Re: Dark Horse
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Dark Horse
- From: R* T* D* <r*@sierratel.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 19:20:23 -0700 (MST)
Dennis Stoneburner wrote:
>
> Walter A. Moores wrote:
> >
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > I agree with you; we do not need another BATIK situation! LP has
> > been lost locally by several here. I think I still have one tiny piece
> > hanging on, but this extremely cold weather may have gotten it.
> > #######
>
> Walter and everyone else - I really don't want to beat this one to death
> like some said was done with the FA comments.....but.....
> All I and everyone else who grows irises want is a cultivar that will
> perform like the JUDGES HANDBOOK spells out.
Dennis,
I agree with you that what we need are cultivars which perform like the
handbook spells it out. Have you ever tried your hand at hybridizing?
Sometimes you have to take what nature gives you. Quite a few judges
who I know place a great deal of value on distinctiveness (10 points
garden judging and 25 points Exhibition judging). From the many shows I
have either entered or judged the reality is that many judges place a
much higher value on distinctiveness than the handbook. My point is
that from the hybridizer's view we want to produce something that will
win awards and be distinctive and perhaps at the cost of something else,
like performance. Case in point being Batik. At an iris show
performance can not be evaluated. If Batik (or some other distinctive
iris) was not introduced today and it entered a show this spring, I
could almost bet that it would get a vote (EC) from all the judges
present.
I realize that this topic may take us right back to test gardens
again...but so be it.
Rick Tasco.........who is trying to create distinctive iris on super
performing plants!
Central California
Zone 8
