Daffodil Types, Growing Daffodils, Historics, Hybridizer, Hybridizing, Seedling, Show Results, Societies and groups

Perianth staining/bleeding

by  •  • Comments Off on Perianth staining/bleeding


Peter, John and others,

To me there is a significant difference between an uneven infusion of cup color into the perianth and a well-defined, symmetrical band of cup-color in the perianth around the base of the corona. The former might well be described as "bleeding", and be faulted. The latter is neither "bleeding" nor "staining", it is a zone with a distinct color. (As Peter mentions, this is recognized for reverse bicolors. Perhaps the severely critical judges could not conceive of a white stain.)

I find John’s recounting of his judging history and the award made to ‘Effective’ to be illuminating. I have wondered why ‘Effective’1W-Y with its perianth so clearly WWY, was not so coded. When descriptions of blooms were moved from the A, B, C descriptive system into Throckmorton’s system, were three zones in the perianth recognized, or did this come later as a refinement? If ‘Effective ‘ was coded with perianth W before the advent of three perianth zones, then any later refusal to recode it might show the bias against "staining" that Peter ascribes to (Judging) Manuals. If the three perianth zones were recognized at the outset of the Throckmorton system, then coding ‘Effective’ perianth as W does seem to indicate that recognizing the actual WWY would lessen the worth of the cultivar. In any case, the fact that ‘Effective’ was originally highly valued for its distinctive perianth and then later not so recognized shows some change in judging values over time.

Which brings me to asking Peter and others: what Manuals declare bleeding/staining to be a major fault? How is staining described?

I learned this valuation and have practiced it as a judge in the ADS, but when I search the ADS Handbook for Judging, Exhibiting, and Growing Daffodils I don’t find any mention of staining as a fault! Perhaps it has been institutionalized in the ADS without written documentation. As John mentions, this ADS view of "staining" as a fault could be the outcome of judging opinions of influential persons in the society.

Hybridizers evaluate their seedlings quite differently than do others. Hybridizers tend to compare their seedling to what they had intended to be the outcome of the cross. Thus Steve and Peter woe the fact that there is a zone of color in the perianth – where it was not intended to be. Steve might even imply the seedling is a failure because of this. In terms of his hybridizing goals, it likely is. But those of us who just see the flower might have totally different impression. We judge the bloom simply on its beauty.

  Cordially,

 Bob

At 01:38 PM 4/23/2011, plramsay wrote:

Hi Bob and others,
 
The answer to your question is that Judging Manuals identify “bleeding” or “staining” as a fault.  Mind you, the Manuals do allow “halos” in reverse bicolours!  Who really cares about being consistent!  Personally I have spent a lot of my hybridizing time trying to get he staining out of 2WY’s and 1WY’s without much success.  Judges don’t seem to care that much about  itbut the same judges would not allow the Manual to be overhauled either.  This will remain an area of contention!!
 
Cheers,
 
Peter