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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

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 12:56:24 -0500

Thanks.
  AS for my clarification. I never suggested that someting derived just 
 from a species shouldn't be refered to as a species, but that 
carification needs to be made between collected forms and cuiltivated 
derived forms.
Also that without proper documentation  or(scientific  evidence) it can 
be misleading to just say something is a species just because flower 
resembles that of a known species, we at least need to see plant. 
leaves, branching, bloom time, height , spathes , seeds, pollen etc. 
And even then we can say, resembles such and such as species on these 
details.  Of course karotyping and chromosome count would also help.

Chuck Chapman

-----Original Message-----
From: Robt R Pries <rpries@sbcglobal.net>
To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 09:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re:  HIST: TB: Pink Opal- use of species 
designation

   I probably should clarify my previous post. The
 argument was being made that just because something
 had been in cultivation it is no longer a species. I
 reject that argument. But I do agree that with Chuck
 that it is best to label some of these cultivars as
 derived from pallida. True pallidas are fairly easy to
 distinguish in that their bracts below the flower are
 wholly dry and papery at the time of anthesis. There
 have been many plants referred to as pallidas in the
 old 39 checklist which were not pure pallida but
 derived from pallida and usually these will have
 bracts that are half green and half papery. I did not
 include ?Pink Opal? in the SIGNA Checklist because it
 was suspect and I could not trace its lineage. The
 emphasis should be keeping as much information
 straight as possible. But the idea that as soon as
 something receives a cultivar name it is no longer a
 species should not be encouraged.
 Pallida is also somewhat problematic because it has
 been split into several species at various times. At
 one time Iris cengialtii was considered a separate
 species, now it is considered a subspecies. Iris
 ilyrica also was once called a separate species. It
 seems that most plants used in historic hybrids were
 Iris pallida subspecies pallida and that these other
 variants played a limited role.
 I am neither a splitter or a lumper. I am interested
 in seeing as much variety given names and so I suppose
 I have a fondness for the splitters. The trend today
 in western botany is more towards the lumper, but
 splitters have good reason to exist in Eastern Europe.
 A new species creates much more interest than a new
 variety so finding and support can be more easily
 achieved if you are a splitter.
 I have read Mitic et al. papers from Croatia and find
 them very interesting but I doubt that most botanists
 in the west will elevate their taxons to the rank of
 species. Whether this is correct or not I will reserve
 judgement but their work certainly points out that the
 pallida gene pool is more complex than one might
 expect.
 I pointed out the problem of pallida in the
 discussion at the beginning of the SIGNA checklist.
 How one identifies a plant as a given species depends
 on who?s classification one is using. By one persons
 determination a plant may be a hybrid and by anothers
 a species. But again it is entirely appropriate to
 apply species names to garden plants.


 --- irischapman@netscape.net wrote:

 > So what is the parentage of Pink Opal? Can it be
 > traced back to wild
 > species withut any other species?
 >
 > And which of the pallida series were used in its
 > parentage?
 >
 > I have been reading the recent research on pallida
 > series (published
 > in Croatia) and may help out with the research.
 > They have used very
 > sophisticated scientific methods and the papers are
 > quite convincing.
 > The research suggests very strongly that the only
 > collected forms of
 > pallida is the population reported by Dykes , in the
 > lower Alps. All
 > the rest are one of the other pallida series,
 > cengaialti, illyrica, and
 > pseudopallida as well as another unique aand
 > isolated form which may
 > be a hybrid.
 > Thus it does present problems. Ensata doesn't have
 > this problem, only
 > one species. The same with many other species , such
 > as pseudacorous.
 > In addition , some of the early identified pallida,
 > such as Dalmatica,
 > have some suspicions. Dalmatica was found in an
 > English garden unknown
 > time since collected. It has cytologicaland
 > morphological differences
 > from wild collected species and has abnormal pollen
 > which is not
 > usually seen in wild collected plants and often seen
 > in hybrids. Plants
 > from this clone are also called pallida, perhaps not
 > justified.
 >
 > The distinction between wild collected and other
 > forms does need to be
 > made to prevent further confussion.
 > I have no problem with term ensata , pseudacolor
 > versicolor etc, but
 > when we get to siberian, spuria and ilk we need to
 > recognice that
 > these are garden and not species classification. per
 > say.
 >
 > Chuck Chapman
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Robt R Pries <rpries@sbcglobal.net>
 > To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 08:12:32 -0800 (PST)
 > Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: HIST: TB: Pink Opal-
 > use of species
 > designation
 >
 > I believe I agree with Walter if something is a
 > pallida even if it was crossed with pallidas for
 > ten
 > generations in the garden it is still a pallida.
 > 5000
 > generations is something else again. At some point
 > a
 > new taxonomic name is given to garden creations
 > especially if they have hybridized with other
 > species.
 > But as a case in point, All japanese Iris are the
 > species iris ensata. Even though they may have been
 > selected in gardens for 200 years they are still
 > Iris
 > ensata. wild populations do look very different
 > than
 > the cultivated plants. One misunderstanding is that
 > wild populations often have individuals that look
 > very
 > different also from the general population. It is
 > just
 > that we collect these rare variants. Today man has
 > sad
 > to say impacted even the wildest of habitats. Many
 > of
 > us no longer view nature as being outside of
 > gardens.
 > But the whole world now is a garden whether we are
 > really taking responsibility for that fact or not.
 > wildness is now a spectrum from totally man
 > selected
 > to partly man influenced. Of course I would like to
 > see certain cultivars distinguished as "wild
 > collected" but there are fewer and fewer
 > populations
 > that many of us would call wild. And just becuase
 > something has been grown in a garden and given a
 > cultivar name does not automatically mean it is
 > less
 > wild.
 >
 >
 > ___________________________________________________
 > Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
 > Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your
 > Contact List
 > http://mail.netscape.com
 >
 >
 >
 > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 >
 >
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 > iris-photos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >



  SPONSORED LINKS
    Silk plant   Plant maintenance   Plant safety
   Plant relocation   Plant grow light   Exchange

  --------
 YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

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

 *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 iris-photos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 *  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
http://mail.netscape.com



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/2gGylB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-photos/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    iris-photos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




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



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement