Re: Are they really all different?
- Subject: Re: Are they really all different?
- From: C*@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:30:15 EDT
- List-archive: <http://www.hort.net/lists/iris/> (Web Archive)
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