Showing posts with label awards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label awards. Show all posts

Monday, April 3, 2023

The Aril Society Checklist

 by Tom Waters

When I'm not writing blog posts, one of my many other iris-related activities is serving as checklist editor for the Aril Society International. I've just completed the 2023 update of the checklist, which is available on the ASI website. It occurred to me that there are probably many people who are not aware that the ASI maintains a checklist of aril and arilbred irises, nor aware of what it offers beyond other references. So I thought I would use this blog post to have a look at the checklist and why it is important.

When the Aril Society International was formed in the 1950s, there were no standardized definitions for the various types of aril and arilbred irises. Irises with oncocyclus or Regelia ancestry were registered with the American Iris Society under a bewildering range of classification codes. One of the first tasks of the new society was to sort through all the various registrations and establish specific categories for them. A persistent problem in the early years was that irises of 1/8, 1/16, or even less aril ancestry were being given awards as arilbreds despite being indistinguishable from TBs. The society addressed this by requiring irises to be 1/4 aril or more to be considered as arilbreds. Subsequently, there were two separate award systems created: one for arilbreds of 1/4 to 1/2 aril content, and another for irises of 1/2 aril content or more.

'Loudmouth' (Rich, 1970) won the
C. G. White Award as an OB (1/2 aril)
but is now an OB- (less than 1/2) 
because of a change in definition.

The checklist was critical for establishing which irises met the various award criteria. The editor would take the registration data, do pedigree research, consider an iris's appearance, breeding behavior, and any chromosome counts that had been done, and then assign it to the appropriate category. In days before the internet, the ASI checklist was the only source of this classification information, because it was impractical to reprint the American Iris Society checklists to give updated classifications for arilbreds. The classifications and definitions used by the Aril Society have changed several times over the years, and the checklist is the only authoritative reference on how definition changes have affected the classification of each arilbred iris. Applying the current definitions, which involve estimating the chromosome makeup of each cultivar, is not a trivial matter in some cases.

Here are some of the things you will find in the ASI checklist that may not be presented accurately (or at all) in other sources:

Classification Information. Each iris listed, even historic irises registered long ago under other definitions, are assigned to the current ASI classification, to the extent possible given the existing information. This is of particular value to show classification committees in regions where arils and arilbreds are likely to be exhibited. It is especially important for irises that were once considered arilbreds, but no longer meet the definitions of that class.

Height Categories. In 2018, the ASI established definitions for two height categories for smaller arilbreds: arilbred dwarf (ABD) and arilbred median (ABM). These are included in the current edition of the AIS Judges' Handbook. The checklist gives the correct height category for each arilbred listed.

Chromosome Configuration. Aril and arilbred irises may include chromosome sets from oncocyclus, Regelia, tall bearded, and dwarf bearded species. Which chromosome sets are present in a given iris is of considerable interest to hybridizers, as it affects fertility and helps the hybridizer properly classify any resulting seedlings. The checklist provides the most likely chromosome configuration for most irises listed, along with an actual chromosome count where one has been reported.

Fertility Observations. When an iris is known to have produced offspring as a seed parent or pollen parent, this is noted in the checklist.

Is this 'Bronze Beauty',
'Hoogiana Bronze Beauty',
Iris hoogiana 'Bronze Beauty',
'Bronze Beauty Van Tubergen',
or 'Antiope'? Answer: yes.
Irises Not Eligible for Awards as Arilbreds. An appendix to the checklist provides a thorough listing
of irises that do not qualify as arilbreds for various reasons: never having been registered, having been registered in a non-arilbred class, or having been disqualified as definitions became more strict.

Nonregistered Aril Hybrids. A substantial number of aril hybrids have been introduced, particularly through the firm of Van Tubergen in the Netherlands, that were never registered with the American Iris Society. Some were registered with the Dutch registration authority for bulb irises, while others were simply not registered at all. The checklist includes these in an appendix, along with photographs and other information.

Even today, where so much information seems just clicks away on the internet, the ASI checklist fills an important role in providing authoritative information that is not reliably available elsewhere. It is an important resource for judges, show officials, and hybridizers. Anyone with an interest in aril and arilbred irises should become familiar with what the checklist has to offer.




Monday, November 25, 2019

What’s Wrong with the AIS Awards System


by Tom Waters

One of the most important functions of the American Iris Society (AIS) is to carefully evaluate new irises as they grow in gardens and decide which are worthy of commendation and can be recommended to the gardening public. This is done through a system of trained garden judges working in all geographical regions, who evaluate the irises and vote them awards.

I’ve been growing irises on and off since the 1970s, and served as a judge for many years. There have always been grumblings about the award system, from simple shaking of the head (“What were the judges thinking?”) to tales of secret regional cabals working to subvert the process. I’ve not taken much heed of such complaints, attributing them to a combination of sour grapes and the ubiquitous human inclination to complain and gossip. Although there are exceptions, I’m sure, judges I have known personally have all been honest, conscientious, and reasonably skilled and knowledgeable. They do their very best to vote for irises they deem truly worthy of recognition.

Nevertheless, I think there is a fundamental structural problem with the process of voting for AIS awards that keeps some good irises from being recognized and elevates some mediocre ones to unearned fame.

The awards system asks judges to vote following the model of a political election: an assortment of eligible candidates are placed on the ballot, and the judges are to vote for the one(s) they deem best. For this system to identify the best irises, judges need to be familiar with all or most of the candidates on the ballot. The rules state that you should not vote for an iris unless you have seen it growing in a garden (or gardens) over more than one year. Ideally, the judges should grow the irises themselves. The ideal of judges intimately familiar with all the candidates is not usually met. Often, judges have seen only a smattering of the eligible irises (particularly for early awards, such as honorable mention). They may select the best of those they are familiar with, but if they are only familiar with 10%, what of the other 90%?

When there are many names on the ballot, but only a few are actually seen and evaluated by the judges, the system is very vulnerable to a particular sort of bias. Not an intentional bias on the part of judges, but a systemic bias built in to the process: the more widely grown an iris is, the more likely it is to win awards.

Consider this hypothetical. Assume there are about 400 judges voting. Iris A is bred by a famous hybridizer that many iris growers order from. It is thus widely distributed and widely grown. 350 of those judges have seen it growing in a garden. It is a nice iris, but only 10% of the judges who have seen it think it should win the award. 10% is still 35 judges! Now consider iris B, introduced through a smaller iris garden that sells only a few irises each year. Maybe only 20 judges grow iris B. But iris B is extraordinary! It is so good in every way that 90% of the judges who grow it think it should win the award! But 90% of 20 judges is just 18, so iris B gets only about half the votes of iris A, although it is clearly a much better iris.

Note that this undesirable result is not a consequence of anyone making bad choices, being unethical, or doing anything wrong. The hybridizers, growers, and judges are all doing their best; it’s just the way the numbers play out.

Another way to look at this phenomenon is to consider the meaning of a judge voting for an iris or not voting for an iris. Clearly, a vote for an iris means the judge thought it was the best among those seen. But what does a judge not voting for an iris mean? It can mean two very different things: it can mean the judge has evaluated the iris and found it wanting, or it can simply mean the judge has not seen the iris. These are two very different circumstances, and treating them the same is a very bad idea.

In 2019, 378 judges voted for the Dykes Medal, and the iris that won received only 29 votes. That’s less than 8%. This is nothing new, it is typical of recent years. What does that mean? It is difficult for the public to be confident that this is the best iris of the year, when we don’t know what the other 349 judges thought of it. Did they love it, but just slightly preferred another iris over it? Did they think it was bad? Did they just not see it? Such ambivalent results are a direct consequence of using an election model with a long list of candidates, many of which are not familiar to most of the judges.

There is a way to address this structural bias. If we moved from an election model to a rating model, we could much more accurately identify the worthiest irises. A rating model is what is commonly used for reviews of products, businesses, restaurants, and so on. Everyone who is familiar with the product gives it a rating, and the average of those ratings is what helps future consumers decide whether the product is worthy or not.

How would a rating system for irises work? It would not have to be as elaborate as the 100-point scoring systems presented in the judges’ handbook. A rating from 1-10 would do just fine, or even a scale of 1-5 stars, like you often see in other product ratings.

Consider our two hypothetical irises again. Assume that judges who vote the iris worthy of the award rate it at 5 stars, and those who have seen it but do not vote for it rate at 3 stars. Iris A, which 350 have seen but only 10% vote for, would have an average rating of (315 x 3 + 35 x 5)/350 = 3.2. Iris B, which only 20 judges have seen but 90% vote for, would have an average rating of (2 x 3 + 18 x 5)/20 = 4.8. Iris B is the clear winner, as I think it should be.

In this system, judges would enter a rating for every iris they have evaluated. They would not have to pick the single best one to receive an award. They could rate any number of irises highly, and if they saw some with serious faults, they could give them low ratings, which would bring the average rating down and make it much less likely for these poorer irises to win awards, no matter how widely grown they are.

Judges would not enter a rating for irises they had not evaluated. So their not having seen it would not penalize the iris, since it would not affect its average rating at all. A non-rating (from not having seen the iris) would have a very different consequence from a low rating (the judge evaluated the iris and found it unworthy).

If such a system were implemented, some additional considerations would probably have to come into play. We might want the iris to be rated by some minimum number of judges before we would trust the average and give it an award, for example. We could also use this system to check for consistent performance in geographical areas, if that were deemed desirable. We could also demand a certain minimum average rating (say 4, perhaps), so that if no candidate iris were rated very highly, no award would be given.

Under the current system, I think the training and skill of the judges is largely wasted. They evaluate many irises over the course of the year, and form opinions about each one. That information is lost when they are instructed to simply vote for the best one. Every time a judge rates an iris favorably, its chance of receiving an award should go up; every time a judge rates an iris unfavorably, its chance should go down. Not being seen should not be a penalty.

A rating system would also encourage new hybridizers, as it would give us a way to recognize really exceptional irises that aren’t introduced through the big growers. It would allow hybridizers to build their reputation by receiving awards for quality work, rather than receiving awards because of an established reputation. Established hybridizers would not be much hurt by such a change; they still have the advantage of large, extended breeding programs and experience in recognizing quality seedlings. They don’t need the additional advantage of distribution bias to have a fair chance at awards.

I hope this post stimulates some discussion on the topic of our awards system and the consequences of structuring it as we have. I see the potential to improve the system in a way that makes it more fair to all new irises, more useful and credible with the gardening public, more supportive of new hybridizers, and more conscientious in reflecting the careful evaluation work of our judges.


Monday, May 13, 2019

International Iris Competition in Florence 2019


The Italian Iris Society concluded the international iris competition at Florence on Saturday, May 11, 2019. The World of Irises is pleased to quickly bring the results to our readers. The head of the judging panel was Gary White, immediate past president of The American Iris Society. Andi Rivarola, current first vice-president of the AIS, was also a judge along with three judges from Italy: Valeria Roselli, Maurizio Marrami, and Laura Bassino.

In the tall bearded competition, the Premio Firenze (Gold Florin) offered by Guido Gonnelli in memory of “Beppe Gonnelli” went to ‘Chachar’ by Seidl Zdenek from the Czech Republic.


Andi Rivarola, Valeria Roselli, Maurizio Marrami, Laura Bassino, and Gary White.
Second and winning the Tuscany Regional Prize was ‘Lingua de Drago’ by Angelo Bolchi from Italy.

The results of the competition were announced in Florence's city hall with the mayor in attendance: At The Award ceremony in Palazzo Vecchio this morning, from left to right: American judge Andi Rivarola, Italian Judge Valeria Roselli, Jury President Gary White, President of Municipal Council Andrea Ceccarelli, Mayor Dario Nardella, our (Italian Iris Society) President Vincenzo Corti, Italian judges Laura Bassino and Maurizio Marrami. Image from Giardino dell' Iris.
Third went to ‘Enraptured’ by Schreiner’s Gardens in the United States and it won the Confindustria of Florence Prize.


Fourth, the Italian Iris Society Medal, went to ‘Piero Bargellini’: Charmanda by Klaus Burkhardt in Germany.

Fifth place, Honourable Mention, went to ‘Anima Triste’ by Angelo Garanzini of Italy.

Sixth place, Honourable Mention, went to ‘Voglio Tempo’ by Angelo Bolchi of Italy. 

Seventh place, Honourable Mention, went to E 06.05 by Siedl Zdenek of the Czech Republic.

Eighth place, Honourable Mention, went to ‘Hrom a Blesk’ by Siedl Zdenek.
Image by Gary White

Ninth place, Honourable Mention, went to Seidl Zdenek’s E 21.07.

Tenth place, Honourable Mention, went to Italy’s Roberto Marucchi’s N43-1.

Special prizes were also awarded and will be listed in Irises later. All images by Andi Rivarola unless otherwise noted.




Monday, November 30, 2015

Understanding Iris Descriptions

by Tom Waters

If you've spent some time looking for information about particular irises, you've probably encountered something like this, which I've copied from the American Iris Society (AIS) online Iris Encyclopedia:
'Montmartre' Keith Keppel, R. 2007). Seedling 01-49B. TB, 33" (84 cm), Early thru midseason bloom. Standards greyed red-purple (M&P 45-J-5), 1/4" straw yellow (10-F-2) edge; style arms straw to reed yellow (10-I-1), midrib flushed red purple; Falls velvety dark red purple, darker and brighter than raisin purple (54-B-12), narrow oyster white (10-B-1) edge, inner haft lemon (9-L-2), white around beard; beards chrome yellow (9-L-7), white and lemon at end. 99-61A: (96-11D, sibling to 'Moonlit Water' x 'New Leaf') X 'High Master'. Keppel 2008. Honorable Mention 2010, Award of Merit 2012Wister Medal 2014.
Most of this text is from the official description of the variety as published by the AIS. The information is presented in a standardized order and format. Even unofficial descriptions, as you might find in catalogs or other publications, tend to follow this format to some extent, although usually somewhat simplified.

This is a rather intimidating mass of text for the novice iris enthusiast to process. In this post, I will step through it all one piece at a time, explaining what it all means and sharing some interesting background information along the way.

The first portion is this: "'Montmartre' Keith Keppel, R. 2007)." 'Montmartre' is the name of the iris; Keith Keppel is the person who created it, and 2007 is the year it was registered ("R.") with the AIS.

Registration is the process by which a new iris is assigned a unique name. Why is this necessary? Can't the person who breeds a new iris just call it whatever he or she feels like? That was essentially the state of affairs in the nineteenth century, when nursery businesses devoted to ornamental plants were coming into their own. The result was a great deal of confusion. Different plants were being sold under the same name, and some plants were being sold under more than one name. Furthermore, plants were sometimes given names that looked like botanical names but were not. The bring order out of chaos, an international system for naming cultivated plants was created. This is the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). The code includes rules about what form a name may take (it can't look like a botanical species name, for example, cannot be excessively long, or be just a descriptive word like "yellow"). For many types of ornamental plants, the ICNCP rules are implemented through a designated International Cultivar Registration Authority. For all irises except those that grow from bulbs, the registration authority is the AIS. So it is the role of the AIS to ensure that new irises are named according to the rules, and that each name is officially assigned to a single particular cultivar.

(The world "cultivar", coined from the phrase "cultivated variety", is the technically correct term for a unique plant. Although the term "variety" is often used, that word has a different meaning to botanists.)

Cultivar names are enclosed in single quotes, according to the ICNCP. There was an older practice of printing iris cultivar names in capitals, which you may still encounter from time to time.

So 'Montmartre' was registered with the AIS by Keith Keppel, the hybridizer who created it, in 2007. The person who registers an iris is usually the hybridizer who made the cross that produced it, but this is not always the case. One can register a particular or distinctive form of an iris species found in the wild or raised from collected seed with no deliberate cross-pollination involved. In this case, the person who registers the cultivar is just the person who has grown the plant and decided it should be named. It also sometimes happens that one person selects the plant to be registered, even though the cross that produced it was made by someone else. For example, 'Brown Lasso' resulted from a cross made by Gene Buckles, whose seedlings were passed on to David Niswonger when he died. So it was Niswonger who registered 'Brown Lasso' on behalf of the deceased hybridizer. The registration for this iris reads as follows:
'Brown Lasso' ( Eugene Buckles by David Niswonger, selector. R. 1972).
There is no requirement that the person who made the original cross be acknowledged in this fashion, but it is a commonly observed courtesy. 

It also sometimes happens that an iris has been in circulation for many years, without ever being registered, and an iris society or knowledgeable individual may step in and register it, so that its name can be officially recorded with a proper description.

I sometimes encounter people who are under the impression that registration somehow implies that the iris is deemed worthy by the AIS, or "approved" to be sold. This is not the case. The AIS does not make any judgment on the merits of the cultivars that are registered. The sole purpose of registration is simply to officially assign a name to a cultivar.

The next part of the description of 'Montmartre' is
Seedling 01-49B. TB, 33" (84 cm), Early thru midseason bloom.
First comes the hybridizer's seedling number. Hybridizers usually raise so many seedlings that they use numbers to keep track of them until a few are selected to be named. There is no standard format for numbering seedlings; each hybridizer has his or her own system. Why is this number included in the official description? It seems superfluous once a name has been chosen. One reason is that the iris may have been used for breeding, and referred to by number in a pedigree, before being registered. It also helps people in the future interpret the hybridizer's breeding records. Furthermore, the iris may have been grown and seen under its seedling number, for example at an iris convention, and this lets everyone know that this new iris is the same one they admired (or detested) when they saw it earlier.

TB stands for "tall bearded". Each class of iris has its own abbreviation. Next follows the height in inches and centimeters. The height of an iris can vary considerably, even in one garden, and much more so if grown in different climates and soils. So the height figure is best taken with a grain of salt.

Next comes the season of bloom ("Early through midseason"). You may also see the bloom season expressed in abbreviations: E-M, in this example. Bloom season is not referred to calendar dates, because that changes enormously from one climate to another, and even from year to year. Rather, it is expressed relative to other irises of the same type. So in this case, we know that 'Montmartre' starts blooming somewhat earlier than most TBs and continues blooming into the middle of TB season. These designations are always relative to the type of iris involved, so a standard dwarf bearded (SDB) iris with midseason bloom means it blooms in the middle of SDB season, even though this may be a month or so before TBs bloom.

Next comes the color description, which is often the longest part. The standards (upper petals) are described first, followed by the falls (lower petals, which technically are sepals). In this particular description, you will notice alphanumeric codes being used to describe the colors. There are a number of different color charts published by various individuals and organizations to help identify colors more precisely than common language can do. In this case, the system being used is that of Maerz and Paul (note the "M&P" given the first time a code appears in the description). Other color systems often encountered are RHS (Royal Horticultural Society) and Ridgeway. If you have access to the specified published color chart, you can consult it to see precisely which colors are referred to in the description. There is an important caveat, though: colors can vary depending on soil and weather and the age of the bloom. So the precision implied by using a color chart is somewhat illusory.

The M&P color system used in this description also assigns English names to colors, and these are used in the description ("reed yellow", "raisin purple", and so on). These sometimes strike me as rather too fanciful to be useful without consulting the color chart, but they can convey some general distinctions. (I think we all have a sense of how straw yellow differs from lemon yellow, for example).

One is not required to use a published color chart when describing an iris, and many hybridizers do not. In recent years, the AIS has been collecting photographs along with the registration descriptions, which is a wonderful development. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. A photograph is not required, however, just encouraged.

At the end of the description comes the parentage, or pedigree, of the iris. The pod parent is given first, then a large X, then the pollen parent. These may be named cultivars, or seedlings identified by number, parentage, or both. The parentage can sometimes be dauntingly complex if the hybridizer has been using their own seedlings for many generations.

Let's untangle this particular parentage, which is fairly easy as such things go. First look for the large X that separates the two parents. We can see right away that the pollen parent is 'High Master'. What about the pod parent? It is this:
99-61A: (96-11D, sibling to 'Moonlit Water' x 'New Leaf')
The pod parent is a seedling numbered 99-61A. (Since no other hybridizer is indicated, this is one of Keith Keppel's own seedlings.) That seedling's parentage is given inside the parentheses, after the colon. Its pollen parent is 'New Leaf' and its pod parent is another seedling, 96-11D, which we are told is a sibling to 'Moonlit Water'. So if we want to know that seedling's parentage, we can look in the description of 'Moonlit Water' (siblings have the same parentage, by definition.) Why refer to it that way? Why not just give its parentage? In this case, it is an enormous space saver. Look up the parentage of 'Moonlit Water' and you'll see what I mean!

Sometimes you will see a description that says "parentage unknown", or lists a pollen parent as unknown. When the pollen parent is unknown, it could be that the cross was made by insects, rather than the hybridizer. (These are often referred to as "bee pods".) This is not always the case, however. Particularly when the entire parentage is unknown, it is likely to be a case of an intentional cross with lost of confused records.

Following the parentage, we see "Keppel 2008". What is this? We already saw at the beginning that the iris was registered by Keppel in 2007. This last bit of information is the record of introduction. "Introduction" is short for "introduced into commerce" and refers to when and by whom the iris was first offered for sale to the public. In this case, Keith Keppel sells his irises himself, so we just see his name and the year 2008. It is rather common for an iris to be registered in one year and first offered for sale in the following year, although the gap can be longer, or an iris can be introduced the same year it is registered. If the iris were introduced by a commercial garden, it is the name of the garden that is used. For example, Mid-America Garden introduces irises bred by Paul Black and Thomas Johnson.

Why is introduction important? One reason is that where and when an iris is introduced determines its eligibility for AIS awards. (AIS awards are given only to cultivars introduced in North America, and the year of introduction determines when an iris becomes eligible for awards. The AIS does not recognize an iris as having been introduced until the person who registered it sends evidence of introduction to the registrar.

In fact, the year of introduction is so important that when an iris is referred to in text, the hybridizer and year of introduction are often given in parentheses following the name: 'Montmartre' (Keppel, 2008).

Can an iris be registered and not introduced? Indeed. Registration, remember, is just the official assignment of the name to the plant; it does not imply anything about whether the iris should or will be offered for sale. The hybridizer might lose the plant, decide not to sell it, or be unable to sell it for some reason.

Conversely, there are irises (mostly older ones) that have been introduced into commerce but never registered. The ICNCP is not a legally binding set of rules, nor does the AIS have any legal standing to require irises to be registered before they are sold (although an iris must be properly registered to be eligible for AIS awards). So there have been iris hybridizers (mostly in past eras, and mostly working outside the US) who did not bother with registering their creations before selling them.

Finally, at the very end, is a list of the awards the iris has received: in this case, Honorable Mention, Award of Merit, and the Wister Medal.

I hope this post has given some insight into the nuances and complexities of iris descriptions. If you have any questions, please ask in the comments below, and I will do my best to answer!


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

2012 Payne Medal Winner 'Coho'

By Andi Rivarola

We are happy to announce the winner of the 2012 Payne Medal: 'Coho,' hybridized by Chad Harris of Washington.

A complete list of winners in other categories can be found on the AIS website.

Here's a full description of this beautiful iris via the Iris Wiki:

'Coho' (Chad Harris, R. 2004) Sdlg. 96JG2. Japanese Iris (3F.), 38" (97 cm), VE Standards are pink (RHS 75C), medium size, prostrate; style arms off-white, edged pink (75B), style crests pink; Falls are dark pink (75A), blue cast around signal evenly blending to soft pink (75D) at F. edge, signal yellow (6B) in sunburst pattern, semi-flaring. 'Joy Peters' X 'Hatsu Kagami'. Aitken 2005. HM 2008.


(Photo by Chad Harris)

From the Society for Japanese Irises (SJI):
The Payne Medal (named for W. Arlie Payne) is the highest award given by The American Iris Society that a Japanese iris can receive in its class. Payne Medal winners are then eligible to win the Dykes Medal, which is the highest award an iris can receive from The American Iris Society. Prior to 1992 the highest award a Japanese Iris could receive was the Payne Award. This award has now been elevated to a medal status.

The Payne Medal

The highest award given by the American Iris Society strictly to Japanese Irises.
History from Clarence Mahan: 
"This medal is restricted to Japanese irises (JI). It is named in honor of W. Arlie Payne.
W. Arlie Payne was born on a farm near Terre Haute, Indiana. He graduated from Central Normal Collage in Danville, Indiana, and studied pattern making. Payne worked as a lumberjack, photographer, real estate agent, and pattern maker until he established a landscaping business on sixteen acres of land south of Terre Haute. He was at first especially interested in peonies, but in the late 1920's, he "discovered" Japanese irises. He started hybridizing Japanese in irises in 1932. Over the next three and a half decades, he raised many thousands of seedlings."


More on the Payne Medal, such as its history and past medal winners, can be found on the Iris Wiki.
For more information on AIS Awards, please visit our website.


Sunday, August 12, 2012

2012 Eric Nies Medal Winner 'Solar Fusion'

By Andi Rivarola

We are happy to announce the winner of the 2012 Eric Nies Medal: 'Solar Fusion,' hybridized by Lee Walker of Oregon.

A complete list of winners in other categories will be announced soon.

Here's a full description of this beautiful iris via the Iris Wiki:

'Solar Fusion' (Lee Walker, R. 2004) Sdlg. 93-2-19. SPU, 47" (119 cm), ML Standards are medium yellow base, medium yellow veining over maroon, ruffled; style arms yellow with maroon tip; Falls medium to deep yellow with faint maroon veining extending to a faint maroon rim, light ruffling. 'Dena's Delight' X 'Highline Coral.' Wildwood Gardens 2005. HM 2008.




Eric Nies Medal


The Eric Nies Medal is the highest American Iris Society award given strictly to a spuria Iris. The Eric Nies Medal is actually a plaque. Legend has it that Ben Hager, who had won almost every medal possible, complained that they all went into a drawer and the he wished he had something to hang on his wall. The Spuria Society fulfilled his dream.
History By Clarence Mahan
This medal is restricted to spuria (SPU) irises. It is named in honor of Eric Nies (1884-1952).
Eric Nies was born in Saugatuck, Michigan, the son of Dutch immigrants. He graduated with a BS degree from Michigan State College, where he was a star pitcher on the baseball team. In 1913, he and his wife Grace moved to Los Angeles, California, where he taught high school botany and agriculture for many years. He was a man who was praised for his beautiful singing voice, his wit and his charm.
Soon after Nies moved to California, he became interested in irises of all types. He obtained his first spuria irises from Jennett Dean, who operated one of the first iris specialist nurseries in the U.S. Spurias were his special interest. His first cross was with I. orientalis with 'Monspur'. He interbred seedlings from this cross, and in the second generation there was a virtual explosion of color: blue, lavender, brown, bronze and cream. Some of these early cultivars, the forerunners of great advances in spuria irises, are 'Bronzspur', 'Saugatuck', and 'Azure Dawn'.

More on the Eric Nies Medal, such as its history and past medal winners, can be found on the Iris Wiki.
For more information on AIS Awards, please visit our website.



Saturday, August 11, 2012

2012 Knowlton Medal Winner 'Crow's Feet'

By Andi Rivarola

We are happy to announce the winner of the 2012 Knowlton Medal: 'Crow's Feet,' hybridized by Paul Black of Oregon.

A complete list of winners in other categories will be announced soon.

Here's a full description of this beautiful iris via the Iris Wiki:

'Crow's Feet' (Paul Black, registered 2006). Sdlg. K187A. BB, 27" (69 cm), EM,Standards and style arms white, style crests edged peach; Falls are white, lined with closely spaced purple veins from beard to edge, outer quarter sanded purple between veins, narrow white rim 2/3 way around upper part on each side, outer edge of haft veined medium peach-plum; beards white tipped orange; ruffled; slight musky fragrance. G33A: (B139D, 'Color My World' sib, x Taunt) X 'Snowed In'. Mid-America 2006. Honorable Mention 2008; Ben Hager Cup 2008; Award of Merit 2010.



Border Beardeds are essentially small versions of the TBs.  They are in the same height range and bloom size as the intermediates, but bloom with the tall beardeds. Good BBs have round, ruffled petals that complement their small size. The highest award for this class is the Knowlton Medal.

Knowlton Medal

The highest award given by the American Iris Society strictly to Border Bearded Irises.


History by Clarence Mahan
This medal is restricted to border bearded (BB) irises. It is named in honor of Harold W. Knowlton (1888-1968).
Knowlton
Harold Knowlton of Auburndale, Massachusetts, was a tireless promoter of the border bearded class of irises. Bennett Jones wrote in The World of Irises: "Harold Knowlton was among the first to make deliberate selections of smaller plants. Two of his 1950 introductions, 'Pearl Cup' ... and 'Cricket'... display the desirable features we still seek in modern border irises."
Knowlton was the seventh president of the AIS (1953-55) and served the society in several important positions. He was highly regarded as a leader, planner and organizer and reorganized the AIS awards system and instituted the first Handbook for Judges and the handbook for new members; What Every Iris Grower Should Know. He also compiled and edited the 1959 Check List. The AIS awarded him the Distinguished Service Medal in 1955.
More on the Knowlton Medal, such as its history and past medal winners, can be found on the Iris Wiki.
For more information on AIS Awards, please visit our website.

Friday, August 10, 2012

2012 Dykes Medal Winner 'Florentine Silk'

By Andi Rivarola

We are happy to announce the winner of the 2012 Dykes Medal: 'Florentine Silk,' hybridized by Keith Keppel of Oregon.

A complete list of winners in other categories will be announced soon.

Here's a full description of this beautiful iris via the Iris Wiki:

'Florentine Silk' (Keith Keppel, R. 2004). Seedling 99-116A. TB, height 40" (102 cm), Mid-Late bloomseason. Standards peach (M&P 9-A-4), slight orchid (41-E-5) basal infusion; style arms peach, orchid midrib; falls medium violet (41-J-9), narrow pinkish buff (42-D-3) edge; beards light blue at end, base lavender white, carrot red (10-C-10) in throat. 96-45E, 'Crystal Gazer' sibling X 'Poem Of Ecstasy'. Keppel 2005. Honorable Mention 2007; Franklin Cook Cup 2007Award of Merit 2009Wister Medal 2011.



The Dykes Medal is the overall top award of the American Iris Society (AIS), given to a single iris each year. Irises are eligible as a Dykes Medal candidate for three years following the winning of a classification medal. Only AIS registered judges may vote for this award. For more information on AIS Awards, please visit our website.