No Subject
- From: C*@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 10:04:33 MST
dated 96-02-16 07:17:15 EST, you write:
>I would NEVER accuse of hybridizer's efforts of being 'disease prone'. But
I
>don't think there's anything wrong with making statement about what will and
>will not grow in Buffalo, NY.
Re above comments by Kathy Guest. The fact is that certain breeding lines of
some hybridizers produce irises that are not suited for growing in climates
with cold wet winters and wet summers, e.g. the East Coast, the Southeast,
England. This problem goes back to the use of I. mesopotamica and I. cypriana
to obtain tetraploidy in the early part of the 20th cent. Those irises which
have AMAS as source of tetraploidy are less prone to rot, and those that
gained tetraploidy from a heritage of Iris trojana have the least rot
problems. Iris mesopotamica and Iris cypriana offspring, e.g. CATERINA
(Foster 1909) was a notoriously poor grower in the East, and still is, but it
thrived in the coastal Calif. climate. DOMINION (Bliss 1917) is an
exceptionally poor grower in the East, and a heavy heritage from it produces
the same problem.
When it comes to irises, I believe one must be willing to tell a hybridizer
that his/her irises tend to be rot prone in a particular climate....when that
is the truth. In fact, that is a judge's duty. I do agree with the view that
one should be careful in labeling the irises from one area as rot prone,
because it really depends on the genes of the individual iris. But certain
lines are definitely rot prone back east. If we are going to strive to have
cultivars that thrive everywhere...and with TBs that is possible, then we
have to be open about the problem. Clarence Mahan
