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: TB: Unknown burgundy

  • Subject: [iris-photos] Re: TB: Unknown burgundy
  • From: land_of_mu@yahoo.com
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:43:09 -0000

Laetitia -  it is hard to say if the leaves were normally sized.  
First year plantings for me often don't exibit the size of foliage 
that they attain with maturity.  They were not noticably smaller than 
the others around them, but at 25" the height of the bloom stalk 
definitely was smaller than it's neighbors.  The flower was average 
mid-sized bloom.  It certainly wasn't an extra-large flower, but not 
the petite size that might suggest a MDB or the like either.  I'd 
lean toward it being a BB or IB, or just a TB that's small from it's 
first year and lack of ideal conditions.  The standards were slightly 
lighter than the falls but more from the texture than color, so 
definitely a self. The red coloration seems to come a little more 
from the orange/brown side than the purple side of the spectrum. It 
definitely had rusty overtones to it.

I look forward to your pics.  thanks for your assistance.  =)


--- In iris-photos@y..., lmmunro@h... wrote:
> Mike:
>     OK. I will post some pictures of "reds" that I took myself. But 
> they are all home. Will get them tonight.
>  I had thought of something else since I sent that last message 
> How large are the flowers? Some reds are huge (SPARTAN, MARAUDER, 
> VALOR). Yours could be a small growing TB, or even one of the IB or 
> BB's. CRANAPPLE is another possiblity (picture at home too). It is 
> one of the smaller iris (height and flower size). It is very 
> saturated red; more of a solid self rather than TRD's lighter 
> deeper falls.Also less purple.
> Are the leaves large? Or more in proportion to the plant?  
> I only have a few of the smaller iris, but the leaves are 
> skinnier than TB's. 
>  Laetitia 
> --- In iris-photos@y..., land_of_mu@y... wrote:
> > Laetitia-  I would welcome any photos you'd like to send me, or 
> post 
> > here if you like.  Thanks for the tip on TRD, in looking at the 
> > on the HIPS site it appears more purple-ish there than it did in 
> > garden... could just be the light of course.  So hard to get a 
> > color of an iris when they constantly change with the available 
> > light. =)  I look forward to seeing other pics of it.
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -Mike U.
> > Oly, WA
> > 
> > 
> > --- In iris-photos@y..., lmmunro@h... wrote:
> > > This does not look like a very old iris to me. Definitely not 
> 1903.
> > > How about The RED DOUGLAS? That's what it looks like to me. I 
> have 
> > > seen TRD growing quite short; small rhizome, not very vigorous 
> > > grower, blooms late...but oh, those flowers...rich rich red 
> velvety 
> > > color, just like yours. TRD has very smooth velvety falls; 
> > are 
> > > a little lighter.
> > > I'll look at my collection of pictures at home to see if there 
> are 
> > > other close matches. If you want, I'll send whatever I have 
> > including 
> > > TRD
> > > Laetitia   
> > >


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

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index