I do not have much time and will have to leave soon for my preop
comsultation so if I do not get around to responding the rest of today it will
not be because I am ignoring anyone. The my goal for the SPEC-X award was to
expand opportunity for everyone. I believe it is possible that one small
segment could begin to dominate the class but before that should happen those
irises should go into a new class of their own. But that has not happened yet.
Because each candidate stays on the ballot for three years and there are so
few candidates for the Randolph/Perry MedalI most of the irises in competition
today win. So a bearded hybrid winning does not take away from the other
types.
Having been around for too long I have seen almost every section go through
a period in which they tried to exclude plants that did not fit some important
persons mindset. One time I remember where in the Aril Society where a
hybrididizer that was producing woderful Onco like hybrids insisted that no
one should consider the Regelia-like hybrids and because he was important he
ordered the society not to share their species slides with me because he did
not want them promoted. He also made sure that height data was not included in
the Aril Checklist because he did not want people to lnow that many were
short. I use this example because Tom and Elm probably have bad memories from
this time. Fortunately the Aril Society no lomger has what I call a narrow
minded view. But I have seen this throughout the Iris society at different
times and I never thought it pretty. Sean, If you were breeding pseudacorus
with ensata and started to produce lots of hybrids I could imagine someone
coming along with the notion you should not be in the SPEC-X category because
they should go in the JI class. The fact that many of the classes overlap
provides a safety valve for whenever one group gets some crazies creating
havoc. Fortunately nothing is constant and even though some in SIGNA feel I am
creating havoc I suspect this is noly temporary.
I only speak for AIS when I am wearing my PR cap and even then I am only
one voice. AIS is its membership. I am probably more outspoken than most
members and I try to be honest in presenting my opinions which may not always
sit well. As I have mentioned before if SIGNA does not believe I represented
them well 20 years ago when I presented these awards to the AIS board then
they should form a new committee and present a new definition. I believe the
statement of purpose wriiten by the founders of AIS is a noble one. I do not
remember it emphasizing All Iris bit simply Iris which to me meant all iris.
Generally the board does its best to give each section what it wants so long
as it does not detract from other sections. AIS is a facillitator for interest
in all iris but it can only do so much. Each section has to its part in
promoting its iris. The AIS board and the boards of all sections often do
stupid things. My wife continual reminds me of my own innadequacies so I am
far from perfect either. But just as many of you have expressed your
concerns I have tried to explain mine.
I am saddened that Dennis does not feel he has effected AIS and brought
more people to species. The Websites he has created are great. But there has
been a trend of the sections being more and more autonomous from AIS. Years
ago you had to join AIS before you could be a member of any of its sections.
AIS has pretty much given sections what ever they want and put no limits on
them. But if you want to bring people to species from AIS you can not just
have AIS pushing but you have to get into AIS and pull also. The
more insular the sections make themselves from AIS the less they can expect
from AIS members who are not already members.
Years ago I tried to Join SIGNA and the Dwarf Iris Society because those
were my primary interests it turned out that I had to join AIS to do so. It
took awhile before I gained much interest in AIS but today I would tell you it
provides the framework, foundation, and heavy lifting for the sections. If the
AIS did not exist I do not believe you would have the sections. But sadly
there is little awareness of this. Most are like I was if their intent was
just to join SIGNA. But AIS has brought more members to SIGNA through the
years than vice-versa.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean A. Zera"
<zera@umich.edu>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday,
November 28, 2010 4:12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Re:
SPEC-X
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
