Re: Re:CULT: Texas 1942 trial
iris@hort.net
  • Subject: Re: Re:CULT: Texas 1942 trial
  • From: P* <4*@rewrite.hort.net>
  • Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:15:48 -0500
Very welcome. To be honest I am amazed also that there were so many that apparently did quite well. According to the study 149 of 582 varieties, 25%, were considered to be well adapted. One of the things that grabbed me; the soil is a thin layer of sand over a grey dense clay. Sounds nasty. Renews one's faith in genus Iris. And the importance of conservation of genetic material. So many highly rated cultivars being presumed now lost is sad.

I'm also interested in the idea of making it easier for folks to do deep pedigree searches. Not that it would help me personally understand the genetic implications, way over my head. But there appears to be logic to those who can see it. Like you say, the issue of range of variability between siblings just makes it confounding on the face of it. What gets picked in the seedling row is where the rubber meets the road. What was the rule of thumb, 999 rejects for every 1 selection? 999 rejects is a lot of channeling out of phenotypes and the background genotypes.

You asked "Presumably, a high rating is better than a low one?" Were you referring to the TX study? Or was that a rhetorical question? lol it is fun as rhetorical one. Is a high rating on form better than a low one on disease resistance?

Shaub Dunkley

On 11/7/2014 5:25 PM, Linda Mann wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Shaub. Wow - a ton of bloom on some of these things.

This is one of those times when I really miss Mike Lowe's presence on this earth. He was working to get the older registration information into a coherent form online so we could do pedigree searches. It would be interesting to see if there are obvious commonalities for the ones that put up a lot of blooms.

That said, back when I first started my long quest that ending in a long breeding program, I did a lot of pedigree searches of the irises that did well for me, thinking that might help me find more that would do well here. It's a clue, but there is such a wide range of adaptability amongst siblings from one cross, it's not necessarily going to sort out anything useful.

Unless they all turn out to have exactly the same parents ;-)

In the early days, I tried to chase all the way back to species. Nearly all of them had pallida and variegata (big surprise), but as I recall, a large number of them also had other species in the mix - Paul Cook's stuff and some others, I think.

I've attempted to grow very few of the irises on that list- Quaker Lady, some kind of pallida/odoratissima, some form of germanica, florentina (I think), Loreley, possibly flavescens. I think there are scraps of all of these still alive, plenty of pallida and germanica.

Presumably, a high rating is better than a low one?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to m*@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS





This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index