Re: HYB: height classifications
- To: i*@onelist.com
- Subject: Re: HYB: height classifications
- From: d*@tso.cin.ix.net (Dennis Kramb)
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:49:42 -0500
From: dkramb@tso.cin.ix.net (Dennis Kramb)
>As to why other iris classes don't have height categories, I suspect that
>there are insufficient numbers of iris in the different categories to
>require such a classification system. While there are shorter varieties of
>a number of other types of irises, these can be captured by calling them
>miniatures. (This reminds me a bit of my filing system -- everything goes
>into one folder until it gets so big that I can't find the papers that I
>want quickly and so I have to divide the file into sub-files.)
This is a great explanation and I'll bet right on target, too. It reminds
me of the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it". So if there's no major
problems or confusion with the current classification system then why
change it?
So I suppose until the number of intros of LAs and SPUs and so forth
reaches the levels of MDBs thru TBs, it's unlikely (and unneccessary?) to
establish height classes?
Dennis Kramb; dkramb@tso.cin.ix.net
Cincinnati, Ohio USA; USDA Zone 6; AIS Region 6
Member of AIS, ASI, HIPS, RIS, SIGNA, SLI, & Miami Valley Iris Society
Primary Interests: ABs, REBs, LAs, Native Ohio SPEC and SPEC-X hybrids
(Check out my web page at http://home.fuse.net/dkramb/home.html)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
