Re: Re: CULT: HYB: Aspects of rot
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] Re: CULT: HYB: Aspects of rot
- From: o*@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:29:49 EDT
In a message dated 9/28/2002 7:14:26 AM Central Daylight Time, lmann@
volfirst.net writes:
> Bill B, sounds like you and I approach the 'rot' issue from different
> attitudes. Sounds like you would like to be able to eliminate rot in
> rot sensitive cultivars. I want to find cultivars that have adequate
> resistance or ability to thrive in spite of rot.
>
> My impression is that inbreeding for new colors/patterns in 'iris
> heaven' is more likely to be successful <because> these inbred seedlings
> often lack the ability to survive stressful growing conditions. Once
> those new traits are captured in some wimpy seedlings, it can sometimes
> take a few generations of back crosses to get those traits into
> something that will grow well enough in more rot prone climates for us
> to be able to successfully make crosses with them and select for even
> less rot-prone seedlings.
>
> What do you & others think?
>
I expect most hybridizers make a conscious effort to avoid introduction of
rot prone irises. I think those introductions that are rot prone are probably
not so in the conditions under which the hybridizer grew them. In the rarest
of circumstances a color pattern or other characteristic of a plant could be
so exceptional in another way that the plant is worthy of introduction
regardless of rot tendency since the fallacy is already so prevalent in
irises in general.
Genetically speaking, in breeding can be just as responsible for eliminating
rot susceptibility as it can for creating that susceptibly. Out crossing has
no higher probability or lower probability for increasing or decreasing that
susceptibility either. The deciding factors being selection of the initial
parents and evaluation of the seedlings and their offsprings.
If indeed there is a gene responsible for rot susceptibility, once that gene
is incorporated in a line, for practical purposes, it is always there no
matter how many crosses are made or how unrelated the two parents are. I
suspect, but do not know, that this gene exists as a recessive in virtually
all pink irises for example.
I believe it is too late to close the barn door. I believe the gene pool so
mixed and mingled that untangling it is virtually impossible. I do not want
to do without lace, the modern flower form, branching, rebloom or triple
sockets. I do not want to be without pink irises, or lumanatas, plicatas,
reverse bitones, amoenas, or bitones. I am a greedy person.
I do not want to go back to the species irises, select two that never rot and
have never rotted, and attempt to bring them forward to the forms and
improvements of today's irises. I'm far too impatient, lazy, and only have
about 30 more years to mess with this stuff.
Certainly, I would like an effective treatment to cure soft rot. As would
most who have a treasured clump maybe handed down for a few generations and
as would the purchaser of a newly introduced variety. Too, as would those who
wish to increase the popularity of irises along with those who make their
livings distributing irises on a national and international basis. As would
the casual purchaser of only one iris. More people have more to gain with an
effective rot treatment than with any other iris horticultural endeavor.
I believe your hybridizing objectives admirable nor do I find them out of
step with most other hybridizers.
The difficulty I see is finding two iris that have never rotted anywhere to
cross with each other. Then they need to be certain colors with certain
patterns. <g>
That's what I think,
Bill Burleson 7a/b
Old South Iris Society
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/