Mary McClellan
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Mary McClellan
- From: S* M* <7*@CompuServe.COM>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:06:43 -0700 (MST)
Walter Moores asked:
: I would like for our aril expert in-residence to comment on the C.
: G. White Award winner of 1959, MARY MCCLELLAN. I know MM is an old timer
: and so is OYEZ for that matter, but they are widely grown.
Mary McClellan (Craig, 1952) and Oyez (White, 1938) were recorded as arilbreds
before the quantum system was adopted in 1969. MM was disenrolled at that time,
because it didn't meet the requirement for 1/4 aril content. (It is 1/8 onco.)
: MM, as far as I can tell, has no aril characteristics whatsoever,
Her "aril trait" is wide falls -- but this is notable only if she is compared
with TBs of her own era, not with newer ones. (It's certainly not the whole
story but, IMO, this improvement in the TB class is one reason the Mohr-class
oncobreds fell out of favor.)
: and does she ever cause confusion at a show! If she is correctly placed
: in the aril section, there is always a judge who insists MM is a tall and
: is in the wrong class. Older judges who 'know' MM will tell the
: complainer (younger judge) that MM is correctly classed. The complaining
: judge is usually amazed that MM is an aril-bred.
It's basically a staging problem -- so either opinion could be correct,
depending on how the classes are set up in the show schedule. BUT it's a fine
point that the show schedule does NOT always address.
1. If the show stages cultivars using their registered or recorded
classifications, MM belongs with the arilbreds.
2. If the show stages cultivars the way they would be classified if
registered today, MM belongs with the TBs.
3. If the show stages historic cultivars separately, MM belongs there.
In case you haven't guessed, I favor the third approach.
Sharon McAllister (73372.1745@compuserve.com)
Who hopes no one was expecting a simple answer!
