Re: REF:Correcting the Checklists?

From: HIPSource@aol.com

In a message dated 98-11-12 10:15:35 EST, you write:

<< When you speak of "correcting" the early R&I entries are you also 
 talking about "re-classifying" them into the height classes that exist 
 today? Just curious. It would be extremely helpful but I can't imagine 
 how anyone could accomplish such a task. Many, many of the cultivars 
 listed in the 1929, 1939 and 1949 checklists no longer exist so would be 
 impossible to re-classify them. 
  >>

Sterling,

I speak only for myself here.

When I speak of correcting the checklists I mean correcting only known
clerical errors, typographical errors, or clear omissions. Really patent
stuff. But even this is easier said than done. Has anyone kept a little list?

I do not support substantial changes, changes invoving subjective
interpretations or judgements, or changes arising from changes in terminology.

The exception might well be the extant irises which carry classifications
derived from earlier systems--assuming you could get agreement on the new
classifications. But every exception leads to another exception and thence to
a Tarbaby. Those interested in the earlier irises come to be aware of this
issue, and others, as scholars in any field must become aware of its terrain. 

Under no circumstances would I support importation of information derived from
secondary sources to amplify listings, even of irises presumed extinct. And
under no circumstances would I support an abbreviated list. 

Anner Whitehead
HIPSource@aol.com

  


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index