Perhaps this controversial subject is worth reviewing at the upcoming ADS Board meeting. Quite a lot of heat has been generated thus far, but in my opinion not much light. I’d not like to see judges having to go around with a micrometer checking whether a bloom is Div 1 or 2 or 3. Or, spending time discussing whether a bloom is a genuine Div 6 or is a Div 2 with a reflexed perianth. Or, is this a real Poet or just another Div 3 in disguise? Then, too, one would have to decide the status of missnamed blooms. Frequently, we know what something is not, but not what it really is. Also, what would be the status of unknowns in collections? Would a collection of 5 unknown Div 2’s be an eligible entry, either for a blue or, indeed, a purple ribbon? Last year, there was a beautiful example of a 2 W-W in one of our local shows. It was labeled Gull, but didn’t look much like any Gull (although I think Gull can be pretty variable) any of the judges had seen. As a result, the bloom was not considered for best in show, and of course it did not win the blue despite the fact that it was by far the best bloom in its class. If considered for best in show it would have been a strong contender. Any rules developed for unnamed or missnamed entries would have to cover cases like this. In sum, I think it might be good to relax our rules on unnamed blooms, but we should first develop a set of sensible rules. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’d have a mess on our hands.