AN UNOFFICIAL IRIS SYMPOSIUM CONDUCTED BY KENNETH D. SMITH 



{Reprinted from the Bulletin of the American Iris Society, April, 1940) 



What are the best iris in commerce today? A list of 50 or 100 varieties 

 should be of interest to all members of the Society, but what judge 

 could make out such a list without personal prejudice and bias? There- 

 fore, a symposium is the logical solution, and if it is made up from 

 lists submitted by competent judges who have traveled outside of 

 their own region and thus have had the opportunity of seeing the 

 newer introductions, it should be truly a representative list of the 50 

 best iris in commerce in that particular year. To be of real value, 

 such a symposium should show many of the newer varieties; otherwise, 

 it would be a list of "old favorites," which would be of value to no one. 



With that idea in mind I decided to conduct an "unofficial" sym- 

 posium, and I therefore wrote 50 accredited judges of the Society who 

 I knew, or had been told, had visited outside of their own regions, and 

 I asked for a list of what they considered the 50 best bearded iris in 

 commerce which they had seen, preferably in various locations, and 

 regardless of year of introduction or of color classification. This list 

 was to be divided into three groups: Group 1, the best ten; Group 2, 

 the next 20; and Group 3, the final 20. For tabulation, I awarded 

 Group 1 iris three points; Group 2, two points; and Group 3, one point. 



A certain number of judges were taken from each region of the 

 Society in order fairly to represent the country as a whole. Thirty-three 

 cooperated and sent in lists, and, believing it of interest, I am listing 

 those judges whose consensus of opinion the symposium represents. 

 They are grouped according to the regions established by the Society. 



Region I: Henry Butterworth, Dr. R. I. Graves, W. M. Kellogg, Mrs. 

 Herman E. Lewis, W. J. McKee, Mrs. Thomas Nesmith and Mrs. W. E. 

 Tobie; Region 2: F. W. Cassebeer, Col. J. C. Nicholls, K. D. Smith, 

 Use C. Smith, Robert Wayman; Region 3: S. H. Baker, 3rd, John 

 Dolman; Region 4: J. P. Fishburn, Charles E. F. Gersdorff; Region 5: 

 Mrs. Louise Blake; Region 6: E. G. Lapham, Mrs. Silas B. Waters, 

 Miss Mary Williamson; Region 7: Frances Douglas, Geddes Douglas, 

 Dr. Henry Lee Grant, J. E. Wills; Region 8: Robert Schreiner; Region 9: 

 Dr. J. Franklin Cook, David F. Hall, Mrs. Charles G. Whiting; 

 Region 13: R. M. Cooley, Alex Maxwell; Region 14: Prof. S. B. Mitchell, 

 C. S. Milliken, Carl Salbach. 



The following is the result of the tabulation: 



VARIETIES IN ORDER OF 

 POINTS SCORED 



c « 



•ass M 



G M u 

 3T1 u 



OS 

 eg 



Or* 



(5s. 



IS 



1. Wabash (Williamson '36) 29 17 



2. City of Lincoln (H. Sass "37) 25 11 



3. China Maid (Milliken "36).. 25 10 



4. Golden Treasure (Schreiner '36).. . 23 9 



5. Amigo (Williamson '34) 23 4 



6. Prairie Sunset (H. Sass '39) 15 14 



7. Great Lakes (Cousins '38) 18 8 



8. Junaluska (Kirkland '34) 21 7 



9. The Red Douglas 0- Sass '37). ... 21 7 



10. Christabel (Lapham "36) 18 7 



11. Fair Elaine (Mitchell '38) 15 9 



12. Radiant (Salbach '36) 20 4 



n. Angelas (Egelberg '37) 19 4 



14. Mount Washington (Essig '37).. . . 14 9 



15. Shining Waters (Essig '33) 19 4 



16. Yellow Jewel (K. Smith "39) 13 9 



17. Cheerio (Ayres '34) 19 I 



18. Gloriole (Gage '33) 18 5 



19. Midwest Gem (H. Sass "37) 16 4 



20. Exclusive (Grant "37) 20 2 



21. Sable (Cook '38) 14 5 



22. California Gold (Mitchell '33) .... 18 3 



23. Lighthouse (Salbach '36) 17 4 



24. Matterhom (J. Sass "38) 13 6 



25. Naranja (Mitchell '35) 20 1 



26. Copper Lustre (Kirkland "34) 15 5 



27. Los Angeles (Mohr-Mit. '27) 15 5 



28. E. B. Williamson (Cook '37) 13 4 



29. Ormohr (Kleinsorge "37) 13 5 



30. Rosy Wings (Gage '35) 16 2 



31. Copper Crystal (Wash. "38) 12 5 



32. Sierra Blue (Essig ■32)' 16 2 



33. Golden Majesty ('38) 11 4 



34. Jasmania (Ayres) 14 3 



35. Missouri (Grinter '33) 15 2 



36. Morocco Rose (Loomis "37) 12 



37. Stella Polaris (K. Smith '39) 8 7 



38. Easter Morn (Essig '31) 10 3 



39. Moonglo (Williamson '35) 11 1 



40. Snowking (H. Sass '35) 12 1 



41. Monadnock (Salbach '37) 10 2 



42. White Goddess (Nesmith "36) 12 1 



43. Garden Magic (Grinter '36) 10 1 



44. Matula (H. Sass '39) 10 3 



45. Maya (Washington ■35)._ 11 2 



46. Frank Adams (Lapham '37) 12 1 



47. Louvois (Cayeux '36) 10 1 



48. Cortez (Nesmith "34) 10 



49. Marquita (Cayeux '31) 13 1 



50. Shah Jehan (Neer32) 14 



11 

 12 

 11 



6 

 14 



1 



9 



6 

 10 

 9 

 4 

 8 

 4 

 13 

 6 

 10 

 9 



7 

 6 

 9 

 4 

 4 

 7 

 5 

 8 

 5 

 7 

 6 

 5 

 4 

 11 

 I 



6 

 8 

 7 

 6 

 6 

 7 

 3 

 4 

 4 

 6 

 7 

 2 

 3 



1 



6 

 6 

 3 



6 

 6 

 1 

 7 



5 

 7 

 2 

 9 

 I 

 7 

 6 

 1 



10 

 6 

 6 

 2 

 3 

 6 

 2 

 7 

 1 



6 

 9 

 1 



i 



2 

 4 



2 

 5 

 2 

 4 

 5 

 7 

 3 

 3 



10 

 11 



74 



59 



56 



47 



45 



44 



43 



43 



43 



40 



39 



38 



36 



36 



35 



35 



34 



34 



34 



33 



32 



32 



32 



31 



31 



29 



29 



28 



28 



28 



27 



27 



25 



25 



23 



23 



23 



22 



21 



21 



20 



20 



19 



19 



19 



18 



18 



17 



17 



17 



It is interesting to note that 30 of the 50 iris are introductions of 

 the past four years and that only one of the older iris (Los Angeles, 

 1927) made the list. Again 1 want to stress the point that if those 33 

 judges had not had extensive collections in their own gardens, besides 

 having traveled and seen the newer introductions, this symposium 

 would have been entirely different; most likely it would have been 

 merely a list of the older, still popular varieties, but probably super- 

 seded by the newer introductions. 



Several very competent judges were of the opinion that I should 

 have asked for a list of 100 vaFieties, as they believed a list of 50 did 

 not have breadth enough to include many worthwhile varieties. I feel 

 that if all the judges were asked to send in a list of 100, too many old- 

 fashioned varieties would be included. A symposium should not be 

 padded, and my suggestion would be if an official symposium were held, 

 and it was decided to list 100 iris, that each judge would be allowed 

 to vote for only 50, but in the final tabulation, the highest 100 iris 

 would count. From the 33 lists submitted for my symposium, some 325 

 different varieties were mentioned. By including the iris that received 

 five or more votes with ten or more points, there are an additional 46. 

 This total added to the original 50 would give a well-balanced, repre- 

 sentative collection of 96. These Honorable Mention iris are as follows- 

 76 Points— Blue Spire (7), Charlotte Millet (8), Ozone (11), Persia (11) 



Royal Coach (9), San Francisco (9), Song of Gold (9), Valor (8). 

 15 Points — Cathedral Dome (8), Elsa Sass (7), Gudrun (9), May Day 



(7), Miss California (8), Ruth Pollock (6). 

 14 Points—Auhand (8), Brunhilde (10), Claribel (6), Frieda Mohr (8), 



Happy Days (8), Jean Cayeux (13), Red Gleam (6), Snoqualmie (8)! 

 13 Points— D'lTecteuT Pinelle (8), Glen Ellen (6), Golden Bear (8), 



Indian Hills (6), Mme. Maurice Lassailly (7), Red Bonnet (7), The 



Bishop (8). 



12 Points — Anitra (7), At Dawning (8), Diana (6), French Maid (8) 

 Golden Hind (9), Rameses (12), Seduction (8), Tiffany (6). 



// Points — Depute Nomblot (7), Grace Mohr (7), Mount Cloud (7), 

 Sandia (8), Winneshiek (7). 



10 Points— Chosen (5), Gallant Leader (5), Pale Moonlight (7), 

 Treasure Island (6). 



Amoenas and Variegatas are two classifications of iris that were never 

 considered popular, yet Wabash places first, almost lapping the field, 

 and City of Lincoln, second. Midwestern iris dominate the first ten; 

 yet the California iris come back strong in the second group. 



One California judge, who did not send in a list, wrote, "Ratings on 

 Eastern and Mid-West productions are of no benefit to us because 

 almost none of them grow well in this climate. Your symposium if, 

 kept to sections of the country, might indicate the better iris for each 

 locality at the moment; otherwise it would have no value." Yet the 

 three California judges who sent in lists evidently did not feel the same 

 way, for of the seven Midwestern iris listed in the first ten, all three 

 judges voted for two, and two others voted for three more; so only 

 two were not mentioned. 



One judge remarked that the list would most likely contain too many 

 of the recent novelties; another judge wrote that his list was incom- 

 plete because the best iris he had seen were unintroduced seedlings 

 not distributed. It is well to remember in conducting this symposium 

 that I wanted to seek the 50 best iris in commerce, regardless of year 

 of introduction, and it was my intention neither to list only the popular 

 priced varieties nor those not yet available. 



From correspondence I have seen, it is surprising how many members 

 rely on information published in the Bulletin for their purchases. This 

 is particularly true of our foreign members Such a symposium, to 

 be useful to them, must include the newer outstanding introductions. 

 Individual lists or comments may be biased, but a symposium such as 

 I have undertaken reflects collective opinions and should be of spiecial 

 benefit in guiding beginners to know and to grow the better iris. 



Some favorable comments from the letters received are as follows: 



"I trust that the list will help you in starting a feature of the Bulletin 

 which should be very instructive and valuable." 



"Hurrah to you for doing this work . . . Such discussions of varieties 

 would give some punch to the Bulletin . . . even if the list won't be per- 

 fect, it would be an interesting thing. The more lively the discussion 

 and hullabaloo, the more attention we can draw to our favorite flower." 



"I agree with you that the scoring of iris seems to be of little value, 

 but I do think it is interesting to group a number of them." 



"I would really like to see the first article developed into a series: For 

 instance, after the tabulation of the 50 most popular iris, there might be 

 a separate symposium for each main color group. For instance, there 

 might be an article on red iris ..." 



"Such a tabulation ought to be of value to everyone, especially to 

 those who are just beginning to know and grow the better iris." 



Another judge wrote as follows: 



"A symposium would be eminently unfair to an iris unless it gets a 

 thorough distribution. The result would be that the newer varieties 

 which are usually better than the old would be down at the bottom of 

 the list or wouldn't even make the symposium because their scarcity 

 would prevent the majority of the judges from seeing them." 



In an ordinary symposium that judge would be correct, but if a rule 

 were made that in order for a judge to vote for the symposium, he must 

 travel outside of his own region, that would remove one of the above 

 obstacles. Also, by dividing the symposium into three classes, with a 

 different point score for each, the newer outstanding novelties would 

 be listed by many judges among the first ten, and so in the tabulation 

 should rate near the top. Both of these points are proved by the 

 symposium 1 have just conducted. 



This unofficial symposium is an experiment on my part, and I hope 

 the members have found it of sufficient interest to request the Society 

 to hold an official one each year. 



4 



