Re: HIST: LORELEY-Classification

From: Marte Halleck <MorJHalleck@worldnet.att.net>

Thanks for this info, Anner. I didn't remember the previous discussion
on LORELEY -- I joined the old Iris-L early in May '97 but it was quite
some time before I could follow what people were talking about so I
missed a lot!

My Nameless iris I've been thinking might be LORELEY did seem a bit tall
for an MTB but still too short & dainty-flowered for a TB. Glad you
reiterated the comparison with JUNGLE SHADOWS, which I saw blooming in a
friend's garden this summer. I think that my unknown might also be
better classified, due to it's overall proportions, as a BB.

However, the very throrough descriptive info that Barb Johnson posted
(thank you Barb!) makes me doubt it could be LORELEY after all. Many
points are a match (PB foliage, MOST of what's noted about colors &
markings, etc.) But I'm unsure what's meant by "the general effect is
that of a short, open bloom with cup-formed standards" in Cornell
Bulletin 112 -- the standards on my blooms were upright & essentially
closed & the falls were almost horizontal. Is that a match or not???

I did get some photos -- if they turn out decently, maybe I can send one
to someone who's growing LORELEY for their opinion.

Marte in the mtns       Zone 4/Sunset 1  Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIPSource@aol.com wrote:
> 
> From: <HIPSource@aol.com>
> 
> In a message dated 98-08-20 08:28:02 EDT, you write:
> 
> << I, too have seen LORELEY listed as an MTB in at least one Catalog.
>  However, when I grew it in Kentucky, it always reached TB height, but
>  bloomed with the bounty of an MTB.  Does anyone know what this Iris is
>  officially classified as?  >>
> 
> This question has arisen in this forum before. We discussed it on on May 27,
> 1997.  The 1939 AIS Checklist classifies LORELEY (Goos u. Koenemann, 1909) as
> a TB, however not all the height classifications we use today were used at
> that time and one of the challenges the fanciers of the shorter historic face
> is the determination of the best category for descriptive purposes.
> 
> According to what Rick Tasco told us here before, in an article written in the
> Winter 1996-97 issue of The Medianite, Jean Witt and Phil Edinger  categorized
> LORELEYas a Border Bearded (BB) which is a class of smaller irises which bloom
> with the TBs but do not have the same petite, precisely scaled-down
> proportions of an MTB. JUNGLE SHADOWS is the archtypal BB. Furthermore, in an
> earlier article in ROOTS listing those historics which would now be considered
> MTBs, LORELY was not included. The proportion requirements for an MTB are
> rather strict and, as I know it, LORELEY does not meet them.
> 
> Anner Whitehead
> Commercial Source Chairman
> Historic Iris Preservation Society
> HIPSource@aol.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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index