When Chuck Chapman told me 2 years ago that he would kindly
send me I. variegata
reginae, since it's child Iced Up was not available, i couln't
wait to see it bloom so i looked it up on internet and here are the
pictures i found. (attached)
One looks VERY narrow, the two others a bit larger.
Last year, when it bloomed, i was happilly surprised to see that it was
much more modern that what i had expected!
Maybe you should ask Chuck about his version I. variegata
I don't know where he got it from.
All i can tell is that it a very good grower, and that i only managed
to use it as pol, not pod parent.
You are right, maybe Chuck could register it, if it proves to be
Especially if it happens to give many children!
As for the children that already exist, it will be difficult to know
from which one they come from, but if a law shouldn't be retroactive, at least,
next children would be properly registered.
who, like Betty, could
die (or kill...) for a repeat, cycle & everblooming / continuous /
non-daylight dependant rebloomer!
zone 7 - Nederland
Email : firstname.lastname@example.org
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January
28, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: [iris-photos] Iris
This has been sent to both Iris-Species and Iris-Photos.
I have gone a few months without checking the Iris-Photos
archive. This morning I was interested to find an entry labeled
I. variegata reginae. Three
beautiful photos of a charming iris were posted by Loic
Tasquier. He said that he had received the plant from Chuck Chapman of Canada.
He included a very interesting list of the several MTB cultivars that list reginae as a parent.
I grow a quite different clone as I. variegata reginae. It is much
narrower and 'wild' looking. I purchased it from Terry Varner. My
question is whether these could be two different clones of the species or
whether one of them must be something else.
Some of the MTBs in Mr. Tasquier's list were from the lines of Terry
Varner, so I imagine that the narrow clone is the iris used in those
crosses. If two such different clones are really both reginae, it seems to me that they should
be identified by clone when they are used in hybridizing. Bob Pries has
long advocated that clones of a species that are offered commercially or used
as parents of hybrids should be named and registered. This case may
provide a good example to support his argument.
The first picture is the plant that I obtained from Terry Varner.
The second is Loic Tasquier's photo of the plant he got from Chuck