Re: new questions - tetraploid MTB's

Hi Vicki,

Regrettably our server removed the attached photos (usually doesn't do
that), but I'll take a look at the Yahoo site shortly.  You certainly did
answer a lot of my question, and it is very interesting.

It does not offend me in the least to have new combinations of size and
bloom time.  It think it is great.  People who want only dwarf plants
should be overjoyed that they will be able to have bloom much later, and
I'm sure the possibilities in coloration will be very popular too.  Sounds
like we might be able to have dwarf Iris here from February till May now.
It seems like with the tetraploids, you may be in a better situation to
pull in some of the Aril traits as well.

The only problem for me is that it adds confusion to classes of Iris to
have totally unrelated plants grouped together solely by size.  I know
there are some cultivars that would probably bridge the gaps, but even so I
would find it useful (for my sensibilities anyway) to have classifications
that more nearly reflected the relationships of the plants to one another.
I suppose that is the botanist in me.  I also would be disappointed if
tetraploids displaced the diploids as "better replacements" shows and in
the markets, since to me they are different things.  If all the catalogs
would tell me that it is an MTB tetraploid vs. an MTB diploid, that would
help a lot, but many ignore such details.  I would even like it if all the
catalogs separated the diploid from the tetraploid TB's, as they are not
really quite the same thing either, the tetraploids involving some
different species.  Another example of my feelings might be this.  I like
put the plants that are related botanically together in plantings, largely
because it makes a beautiful display, they will behave roughly the same,
and they "fit" together well.  So, for example I tend to plant the old
diploids related to I. pallida in one section, the ones that are crosses of
I. variegata and I. pallida in another, the old tetraploids in yet another,
the newer larger tetraploids in their area, the early dwarfs in their own
sloping area and so on.  In the case of the traditional diploid plants with
mostly I. variegata blood, I even ignore the fact that not all are called
MTB's, and the SDB's, or BB's, or IB's all go together, some seem to shift
from class to class depending on who is doing the classifying and where
they are growing anyway.  I will likely start putting tetraploid MTB's in a
totally different planting too, so they can become a mass display of
similar plants all to themselves.  So, I like to know more about a plant
than just how big it is.  That means to me your tetraploid MTB's and SDB's
fit into entirely different classes of plants, and I would like to know
that when I am deciding weather I'm going to order it.  I think the
tetraploid MTB's should get recognition as something fairly new and as
being distinct.

Dave

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