Re: Kohlein's book
- Subject: Re: Kohlein's book
- From: C*@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 19:48:06 MST
In a message dated 96-02-19 17:22:33 EST, you write:
>wish to put a word in of support for Fritz Kohleins book on Iris.
>While it is true there are typos and some of the facts are not
>consistant with American Dogma, I believe it offers an interesting
>perspective on Iris from a European point of view. For those that
>have trouble with more than one school of thought it probably will be
>somewhat disconcerting.
Bob, My critique of this book has nothing to do with dogma or American
perspective. Rather, I would ask, how many errors of fact is a supposed work
of scholarship allowed to have and still remain respectible?
Let's just look at page 127...."I. kaemperi has been cultivated in Japan for
more than 500 years. There are 4 breeding types called Tokyo, Ise, Higo and
Edo." Wrong on 4 types historically. Wrong in not recognizing that Edo is
just the old name of Tokyo. Next sentence in book starts, "The smaller
Higo type..." Smaller? In what respect? Indeed, not smaller at all!
After one more sentence begins a new para: " Japanese irises have been
cultivated in the U.S. for 4 years." Four years!! Translation error? Then
the narrative continues to give praise to Marx rather than Payne as
originator of American JI....clearly Payne was the great innovator with
Japanese irises as is recognized by authorities in Japan as well as U.S.
Payne is mentioned almost as an after thought....and then Kohlein states
that Payne like Marx used Higo irises as basis for his breeding program.
WRONG! Payne's great innovation was to use EDO cultivars as the basis of all
his breeding.. And on, and on, and on go the errors. One can go to almost
any page in the book and find errors. If the American dogma is to have one's
scholarship as error-free as possible, then I plead guilty to that. Clarence
Mahan
P.S. I find it particulary grating that Kohlein, acknowledging that I.
ensata is the correct name for the species, continues to use "I. kaempferi"
on the pretext of avoiding confusion among the gardening public. As you are
undoubtedly aware, I. kaempferi came into being because a German, von
Siebold, chose to ignore the work of a Swede, Thunberg, who had described and
named the species...and instead chose to publish a new name to honor his
fellow German Kaempfer. All three held the same post as physican in the
employ of the Dutch East India Co in Japan. Kaempfer was first, then the
Swede Thunberg, then von Siebold, who got kicked out of Japan for spying by
the Shoganate. We have finally gotten American writers and most nurseries to
use the correct I. ensata...and there is no reason why the correct name
should not be used in Europe. But in the context of the sea of errors in the
book, this objection is indeed minor.
