Re: Re: HYB: making fantasy iris

Laurie, I realize that the *stated* definition of a luminata says that about
lines, and I have found that puzzling.  The thing that conspicuously makes a
luminata *different* is the lack of anthocyanin color in haft and claw.  These
are completely clear as in a glaciata.  The remainder of the petals have a
wash, sometimes involving the veins, sometimes not.  The effect is nearly
solid in others.  A luminata *glows* from within, as if it were illuminated
internally.  I am sure this is what gave rise to the name, but since Keppel is
the one who first called them by this term, we should ask him.

The first, or at least one of the first, "luminatas" before they were called
that was the Jacob Sass' 1942 MOONLIT SEA.  That name also glows with light.
That inner glow due to the lack of anthocyanin on the claw and in the interior
of the flower in an iris from plicata breeding has always been the defining
characteristic for me and I think for others as well.  The parentage of
Moonlit Sea, by the way, is stated as "from plicata seedlings."

A variant that ranges from dull to delightful is the combination of luminata
and plicata patterns that once were called "fancy plicatas."  I'm not sure
what we are supposed to call these now, but "luminata-plicatas" and
"lumi-plics" have both been tried and haven't caught on universally.  The type
isn't as common now as it once was as the full luminatas have class to a
degree that the less bright, sometimes positively somber combination pattern
can never have.

Neil Mogensen  z 7  western NC

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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