Re: Historic hysterics, Rainacres who?
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Historic hysterics, Rainacres who?
- From: C*@aol.com
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 06:08:39 -0700 (MST)
In a message dated 05/02/97 05:49:29, RAINACRE said:
<< I don't think that a blanket statement that the intros of the
past were hardier or more "gardenable" on the average that present intros
can
be proven, in fact I suspect it could proven that the percent surviving into
successive decades is about the same. I don't think that hybridizers of the
past were any better than the hybridizers of the present. I do think we
vastly underestimate the power of natural selection. >>
Fair comment.
Perhaps, if we are to exploit natural selection to our advantage, we should
use those varieties that have survived the natural selection process in
modern breeding work. I guess that this is what I'm really driving at. I am
not suggesting that we go hunting for inferior or poor historics to introduce
to modern breeding - just that those that have been around for 30+ years must
have desirable garden qualities (and desirable flowers too, or else human
selection would have eradicated them).
I have also seen comment that in previous years, irisarians had the same
complaints about new varieties. I think that this is a hazard we face as
gardeners (-;
Graham Spencer
croftway@aol.com
