Re: JI / SPEC "Rose Queen(s)"?
- To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: JI / SPEC "Rose Queen(s)"?
- From: CEMahan@aol.com
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 03:05:11 -0600 (MDT)
In a message dated 97-04-08 00:57:34 EDT, you write:
<< Fritz Kohlein, or
I guess it should be Koehlein, since I don't have an umlaut on this
describes an Iris laevigata "ROSE QUEEN", (IRIS, p.234 gawjus photo, and
p.129 text) and, of course, one encounters many references to Iris ensata
"ROSE QUEEN" ( equally gawjus photo, Phillips and Rix, PERENNIALS, Vol.I,
P.228, ). Are these actually the same iris, that is, a pale pink variation
the species ensata, or are they, in fact, forms of two separate species? The
fact that Koehlein to employ the term "kaempferi" instead of "ensata" does
not seem to be a factor since he himself notes that the seeds and foliage
provide clear distinguishing features between that and laevigata (p.129).
What's the story, please. >>
The iris that travel's in Europe under the name I. laevigata "Rose Queen" is
really a Japanese iris (I. ensata), and is, in fact the same one we grow as
ROSE QUEEN. Koelein's proclivity for error is boundless, and there is not a
page in his book that is without error(s) I do believe. Clarence Mahan in VA