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: HYB: JI X SIB hybrids again

From: HIPSource@aol.com

In a message dated 7/21/99 3:12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
e_galla@moose.ncia.net writes:

<<  I still wish the initial planned crosses would have been made with 
certified (my term for an AIS registered iris) Siberians and Japanese irises. 
NOT just done with those who "looked like" Siberian types and Japanese type 
irises. I know 'Rose Queen' was used but that is a weird registration of a 
Japanese iris. It was registered in 1915 as an I. laevigata  by Lilley. It is 
a 3 fall (single) and has the small appearance of a species...it is widely 
grown as a JI and the Society for Japanese Irises re-registered in 1989. >>

On the other hand, I, who wish it clearly understood that I don't know 
diddlysquat about genetics and have no opinion about these irises under 
consideration, would have thought the best initial cross would have been made 
with species clones on both sides. As I understand it, both I. siberica and 
I. sanguinea are involved in modern SIBs and that seems to muddy the waters 
right off the bat.

Anent ROSE QUEEN: that it is clearly a JI has been asserted with great vigor 
in this forum by Clarence Mahan, and I will add that the foliage does not 
resemble that of an I. laevigata clone. The terms I. laevigata  and I. 
kaempferi (now I. ensata)  were used with a notable lack of precision in the 
earlier years of the century and the registration system as  we know it today 
did not exist in 1915. FWIW.

That said, the branching on that one on Rodney's page looks postively LA to 
me. Never seen anything like it on either a SIB or a JI in this yard. Which 
doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Anner Whitehead

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways!
Are you?  If not, see our homepage for details.


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