This is V96-196-4 = Ballydorn poet seedling x Felindre seedling. It measures 53 mm in diameter. Both parents look like poets. Although this flower is from poet breeding, this seedling looks very Div. 3 like and not too poet like to my eye.
I love the color of this flower, its petite Intermediate size (3 mm too big to be a Miniature in my view) and rounded look.
The photo pretty much sums up the reason that the RHS asked for everyone’s input on the status of Section Poeticus. The comment period closes on April 30th. If you have not voted, please do! A PDF of the RHS Daffodil and Tulip Yearbook was posted previously that explains the two choices. Let me know if you might need another copy and I’ll send it by return e-mail. Sharon McDonald’s RHS e-mail address follows so that you can send in your choice. Mail to: 
It basically comes down to this: Is the photo below a poet? Or is it a Div. 3 Intermediate?
I’d like to know what you all think as well!
Steve
My question, Steve, is the numerical ratio of cup length to perianth length. I myself am a fan of defining 9s as having a ratio of not more than 1:5 for cup to perianth, or 0.20. I think 3s fall nicely as 0.20 to 0.33. This limit falls neatly with the RHS definition under consideration, and with existing 9s. Your "intermediate Div 3" appears to fall between 0.20 and 0.33 rather than below 0.20.
Melissa
from James Akers post of 10/19/11:
"Option 2 Characteristics of the N. poeticus group clearly evident: usually one flower to a stem; perianth segments pure white; corona very short or disc-shaped, not more than one-fifth the length of the perianth segments; usually with a green and/or yellow centre and a red rim, but sometimes of other colours; anthers usually set at two distinct levels; flowers usually fragrant.
Supporters of Option 2 wish to allow acceptance of some new hybrid characteristics into the division, including different colours, and yet still protect and maintain a clear distinction from division 3. (Underlined are their four amendments to the existing definition.)
Hi Melissa,
OK, so according to current definitions, it’s a Div 2, not even making the cut for a Div 3! That’s spectacular. I could see the corona was large, but needed the measurements to know how large. No wonder it doesn’t look like a poet to me.
m
—
There would be very few hybridisers, if any, working with only species poeticus today. I am reasonably sure that if one was to work with species poeticus with the idea of breeding a pure line of poeticus daffodils, a serious problem of constitution would arrise. That is, if the resultant seedlings were to be grown in a cultivated garden situation, it would be very difficult to have them survive for any reasonable length of time.
The Rev. George Herbert Engleheart, who to this day is still recognised as possibly the greatest raiser of poeticus hybrids in daffodil history, over 100 years ago realised there was a problem regarding constitution in poeticus hybrid seedlings. It may not be well known, but the truth of the matter is, he bred division 2 flowers into his new race of poeticus hybrids before 1900. These division 2 flowers, incomparabilis (as they were known then) were bred from trumpet daffodils x poeticus daffodils. This was done solely to improve constitution of garden hybrids. Engleheart had the foresight to realise that the first generation from poeticus x division 2 were to be back crossed with poeticus species to retain a typical form of division 9.
It would be very doubtful if there is a named and registered poeticus daffodil existing today that does not have some trumpet daffodil genetics in its make-up.
The flower as Steve has illustrated and the measurements given for it, could not typically belong to division 9.
One also has to be aware that no classification of daffodils will ever be perfect. There will always be borderline examples no matter how a classification is prepared. Classification of daffodil hybrids is compiled for garden purposes and shows to define the different types in the clearest way possible. It must also be remembered that a classification should be in a constant state of change to allow for new types of daffodils as they evolve.
John
John:
Well said. I also agree with the importance of allowing new directions to evolve. I hope people are voting for the definition of Div. 9.
Harold
Can we create a new division called Division 3a that will contain nothing but former division 9 daffodils reclassified as Div 3, and can we not allow them to be considered intermediates as they dumb down the intermediates. In my opinion, former Division 9 daffodils do not make good Division 3s.
That said, I guess I can expect to be blown away for having an opinion on the subject, but I don’t like former division 9 daffodils now reclassified as Division 3. It is ruining the division. Please no lectures on how division 3 came about, and I do know of the Division 9 heritage but give me those large division 3s that can compete in size with the Division 2s and some Division 1s, not division 3s that are almost miniatures.
LOL
Clay
I agree with Melissa Reading’s comments. On the subject of “Irish poeticus seedlings,” Sir Frank Harrison did many experiments with green cupped poeticus. My best poeticus seed parent is his “Torr Head,” which yields a remarkable variety of cup colors. Why should Brian Duncan not be allowed the same benefit of the doubt that we gave Sir Frank?
Hello All.
Like Mary Lou I was not going to make any comment on this round of the Poet discussion. Perhaps the same devil spoke to me!
First, Option 2 DOES NOT disallow poets with red colour in the cup. Option 1 rules out any colouration other than red or orange. By the way the status quo allows for different colours.
My two main reasons for supporting Option 2 is that Option 1 introduces a restriction which does not appear in any otherdaffodil division. Let’s give poet breeders freedom to create! Second my late daffodil business partner, Max Hamilton set two goals – breeding poets which flower earlier and second with colours not previously seen in poets. If anyone had been present with Max in the poet part of the garden they would have testified to his high level of excitement as he showed you his latest success. To have all this work wiped out by a stroke of a pen would be more than unfair – it would be disastrous. Remember Max’s breeding fell within the existing rules of the day!
Let’s support Brian Duncan, arguably the world’s greatest breeder ofdaffodil s, and vote for Option 2! He has got it right! And thank you Melissa for summing it up so well.
Peter Ramsay