Alpine Garden Society

01386 554790
All topics Members' On-Line Discussion, All discussion threads for Any Other Topics

Any Other Topics: On-line Show

To make contributions or to send emails to other contributors Login

Started by: John Richards

Saxifraga 'Peter Pan'

Go to latest contribution by Diane Clement, 27 February 2009, 09:55. Go to bottom of this page.

Contribution from John Richards 12 February 2009, 18:06top / bottom of page

I was very surprised to read the comment of the anonymous judge (is there only one??) that Saxifraga 'Peter Pan', entered by Diane Clement, was NAS because it was a form of 'S. moschata' (presumably S. exarata subsp. moschata was meant) rather than a hybrid. I am no expert on mossy saxifrages, but Malcolm McGregor undoubtedly is. Inhis magnificent new book 'Saxifrages', which I very strongly recommend, he makes it clear (p.243 onwards) that all mossy saxifrage hybrids started with crosses between S. exarata subsp. moschata crossed with S. rosacea, named S. x elegantissima by Engler. Hundreds of cultivars were raised, many of which have been lost since, and mossy hybrids have had a very complex history. However there seems no doubt that all the red flowered plants have S. x elegantissima in their ancestry and so are hybrids. It is important that the online judging panel is protected from such arbitary and incorrect decisions.

Contribution from Diane Clement 12 February 2009, 18:41top / bottom of page

John, I am pleased to hear your comments, which agree with mine. I had previously posted my thoughts on 29 Jan in the Shows thread "Re: On-line show: I entered a Saxifraga 'Peter Pan' in the Saxifraga hybrid class and it was marked NAS as it was a ?Named form of S moschata and not a hybrid? The recent book by Malcolm McGregor lists it as a "mossy hybrid" and the Saxifraga Society list it as having unknown or uncertain parentage. I'd be interested in more information please. Who is correct?"

Contribution from Ray Drew 23 February 2009, 16:16top / bottom of page
Mea culpa

Diane, In defence of the other On-line judges (of which there are three) the NAS was not made in an arbitrary way - far from it. I spent a long time with my nose in reference books, trawling the Web and even having telephone conversations over this particular plant. The majority (large, I should point out) of references to S. 'Peter Pan' had no mention of botanical status and the majority of those that I did find stated that it was a form of S. moschata (not S. exarata ssp moschata - I'm guessing the status change in the recently released [Aug08] Malcolm McGregor book). It was necessary to establish its status (admittedly, by present thinking wrongly) to be fair to the other exhibitors - they could have complained if the other approach was adopted. Hopefully this hasn't put you off exhibiting next year Diane (sorry) and, again hopefully, John now knows that the decision was wrong but not arbitrarily derived. Ray Drew

Contribution from Diane Clement 27 February 2009, 09:55top / bottom of page

Thanks for your comments Ray. I had also done some research before deciding which class to enter, and as Malcolm McGregor's book was the first one I looked at, it had led me in the direction of thinking it was a hybrid. As to putting me me off showing? - it would take more than a judge's decision to do that!

This discussion Thread: On-line Show - To make contributions or to send emails to other contributors Login

Go to top of this page
Discussion Topic Any Other Topics
All topics Members' On-Line Discussion