I admit that I felt inspired yesterday after receiving comments on my post about losing southern daylilies. It feels a relief to share thoughts and frustrations on what to others, outside of our daylily bubble, is not a particularly interesting topic. I count many local gardeners as my friends, but few specialize in daylilies and none hybridize. What a relief to find a group who is interested in pontificating about both!
Yesterday Paul Lewis used the phrase cutting edge genetics in his comment. Today I would like to deconstruct that expression and try to get at what is meant by that.
The term cutting edge, to me, indicates something that is both new and superior to what was. This begs the question, can genetics be cutting edge? Genetics is a field of study. Can we say cutting edge physics? biology? literature?
Actually, yes, we can... and when we do we are usually referring to what is new and perhaps more complicated and esoteric, but not necessarily what is superior, although that is sometimes implied. Quantum physics is a new field, but it's not superior to mechanical physics. Contemporary literature, even that lauded as brilliant and amazing, isn't necessarily superior to all its predecessors.
So perhaps cutting edge genetics is really just a term that means new and novel genetics--or, more specifically, genetic code that is sequenced in a new way that produces a specific behavioral and/or phenotypical trait not previously seen in a daylily. But I think it's important that we recognize that what is novel is not always superior, and is sometimes, in fact, inferior to what has been previously introduced.
Take Nicole DeVito's, Indefinable. We all know it. That daylily started a craze in creating variegated daylilies. Pink Stripes preceded Indefinable, but Pink Stripes is a dip, and is simply striped, as opposed to Indefinable's broken splotches of yellow and magenta. (This is not to diss Pink Stripes, which is a superior plant in so many ways. It's hardy. It multiplies readily. It's fertile.)
But we all love Indefinable. We all paid a gazillion dollars to obtain it. We all coddle it to keep it alive. We all dream of introducing a daylily as beautiful as that one.
The thing is, though, as most of you know, Indefinable is a flawed plant in many ways. It is not hardy (which is a big flaw in my mind ;), it is not robust and vigorous even when given the most loving care and brought inside for the winter, it is not quick to bloom and it is very persnickety about setting seed. So while I would agree that Indefinable is cutting edge genetically, it is only cutting edge in that its color mutation is not one that has been seen before. The plant itself is an inferior plant in most other ways.
A goal has been to take the broken color feature of Indefinable and breed it into a more robust, hardy plant. This has been done, now, by a few hybridizers. Rich Howard comes to mind. :) I don't own one of Rich's Indefinable babies yet, so I can't speak to what they are like outside of the beautiful flower, but I still question whether those genetics are superior, or whether those genetics are simply new phenotypically while exhibiting more classically superior traits like good habit and hardiness.
All of this to say:
Most of us equate a new look with superior genetics.
They aren't the same thing.
I think what many of us aim to do is create daylilies with a new look, that ALSO exhibit the superior (and classic, as in, not new) genetic traits of hardiness, vigor, great branching and bud count, resistance to disease/rust, and an attractive habit. Very few hybridize with the hope of creating superiority in terms of the latter characteristics with little or no attention paid to phenotype. Brian Reeder of Sundragon Daylilies comes to mind.
Like many, I am a sucker for a new look. But I think we need to be careful about labeling those southern beauties that we have to treat with kid gloves to insure their survival as "cutting edge" genetically or otherwise. As hybridizers, we still will want to obtain those plants so we can get to work translating that new look into something we know will actually thrive (not just survive) in any horticultural zone. But when appealing to daylily enthusiasts who aim to collect and show off their plants as opposed to use them solely in hybridizing, I think we have to be careful about using such terms as cutting edge in common parlance.
We also need to be honest about the plant we are introducing. If it's not hardy, that's fine! But tell the world it's not hardy. It's quite telling that we sell a plant by only showing a picture of its flower on the very best day it's ever had, and sometimes using filters that belie its actually colors. It is possible to be honest, and I think it's also our responsibility as hybridizers. Some have started to do this. I noted Subhana Ansari (Flourishing Daylilies) indicates exactly where her lilies have survived and where they have not on her website.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment