Hi Sean,
I think this is a very legitimate and important concern. When the Aril Society and AIS first created the C. G. White award for arilbreds, the near-TB arilbreds overwhelmed the more aril-like plants that the award was intended to recognize. Some people blamed the judges, but I see it as a numerical thing: huge numbers of people were growing the TB-like "Mohrs" and very few were yet willing to try the half-aril types that White had pioneered.
The problem was addressed by tightening the requirements for the C. G. White Award to irises of at least half aril content with clear aril traits, and creating a new award, the William Mohr, for irises between 1/4 and 1/2 aril (even this was more restrictive than the original C. G. White Award, which allowed 1/8 arils).
I don't know what will happen with SPEC-X. It may face a similar problem. The complication here is how one would "tighten" the requirements without eliminating other irises that really have no other home than SPEC-X. For example, if we require one species parent, or two species grandparents, or some such, then what happens to F3 beardless species crosses?
On the downside --
* TBs, SDBs, and some of the other bearded classes are so widely grown that any of these introduced by a popular hybridizer as SPEC-X are sure to be widely grown and could easily overwhelm SPEC-X cultivars of other types
* As long as SPEC-X is less competitive than TB or SDB (i. e., the foreseeable future), there will be a temptation to exploit the class to attract attention to irises that might otherwise not receive it.
On the upside --
* Judges and iris lovers are not complete idiots, despite our occasional lapses. If I were to cross 'Gypsy Lord' with 'Tom Johnson' and introduce the seedlings as SPEC-X, I don't think the result would be a handful of Randolph-Perry Awards, but more likely disdain and ridicule all around.
* Bearded iris hybridizers, for the most part, are not interested in species or in breeding things that people will associate with species. A TB or SDB AM is more meaningful and valuable to these breeders than a SPEC-X AM would be.
* A precedent has been established for SPEC-X as the "natural territory" for inter-series or inter-species beardless hybrids. The discomfort with 'Dolce' winning the R-P Award is a legitimate _expression_ of this intuitive sense of what the class is most naturally focused upon. There will be push-back if bearded irises that fit comfortably into existing classes start to crowd in on this class.
I confess I was not entirely naive in launching this discussion. I figured 'Dolce' would come up, and so would the whole bearded/beardless schism. Although I have expressed my agreement with Bob's understanding of the *definition* of the class, I think the question of what judges should applaud when looking at this class remains an open question. The conversation we've been having here is important in that context. I think in time we will come to a more shared understanding of what SPEC-X cultivars deserve our highest recognition and encouragement. I see the R-P Award for 'Dolce' as a boundary-testing event that will help build a future consensus.
Regards, Tom
--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, "Sean A. Zera" <zera@...> wrote:
>
> 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 <robertpries@...>:
>
> >
> >
> > 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" <zera@...>
> > 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 < robertpries@... >:
> >
> >> 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" < zera@... >
> >> 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 < robertpries@... >:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
