Re: categories

Hi Ken,

Let me give a part of my letter to the AIS Board here.

......how to get out of the "SPEC/SPEC-X defect" and
make the proper classification. One of the acceptable
variants (though maybe not the best one) is as follows.
Let's have the same 13 classes as before and, for all
cultivars which are impossible to refer to one of the 13,
form separate class named, say, "Others" (marked "O"
here). The question is we should fix "monosemanticly"
what and to what class we should refer in this variant.
At first we liquidate uncertainty among those cultivars
which are in SPEC group now. There are two variants
here. Cultivars of those species which concern to one
of 13 existing classes must belong to one of those 13
classes. Thus ANY selected form of I. sibirica should
be concerned to SIB class and, say, ANY selected form
of I. imbricata (if its height belongs to 41-70 cm interval
of course) should be concerned to IB class etc. But forms
of species which special classes are absent for the present
of should belong to class O. In this case compulsory
deciphering must be given after the class designation i. e.
it must be pointed out what kind of species was it, for
example - O (pseudacorus). And while pointing out the
cultivar's parentage we should write, say, I. pseudacorus
x I. pseudacorus or, say, two concrete parents' names
could be given.
     Let's further consider all cases connected with SPEC-X
group. There are three cases here.
     1. Cultivars obtained from crosses between different
species or their forms belonging to already existing classes.
In this case the hybrids should also belong to one of those
13 classes. For example cultivar obtained from I. notha x
I. halophila will belong to SPU class, the one obtained from
I. stolonifera x I. pallida - to AR & AB & AB(+) class etc.
     2. Cultivars obtained from crosses between different
species or their forms which we have no special class for
the present for. They undoubtedly should find themselves in
O class and have subsequent deciphering - O (versigata)
for example. There should be given even more concrete
record in parentage of such a cultivar - e. g. I. versicolor x
I. laevigata or two concrete names are pointed out.
     3. Cultivars obtained from crosses between
representatives of two groups mentioned above (between
representatives of species (or their forms) from 13 existing
classes and representatives of other species (forms)). I
suggest also to refer them to O class with giving subsequent
deciphering - e. g. O (pseudata). Parentage of each of that
kind of cultivar also is given accordingly.
     It seems, there is one more case here - when we take not
species but named variety as a parent from the existing class.
E. g. we pollinate I. pseudacorus not by I. ensata but by any
variety from JA class. But there isn't any difference of principle
if to compare it with the foregoing case. So it'll be the same
class entry here - O (pseudata).
     Thus we have excluded possibility for any iris to find itself
in one or other class by this or that registrant's whim, classes'
limits are fixed precisely and that was exactly what we wanted.

As to 28- and 40-chrom groups, if we decide it's necessary
to separate them, why don't to use names "Siberians" and
"Chrysographes" (SIB & CHRYS)? Probably the latter isn't
beautiful but what one is beautiful - Siberians, Spurias...?

Sergey

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Walkup" <krw25@cornell.edu>
To: <sibrob@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: [sibrob] categories


> Hi group,
>          I agree that it is confusing for something like "Dotted Line" to
> be considered as either a Siberian or a species.  I think the reasoning
was
> that the categories aren't comprehensive enough to include every possible
> class, and therefore it should be up to the hybridizer to choose.  It's an
> imperfect solution but it's hard to imagine creating categories for every
> possibility. Years could go by before there was an entry in many
categories.
>          I agree that the Sino-Siberians deserve a category of their own,
> though.  I don't think it makes any sense to consider "Dotted Line" and
> "Over in Gloryland" in the same group.  And I wish there was a better
> common name for them.  "Gracile" won't do because I. Delavayi, for one, is
> more robust than many of the regular Siberians.
>          Ken Walkup
>
>
>
>
> To post to Sibrob: sibrob@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



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