Re: Haft Markings
- To: i*@rt66.com
- Subject: Re: Haft Markings
- From: D* M* <d*@southconn.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 00:34:19 -0500
At 11:16 PM 12/27/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Clarence writes:
>>I totally concur with Lloyd Zurbrigg's remarks above. Not only do the
>>recessive amoena's have a charm all their
>own,.................................... >They are so difficult to work with,
>that few breeders have the
>>stamina to take up the goal of a recessive amoena with "modern" form, large
>>flower, and minimal haft markings...ah, it is the haft markings that are so
>>difficult to eliminate!
>Clarence,
>My question is why try to eliminate the haft markings? Is this strictly a
>matter of personal preference? I hope so because I really like the haft
>markings, in fact the bolder the better for my taste. Is this something AIS
>judges would use as points against an Iris?
>Jefrie Jenkins
>Kent, WA zone 5, AIS region 13
I thought it odd when I noticed that haft markings were specified as a
"fault" in the little blue booklet on iris culture that I was sent when I
joined AIS. I assumed that haft marks were considered inferior because of
some show bench judging criteria for TB's. Is this the case or are haft
marks just generally agreed upon by today's (or yesterday's?) hybridizers as
an undesirable trait? Is there really any basis for faulting any form (such
as an amoena) of bearded iris with haft marks?
As my almost 4-year old daughter says, "Why?... Why?... Why?..."
-Donald
Donald Mosser
AIS, HIPS, SIGNA, SPCNI, and IRIS-L
dmosser@southconn.com
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/5570
North Augusta, South Carolina, USA
On the South Carolina and Georgia Border
USDA Zone 7b-8
