What I call rods (canes?) are the yellow vertical lines in the pix. I think that's what they are, in part because what I've described as murrines are as undefined and blob-like as those pictured in pieces from the Barovier book, as opposed to (say) those bright and clearly defined ones you'd see in a vintage Murano paperweight. A close up examination shows them to be melted into the texture of vase, rather than blended/blown into it. I'm very comfortable saying that this not a recent Asian piece, but if it isn't the "real thing" (vintage Murano), the best non-Murano candidate would be U.S. studio glass inspired by Murano. I'm concerned that the bottom is not polished. However, what's clear from Fuga pieces in the Barovier book and other resources is that they, as with my piece, have a rough, broken off pontil that is, frankly, uncharacteristic of 1950s/1960s Murano glass produced by designers other than Fuga. (The broken pontil, I believe, is much more common to earlier 20th Century Murano glass). Minor imperfections in the glass don't concern me because, again, they're visible in Fuga pieces. Finally, the subtle iridescent overlay, gauzy yellow color and abstract, albeit not quite "over the top" form, lead me to think it's a good quality vase and not a piece of junk. Then again, I don't pretend to be an expert.