Re: Licensed Hybridizers

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 Lbaumunk@aol.com wrote:

> I don't think so.  The bottom line is that the IRIS, rather than the
> hybridizer, is of importance.  Let's not keep that potential Dykes winner in
> the closet because its creator hasn't met certain criteria.

Chris comments:

I absolutely agree about the IRIS being th important element here. A 
system of having registered/licensed introducers would not shut out/stifle 
the backyard hobbist hybridizer at all, in fact it may lend a level of 
crediblity to the small scale hybridizer that he would not have otherwise.
(depending on the level of certification that he/she has achieved)

Lowell wrote:
 
> I'm afraid the licensing idea would lead to elitism and would point to
> judging on the basis of the hybridizer's reputation and not the individual
> flower's virtues.  Of course, we know that doesn't happen now. ( :
> 

Chris comments:

Aren't we after elite iris?? ;>  Seriously, though, I don't think that 
the judging would be any more or less biased than it is today. We are 
searching for the elite of the introduced iris through judging but one of 
my points is that allowing anyone "off the street" to register an iris 
through the AIS lends credibility to these iris. Maybe it would suffice 
to require the hybridizer who wants to register an iris to be an 
accredited AIS judge. Thus it would at least ascertain that the person 
had some level of knowledge of deciding what qualities an iris 
should have to be worth introducing.   

Lowell wrote:

> But your idea is a thoughtful response to a real and difficult problem.  I
> still think that lengthening eligibility time requirements for the awards
> would at least help somewhat.  For instance 3 years before HM, 3 more before
> AM and 2 between section medal and Dykes.  This would at least allow
> cultivars to be more uniformly distributed and seen by more judges in more
> growing conditions.
> 
Chris comments again:

Yes, I agree with this idea of lenghtening eligibility time for awards. 
This would be a very good idea, as it would certainly be nice to have 
enough time to give an iris time to be more widely acquired and grown to its 
potential before its merits are judged. What is the basis behind the 
rush! A great iris should be able to stand the test of time among other 
things.

One last item; a question. Can someone post the number of iris 
introductions that were registered each year over the last couple of years? 
Say, from 1990 to 1995. Just curious to see the actual numbers. 


----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Chris Hollinshead e-mail: bu336@torfree.net
Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index