"I don't understand why beans are classified into different genera (vicia, vigna, glycine, etc.) but I'm sure there's a reason." The fundamental reason is in their genetic differences. In the past, differences in outward physical characteristics were relied on to classify them. Then chromosomes counts were used and now DNA mapping is available. Two things affect their propensity for crossing or their lack thereof. One is genetics. The other is structure. Interspecific or even intergeneric crosses are possible with some plants. How likely it is depends on how closely they are related. It isn't a major consideration with beans. Crossing between different varieties of the same species is what concerns us most with beans. The probability of that happening depends on both genetics and structure, if I understand it correctly. Beans are said to be inbreeding rather than outcrossing, which means that they are self fertile (a genetic trait) and their flower structure inhibits pollinators from depositing "foreign" pollen. Tomatoes are another inbreeding crop. Squash is an example of an outcrossing crop. For reasons I can't explain, the ability of beans to be cross-pollinated varies according to species. Different varieties of common beans are relatively unlikely to cross. Varieties of lima bean are more likely to cross. I don't know about others. I hope I've stated this correctly. Please let me know if I haven't. Jim

I wouldn't be too quick to jump on board with the reclassification. I have found that the general descriptions and classifications of Yuccas and Agaves to be quite vague and subjective. With palms the lines are much better defined. With the succulents, it seems not enough tissue DNA analysis has been done to clearly define species. Botanists are very willing to adopt subspecies in the above genre. The common names of Spanish bayonet and Spanish dagger each can call out multiple species in the nursery trade. Hopefully, someone from out west with more experience can explain WHY the change was made.

For ARS members benefit, it might give some thought to the following proposal. Bob Martin planted the seed by suggesting changes to roses are put on hold for several years, giving the public time to adjust. While the idea has merit is not very practical for various reasons, from database confusion to various rose publications. ARS âÂÂRose magazines âÂÂRose Registrationâ column was established ONLY to provide information to the ARS members on new registrations, not to service exhibitors. Now they cut that to six issues. Typical to ARS Handbook, primarily for new rose growers looking for roses that will grow well in their garden, not for exhibitors per se. The reason Olive was not in the Rose magazines âÂÂRose Registrationâ column, is because it was registered as a shrub, and not a change in registration, or a new registration. After approximately 25 years registered as a floribunda by ARS, it would only seem fair members are advised of a change in the âÂÂRoseâ magazine. The question ARS should ask itself, exactly what publication comes with membership in ARS, keeping itâÂÂs members up to date on a timely basis? None. While computers are the wave of the future, members without one, no longer can depend on ARS publications and must purchase the OL and MR 12, even they are not up to date. Would suggest when a change in a roses status takes place that prior to DQ the rose, a change is noted in an official ARS publication members receive as part of being an ARS member. ItâÂÂs been said why be a ARS member, when additional publications must be purchased to exhibit your roses.

Suzanne / Rosetech, Thank you both for posting. I agree with both of you rose testers that Ty is a miniature rose, that was preciously the purpose of the post on the GW site on July 13,2005, making other judges and exhibitors aware of Ty’s new reclassification. It seems everyone who was a test grower for the rose was aware of the status change of Ty, but the general public and all judges at the show, including the show chairman of judges. Judges were not informed that Ty was recently reclassified as a miniature rose, and disqualified was based on the latest dated information ARS published. After Ty was verified as a miniature, my ballot was the first to be submitted to show chairman voting for Ty as miniature queen. Talking to Robbie that afternoon, asked him about the change on Ty’s classification. As Suzanne stated, on advice from test growers he made the change submitting it to ARS in June. On July 11,2005 two days after the rose show, I sent the following e-mail to the ARS National Chairman of Registrations: Phil, Let me again repeat what was stated previously. As long as ARS uses an antiquated method of reporting on roses in the Rose, or ARS/IRAR web site, is not serving its purpose of providing the latest information to judges and exhibitors. As a matter of fact at the present time, no ARS publications regarding rosés have up to date information in them. Even the ARS/ IRAR web site is making it very inconvenient for judges or exhibitors to correctly identify roses, and may or may not be listing roses correctly. You have to ask why ARS makes changes corrections/ additions/ deletions to the AEN or ARS / IRAR web site, without properly notifying the public? Let me explain why. This weekend at the Seventh National Miniature Rose Show in Indianapolis, Robbie Tucker won Miniature Queen of the show with “Ty”. But not before a short discussion on the roses true classification. The April Rose magazine lists it as a mini-flora, but no correction was noted in the July Rose magazine. ARS still lists it as a mini-flora on its web site judge’s page as of July 7, 2005 (that list was also to include, corrections/ additions/ deletions). According to the ARS / IRAR web site it was originally registered on 3-3-05 as a mini-flora. Based on this and all other official ARS publications having identical information, “Ty” should have been classified as a mini-flora. Luckily the hybridizer was there and said he had reclassified it to a miniature over a month ago. Arriving home today, looked over a listing of approximately 623 registered roses, or 25 pages of ARS / IRAR web site listing over the years, found it is now registered as a miniature rose also on 3-3-05. ARS has two options to correctly this confusing situation with roses posted on the ARS / IRAR web site. Insist on the day of a show, the show chairman download the entire 25 pages of registered roses beginning April 2001, and have this current list available for judges. Or use common sense and post any change to a previously registered rose on the date the change was made, thereby bringing it to the everyone’s attention, as newly registered roses are. (In previous e-mail to the registration chairman about providing more timely data on roses, was told corrections / additions/ deletions are entered when the Registration Committee has time). While it is true the ARS / IRAR web site can be considered a quicker means of proving the latest information on roses. It will only happen when it is properly managed with timely reports on roses. If they’re other roses typical to “Ty”, they should be brought to the public’s attention quickly. (As of the original post there was no highlighting of a rose having a change) Ty can be considered one of the best yellow (dy) miniatures to date, clear color with slightly larger mini-flora foliage. Without doubt a Queen, classed as a miniature or mini-flora rose. Ron S July 11, 2005 Rosetech, while I do sort roses by date, it only show roses by the latest date of roses registered, but if a change is made you have to go thru the entire 625 registered (at the time of this particular incident) to find a change of a roses status. Than it dose not indicate what the change was and when it was made, this is where the problem lies. Preciously what I am trying to get ARS to address, that any change in the publication be brought to the viewer’s attention. Like Ty registered as both a miniature and mini-flora on the same date. Believe me I have been trying hard to work with ARS, keeping judges and exhibitors up to date on roses, with publishing “Rose Lists” each month on the GW site, as well as many, many, many rose people belonging to the “Rose Group” that receive these lists by e-mail. Both Phil Schorr and Marily Young are on the e-mail list. In fact brought 30 of the latest copies of both to the national rose show, that was distributed so judges would be working with the latest ARS information. Making several suggestions to the Registration Chairman about several changes they could make to alleviate the problem by making changes stands out. Now besides being highlighted; add a second line noting change and date it was made. Received the following e-mail from Phil: “I checked with Marily Young concerning the possibility of adding a second line with update information to RR website listing. She said it would require some programming work, for which she doesn’t have time currently. We understand your suggestion and the benefits it may have, but we have to prioritize our work for ARS, which already takes up many hours per week, and making a program change like this doesn’t rank very high on the list right now when we are beginning work on the next Modern Roses along with our duties on registration, RIR, and other ARS publications. I hope we can revisit it someday, since it is a good idea. Phil” First let me say this is not something for me personally, it is necessary and for all ARS members. Being that both Phil and Marily are up to their necks in work, and have any time to address the problem at this time. Would it be asking too much, that until they have time to revisit it, they would they let me know of corrections / additions/ deletions to ARS publications that could easily be included on monthly posted “Rose Lists”. If something is working extremely well since the 2001, why would ARS not take advantage of the situation is beyond comprehension. The Combined Rose List is a non-ARS publication, yet a majority of the handbook and the AEN use it extensively. Back to the question asked in the original post? (Test growers receiving inside information from the hybridizer on the rose Ty, are not included) Not knowing a change of classification was indicated in any ARS publications at the time Ty was judged, as a judge how would you have judged it as a miniature or mini-flora rose? From e-mail received,nine judges indicated as mini-flora and one judge as a miniature, saying judges should have checked all RR listing on the web site. I have to wonder what the judge would be looking for in the RR listing, being there is no indication (at that time), on any of the 625 roses listed that something was changed, or when a change took place. You have to ask, in the future is a judge going have to check each rose judged. As ridicules as this sound, it may end up that way unless ARS takes time to make necessary adjustments. Ron Schwerdt