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: irischapman@netscape.net
  • Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:31:22 -0500

If you wish to send some $ for photocopying and  mailing I'll make 
copies for you. There are a few colour pages. I was sceptical as well 
until I read the papers. They are excellent research, and I'm a 
critical judge of research , having trained in reserch. I can't find 
any flaws in the research and they have covered many area. Documented 
where each of the many ciollection sites were, , did karotypng, scatter 
diagrams based on morphological details, seed , leaf and pollen 
comparisons and denograms on 14 morphological pieces of data and every 
time they got four distinct groupings and the one anomolous population 
in one study.

Check Simons  karotype species study data on Dalmatica. Allthough he 
didn't declassify it as pallida species it was very strongly implied. 
Karoptype problems, among others. I have grown Dalmatica and having 
seen it can say leaf structure is very different from pallida norms. 
Greener, wider and longer then what is known and it doesnrt fit the 
data presented in Mitic et als research into these characteristics.

Classifying something into a pallida group is like classifyng a 
siberianclone  into  a siberian class, it doesnt make it an "Iris 

Chuck Chapman

-----Original Message-----
From: David Ferguson <manzano57@msn.com>
To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:48:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re:  HIST: TB: Pink Opal- use of species 


  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.



  *  Visit your group "iris-photos" on the web.

 *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

 *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

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

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