Daffodil Types, Miniatures, Show Results, Standards

Canyon Wren, and upper div miniatures

by  •  • 8 Comments

Friends:
I grow Grant Mitsch’s Canyon Wren, 12 Y-O. I had thought of it as a standard, albeit smallish. I showed it as such last season, and it was “not judged”, with a note saying it should be exhibited as a miniature. It is not on any of the miniature lists, according to Daffseek. I’d love to hear some opinions about how others show it, and think it should be shown, before deciding where to place it myself next year.
To expand the topic, I’d love to hear anyone state a definition of an upper division multi-floret miniature, especially a definition that could be used as a standard in such cases.
Thank you, Melissa Reading http://www.daffseek.org/query/query-detail.php?value1=Canyon%20Wren&lastpage=1

8 comments for “Canyon Wren, and upper div miniatures”

  1. Hi Melissa, If I were judging, I wouldn’t suggest something exhibited as a standard should be exhibited as a miniature unless it were on the Approved List of Miniatures. To do so might get you a note saying “this is not a miniature.”
    I’m not sure there’s a definition of an upper division multi-floret miniature, as there’s no real definition of any miniature by ADS rules. I’d say that if an upper division multi-floret flower is NOT on the Approved List, then it should probably be exhibited as a standard. The reason I say this is that the Miniatures Committee members grow and evaluate many cultivars, and if they haven’t voted to put it on the List, they’ve probably decided it’s too big. If you grow something consistently small that’s not on the Miniature List, I’d suggest you contact Olivia Welbourn, Chairman of the Miniatures Committee, and ask her if the Committee would evaluate it.
    Mary Lou

  2. Thank you, Mary Lou. No, I don’t think that this Canyon Wren was any smaller than Toto or Bittern are here. I don’t think it should be considered for reclassification. I appreciate your take on the primary issue, which agrees with my own. Melissa
    At 02:43 PM 9/10/2009, Mary Lou Gripshover wrote:

  4. Melissa, Mary Lou, and All .. I saw Canyon Wren for the first time at the ETDS show last year (Spring of 2008). It managed to grab my attention right away which is quite impressive for this classification. Lynn Ladd exhibited it and I’m not sure if she grew it for a while or not. As I remember it, in my mind it was not a miniature and was awarded a blue ribbon as entered in the standard classes. Here’s a photo even though this doesn’t give an idea of scale.
    Tom

    Melissa M. Reading wrote:

  5. All, Now, Tom has shown us a nice picture of the flower – who has a picture of the bird for thoose of us in far away places? Brian

  7. I have been preoccupied with out of town guests for the last five days so I am slow with this response, but when I looked at this flower and its pedigree I asked myself WHY is a 12 and not an 8. It has 8 in its heritage. It has a fat stem and multiflorets, all tazetta characteristics, so what about it seemed not to fit that classification? If Tripartite can be an 11 and not a 12, then why can’t Canyon Wren be an 8? I’ve never seen the flower in person. Perhaps I would have a different opinion if I had. I do remember seeing Tom’s photo posted after their show and thinking what a wonderful flower it was and being sad to realize it could not go in a Havens Collection because of its division. :(
    Chriss

  8. Chriss,

    Canyon Wren was shown a number of times this year at shows that I judged and I was a judge on a couple panels where it was shown.  It looked like a division 8 to me.  I also grew them for the first time this year, and didn’t show mine as I thought they were supposed to be a miniature, and my Canyon Wren were too large and looked like full size tazetta’s.  So I agree with you.  They look tazetta to me.  However, I’m not that up on why things are listed as Div 12 except double headed cyclamineus.

    :-)

    clay

    Clay Higgins
    title=

Comments are closed.