Re: test gardens
iris@hort.net
  • Subject: Re: test gardens
  • From: P* A* <p*@mindspring.com>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:48:36 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
See, you already do something like what I'm suggesting and a much more positive stance this time than your first email (which to be honest rather got my dander up).  Thank you.

I don't really have a problem with someone Registering a seedling in the database.  It helps us to understand something about the genetics and potential of a line.  My issue is the distribution (for sale primarily) of poorly constituted plants. Apparently there are many on this list who agree and want to actively participate in changing this.  if someone wants to distribute a plant simply of their good will for free there is not much I can do about that.  It is possible that they subject this particular plant through the rigors of this proposed process before doing so.  It might simply remain a seedling not a not get a name.  that might be a preferred way to classify them as having gone through testing. But trying to get everybody to do that or make the AIS endorse such a notion is unlikely I know.  I'm simply trying to have a greater impact on what is being released for sale and ultimately will have a long term impact of on the genome of the Iris itself and promote the Society activities as well.


>
>I have absolutely no objection to test gardens and trialling as long as they remain a hybridizer's tool to help them decide what plants might eventually be worthy of registration and then perhaps introduction.  However, such decisions should remain with the hybridizer.  It should be remembered that, until an iris is actually offered for sale (i.e. introduced), it remains a seedling:   even if registered, it is *still* a seedling albeit a named one.  Sure, perhaps this takes up a little bit of space in the R&I, but is it really a problem that people sometimes register plants that don't end up commercialised?    
>
>I regularly send plants out to both the Munich and Florence international iris competitions, though I do find that it's more useful to me to send my plants to Munich since they offer an point evaluation after both two years and three years growth.  I feel that Florence is more of a lottery, though perhaps useful in the sense that it is a different climate both from Munich and my own garden (central France).  I haven't yet participated in the trials held in Great Britain, though I will be able to now that I'm a member of the BIS, so that will be still another climate to test under.  I'm pleased to be able to say that one of my plants actually won the gold medal at Munich last year for the second year of judging.  Now, here is a case where the actual decision to name a plant or not isn't quite the hybridizer's decision because the competition rules stipulate that those plants placing in the top three must then be registered!  It may never be marketed though, this hardy iris!  !
> Possibly it deserves to be, but it's. . . a white self and, as someone pointed out earlier on speaking of "beautiful pink irises that look like hundreds of other beautiful pink irises", does the iris world need another white self?  But I digress. . . 
>
>There's nothing wrong with trialling; it's just another tool and, as long as one keeps in mind the caprices the weather is capable of and which could influence the performance of the plants, something to be taken advantage of and used to test seedlings.  
>
>All the best,
>
>Michele Bersillon  
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index