Re: HYB.Breeding for Older Form and the Market
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: HYB.Breeding for Older Form and the Market
- From: "* A* M* <w*@Ra.MsState.Edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:00:00 -0700 (MST)
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Donald Eaves wrote:
> >
> Yes, I believe the above to be correct. What I'd like to see from the list
> is more definition of the parameters of " we should embrace a wider variety
> of forms...". What constitutes the preferences of growers, not necessarily
> a hybridizer but not excluding them either. Is something being ignored,
> overlooked or left out that would add to the future heritage of irises yet
> to come? What would people like which they currently can't locate? What
> is in the imagination?
>
> Donald
> donald@eastland.net
> Zone 7 - where discussions are more instructive to me than might be guessed
> by the various tones of the conversations.
>
All of this is tied up in preferences, and I would hate to label
any form as preferred (but probably have as you read on). Marie Caillet
has always stressed this in the LA judges' training schools she has
taught, and I believe it applies to non-bearded as well as bearded irises
to a certain extent.
Naturally, older forms (hanging, drooping, pinching) are
characteristic of another era, but that was acceptable then as the
standard form and is acceptable now when viewing historic collections. It
is highly speculative that a 1998 introduction with historic form would
garner awards from AIS judges.
Lace, ruffling, wider hafts, and flaring falls were results of
breeding in the sixties and later. But, when some got so lacy, so
ruffled, or so wide they couldn't open without help, there came a limit as
to how much lace or ruffles or how wide the hafts could get before these
features posed a problem. Horizontally flared falls pose problems for
photographers!
In the late fifties, Lloyd Austin developed the first Space Age
irises, and to this day they are abhorred by many. Whether you like them
or not, there is a market for them and more and more hybridizers are
turning their attention to this group. But, I have already experienced
bloom on some that are so flounced, they get tangled up in their own parts
and cannot open without some help from the gardener.
I don't know if I have answered Donald's post but some of what I
said may constitute parameters, history, preferences, and limitations.
For the future I would like to see hybridizers work on the
following:
1. More interspecie crossing with the beardless.
2. Getting the spot pattern into TB's and tall quarter arils.
3. More 'exotic' coloration in bicolor TB's with contrasting
beards (Black stds., pink falls, and a blue beard).
4.SDB's that meet their registered heights.
5.Tet Louisianas that open properly and are not so cold sensitive
6.JI's that peak with or just after TB's (before it gets too hot
in the South).
And I would expect all of these to be rot-proof, scorch-proof,
insect/animal-proof, etc.
Walter Moores
Enid Lake, MS 7/8
