Re: Re: HYB:Plicata Patterns




On 23 Jan 01, at 17:58, lfandjg@yahoo.com wrote:


> 
> Does Keith have an email address, and if so, could someone please
> post 
> it?
> 
      Not as far as I know


> 
> I thought fancy plicatas were the same thing as luminatas (according to
> TWOI, anyway).  Or is fancy pattern plicata different than fancy plicata?

   This is a complex issue.  The falls on JITTERBUG or JOSEPH'S MANTLE
are fancy and are nothing like the falls on MOONLIT SEA or SPIRIT 
WORLD, which are luminatas.  Plicatas and luminatas are related.


> 
> So the bi-color/banded/neglecta designation refers to the colors of 
> the plicata markings rather than to the colors of the petals?

    Yes and no.  Banded - yes.  Others no.

 

> 
> Again, the amoena designation refers to the presence or absence of 
> plic markings, and not to the color of the petals.

   Yes and no.  The standards have no markings, but the falls must.

> 
> 
> I don't understand.  What makes some striped cvs plics and others
> not?  
> Genetic history?  Is plicata not exclusively a matter of physical 
> appearance?
> 
    Looking up the parentage may help.

> Am I correct in defining stripes, veins, and striations as the same 
> marking?
> 
    No.  Some of what you are seeing is texture veining.  Others
 are haft markings and spray patterns that 
have been produced in the first generation by crossing a self with a 
plicata.

> How about peppering, stipples, dots, and sanding?  How do these 
> differ, or do they?

   I think the first three are the same, but sanding, to me, indicates closer stippling 
or dotting in the center of the falls.  Look at WILD JASMINE and some of the
newer things of Rick Ernst which have taken 'sanding' into spraying.  
But, these are not plicatas per se though plics are in the 
background.

Walter Moores
Enid Lake, MS USA 7/8






Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index