Re: Mary McClellan
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Mary McClellan
- From: "* A* M* <w*@Ra.MsState.Edu>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 08:39:30 -0700 (MST)
On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Sharon McAllister wrote:
> 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!
>
>
Sharon, I wish I had read this post before I posted previously. I
knew I could rely on you to sort out this mess.
I would agree with point 3 above. That should answer any
classification questions.
Your answer was 'succinct'!
Walter
