Hazelcrestmikeb said:At the very least seedling pictures would suffice for me anyway. Sdlg X Sdlg sounds better than Ukn X Ukn.

I take unk x unk at its sad face value. Sdlg x sdlg at least sounds as if the hybridizer knows the parents.

The AHS database has too many instances of pedigrees which were arbitrarily shortened for publication, presumably by the registrar, which makes me wonder just what the registration process is supposed to accomplish. Is its purpose to classify and record the history of the daylily's evolution? Or, is it simply a way to extract a fee for the privilege of participating in the daylily marketing game?

It's hard to say what drives the registration system. For instance, there have been rules in place for several years stipulating that a picture be submitted as part of the registration process, yet somehow there are still many entries which lack an image. Is this because the AHS is more interested in the $25 than the system which they have set up?

WRT to "unknown" - if one of the parents is a cultivar that you know, but it is not registered with the AHS, the AHS requires you to list that parent as "unknown". So unknown does not necessarily mean unknown. I have used a few cultivars from Olallie in Vermont that perform excellently in Zones 4 and 5 and throw great and reliable kids, but Olallie doesn't register many of their cultivars. Hopefully, if the hybridizer is using such a plant as a parent, they will explain what it is on their website, so buyers have a better idea what they're getting.

I don't know why people use "sdlg x sdlg" if they know the parents - it's just as easy to list "(cultivar A x cultivar B) x (cultivar C x cultivar D)" as the parents and gives buyers valuable info. Sometimes seedling markers get lost, in which case they're stuck with "sdlg x sdlg" but even there, it's helpful if the hybridizer will at least make an educated guess on their website - they often have a pretty good idea, but aren't totally sure and are honest enough not to register it using a questionable parent.

There are some hybridizers who do thousands of crosses and do not keep track of the parents. Saves them a lot of time and effort, but it means buyers either have to accept getting a pig in a poke, or will wait to hear from others to see if the intro turns out to be a good performer or good parent. Most of us would like as much information as we can get before we shell out the big bucks!

"WRT to "unknown" - if one of the parents is a cultivar that you know, but it is not registered with the AHS, the AHS requires you to list that parent as "unknown"."

Rob, I just looked this up on the AHS website, showing an unregistered cross -

Daylily Cultivar - Scarlet Lace
Color: red with white bubbled and braided edge above green heart yellow ring throat
Parentage: ((Desperado Love × Wish Fulfillment) × Edge of Eden)

And I've seen many, many just like it. If it's a very long, complicated, tongue twisting mire, I wouldn't blame them for "sdlg x sdlg". But they could at least copy and paste it once in the description on their website!

"unknown" seems like someone is lying. Sometimes, you can even look at the flower and see one of the parents! If it's a bee pod they should say that. Daniel once said that he had nothing but first rate parents in his garden, and that any pod would have merit.

If they found it on the ground, they should say so, and I've seen it be said before. It would go a long way towards making me trust them. I know they can't be pollinating flowers and then picking seed pods, with a blindfold on!

I was just typing the same thing, Mary.

If you cross daylilies in an area where rust resistance and "not dormant" are your two most important characteristics, then parentage is probably important to you when it's available.

(cultivar A x cultivar B) x (cultivar C x cultivar D) is fine and helpful when it's that simple.

But often cultivar B and cultivar D are scruffy looking seedlings used by a hybridizer because they know they clarify colors or make white whiter or are great at passing on tall, beefy scapes. ...but would never be worthy of registration on their own.

So now its:

(cultivar A x (cultivar E x cultivar F)) x (cultivar C x (cultivar G x cultivar H))

and, to make it just a little more painful but not as bad as it could be, if cultivar F is also a seedling, I've seen hybridizers that will list the parentage as:

[(cultivar A x (cultivar E x (cultivar I x cultivar J))] x (cultivar C x (cultivar G x cultivar H))

No thank you. No longer helpful information. Just give me a good pic of the scapes and bloom instead, and tell me if it's fertile.

Also, I think if Clown Pant's parents were Leslie Renee x Wispy Rays, it would still be pretty popular. But if they were sdlg x sdlg we'd think less of it? CPs parents are Dr Van's Lily Merlot and Eight Mile High. No one has bought EMH on the LA since 2016, and DVLM seeds sold for only $15 and $20 instead of the $100 CP's seeds can fetch. We saaaay we care about the parentage, but our actions don't seem to back that up.

Rob Laffin, thank you for this. Although I am a more recent convert to daylilies, as a scientist, I have been confused when I see unknown and sdlg in daylily parentage for exactly the reasons you describe:

RobLaffin said:WRT to "unknown" - if one of the parents is a cultivar that you know, but it is not registered with the AHS, the AHS requires you to list that parent as "unknown". So unknown does not necessarily mean unknown....

I don't know why people use "sdlg x sdlg" if they know the parents - it's just as easy to list "(cultivar A x cultivar B) x (cultivar C x cultivar D)" as the parents and gives buyers valuable info. Sometimes seedling markers get lost, in which case they're stuck with "sdlg x sdlg" but even there, it's helpful if the hybridizer will at least make an educated guess on their website - they often have a pretty good idea, but aren't totally sure and are honest enough not to register it using a questionable parent.

What I have loved so much about this community is the open-ness with which knowledge is shared, and the fantastic cheerleading of even the most novice daylily fan (human fan and plant fan alike). The varied and inconsistent uses of "unknown" and "sdlg" seem counter to this remarkable culture and have been a puzzle to me.

In my scientific field, there are many unknowns. The fun bit is that there are "known unknowns" (where you have some information or know when you don't have information, both states apply to this discussion) and "unknown unknowns" (true unknowns, when you don't know that you don't know, and this does not apply here). The trick is how to share the "known unknown" information in a consistent way so everyone has equal access to what is known and what is not known. We actually have guidelines for how to do this for my scientific field (you literally have to follow them or you can't publish, which is the science project equivalent of registration).

Is there a push for more guidance related to registration of parentage? What are pros and cons to changes in guidance or standardization?

I'm excited to hear other thoughts, including from people who might oppose more rules.

Thanks!
Meghan

PS: Maybe this should be its own thread, but I don't yet know how to pull something from one thread into its own new thread. Any moderators following this have my permission to do so.

megdavis said:
In my scientific field, there are many unknowns. The fun bit is that there are "known unknowns" (where you have some information or know when you don't have information, both states apply to this discussion) and "unknown unknowns" (true unknowns, when you don't know that you don't know, and this does not apply here). The trick is how to share the "known unknown" information in a consistent way so everyone has equal access to what is known and what is not known. We actually have guidelines for how to do this for my scientific field (you literally have to follow them or you can't publish, which is the science project equivalent of registration).

Is there a push for more guidance related to registration of parentage? What are pros and cons to changes in guidance or standardization?

I have had this very discussion on more than one daylily group page on FB. To me any info is beneficial... I think just having specific entries for either of the known grand parents would be a first step. Also allowing SDLG as a suffix in the parent and grand parent fields would be useful... that way we would have tons more info in an economy of space.

As an alternative... an open ended field with "breeders notes" would be helpful

AND as an incentive.. they could charge more for Unknown x Unknown registrtions... that would discourage sloppiness, laziness and secretiveness...

goedric said:

I have had this very discussion on more than one daylily group page on FB. To me any info is beneficial... I think just having specific entries for either of the known grand parents would be a first step. Also allowing SDLG as a suffix in the parent and grand parent fields would be useful... that way we would have tons more info in an economy of space.

As an alternative... an open ended field with "breeders notes" would be helpful

AND as an incentive.. they could charge more for Unknown x Unknown registrtions... that would discourage sloppiness, laziness and secretiveness...

I love these ideas! I've been building my founder stock and doing a lot of reading on hybridizer websites to understand more about the cultivars, but I'm also a bit of a sentimentalist and have tried hard to include much older daylilies in my collection. When hybridizers have stepped back from the craft or have passed away, such knowledge is lost, and it would be incredible to have a way to keep at least some of that knowledge for posterity. Thanks!!

I just looked this up on the AHS website, showing an unregistered cross -

Daylily Cultivar - Scarlet Lace
Color: red with white bubbled and braided edge above green heart yellow ring throat
Parentage: ((Desperado Love × Wish Fulfillment) × Edge of Eden)



[/quote]

Hi Mary. Scarlet Lace is a registered cultivar with three registered cultivars in its parentage. I'm sorry if I didn't state it clearly, but didn't mean you had to list unknown for a parent that is an unregistered seedling from a cross of two registered parents. You can always do that as Stamile did on Scarlet Lace (and which provided valuable information to buyers) - though the sdlg parent wasn't registered, its parent were, so he provided all that information. That's okay for seedlings of registered parents.

What I was saying is, if you use a daylily that's in commerce but is not registered (and therefore you also have no idea what its parentage is) then you must put "unknown" even though the parent is known, and grown, in commerce. Which is why you want the info on the hybridizer's site, because if an "unknown" parent is actually known and has been in commerce for many years, that's a different story from a situation where it's, say, a bee pod and the hybridizer literally has no idea and therefore there is a lot more uncertainty in what you are getting.

It's a matter of preference regarding how much information one wants for seedling parents. Some people may not like the long, drawn-out parentage but to me it is crucial information. There are certain cultivars out there that I do NOT want in my program - they may have a tendency to pass on undesirable traits that I want to avoid. And once you get a bad trait in there by mistake, it can be hell to ever get it out of your program. I have been very lucky with two excellent, experienced mentors, who have warned me off certain cultivars, or types of cultivars, and saved me many years of hard lessons. I always research the genetic lineage as far back as I can on everything I buy if I'm going to hybridize with it. In addition to avoiding unwanted genetics, I want to know the spectrum of colors that's in the line - that gives me an idea of colors I might be able to cross with it - sometime it indicates a possible cross when it otherwise would seem like an unlikely mix of colors.

There's no such thing as too much information in my book! Just my preference.

Wonderful comments on here. Some hybridizers say to contact them to ask about info concerning the seedlings in your daylilies background. That would be good, unless they pass away...

megdavis said:

I love these ideas! I've been building my founder stock and doing a lot of reading on hybridizer websites to understand more about the cultivars, but I'm also a bit of a sentimentalist and have tried hard to include much older daylilies in my collection.

Meghan - good that you are doing that. A number of big-name hybridizers, including Jamie Gossard and Curt Hanson, have said that many older cultivars have not been fully explored for their potential. Sometimes it's worth it to make crosses with them that nobody else has made and see what you get. Some of the oldies have really good, solid genetics for certain traits, so you might get a pleasant surprise if you use ones that do especially well for you. And you can take them in a new direction crossing with the newer intros that are now available. You might at least be able to work some good traits into your program.

goedric said:True, but it is listed as hardy zones 4-9 on their website. Plus there is a thread here on dormancy. etc which discusses that fact that the generally accepted convention of using EV/SEV/DOR as a proxy for cold tolerance is no longer accurate with modern day hybrids... It's a great article written by Maurice that is well worth reading. In fact I need to read it again!

Thank you. I must also add that the registered information is how the plant grows in the hybridizer's location and growing conditions. I am in zone 4. I buy daylilies without even bothering to notice the designations and I have often bought direct from Florida hybridizers. Many Florida-hybridized cultivars registered as "evergreen" act the same as "dormants" here - they go winter dormant. A few do not, but most of those tend to be hardy. A few from certain lines are iffy.

It is important to understand that although the "evergreen"/"semievergreen"/"dormant" registration labels are not highly correlated with winter hardiness, daylilies that have been hybridized in locations that do not have the same winter conditions as where they will be grown have no selection for the necessary level of winter hardiness. There can be carry-over of previous selection pressures, for example where a southern-hybridized (mild winter) daylily has some ancestors hybridized in cold winter locations but the more generations that occur in the mild winter location (without use of cold winter parents) the less adapted the mild winter bred daylily will be to cold winters.

It is also important to understand that the ability to become winter dormant (endodormant) is probably not genetically the same as being cold hardy to any specific low temperatures. The lack of winter dormancy and winter tenderness were probably associated in Hemerocallis aurantiaca var Major (not particularly hardy in New York) but not genetically as the (possible/probable?) first generation hybrid H. aurantiaca (an "evergreen") was hardy in New York.

My impression is that the registration process limits the number of cultivars that can be included in the parentage. Is that correct and if it is correct, what is the limit?

Below is from the "How to register Daylilies" AHS procedure 2017

"PARENTAGE
This is not required information, but is important to the breeder and to many growers and its inclusion is strongly encouraged. Space is provided for the pod and pollen parents. For AHS Check List consistency, the pod (i.e., female) parent is listed first, followed by a multiplication sign, (which means pollinated by), followed by the pollen (i.e., male) parent.
One Generation Example: (Shockwave × Sunny Magic)
Multi-Generation Example: ((Chateau Blanc × Pale Blush) × sdlg)
Multi-Generation Example: (Pale Blush × (Kali × (sdlg × Polly Mayo)))
NOTE: Only Registered names may be used. The abbreviation for seedling "sdlg" or the word "unknown" will be used for all non- registered names.
*Double check your spelling in the parentage section to make sure all cultivar names are spelled correctly."

Thanks to the moderators for pulling this thread out!

I might regret posting this here, but I do data analysis as my profession. If the Society would ever like to explicitly collect data from the membership on these characteristics, I would be willing to volunteer and work with others within the Society who have either data or daylily expertise to generate good questions for the data, collect needed data, and report the results back to the membership.

Example:
Question: what is the correlation between registration label (dormancy) and hardiness, and does this vary by zone or weather?
Hypothesis or expectation: Correlation between registration label (dormancy) and hardiness will vary by both zone and weather.
Data needed:
1. Hardiness zone of hybridization (registration) as the same seedling could be observed to be dormant by a northern hybridizer and semi-evergreen by a southern hybridizer
2. Registration label (dormancy), the only characteristic already in the database
3. Performance (hardiness) in various locations (zone and state of observation)
4. Observer characteristics (number of cultivars at time of observation, credentials such as garden judge certification)
5. Year of observation (to allow linkage to NOAA data on weather patterns)
Method: SurveyMonkey or Qualtrics email survey to membership, or link/app within daylily database or daylily forum to capture data using a web form as member-users are able to provide cultivar-specific data

In my experience, gut feelings by people with extensive experience are often correct! What is interesting is that formal data analysis can help to reveal additional nuances. For example, someone's experience in the north is generally going to be a good litmus for their own decision-making; likewise in the south. But data analysis can sometimes reveal hidden patterns ACROSS these observers (between regions or zones). Data analysis also can help identify similar characteristics (such as lineage) among plants that buck the trend. Overall, this information could be really useful to help guide decision-making for both hybridizers and enthusiasts.

I've been pondering some of these questions for my own program, and am excited to hear more from others who also think about daylily resiliency and needs across regions.
Meghan

Disclaimer: I do data analysis as part of my **extremely busy** day job (day job, night job, weekend job....)

RobLaffin said:

Meghan - good that you are doing that. A number of big-name hybridizers, including Jamie Gossard and Curt Hanson, have said that many older cultivars have not been fully explored for their potential. Sometimes it's worth it to make crosses with them that nobody else has made and see what you get. Some of the oldies have really good, solid genetics for certain traits, so you might get a pleasant surprise if you use ones that do especially well for you. And you can take them in a new direction crossing with the newer intros that are now available. You might at least be able to work some good traits into your program.

Thanks!! It's great to hear this.

In addition to true sentimental value (the oldest I have were passed down from my grandmother and grandaunt), I'm quite interested in resiliency traits. I'm working under the expectation that daylilies that have stood the test of time are going to measure up to varied conditions and weather stress. Ultimately, it would be really great to have a drought resistance metric or a winter hardiness metric the same way we have a rust susceptibility metric. I'm making my purchases almost exclusively from northern or high altitude nurseries, not only to avoid rust, but also to have some idea of the winter hardiness of the cultivars I buy. I have to say, I REALLY appreciate the hard work of these northern hybridizers and gardeners to test southern stock and go through the costly process (time and money) of testing cultivars, since the weaker ones will not increase well or won't survive.

Just for fun, here is a histogram of the current 60-or-so daylilies I have according to registration year. I plan to get 4-6 more "classics," including at least one Stout, and a smattering of other somewhat older cultivars for my 2020 additions.



Oldest daylilies: Autumn Red and Hyperion

On a related note, does anyone know when (what year) the first tetraploids were introduced, or what the first more widespread dip-to-tet conversions were? The most classic daylilies (back to species crosses) are dips, of course. It would be nice to have a benchmark to seek older tets as well.

Many thanks to everyone for the great ideas here!! I've also really enjoyed some other threads and Society materials that document the history of daylily hybridization. We truly stand on the shoulders of giants!
Meghan

This is not a perfect answer to your question about Tets, Meg, but I ran a query against the daylily database for tets registered 1958 and earlier, and there are just a small number.

From what I've read, Dr Hamilton Traub of CA was the first to start registering Tets that had been converted from dips. A lot of work on Tets was also done in the early 60's in the Chicago area (why I'm interested in the history).

I also bookmarked some documentation I came across on-line. I'm not sure how it will link for you, but it goes right to a page with "Tetraploids" section on it for me.




https://books.google.com/books...

JamesT said:

The AHS database has too many instances of pedigrees which were arbitrarily shortened for publication, presumably by the registrar, which makes me wonder just what the registration process is supposed to accomplish. Is its purpose to classify and record the history of the daylily's evolution? Or, is it simply a way to extract a fee for the privilege of participating in the daylily marketing game?

It's hard to say what drives the registration system. For instance, there have been rules in place for several years stipulating that a picture be submitted as part of the registration process, yet somehow there are still many entries which lack an image. Is this because the AHS is more interested in the $25 than the system which they have set up?

The purpose of the registration system is to record cultivar names and avoid duplication thereof, otherwise there'd be more than one daylily being distributed with the same name more often than there currently is. AHS was appointed the International Cultivar Registration Authority for Hemerocallis and has to follow the ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants).

AHS is responsible for making sure that cultivar names are validly published (this has always had to be in printed paper form but I believe that may change in the future) and acceptably distributed. The registration form has space for the pod parent and pollen parent but this can be used to go back generations to a certain extent if some of the plants are unregistered as shown in Maurice's example above. When the pod and pollen parents are registered there is no need to go back any further because anyone can look up their parentage if the hybridizer gave it.

It wasn't all that long ago that images started to be required for registration and AHS is trying to obtain as many images for daylilies registered before that time as possible.

sooby said:It wasn't all that long ago that images started to be required for registration and AHS is trying to obtain as many images for daylilies registered before that time as possible.

I realize this, and I feel as if the image requirement became more stringent somewhere around 2010 or so. Submission of images was sometimes difficult in prior years because of the difficulties involved in slide scanning, etc. None of the problems were insurmountable, but I understand how some hybridizers could be easily discouraged.

What I was referring to is the lack of images for daylilies which were registered after the current requirements were put in place.

goedric said:As an alternative... an open ended field with "breeders notes" would be helpful

I like this idea. The registration template is overdue for modification. The way things stand, users are having to wedge all sorts of flower attributes into the "color" field.

AND as an incentive.. they could charge more for Unknown x Unknown registrtions... that would discourage sloppiness, laziness and secretiveness.

Unfortunately, all this would do is encourage more prevarication than already exists with regard to registered parentage.

Well regardless of what the original intention of the registry was, it would be nice if it could evolve into something more useful... I mean if all we care about is tracking names and avoiding confusion then we can just all agree to give intros a name that includes the hybridizer name and year of introduction as a suffix... e.g. Daylily Name - 2020 - Joe Breeder... everything would then be unique.

Clearly the current registry is a resource that goes beyond names... I do not see why it cannot track more than it is was originally mandated to track.... Further, it could do a better job with the data it does have. I routinely use this site (garden.org) to look at registered hybrids instead of the registry for three reasons... first daylilies.org is very slow.. takes forever to load pages at times. Second, i can click on pod and pollen parents her to take a look which is manual and more difficult on the daylilies.org site, and third i can often see more photos.