Re: AIS: Checklists--Biting the Bullet

From: HIPSource@aol.com

In a message dated 6/12/99 5:44:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
koekkoek@mtcnet.net writes:

<<  However, I can't agree about the ease of getting used to the 
color-by-number-and-letter grids of the 1939 checklist.  I find it a great 
nuisance to use, and of very little help on many occasions, without 
considerable extra work.   >>

We must remember that the system in the early checklists was imperfect and 
was abandonned for that very reason. And I'll venture to say that all the 
color description systems have been imperfect, including the ones currently 
in use, and probably always will be. 

No verbal description can fully convey the nuances of an iris, and people 
won't agree on what the most of the descriptive words mean. One person's 
purple is another person's blue violet, one person's peach is another 
person's apricot, red is relative and in the eye of the beholder, as is 
black. And so forth. Any classification done by individual human eyes and 
unique human minds will be conditioned by discrete human physiological and 
psychological variables. You can have two people looking at the same iris 
simultaneously and they won't agree on what color it is, or what color to 
call it, or whether it matches some swatch of a color. 

The changes in the process of descriptive classification over the years is 
testimony of AIS' trying to come to grips with these problems. There are no 
easy answers. We talk about the necessity of a precise exterior color 
standard, but they are not infallible. Even reliance on the hallowed RHS fans 
has its limitations since they are not consistent from batch to batch to 
begin with, and sun, time and use affect the color chips. Even were they 
uniform, human perceptive and interpretive faculties are not, as I noted. And 
even were the chips perfect and all folks saw all things identically,  half 
the irises would fall between two or more color chips anyway,  just as they 
did in the old days with the old color chip books. 

And then there are the pesky problems of the things not blooming the same 
same color everywhere, or every year, or looking the same in all atmospheric 
conditions, or at all latitudes, or altitudes. 

The key to using the color chart in the old checklists is to remember two 
things. First, there were some errors made in either classification or 
typesetting. Not subtle errors, but real boners, and one must remember this 
and not be flummoxed by them when one encounters them. Second, it is a 
mistake to expect too much from the chart. The chart identifies broad color 
patterns, not nuances. The most you can expect to discover from it is that an 
individual iris is a mid-yellow self, or a purple amoena, or a white plicata 
with lavender rather than blue markings, or a warm dark red bicolor, or a 
blend with blue dominant, and so forth. It is about color pattern categories, 
not fine distinctions, and it always has been. We feel the limitations more 
acutely with the older irises since while there are fewer colors overall in 
comparison to what we have now, there are many more subtle nuances to them, 
many complex evanescent color effects, many elegant textual qualities which 
affect perception of color.

I'm going to try to find the time to write a ROOTS article on this subject 
which I hope will help people become more comfortable with the chart. But I 
doubt we will see the early checklists re-written. That really would be 
"considerable extra work."

Anner Whitehead
HIPSource@aol.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members? 
http://www.onelist.com
Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more!
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index