hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Re: HIST: TB: Pink Opal- use of species designation

  • Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: HIST: TB: Pink Opal- use of species designation
  • From: "David Ferguson" manzano57@msn.com
  • Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:48:01 -0700
  • Seal-send-time: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:48:01 -0700

I would be very interested to see the papers published in Croatia.  Where were they published?
I would be very skeptical about cengialtii, illyrica, and pseudopallida actually representing true distinct biological species, and will take some convincing.  I would think more likely that they are local expressions of a range of variation seen in a single species.  I know the propensity in recent decades for many European workers to treat local populations at species ranking when it isn't deserved, so this adds to my skepticism.  On the other hand, I don't know these plants in the wild, so I would like to learn more, and I do keep my mind (somewhat) open.
As for the question "what is the parentage of 'Pink Opal', I don't think it was recorded anywhere.  On the other hand, I don't think Sass worked with that large a range of diploids, and it seems most likely that it is just a selected seedling of I. pallida.  I. pallida is a very distinct species, and even a trace of genetics from other species usually shows up obviously in the morphology of hybrid offspring.  When a plant shows only I. pallida traits, it seems most likely that the plant is indeed pure I. pallida.
I will not argue that it is important to make the distinction that it is (probably) not a wild collected plant - it is important.  Also, I certainly wouldn't suggest that if one is going to study a species that a plant of unknown origins should be used, in fact it should NOT.  Still if it barks like a pallida and walks like a pallida, it probably is a pallida.  I think it is important also to keep track of cultivars that appear to be of species origin, for numerous reasons; however, I do agree that those of unknown provenance (most of them) need to be designated as such as well.
Now, going back the pallida, illyrica, cengialtii, pseudopallida thing.  If a plant is a mix of these, I would still call it I. pallida, at least until I'm convinced that these are really different species.  However, most of the I. pallida cultivars do not show traits from these other variants and just look like typical I. pallida.
I have to say that 'Dalmatica' looks quite typical for I. pallida too.  The fact that it is male sterile (undeveloped pollen) is not necessarily indicative of hybrid origins, but it does make this clone pretty useless as a pollen source.  This bad pollen trait is not unique to 'Dalmatica', and it could be explained by a number of factors.  'Dalmatica' does produce good seed, and when crossed with another I. pallida there seems to be no evidence that it has anything in its ancestry other than I. pallida.


Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement