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: SPEC: Iris pumila

The stalk is a definitive trait that would let you
know you don't have a pumila. But the
pumila/chamaeiris(lutescens)such as atroviolacea do
not have the stalk and were thought at the time to be
pumilas. Only After Simonet/Randolph's chromosome
counting did we recognized these as hybrids although
their sterility would have been a clue. Old varieties
refered to as pumilas that metion a branch certainly
were not pumilas. Ahner you are better at parsing ny
language than I. It is always impossible to prove a
negative. There may have been pumilas in the USA that
some grower recieved but never recorded. I have a
great deal of respect for Louise Beebe Wilder but she
and even me can make mistakes.

--- ChatOWhitehall@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:59:44 AM Eastern
> Standard Time,  
> rpries@sbcglobal.net writes:
> <<I don't think the Schreiner pumilas went back as
> far  as
> 1928 but I could be wrong certainly the were used
> widely in  hybridizing when they became available
> and
> my guess would have been in the  40's.>>
> It is the importation of seeds which I thought I
> recalled  occurring in the 
> late 1920s. Then there would, of course, be the
> growing on.  
> The easiest place to trace it back would, I think,
> be the Schriener  
> catalogs. The earliest I have right here which
> appears to be useful is  the 1936 where 
> named forms of the species are not yet offered but, 
> on page 37, under 
> "Species and Unusual Types of Iris," is found an 
> entry for-----
> "Pumilla [sic]: a diminutive species whose flowers
> are without true  stems, 
> being borne on elongated ovaries. Colors: blue,
> yellow, and purple.  From 
> central Europe, near Vienna. We know of no-one else
> in American offerring  true 
> stock of this species."  
> << They were the first true pumilas we knew in this 
> country.>>
> Maybe. 
> I am inclined to phrase it that "they are the first
> pumilas we KNEW were  
> true in this country." 
> We really don't know what was being sold under the
> name in those decades  and 
> centuries before people became sophisticated about
> things. As  early as 1916 
> Louise Beebe Wilder, no one's fool, was complaining 
> about getting the wrong 
> stuff when she ordered Iris pumila, and  she knew
> the difference. There is this 
> from her book, "My Garden" of that  date.
> "Varieties of I. Chamaeiris and pumila are
> constantly sent out  
> misnamed--that is, the former is nearly [note that
> nearly] always sent where  the latter is 
> ordered, and this is irritating since pumila is both
> dwarfer and  prettier 
> than Chamaeiris and may be easily distinguished by
> the fact that it  has NO 
> stem, while the taller sort has very distinctly an
> inch or  two."  
> Cordially,
> Anner Whitehead
> Richmond VA USA
> To sign-off this list, send email to
> majordomo@hort.net with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

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

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