Sorry,

Moondance Masquerade is a registered rose. Registered on 12-1-2006 on the ARS / IRAR web site.
Thank You
Ron S

Received several posts, inquiring about, “ARS Judges & Exhibitors / F.Y.I” article. Why I considered mini-flora roses posted on the ARS web site, to have questionable official AENs? Will explain my position and what prompted my action. First let me say, an immediately correction was noted on the GW site, regarding “Moondance Masquerade”. It is a mini-flora registered on 12-1-06, as noted on the last two Mini-Flora posts.

Contacted early last year, ARS Co-Chairman of Rose Registration” column Marily Young, questioned her why changes to all roses are not being reported on in “Rose Registration” column”? Without going thru a year of past e-mails for a precise quote, her reply was. Before any official changes do take place, they will be noted in that column. Eventually all new roses will also appear in that column. As of today, no changes on roses in question are noted in the March “Rose” magazine “Rose Registration” column, or in any ARS official publications.

As previously addressed, this also relates to FYI column in the American “Rose” magazine. Lately, much judging information is disseminated in that column. In May, at the 2004 San Diego, Ca. Rose Convention, ARS BOD approved the following. “That an official ARS listing of AENs in the American Rose magazine, is only to be found in the “Rose Registration” column”. “The appearance of roses names elsewhere in the magazine does not constitute an official-hence “exhibitable” ※ listing. “It is further understood, that approved changes will appear in the FYI Column of the next available issue”.

According to latest ARS Guidelines, its very specific on what publications qualifies, as ARS judging publications and as far as I know, the Judges page is not considered one of them.

My interpretation of this, is before in any new AENs or changes to existing rose classifications, action taken, should be duly noted in “Rose Registration” corrections / additions / deletions, etc, prior to being considered official. On this particular list on ARS web site, five (5) roses on the mini-flora list are technically still officially classified as miniatures and one (1) is a floribunda; all with designated ARS approved exhibition names in several official publications, thus requiring reclassification, prior to being listed as mini-flora roses.

Dazzler (KELdaz) yb, 1997 Martin Kelly, is classified as a miniature rose in MR XI, 2006 AEN and 2006 Handbook.

Mo Mama (HOUmom) ab, 2001 Robin Hough, is listed in the March 2001 “Rose Registration” as a mini-flora. In September 2001, its classification was changed to a floribunda, as it is currently listed in the 2006 AEN and CRL.

Golden Trust (Hardish) dy, 2002 Harkness, is classified as a miniature rose in the 2006 Handbook and CRL publications.

Golden Hit (POULgold) dy, 1996 Poulsen, is classified as a miniature rose in MR II, 2006 AEN and CRL publications.

Scarlet Hit (POULmo) mr, 1991 Poulsen, is classed as a miniature rose in mr XII and CRL publications.

Snow Hit (POULsnows) w, 2000 Poulsen, is classed as a miniature rose in mr XII and CRL publications.

Don’t fault this inaccuracy on the person doing the actual posting, Jolene Adams only lists what ARS Headquarters sends her to post.

From my perspective, it would make sense after an official reclassification, in the Rose magazine “Rose Registration” column, list them in 2006 AEN that has not yet been published and in the FYI column for all to see. Thereby avoiding a similar mess ARS had 5-6 years ago, with Autumn Splendor and Cachet etc. at a National rose show, where judges were handed a list of roses prior to judging. Containing the latest rose information in the “Rose” magazine, not yet published / delivered for ARS general membership to view.

While all this official information is helpful to ARS members receiving the “Rose” magazine. Have to question its fairness to many people who are not ARS members, which do exhibit, purchase and rely on the AEN for the latest rose information? Or to ARS members who do not have computers, to actually receive mini-flora roses listed on ARS web site, etc.

Much confusion is created; simply by not having enough time to follow ARS established procedures. As noted above in the fifth (5) paragraph, this same typical example of confusion, transpired at ARS National Miniature Rose Show in Indianapolis on July 9,2005, with the rose “Ty”. On March 3, 2005 the IRAR web site, classified “Ty” as a mini-flora rose. In the April 2005 “Rose” magazine “Rose Registrations”, “Ty” is classified as a mini-flora rose. In May 2005, ARS web site “Ty” still is listed as a mini-flora rose. Unknown to most everyone, on March 3, 2005 the IRAR web, reclassified “Ty” as a miniature rose, the same date listed, when it was classified as a mini-flora. With the April 2005 “Rose” magazine containing the latest official dated publication with information on “Ty”, technically was still considered a mini-flora rose.

Luckily, the hybridizer was observing the judging and with help from a very knowledgeable Indianapolis rose show person, indicated to judges ARS had reclassified the rose several months previous, approximately May 2005, to a miniature rose. Whether ARS will admit it or not, something is essential wrong in maintaining a previous established system, in reporting on roses. When at a National Rose Show, all 14 judges agree that a rose is misclassed and be DQ. Only to be advised by a third party, information published on “Ty” in the April 2005 “Rose” magazine, “Rose Registrations” column is outdated.

Ron S
3-29-06