I hope Ken is around to answer my question. In his letter he mentioned going through the hybrid record, in Sanders as well as what had been written in The Orchid Review and other contemporaneous articles. My question to Ken is how trustworthy is that information? I remember Ed Wright saying how, when he was stationed in England during WWII, he visited Sanders (St Albans) and marveled that the 'registry' was scraps of paper contained in a shoebox until such a time that it was sorted and published. Additionally, rumor has it that some growers were deliberately less than forthcoming about their hybrids. Add to that the usual taxonomic uncertainties ('tis rosita, 'taint rosita) and how can one really "hang your hat" on anything? Not only that but on another list Ken showed some pictures of one of his dowianas that bloomed completely differently on flowers on the same stem.
Now, don't get me wrong. This sounds like I'm challenging Ken's conclusions but really I'm not. I think in my case 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'..... Over the years I've heard these stories. Online I read taxonomic arguments by people who certainly sound like thy know what they are talking about. But what do I know? So I'm asking the question. Ken, do you think you can trust the guys who wrote these articles? I mean, if you can't trust Hetherington who can you trust? I'd like to know how Ken came to judge the reliability of the older data, his thought processes. I mean, even today people go back and forth over species (and varieties) all the time, & they never agree. Who's to say they knew what they were talking about back then, much less that they knew what they were breeding with? Again, don't get me wrong. If we were speaking instead of writing this wouldn't sound so rude.
|