Ok, if someone can help a non-geek to do that, I sure will! I'm floundering around here today just looking for a tab that says "post" but cannot find any. I'm much better outside than I am at a computer. It has to be 'knock you over the head' easy for me to get it. I love this site, though. Can't wait till I know how to navigate it. Even the help pages use some terms I'm not familiar with, so it may take a while.

Here's a second lily today that had extra petals & sepals:


And yes, there is a daylily named "Pandora's Box". Below I have a photo of a seedling I may name after her as well:

Those are wonderful pictures - will you name the seedling "Pandora's Box of Cherries" ?

There are two main ways to upload a photo. Easiest may be:

1. Post your picture to a thread - lots of people post in the "July 2014 Blooms" thread (a new one appears each month during bloom season).
2. Click the picture you uploaded in your message in the "July 2014 Blooms" thread (or here, for the moment) and you will see a pop up of your picture. Click "Import to Database" at the bottom of the picture and it will walk you through getting it in there.

The other way is to go to the daylily database directly, at:

The Daylilies Database

1. Find the search box and enter your daylily's name to find its entry page. Click to open its page.
2. Scroll down a little and on the left side you'll see a box for "Adding Actions". The first item down is "upload a photo." Click it and it will walk you through.

I know sometimes it is much easier when an explanation includes pictures of what you will see, so let me know if you'd like to see that.

Looking forward to more wonderful pictures, perhaps first in the Monthly Bloom thread, and certainly in the database!

Pandorasbox

I've also had no luck with Prairie Blue Eyes in any kind of dip-crossing (if pods set they abort) and it seems most of its offspring were produced pre-1980's. If I were more interested in it as a parent cultivar I'd try what I did when Dixie Land Band produced no viable pods ... cross it with the "wrong" ploidy and learn that it really could not be called a dip, at least not the fans in my garden. It was quite fond, however, of tets and made tons of seedlings that are among those growing on my potting bench. Lovey dubby I'll assume those red "dip" cultivars are not of interest to geneticists,

I have had no difficulty cross-pollinating 'Prairie Blue Eyes' with diploids in both directions. There may be a tetraploid conversion of it in commerce but it does not seem to have been common.

Your experience with 'Dixie Land Band' is interesting. Fleishel, its hybridizer, did not register any tetraploids. Dixie Land Band is not recorded as a parent of any registered daylily.
Dixie Land Band (Fleishel, 1969) height 20in (51cm), bloom 7in (18.0cm), season E, Rebloom, Evergreen, Diploid, Red self with green throat. (Lancelot × Red Siren)
There were four registered daylilies using 'Lancelot' as a parent and all four were registered as diploids. 'Red Siren' is more interesting as a parent. It was converted to tetraploid at some time since there are both diploids and tetraploids registered with it as a parent. The diploid offspring (11) were registered from 1969 to 1990. The tetraploid offspring (9) were registered from 1970 to 1988. The 1970 registered tetraploid appears to be a seed conversion. The first registration using a tetraploid conversion of 'Red Siren' seems to be in 1973 by Peck who may have converted it.

Might I be so bold as to ask which diploids successfully produced seedlings from self-pollinations?

'Fire on the Mountain" did it to me the first year I planted it, it has never happened again.

To claify your terminology, by seed conversion, do you mean a natural mutation from one ploidy to another at the seed level (from same-ploidy parents, but mutating to a polidy different from both), or by seed produced from cross-pollination between different ploidys to start with? I'm glad you asked about the self-pollinated seedlings - it made me go back and read my notes and I was surprised to find that half of those that produced seedlings from self pollination did not successfully cross their own pollen out to other cultivars. I'll wonder if that might be from unusual pollen formation, the extreme temps they were blooming through, or some other possibility.

Here are the cultivars that produced some pods, with seeds that are now seedlings, after being pollinated with their own pollen:

dixie land band (seedlings from self pollen and with tets)
fanciful finery (pollen only took with itself)
lullaby baby (pollen only took with itself)
monica mead (pollen only took with itself)
morrie otte (pollen only took with itself)
pink flirt (seedlings from both self and with other dips)
rose emily (seedlings from both self and with other dips)
seductor (seedlings from both self and with other tets)

These were self-pollinated but either pods aborted or I was not able to get viable seeds from the pods (any seeds did not result in seedlings):

baby betsy
sings the blues
uninhibited

Celeste, that is so beautiful! Have you tried self-pollinating it or out-crossing it and then line-breeding back to it? Might not have anything to lose by trying, if you were interested, in case it was an indication that something may be going on at the genetic level, if only infrequently?

chalyse said:To claify your terminology, by seed conversion, do you mean a natural mutation from one ploidy to another at the seed level (from same-ploidy parents, but mutating to a polidy different from both), or by seed produced from cross-pollination between different ploidys to start with?

Tetraploid conversions are now routinely done by using colchicine or an equivalent on the growing point (shoot apical meristem) of fans but originally they were done by soaking seeds in colchicine. A seed conversion is a plant that was made tetraploid by soaking diploid seeds in colchicine. In the registration information for tetraploid plants that have a converted tetraploid as a parent the conversion is listed as "tet cultivar", for example, Arctic Blast (a tet) is from a cross of Arctic Blaze × Tet. Barbara Mitchell. The parent 'Arctic Blaze' is a normal tetraploid while the other parent, tet. 'Barbara Mitchell' was converted from the diploid version. When seed conversions were registered they might be registered as cultivar x (a tet) from a cross of cultivar y x cultivar z. Both cultivar y and cultivar z are normal diploids and their names would not be preceded with the abbreviation tet.

I'm glad you asked about the self-pollinated seedlings - it made me go back and read my notes and I was surprised to find that half of those that produced seedlings from self pollination did not successfully cross their own pollen out to other cultivars. I'll wonder if that might be from unusual pollen formation, the extreme temps they were blooming through, or some other possibility.

There is no doubt that some registrations have incorrect information about their ploidy but it is not a large proportion. If a cultivar is self-fertile (self-pollinations are successful) then that means its pollen is fertile; I know of no obvious biological reason why that pollen should fail when used on other cultivars of the same ploidy and appropriate compatibility (usually meaning not closely related). It will fail when used on cultivars of the wrong ploidy. As I have mentioned tetraploids are more forgiving than diploids when self-pollinated. If a cultivar has been misnamed and is described as diploid but is tetraploid then it is quite likely to willingly accept its own pollen but fail in crosses with actual diploids.

dixie land band (seedlings from self pollen and with tets) - could be a tetraploid or a fertile triploid.
fanciful finery (pollen only took with itself)
lullaby baby (pollen only took with itself) - I have the diploid version and its pollen is ok on other diploids. There is a tetraploid conversion of 'Lullaby Baby'. Its pollen is likely to work on itself but fail when used on true diploids.
monica mead (pollen only took with itself)
morrie otte (pollen only took with itself)
pink flirt (seedlings from both self and with other dips) - I shall have to try some self-pollinations.
rose emily (seedlings from both self and with other dips) - I shall have to try some self-pollinations.
seductor (seedlings from both self and with other tets) - not unexpected.

'Fanciful Finery' and 'Monica Mead' are both Kirchhhoff registrations. Kirchhoff did make seed conversions and two of his registrations are known to have incorrect ploidy. 'Morrie Otte' is from Elizabeth Hudson/Salter and probably from her 'Enchanter's Spell' lineage. That lineage carries pollen sterility. I received 'Morrie Otte' this year and I'm not sure if it will bloom. If it does I will check its pollen in both self-pollinations and outcrosses. A diploid cultivar that is pollen sterile will fail when used as the pollen parent in outcrosses to other diploids but should also fail in self-pollinations. Apparent self-pollinations could appear to work if they are actually natural (insect) cross-pollinations.

From the work of both Stout and Arisumi, seedlings from successful self-pollinations of diploids suffer strong inbreeding depression. Inbreeding depression means those seedlings are not as vigorous as those from out-crosses and is routine when self-pollinating a naturally outcrossing species such as daylilies. Might you have recorded how many seeds from self-pollinations were planted and how many sprouted and have survived? Tetraploid daylilies apparently suffer much less (they are expected to suffer less genetically), possibly not noticeably from inbreeding depression when self-pollinated.

That dovetails pretty well with my original assumption, discussed earlier this year, that my Dixie Land Band was likely something other than a dip (and I'm so glad I thought to give it a go with tet cultivars!). As you mentioned in another previous thread, there may be as much as 8% of AHS registered daylilies (whether they are trips or, my question, how many additional may be unreported dip to tet conversions and tets that have reverted to dip) which may not be listed with the correct ploidy, in addition to whatever informal conversions that make it out into circulation (http://garden.org/thread/view_... ).

Like Seed's dip My Path, it has become common for me to see self-pollination take in dips, and at a rate that makes me question the role of insects. I pollinate early, due to our extreme heat, so often the flower is only partially open in the cool of the overnight lows, and pollen is otherwise removed from all opening cultivars each day. If insects are pollinating at that high a rate, I'd have to think that AHS registration information on parentage would be entirely unreliable. Some insect pollinations, I'm sure ... just not an explanation for all dip self pollinated pods, at least in my experience.

I absolutely agree about inbreeding depression, and I think it has been well documented in both plants and animals to ultimately be quite harmful. Even line breeding on close relatives must be done with the utmost of care. Since space is at a high premium here, and I haven't really wanted look-alike offspring, I only did those few before turning to other crosses. But it did leave an indelible experience that, at least in my garden, it is not unexpected for dips to set pods when pollinated with their own pollen. And to *always* try a cultivar with another ploidy if otherwise healthy-looking pollen doesn't take with its own kind (undocumented dip converted to tet, or tet reveted to dip, or the ever intriguing middle state of triploids).

As soon as I have blossoms from the self-pollination seedlings I will post for discussion, and hope to hear how your own dip self-pollination attempts go, especially with the cultivars we have in common. As you've mentioned before, the only way to know if an extreme pollination approach (opening buds, removing parts, netting the remaining structure, etc) would be a fair point of comparison though, is if a control group is maintained. If you go the route of "clean room" pollination, it will still be interesting to see what results from it, and perhaps you could try a more formal, large scale, "control group" comparison at the same time with identical cultivars physically isolated from insects rather than altered so thoroughly during pollination?

I did initially track the number of seeds produced, planted, and successful through both small-pot and pot-to-garden transitions. Once I realized I was ready and more interested in pollinating between other cultivars, I let the information go - I shudder to remember it, as I do know better - always best to keep information no matter how seemingly it is of no further interest! My unreliable memory is that about 100 seeds total produced viable 3-inch seedlings about 80% of the time, but the 3-inch seedlings put into transitional pots only survived at a rate of about 50%, and once put into my blast-furnace at around 7-inches height, there were drastic losses (of all seedlings, not just the self ones). I lost about 90% of the 7-inch seedlings put into my blast furnace (and that is how it came to earn its name, sometimes nicknamed "blasted furnace"....). To look at the big picture, though, the remaining survivors are ones that are almost fool-proof for my climate and yard. They think 105-degrees in full sun for 12+ hours a day is a real day at the spa. Crazy daylilies!

Wow Chalyse, just wow. You must live in daylily heaven. To think that you've only been gardening with daylilies for -- well, I think you said in your blog that this was your third summer. In such a short time you've gone from seeds to seedlings to blooms to pollinating to seeds to seedlings . . and it just keeps on and on and you ended up with hundreds of seeds.

I'm such a wuss that it takes my seedlings a couple of years to bloom, maybe more. Well, they were not my seedlings, but some my uncle had crossed and grown from seeds so I got to bring his results home to my garden. That's about as close to pollinating and hybridizing as I've ever been. And that was years ago, maybe '97 or '98; they still grow and are beautiful and bloom abundantly but shall forever remain nameless because he never registered them, only crossed for the fun of it. Those were the years he and I were restoring our grandparents' historic home; we took breaks from painting and during the breaks we tended his acres and acres of daylilies. Though Juli and Char keep telling me I'll be dabbling in pollen most any day now, I seriously doubt it. I love them and I can grow daylilies here in KY very well, but I'll just sit back and enjoy every body's new creations and learn a lot while I watch and read. There are so many accomplished hybridizers on our forum and people like Maurice who give of their time and years of experience so freely, as well as all the info to be gleaned from the AHS publications, I feel like I'm surrounded by winners and I don't want to miss a thing. It probably should be no surprise that I spend hours just reading this forum.

But you, you've obviously accomplished a great deal in such a really short time. Maybe it's the California weather. Or maybe that brown thumb you mentioned has turned a bright green. Whatever it is, it will be interesting to see your results. Do you have a specific goal in mind? Any particular results you are looking for? At the rate you are going, you'll no doubt have those results in no time at all.

What a wonderful history of your Uncle's daylilies, and your time together. Forgive me for mentioning it, but you might already technically be a hybridizer if they bloomed the first time in your garden, and if it's also true that this is the point at which someone becomes the originator of a particular cultivar (whether they dabbed the pollen or not, and BTW, just one dab can easily result in dozens of DL seeds). If so, he gave you a time-capsule daylily gift that could forever be a common thread between him, you, and future generations. You could even register one of them named in some way to honor him by simply getting permission from family members to register on his behalf. If not, they still endure by simply beginning and ending with you just enjoying them in your garden, and I respect that you may not want to do anything more with them than that. Your incredible donation of effort and time on behalf of ATPs community is its own kind of legacy.

So, I do hope that people see how much is brought forth by *all* daylily gardeners, whether they are long-time club members, professionals, hybridizers or not, decades into the community or just got their first daylily fan. It only adds to everyone's benefit when new vistas are opened. Veterans, authorities, and daylily organizations around the world (of few or many years tenure) still find new things to share that have not been encountered before, even if brought forth from gardeners who notice something unique happening with colors, or end up with dozens of unexpectedly viable seeds, who share a story that encourages others to express their love through daylilies, or who take some new approach for setting goals or trying new ways to do things, whether for color/patterns, performance, or a balance of bloom and scape. Each contribution builds part of the path that keepsakes daylily history, the vitality of current communities, and the future of the these cultivars that we shepherd forward by tending in our gardens.

Even if it may sometimes seem uncomfortable if new information comes forth from new eyes, the love of daylilies naturally helps to create a welcoming community that honors everyone's efforts and contributions, and supports exploration and sharing of new information - there is so little cost, and so little to be lost, by encouraging that further. Each bit multiplies the value of the whole. I, too, feel surrounded by many winners who venture forth unattributed to mention or do something new, even if it results in being received with great skepticism, and who document what is seen and tried in their own gardens, whether by old-time hands or new, and hold steadfast in the their appreciation for this amazing flowering plant that connects us all. Anyone who reads an article or hunts up a post, shares a photo or uploads and checks daylilly info, or helps to keep a social group forming or growing around the encyclopedic information contributed specifically from "everyone and anyone" is in the deepest sense a researcher, and thank goodness for that being the case at ATP.

My own goals for daylily hybridizing are a build-on in part from a decade of purebred canine field trials, health testing, and three research-focused litters to explore new practices in a breed that was near to imploding from inbreeding depression. I love those dogs, and that is what drove me to try new things on their behalf. Following that, those same goals were for a short time applied toward fuchsias, but imagine my chagrin when I learned they had already imploded a once vibrant gardening society, and right in my own new back yard. The level of difficulty in hybridizing fuchsia, and the micro-weather in my gardens, prevented me from doing much there. And so I came to the easy-care, easily dabbed and collected seeds of the simple but amazing daylily, with the same desire to seek a balance for best chances to ensure their future vitality and diversity. I will never sell a daylily. But just by growing, dabbing, or documenting we each increase their future prospects.

More specifically, my goal is to hybridize first and foremost toward cultivars that are (or are descended from) those that were tested for rust performance in AHS-supported university trials from roughly 2001-2007, including survey results from everyday growers that were collected for some time as well. In order to do that, I focus mostly on cultivars that have a pedigree that can be studied, and then also select mainly toward cultivars that have lineages considered to be somewhat resistant. Any resulting new cultivars that are worth documenting may be registered so the lineage can be recorded for posterity. And, I will try to test those cultivars to continue the effort to map any progress toward daylily resilience. Then, because of my climate and growing conditions, I am also leaning heavily toward evergreen or semi-evergreens, so that I can enjoy viewing beautiful daylily foliage year-round. I'm still adjusting goals about what I find most compelling in terms of scapes, bud counts, bloom season and duration, colors and other flower "accessories" but I seem to be narrowing down to purple, reds and saturated pinks, larger blooms (easier for old hands to work the dabbing on, and easier to see from afar), scapes that manage to hold at least a 90-degree angle or so when bloom-laden, and cultivars that are slow increasers. I'm not sure I'd ever want to limit my goals further down that that!

And I think that even those who do not dabble in dabbing have goals, too, and very important ones. By choosing or receiving a particular plant to enjoy in their garden, a person often invests money, time, other resources, learning, and tending to bring forth its gifts. We all observe and plan based on how they fare, what interests us or delights our eyes, and what we wish for them in the future (fragrance, new forms, interesting colors, and plants that stay easy to access and care for, for example). So ... perhaps one of you amazing moderators might be willing to split this discussion off (if having goals is not "odd" ) in order to invite everyone, old and new, to share their goals. Not limited to hybridizing, but open to whatever goals inspire them to tend to and share their experiences with daylilies?

Your goals are admirable for one so new to gardening with daylilies and there is no need really to take this topic to another thread. Cat's original question was about oddities and what peaked my interest in the thread was Maurice's explanation concerning such oddities and your response which agreed in many ways with his studies and their results. I found it interesting that your experiences in a short time could in some ways match his. Which has nothing to do with oddities, really, but my question pertaining to your goals came because I thought you might be working with specific color placement or variations. I wondered if such a thing could occur with color or if it is all purely accidental. Somewhere around here you posted an image of a daylily with what looked to be polka dots, for lack of a better term, and that was odd to me. I wondered if you might try for that again.

So in a very roundabout way, I thought you had taken a serious interest in specific color variations or 'oddities' thereof and maybe wanted to duplicate or otherwise explore with them.

Ah, thanks for clarifying! In some ways my experience differs quite greatly from Maurice's, and from other very experienced and often-cited daylily folks. For example, I posted in January about having discovered my fans of Dixie Land Band were tet rather than dip as would be expected from its registration. At the time, Maurice thought it could not have been a tet conversion (http://garden.org/thread/view_...). But, after I mentioned it again in this Oddities thread, and he pondered its lineage further (http://garden.org/thread/view_...) he now notes that it might be a tet (http://garden.org/thread/view_...), just as I'd mentioned back in January after tons of seeds came from crossing it with tets. And so the cycle of looking at things in new ways, researching, and sharing experiences and thoughts that everyone partakes in and contributes to, continues.

As for the oddities, and my pictures of both Pitter Patter and its new offspring Spots and Stripes, I am drawn by the long decades (1972 to 2014, forty-two years!) between the time PP was registered, and the time it took for a hybridizer to step outside the box and give some genetically-relevant dabbing a try on it. In one generation it passed on genetics that, according to common wisdom and experts alike, was not ever before to be expected. For that reason, I've got Pitter to join Dixie in my garden as core inspirations. Dixie reminds me each day to trust those instincts that lead us all to "just try it" when something is unusual, yet to be documented, seemingly impossible, or even just "new." And Pitter .... Pitter now reminds me not to wait so dang *long* to just try it!

It's always great to have new eyes, but it's never good to discount the work of those who have walked this same path ahead of us. Take what they have provided us and use it, glean from it, add to it, but in no way discount all those efforts and years of study and experience. And we must keep in mind that we might try but we can't always manipulate nature to gain expected solutions. We can always have high expectations, but it's best to expect the unexpected. The ultimate success is in the steps we take.

It's the same when working on solutions for something like rust. I have never had rust, it must not like the climate in Kentucky though there is much humidity here, but there are also long and very hot summers. It never gained a foothold here in my garden, probably because in spite of the humidity, suddenly, tomorrow might surprise us by showering us with more than 100 degrees that remain for a week or two. Sooby is our resident rust expert and through her many years of study, she can add some excellent information, as can others who have dealt with it. Since I've never experienced rust, I would have to rely on information provided by those who have.

You have gained a lot of experience with your 2+ years of working with daylilies and obviously you've truly enjoyed that time well spent. New eyes wide open are great, if along with them there is respect paid to those older eyes who have paved the way.

Now back to the interesting field of oddities, which-- by the way -- holds a great deal of interest for me. I became amazingly excited at about 7a.m. one morning last week when I looked around and spotted a beautiful yellow iris blooming right in the middle of July and right in the middle of a daylily garden where irises don't grow. Upon closer look, I realized it was one of my favorite yellow DL seedlings, now almost 20 years old, looking so much like an iris with petals upright in the middle and sepals downward turned. From a distance, it surely was an iris.

And yes, there is a picture, somewhere in this vast number of unfiled images that have piled up while I contemplated and read about and looked for other oddities on this forum.

Enjoy your endeavors, we'll watch for your successes and no doubt applaud them when they arrive.

It must be my work background; on campus it is the endeavor of education to question, re-try, revise, and create level playing fields that vouchsafes respect for all, and avoids blanket discounting of the learning we all do life-long. I would be surprised if Maurice, having some years earning a diploma on campus himself, would feel otherwise.

There is a saying on some campuses: "learn, re-learn, and educate, and then learn again from your students..." that many follow even if it may end up raining down questions, reactions, and attributions on those who practice it. I know your heart reads one thing, when my head reads another, but I would not want to suppress, temper, or hold myself in senority to any new information or practice, nor would I consider it any slight for someone newer than myself were to leap-frog over my own experiences (I'd cheer them on, and it happens all the time!!).

Blending science with social practices is often a slowly enough accepted process. Where Pitter may inspire me, I can still fully understand how your very special NOID is even more precious to you! Did it look something like this, which Julie once shared (I thought it so very beautiful, as discussion contexts show!):

http://garden.org/thread/view_...

I do know all about life on campus, having recently retired from about 45 years there.

But yes, my NOID looks much like that peachy picture, but without all the ruffles. It was very beautiful in its attempt to fool my eyes.
Trompe l'oeil, in fact.

Awesome, then you may have seen it in practice. Retired a contented newbie after 35 years there, too.

Ooo! A french major, art history, both, or....? (explanation for Sharon's beautiful turn of phrase - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...)

chalyse said: For example, I posted in January about having discovered my fans of Dixie Land Band were tet rather than dip as would be expected from its registration. At the time, Maurice thought it could not have been a tet conversion (http://garden.org/thread/view_...). But, after I mentioned it again in this Oddities thread, and he pondered its lineage further (http://garden.org/thread/view_...) he now notes that it might be a tet (http://garden.org/thread/view_...), just as I'd mentioned back in January after tons of seeds came from crossing it with tets.

Your Dixie Land Band (DLB) could be a tet or it could be a triploid.
1) The plant you were provided named as Dixie Land Band might not be the correct plant and may be a similar looking tetraploid.
2) Fleishel did not register any tetraploids; I would assume that he did not hybridize tetraploids. He may not have grown tetraploids. One of DLB parents seems to have been converted in the 1970s (best estimate about 1973 or just before then 71 or 72). DLB was registered in 1969. Although I do not think it is very likely, it is possible that Fleishel was mistakenly provided with a converted tetraploid version of 'Red Siren' instead of the diploid version if 'Red Siren' was converted before say 1968 or earlier (low probability). He will have crossed it with diploids and in this scenario DLB would most likely be a triploid with a low possibility of it being a tetraploid.

As for the oddities, and my pictures of both Pitter Patter and its new offspring Spots and Stripes, I am drawn by the long decades (1972 to 2014, forty-two years!) between the time PP was registered, and the time it took for a hybridizer to step outside the box and give some genetically-relevant dabbing a try on it. In one generation it passed on genetics that, according to common wisdom and experts alike, was not ever before to be expected.

'Spots and Stripes' (SnS) is from a cross of 'Pitter Patter' x 'Pink Stripes'. Although that is one generation from Pitter Patter it is not the typical cross that might produce a prediction that the spots would not appear in the first generation seedlings. A cross of Pitter Patter to a cultivar with solid petal colour (without any patterning involving loss of pigment) might cause some to consider that the seedlings might not show the spots but that would be on the assumption that the spotting was more or less recessive. If the spotting was considered to be genetic then it could be more or less dominant, more or less recessive or quantitative. The first generation seedlings in a cross to a non-patterned cultivar would not show spots only if the spotting was completely recessive. In a cross to a plant that has patterning involving the loss of pigment, even if that patterning is not spots but is stripes, etc., even a completely recessive spotting might appear in the first generation. Genetically, for example with 'jumping genes', the difference between a stripe and a spot depends only on the time during development at which the event occurred to create the pattern. Timing is likely to be a quantitative trait that varies continuously and so would be neither dominant nor recessive. In other words a cross between a cultivar with spots and one with stripes might produce seedlings with spots only, with stripes only, with both or with neither and possibly combinations of these.

Yes! Pitter Patter's first registered offspring, Tahitian Sorbet, did not show spots through its solid color, though it seems as color-saturated or more than the combination of some of its most recent pollen lines from creams, lemon pastel creams, and greens:



Looking further, there is also some solid pink farther back on the pollen lines, so not really too surprising:



Looking at pictures of Petit Patterns for cellular variations in tandem with the Turing Model, it seems logical that as pigment develops and spreads through a blossom, it follows established pathways rather than exhibits, for example, the more random tell-tale appearance from thrips, other pests, or climate conditions. So it made perfect sense for a hybridizer to cross it with other patterns, especially "broken" ones, and finally advance and document support for color theories. (ref. p. 270, http://www.telmarcgardens.com/... )

And, I'll add on to the possibilities of Dixie Land Band being a trip (or any registered daylily, since parentage and ploidy seem to be frequent and very fluid topics), though at the moment it can only be documented as having pollen that would normally confirm tet-crosses:

3. Heat stress may have kept it from crossing with dips rather than tets because most of my dips were in full 9b sun, where crosses to tets in the much cooler deep shade garden were able to take (leaving trip, dip, and tet all as possibilities, with varying degrees of likelihood, depending on school of thought).
4. It could be a trip that, once shown to cross both ways, could be further documented and identified (and that would be awesome - I will give that another try with shaded dips, thanks!) Would be neat to see that level of discernment pragmatically explored and applied to all daylilies, until DNA tests drop to 35-cents and direct our attention off to the horizon again.