SATAN'S MISTRESS
- To: i*@onelist.com
- Subject: SATAN'S MISTRESS
- From: S* M* <7*@compuserve.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:31:04 -0400
From: Sharon McAllister <73372.1745@compuserve.com>
Welcome to the wonderful world of arilbred rules -- this is a great example
of their complexity.
Dennis Kramb started this thread with:
> I have a cultivar called SATAN'S MISTRESS in my flower bed. In my
personal
> database it is identified as an arilbred hybridized and registered by
> Seligmann in 1983. When I looked it up in my 1996 Aril checklist, there
is
> no entry for it.
> So.....can anyone tell me just what exactly this iris is???
The 1996 Aril Checklist includes only cultivars that qualify for aril or
arilbred awards under current rules. SATAN'S MISTRESS met the quantum
requirement for registration as an arilbred, but because it was actually
registered as a TB it can not compete as an arilbred in today's shows and
therefore does not appear in that checklist.
John Bruce wrote:
> According to the 80's checklist.....
> SATAN'S Mistress (G,Spellman, R.1982)
> TB 28" E-M Red-black, dark red-black beard
> Red Rapport x Swahili introduced 1983 by New Dimensions
That's a typo in the CL. The hybridizer was actually G. L. Seligmann, and
New Dimensions belonged to our very own Tom Tadfor Little.
Dennis Kramb answered:
> Thanks for the quick reply. This is interesting because my Aril
checklist
> shows RED RAPPORT as an RB (1/2-bred aril).
> RED RAPPORT - RB - Ruth Blomquiest by L. Ray Leech, registered 1971,
> introduced by Discovery Trail Iris Garden 1971, 18-24", maroonish red
with
> bronzish beard
> (I have greatly abbreviated the description which takes up 6 lines in my
> checklist!)
> So have I uncovered a boo-boo in the checklists????? Should Satan's
> Mistress be listed as an OGB- instead of a TB?
No. SATAN'S MISTRESS could have been registered as either an RB- or a TB,
but it has no onco background so it could not be called an OGB-.
Shirlee Lewis added:
> The 1979 AIS Check list shows RED RAPPORT as an AB with its parentage
> being
> 598:(BANG x SAVAGE) x I. korolkowii v. brown and green
> It looks like both iris may have been misregistered with AIS. I checked
> the 1989 checklist and don't show any corrections to RED RPPORT's
> registration.
The original registration for RED RAPPORT is correct. It pre-dates the
Aril Society's coding system, but the 1976 ASI Checklist does classify it
as an RB.
Rick Tasco summed it up:
> Satan's Mistress is 1/4 aril and it was registered by the hybridizer as
> a tall bearded at his discretion. I would assume that Satan's Mistress
> did not display enough aril characteristics to be registered as an
> arilbred.
Exactly. I debated this point with Gus at the time, so I can add a bit of
insight into his reasoning.
The majority of 1/4-breds introduced over the years have been 1/4 onco --
which means that most people have a preconceived image of what 1/4-breds
are supposed to look like. SATAN'S MISTRESS has no onco background, and
does not meet those expectations. It is 1/4 I. korolkowii, but does not
show that species prominent veining nor pagoda-like form. When it was on
display as a seedling, based on its color and form most garden visitors
assumed it was a TB.
What sets it apart in southern NM is its sun resistance -- it does not fade
like most red TBs. In my experience, it thrives whether planted with TBs
or arilbreds.
Sharon McAllister
73372.1745@compuserve.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
