Re: classifications

Thanks for the explanation, Marty. But we certainly know that to understand
something is still doesn't mean to agree with it. As far as I understand, I
never said that iris classification should be tied to taxonomy - I would
only like it would be tied to something definite. Or let's don't call what
we
have now a classification. They can be iris groups at best.

>............................................................Aril classes
are also of mixed
> heritage.  Their classes and awards have minimum aril content as the
> underlying requirement for inclusion.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understood this correctly. I know two AR/AB
awarded groups: one I designate as AB(-) and another as AR&AB(+)&AB.
I always thought there were different phenotypes as a criterion of that
division but maybe I'm wrong?
    I'm not a scientist too but we all should certainly have elementary
logic.
If I see something I consider the mistake, I think I shouldn't close my eyes
at it but try to discuss it with colleagues inside the system. I understand
that there are enough people who want to encourage and evaluate species
characteristics but if the corresponding class already exist, isn't it
better to
provide for possibility of special judging for "species subclass" inside
each
of existing classes? Maybe that kind of irises even could be registered
like,
say, MDB (SPEC), SIB (SPEC) etc. But now the situation is as if the AIS
gave those people authority to declare that 2x2 is 5.
    Say, hybridizer wants his variety to be judged as SPEC but the judge
refuse to do it and it's again and again... It's absurdity and will be
absurdity
until we use well-defined criterion for the classification.

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