Re: test gardens
iris@hort.net
  • Subject: Re: test gardens
  • From: P* A* <p*@mindspring.com>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:45:14 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Initially I thought a mandate might be prudent, but the more I thought about it I realized the appeal wouldn't fly.  Simply having published results and people make their informed decisions and (participating) hybridizers attempting to  make better choices might just be enough.  Someone not in the program might feel pressure eventually to participate even, but we can't make them.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
>Sent: Jun 23, 2010 7:40 PM
>To: iris@hort.net
>Subject: Re: [iris] test gardens
>
>Betty; as i understand Pauls' idea I do not think he is requiring any mandate. There are lots of things i would love to mandate. For example that every registration be avvomapied with pictures not just of the floer but the clump and that they be displayed on the wiki. Bit I know that will not work. You can not force people to do something even when it is within their best interest. Of course I argue, cajole, and lecture, but mandating does not work. Particaipation in a test garden system must be voluntary. If results are reported and published they may have a significanr effect. But the data must also be rational. Sometimes I see arguments saying this hybridizers plants do not grow. Yry I have hear a number of people say they had no problem with that hybridizers plants until they read those posts. We must be very careful in what we actually can substantiate. It is often easy for this group, or others to get on a tear about about a particular plant and yet others in their are!
> a who are less vocal report no problems. Postive results are really more important than negative and are obviously more substantiated.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: autmirislvr@aol.com
>To: iris@hort.net
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:04:27 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>Subject: Re: [iris] test gardens
>
><<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.>>
>
>Paul, I'm going to simply state a couple of points for consideration.  This is
>not intended as negative or anti-anything.  Simply, discussion and POV.
>
>Some of us are concerned that there aren't enough young/younger hybridizers
>joining the quest for new irises.  Maybe we're misreading the situation, but
>it's a serious concern for some.  Some iris lovers/growers think the breeding
>process is long and complicated so they don't want to get involved.  When
>reading the archives, I would think that many people would be convinced that
>it's very complicated and something THEY could never do, when it can be,
>truly, a very simple process.
>
>It's been my goal (and others) to promote hybridizing as a fun and exciting
>process.  It's my wish that we, collectively, do nothing to scare off new
>hybridizers, especially not rebloom breeders!   Everyone should grow at least
>ONE row of seedlings!  ;-)  (soap box)
>
>As the system exists, there is a process for filtering the bad irises out of
>the AIS system.
>
>1) Various people register and offer thousands of irises for sale each year.
>No one buys them all.
>2) Hybridizers use whatever they choose as breeding material.  This is where
>the filter belongs (in my opinion.)  Serious hybridizers will do their
>research.  Casual hybridizers simply cross what catches their attention in
>their own garden.  Beautiful things sometimes result from this plan!  You
>(general you) might not agree with what I use in my program but I assure you I
>have a reason for everything I use.  (Me or other hybridizers.)
>3)  What criteria are people using when they buy irises?  When a hybridizer
>accidentally uses an inferior plant in their breeding program, and it's genes
>are expressed in the children, why do people buy them?
>
>New developments are hard to share if there is not some accepted level of
>"inferiority."  Hybridizers take these "imperfect" cultivars, add them to
>their lines, and SELECT a slightly more perfect cultivar.  At least this is
>the goal.  Awe, goals!
>
>In my part of the country, there are hybridizer's irises that the locals won't
>touch with a ten foot pole.  They have a reputation as producing things that
>won't grow in our area.  Yes, people do talk.
>
>Dr. Raymond Smith told me that I was the only person he knew that made out
>their purchase list from the R & I's!  I still do.  The online register is my
>favorite tool, but I buy the paper backs each year before they're back from
>the printer.
>
>Not talking awards here, but . . .
>
>DYKES and other awards:    A long gone iris friend once told me, "You can
>always tell who is going to win the Dykes.  Just count the number of people in
>the hybridizers entourage at the National."  I'm not saying this is true, but
>it's a thought.
>
>Can we not mandate anything that makes it harder for us to recruit new
>hybridizers or new members?
>
>Betty Wilkerson
>Bridge In Time Iris Garden
>KY Zone 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Archer <pharcher@mindspring.com>
>To: iris@hort.net
>Sent: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 10:48 am
>Subject: Re: [iris] test gardens
>
>
>See, you already do something like what I'm suggesting and a much more
>positive
>tance this time than your first email (which to be honest rather got my dander
>p).  Thank you.
>I don't really have a problem with someone Registering a seedling in the
>atabase.  It helps us to understand something about the genetics and potential
>f a line.  My issue is the distribution (for sale primarily) of poorly
>onstituted plants. Apparently there are many on this list who agree and want
>to
>ctively participate in changing this.  if someone wants to distribute a plant
>imply of their good will for free there is not much I can do about that.  It
>is
>ossible that they subject this particular plant through the rigors of this
>roposed process before doing so.  It might simply remain a seedling not a not
>et a name.  that might be a preferred way to classify them as having gone
>hrough testing. But trying to get everybody to do that or make the AIS endorse
>uch a notion is unlikely I know.  I'm simply trying to have a greater impact
>on
>hat is being released for sale and ultimately will have a long term impact of
>n the genome of the Iris itself and promote the Soci!
>ety activities as well.
>
>
>I have absolutely no objection to test gardens and trialling as long as they
>emain a hybridizer's tool to help them decide what plants might eventually be
>orthy of registration and then perhaps introduction.  However, such decisions
>hould remain with the hybridizer.  It should be remembered that, until an iris
>s actually offered for sale (i.e. introduced), it remains a seedling:   even
>if
>egistered, it is *still* a seedling albeit a named one.  Sure, perhaps this
>akes up a little bit of space in the R&I, but is it really a problem that
>eople sometimes register plants that don't end up commercialised?
>
>I regularly send plants out to both the Munich and Florence international iris
>ompetitions, though I do find that it's more useful to me to send my plants to
>unich since they offer an point evaluation after both two years and three
>years
>rowth.  I feel that Florence is more of a lottery, though perhaps useful in
>the
>ense that it is a different climate both from Munich and my own garden
>(central
>rance).  I haven't yet participated in the trials held in Great Britain,
>though
> will be able to now that I'm a member of the BIS, so that will be still
>nother climate to test under.  I'm pleased to be able to say that one of my
>lants actually won the gold medal at Munich last year for the second year of
>udging.  Now, here is a case where the actual decision to name a plant or not
>sn't quite the hybridizer's decision because the competition rules stipulate
>hat those plants placing in the top three must then be registered!  It may
>ever be marketed though, this hardy iris! !
> !
> Possibly it deserves to be, but it's. . . a white self and, as someone
>pointed
>ut earlier on speaking of "beautiful pink irises that look like hundreds of
>ther beautiful pink irises", does the iris world need another white self?  But
> digress. . .
>
>There's nothing wrong with trialling; it's just another tool and, as long as
>ne keeps in mind the caprices the weather is capable of and which could
>nfluence the performance of the plants, something to be taken advantage of and
>sed 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
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>o sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>essage text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
>
>=
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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