classifications

Marty wrote:

There was a feeling a few years ago that some
worthy irises were being overlooked by the AIS
awards system.  One group was the species irises
that weren't covered by any of the existing awards,
for example, Ii. cristata, tectorum, versicolor, and
on and on.  Another group was the species that
could have been included in existing award catagories
but were being ignored (in favor of the larger, more
ruffled, colorful, flaring...the more highly bred).  Good
examples of these are the bearded species (like Iris
aphylla) and the 40 chromosome siberians.  So the
SPEC class and award were created to encourage
work with these neglected irises.  The AIS classes and
award categories are not based on taxonomy, and the
SPEC class intentionally overlaps some other classes.
It is up to the hybridizer to choose which class a plant
belongs in...
_________________________________________

    If the AIS classes are not based on taxonomy, what are
they based on? If they have no base at all (hybridizer's
choice can't be the one) it only means that what we have
is not a classification. To be the one it must answer three
requirements:
     1. It must be exhaustive, i. e. it must concern absolutely
all objects from the aggregate examined (in our case - all
iris cultivars existing both in real life and in possibility);
     2. It must be carried out on invariable base, i. e. it must
be established relation of absolutely all objects of the
aggregate to only one sign (criterion) (I always thought that
in our case it was phenotype);
     3. It must be interexcluding, i. e. it must give each object
from the aggregate possibility to find itself in one and only
one class.
    I suggest we to have a real classification but not an
arbitrary, nonconcrete construction - because of SPEC and
SPEC-X groups. If we have the situation when each
person (hybridizer) has right to define "class belonging" of some
of his (her) creations himself (herself), we have no classification 
- I don't know the name of what we have.
    I have my version of iris garden classification. Is it good one
or not - it's another question but it's real but not imaginary
classification. Say, in my version pumilas, ensatas, pacificas
and other species whose "relatives" have already formed
corresponding classes probably will never pretend to be
awarded since their modern hybrid "colleagues" are much
more interesting as a rule. But it's not a tragedy. If we grow
species (any forms, variations etc.), they become cultivars
(garden plants) and must be evaluated by the same criterions
as all other representatives of their class (if it exists). We (as a
judges) never evaluate species themselves, i. e. - in the nature
but always  - in the garden. Selected forms can really pretend
to be awarded in those cases when their "relatives" haven't
formed their special class yet. Versicolors, setosas, laevigatas
and many other irises are in this "Other" class.
     It's certainly interesting what "crucial mass" some group of 
cultivars must gather in order "to have the right" to be picked 
out from the "chaos" or from "Other" class as a special one. Of 
course this quantity is always a result of irisarians' agreement and 
it simply can't be differently. Since we have no World Iris 
Association, who unless the AIS Board of Directors could work 
out the recommendations on that score? I think, our classification 
system should be a certain analogue of Mendeleyev chemical 
elements system where in the future we'll fill in void "squares".

Sergey



To post to Sibrob: sibrob@yahoogroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index