March 25, 2008

Categories: Daffodil Types, Intermediates, Miniatures, Standards

Download PDF
Melissa is correct, Kokopelli is on the New Zealand miniature list. It was put there when our miniature list was first developed, based on the ADS miniature list of the day.
Now that it is widely grown in New Zealand many feel that it is too large for the miniature list however the system for removing a cultivar from the list requires an exhibitor to present three stems of the cultivar to the miniature and intermediate committee for consideration.
I guess it may take time for this to happen as many exhibitors still find it useful to use Kokopelli in their miniature entries. Were it to be removed from the miniature list then it would be recommended for the Intermediate list and, as Div 5 – 8 Intermediates are not universely accepted, this may cause further delay. I doubt Kokopelli would compete with ‘standard’ jonquilla hybrids as we grow and judge them here in New Zealand. Were we to take it off the miniature list, as we should, a delightful cultivar could well be assigned to the no longer desireable heap.
David Adams

12 responses to “Kokopelli”

  1. Naomi Liggett says:

    The ADS Miniature Committee has voted three times on Kokopelli and all three times said no.  It is disturbing to see it shown as a miniature and as a standard in the same show.


  2. Brian Duncan, Northern Ireland Brian Duncan says:

    Naomi, All,
    I hesitate to get into this debate but I tend to agree with you. Well grown ‘Kokopelli’  seems to be a standard. Less well grown it can be miniature in size. 
     Some standard flowers can be 80mm or less if not well grown – does that mean we should reward them by giving prizes in the Intermediate classes?
    I share, what I think is your view, that flowers should not be transferable depending on the standard of cultivation and that  size should be a genetic characteristic, not geographical or cultural, and we should not reward poor cultivation!
    But that’s a trans-Atlantic view!
    Brian Duncan

  3. Paul Botting says:

    Hi Brian, Naomi –
    Well said!
    Paul Botting

  4. Clay Higgins says:

    It seems that I am in the debate over ‘Kokopelli’ regardless if I want to or not, since this originated, this year, at my show in Barco, NC.  The American Judging rules state that a diminitive daffodils not on the ADS list of miniature may be allowed if it meets the otherwise charistics of a miniature.  Those are not the exact words, but it’s something like that. 
    However, last year I was doing classification at a daffodil show and I challenged ‘Kokopelli’ as a miniature at a show, and suddenly I had the Show Chairperson, who was also a former President of the American Daffodil Society, jumping down my throat.  I was told that regardles if it is not on the list, the rules states that unless it is specifically banned, if it was small enough and had the characteristics of a miniature it was to be allowed.  That’s the rule that applied at the Barco, NJ.  Regardless that one exhibitor put it in as a miniature and a second exhibitor entered it in the same show as a standard. Until we get to the point in America that only the miniatures on the official ADS miniature list can be placed into miniature classes, there will always be room for agrument.  Of course that will eliminate many seedlings and minature candidates as well.
    However, I question some of the other miniatures on the ADS list that bloom for me each year with mutliple heads that form a larger size than most standards.  I guess I’m wondering why miniature rules are enforced on some cultivars and not on them all.  I had an Angel O’ Music  5Y-Y miniatue this year in one of my collections that had so many blooms on it, the head was actually larger than the ‘Homestead’ that was in my winning Purple Ribbon collection of 5 standards.

    Clay Higgins


  5. Daniel Bellinger says:

    Dear Clay,

    I agree fully with Naomi Liggett. Kokopelli has been considered more than once by the miniature committee, and they have repeatedly and unambiguously called it a standard. No show chairman should allow it as a miniature.

    Daniel Bellinger
    Wadsworth OH

  6. Bob Spotts says:

    Hi Brian and Netters,

    We surely all agree that poor cultivation should never be rewarded – be it in Miniatures or Intermediates.

    And probably we agree that the genetic characteristics of the cultivar should be the baseline for evaluating it.

    We can all agree that the expressions of the genetic characteristics of a cultivar’s bloom (eg, size, color) are affected by the standard of cultivation – so better cultivation practices can result in larger size or deeper color.

    The expressions of genetic characteristics of a cultivar are also affected by the climate in which it is grown. Surely, using identical cultivation methods, a grower would get quite different results by growing the same cultivar in Northern Ireland and California. For tazettas, larger blooms would be on the plants grown in California. For cultivars in Divisions 1-4, almost certainly the smaller flowers would be on those plants grown in California. I believe that these differences in bloom-size between those grown in California and Northern Ireland would be readily apparent.

    We ascribe this to the genetic makeup inherited from the original species from which they came. Tazettas coming from warmish areas; the pseudo-narcissus and poeticus from cooler regions.

    My point is that although the set of genetic characteristics of a cultivar is unique, their expression is not, being affected by the climate where the plant is grown.

    I am uncomfortable with defining the characteristics of a cultivar’s bloom to be those expressed at the hybridizer’s location – and attributing blooms of lesser size to poor cultivation. Rather, it seems more in accord with reality to measure/establish the characteristics expressed at the hybridizer’s location and accept that size (and color) variances will occur in other climates. 

     Bob Spotts


  7. Olivia Welbourn says:

    Bob , the Miniature Committee evaluated Kokopelli three times and three times it was not approved for inclusion on the Miniature List.I would like to point out that the Miniature Committee is comprised of members who live all over the country . The cultivars are therefore evaluated by the different members based upon the growing conditions in their geographical region. The same criteria is used in evaluating all prospective cultivars for inclusion on the Miniature List.Kokopelli was evaluated as too large. It is very disturbing and confusing to exhibitors when they see this flower exhibited as a Miniature and a Standard.I am sure we can all agree that Kokopelli is a wonderful flower .Why not step up to the plate Bob and let it enjoy it’s rightful place with other standards.Surely being a standard flower will not diminish the qualities of this special flower. 🙂 Olivia Welbourn  Miniatures Chair

  8. Melissa Reading says:

    Dear Olivia:

    I would appreciate your posting some information clarifying the rules for defining multi-floret miniatures in general.  This would help me understand why Hawera is classed as a miniature, although in my garden it grows larger than Kokopelli.

    Perhaps you did not see this paragraph in the email that Bob posted yesterday at 11:34AM:

    "As its originator, I was never informed that ‘Kokopelli’ was under consideration for the Miniatures List. If asked, I would have stated emphatically that I opposed its inclusion. It is a Standard as I grow it. But, let it be grown in cold-climate Northern Illinois – even by a fine grower such as Nancy Pilipuf – and it is so diminutive that in my opinion it should compete as a Miniature."  (R.Spotts)

    So Bob is not advocating for Kokopelli being on the Miniature’s List .  However he is pointing out the fact that a given cultivar does not grow the same way everywhere, and that for certain cultivars this may result in it sometimes being appropriate as a miniature, other times being appropriate as a standard, since its habit is near the demarcation line for the definition.  It seems to me that Kokopelli is only an example of this behavior, not the central topic of discussion, and further, I doubt that Bob would want Kokopelli on the Miniatures List, because then he himself would be unable to show it, since for him it grows as a Standard.

    Melissa Reading

  9. Peter and Lesley Ramsay says:

    What a fascinating discussion. Assessing size is always problematic.  It is even more so in the USA than elsewhere.  On pages 9-8 and 9-9of the ADSHandbook it is stated very clearly that size is judged according to the typical size for the cultivar in the area in which it is grown.  Again on page 9-13 in discussing the judging of miniatures it is stated again that  “it is very important to be familiar with the normal size of a cultivar, which can be variable in different areas of the US”. Does this not give some credence to Bob’s view that the “normal” size of a variety in ,say, Florida will be different to the “normal” size in say Oregon.  If this applies to standards why not to miniatures?  I do take Olivia’s point that the MINI panel comes from different zone, but what if …..

    Perhaps my comments fall into the category of “fools rushing in…”  Perhaps we need a lawyer to assist us with the rules – where art thou Dick?  In NZ we have only one temperate zone, although the drought here (12mm of rain since Christmas) makes me think that we should have rules that change seasonally!!!


  10. Ruth Ann McGrail says:

    I believe that Bob has put the matter to rest with his earlier statement.  Fair to all it seems.
    Ruth Ann McGrail
    PS  For me it grows as a miniature

  11. David Liedlich says:

    Dear Peter:

    I am the first to admit that I have never been to New Zealand, but never the less, I am surprised to learn that there is only one climatic zone for the entire country.  I would have guessed the North Island to be at least somewhat warmer than the South Island, perhaps enough so that the northern tip of the North Island and the southern tip of the South Island would have different climatic zones.

    Dave Liedlich

  12. Ben Zonneveld says:

    Hello Becky
    I am not involved in the tour. Still I might met you at Pennings. Anyway I measure the total amount of DNA per nucleus so no sequencing of the different bases. So I cannot see a difference between humans as all have the same amount of DNA in their nucleus: 7 picogram However species or species hybrids have often different amounts of DNA. For all species of Narcissus there is a range from 14 1000.000.000 bases. Any questions? just ask.