Re: CAT: less-than-helpful dates
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: CAT: less-than-helpful dates
- From: s*@aristotle.net (J. Michael, Celia or Ben Storey)
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 16:58:01 -0600 (MDT)
>I guess I am not sure what the source of your frustration was. If a
>catalog said Keppel '92, you should be able to find it in the '92 R&I
>without even knowing whether it was a Reg or Intro date.
John, this was not a giant frustration. Just small. :-) What bothered me
was the many plants that are registered one year but introduced the next or
several years later, so they wind up in different decade books. So I turn
to the book the date suggests and I find there the introduction listing,
which is not the descriptive listing, as you pointed out. Then I have to go
to the proper book. It's just a little annoyance, but it magnifies when one
is looking up a hundred irises.
Not anything I am saying we need to change in the Checklists!
Thank you, and Tom T.L., too, for explaining about the awards. Of course, I
see now why the introduction year should be the date of reference. That's
logical, isn't it.
But, gosh, won't it be wonderful some day when we have that database
version of the R&I lists and one search request will produce all references
to a cultivar?
celia
storey@aristotle.net
Little Rock, Arkansas
