Re: Feature Attraction and regional irises
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Feature Attraction and regional irises
- From: R* T* D* <r*@sierratel.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:59:24 -0700 (MST)
Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> One of the most significant themes I've noticed in this year of iris-l has been
> its observations of the differences in performance of different irises from
> region to region. What is a good iris one place could be poor to fair in
> another, and it sounds as if that is the case more often than not. If
> that's true,
> maybe we aren't best serving the public by seeking to give awards to
> irises that grow at least so-so in lots of places. Maybe AIS should be
> encouraging Colorado folks to grow FEATURE ATTRACTION if it is going to
> do well for them there, and recommending cold-weather rebloomers in places
> where those will be the best performers. I think AIS could serve people
> well by promoting descriptions that note whether a given iris is rot-resistant,
> good for short-season areas, acid- or alkaline tolerant, drainage-demanding,
> etc. instead of trying always to do its awards on a best-iris-for-all basis.
> --Jim
Jim,
I think you have a good idea here, but I don't think AIS could/would do
this. The information gathering process would be staggering, for an
individual or even a committee. That is if you could get volunteers
because I don't think AIS would pay someone.
What would be nice is a group of people nationwide who could communicate
almost instantly and document findings as they become known and maybe
publish them in the AIS bulletin; say a recurring article.
Rick Tasco
Central California
Zone 8
