Re: Naming of irises
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Naming of irises
- From: "* A* M* <w*@Ra.MsState.Edu>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:47:06 -0700 (MST)
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Croftway wrote:
> Additionally (and no-one has picked up on this from my original post) because
> not all iris breeders are sufficiently discerning, and also several breeders
> may be working to a similar goal, there are "shed-loads" (to use current UK
> slang) of irises that incredibly similar, and I am always incredibly reluctant
> to identify them by a photo alone.
> It is a vexed subject, and one that is unlikely to have a simple solution in
> my lifetime.
>
> Graham Spencer
> croftway@aol.com
Graham, I also was speaking from the standpoint of blatantly
obvious errors that persist in some catalogs.
Identifying cultivars from pictures is risky as you relate above.
There are problems on the showroom floor as well. For two years in a row
now, judges at our show have questioned STEPPING OUT/GOING MY WAY and PINK
TAFFFETA/VANITY. Only when these cultivars are placed side by side are
the subtle differences noted. Best to have the R & I's at hand and open
to the pages describing the above. There are others too that can be
misidentified at a mere glance. Even though the irises used as examples
here are quite similar, they climbed to the top of the awards list except
GMW, which stopped at the AM plateau. In conclusion, every year there are
more introductions of the JOYCE TERRY pattern, with the aging JT still
contending very well and maintaining her status as the dowager queen of
the pattern. Newer doesn't always mean better.
Walter Moores
Enid Lake, MS 7/8
