think is a good thing to promote
Sean Z.
Quoting Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>:
>
>
> Sean; Anyone is allowed to disagree. I have missed a few of your
> posts as this debate has continued over the last couple of days
> because I am not at the computer constantly and My wife has been
> rushing me off it every time i get on. I am having surgery in a few
> days and she is trying to get me to get all i need done before that
> happens. I am sure many of my posts have been poor because i am
> trying to answer so quickly and without much thought. I apologize
> for anything I should have responded to and did not. I enjoy healthy
> debates. I used to be in a debate club and I can tell you trying to
> defend is always harder than criticizing. I do not know how the
> surgery will turn out and I hope you are around in the future to
> carry on, no matter what happens.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean A. Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:31:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
> On the contrary, I do understand your point, I just disagree with it,
> and not even with most of it. The only thing I'm upset about is that
> you basically dismissed my argument out of hand, without even
> answering most of the questions I've asked trying to clarify my
> concerns. You also accused SIGNA members as a group as being
> narrow-minded, then threatened to take away our ability to influence
> the definition of SPEC-X, merely because some of us disagree.
>
> As I said before, though, I retract any opinion I might have about
> SPEC-X, or anything having to do with AIS, as it appears I'm not
> knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm not a member of AIS, I have
> flowered precisely 7 of my own hybrids, and I certainly haven't done a
> thing to improve or promote SIGNA or AIS. As you point out, I'm
> probably one of the youngest members of SIGNA, so I will politely
> defer to the people who actually know what they're talking about.
>
> Sean Z.
>
> Quoting Robert Pries < r*@embarqmail.com >:
>
>> I apologize for upsetting you and Dennis. I had been promoting and
>> working for species for twenty years before you an Dennis came on
>> board. I actually believe I made considerable progress for helping
>> the species cause and I really do not wish to fight about one or two
>> irises that have upset your mindset. AIS will be reviewing the
>> awards system and if you think you can do better than Ben Hager,
>> Currier McEwen and myself did in constructing awards criteria for
>> species than have at it. We tried to construct something that was
>> fair, complete, and viable. Change in AIS is slow but not
>> impossible. If you feel strongly that you can construct something
>> that is fair , complete and viable then offer it up. B y the way
>> Japenese Iris are descended from a single species and are not SPEC-X
>> except for the couple of pseudacorus crosses that were registered as
>> JIs. No one cared when that happened except me. But I would think
>> those are the type of crosses you claim to be defending. Now I am
>> tired of this debate since I no longer seem to understand what you
>> are saying and you do not seem to understand my point so there does
>> not seem to be a way for us to learn from each other. I am old and
>> you will carry on and I am sure prevail in time. But please believe
>> me that I love species as much or maybe more, who knows, than you.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sean A. Zera" < z*@umich.edu >
>> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 8:26:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re: SPEC-X
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with your assessment of my logic, but okay, by your logic
>> *any* iris hybrid from any existing class should be eligible for
>> SPEC-X as long as it can trace its ancestry on paper to a pure
>> species, no matter how far back. Just so we're not being arbitrarily
>> exclusionary, why not allow advanced JI to enter SPEC, since they're
>> pure Iris ensata?
>>
>> Sean Z.
>>
>> Quoting Robert Pries < r*@embarqmail.com >:
>>
>>> 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" < z*@umich.edu >
>>> 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 < 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
