Re: Are they really all different?


In a message dated 8/15/2007 11:05:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
pharcher@mindspring.com writes:

Yes, you  are correct that many do look very similar and it's not a silly 
question.  


No, it is not. 
 
It should also be noted that "distinctiveness," as an  attribute of a new 
iris, has always been considered a desirable,  laudable, and necessary, trait.
 
That said, as I understand it, "distinctiveness" may be variously  defined. 
It is not all about the blossom. The whole plant and its habits of  growth also 
enter the picture so that the distinctiveness of one iris may  lie in the 
fact that while the bloom looks like another iris, the  plant doesn't bloom only 
in alternate years or rot if you look at it.
 
It is one thing to produce "indistinct" irises-- if I may call them  that-- 
in the course of moving toward hybridizing goals, and yet another  thing to 
introduce them into commerce. I believe it is generally  agreed that on the score 
of "distinctiveness," and, indeed, some other  scores, not everything that 
has been introduced over the years should have  been. 
 
We won't talk about those folks who sold unnamed seedlings from their  
intensive "pink" breeding lines or whatever in bygone years. Those  *really* should 
not have been sent out.
 
Welcome to the group. We are most delighted to have you here. If you have  
more questions, just fling them our way.  
 
Cordially,
 
Anner Whitehead
Richmond VA USA
 
  
 
 



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index