Re: Queens and Historicals (me a clumpa...)

From: Sandy Ives <rives@home.com>

Apologies on both counts.  The first was a slip, the second a genuine
error.

a) Seedlings are what I meant, species are what I wrote.  My fingers
were on autopilot; I tend towards species discussions..

I am quite happy with this policy, but I can imagine the arguements over
the phrase 'one named variety' when 'one named cultivar' is expected,
thereby confusing the two.  Good reason to have the Judge's manual at
hand (even if I didn't read it as well as I thought I had).

I would love to watch a historical cultivar matched up with a species
for Queen by the way.  Especially if it came down to the 'most recent
introduction' line.

b) I believe I took the statement concerning Joseph's Coat from a
separate publication.  I feel rather silly though; I remember quite well
Jeff Walters' original e-mails on the subject of introductions  and
registrations when this was discussed last year.  (Aug '98 archives, but
I went so far as to store the original on my hard disk.)

Imagine Joseph's Coat Katkamier up against Joseph's Coat for Queen
(ignoring the season)!

All kinds of interesting things do pop up when people take the time to
look more deeply into these items.  "Joseph's Coat Katkamier" is
registered in 1989 as an MTB and  is  a sport of "Honorabile".
"Honorabile" is stuck with the IB classification from its 1840
introduction and subsequent entry in the 1939 check list.  Poor thing.

Regards,

Sandy Ives in Ottawa Canada, where he is hard put to spell 'Honorabile'
correctly, but will retire this evening with Perry's new catalogue.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
New hobbies? New curiosities? New enthusiasms?
http://www.onelist.com
Sign up for a new email list today
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index