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: Re: Re: *germanica*

  • Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: Re: *germanica*
  • From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:15:49 -0700
  • Seal-send-time: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:15:49 -0700

Sounds like this thread is leaning toward the species group discussions rather heavily now, but it is interesting, hopefully to not just a few of us.  To bad we don't all have photos of wild plants to send.  I have two plants from seed collected in Turkey as "I. germanica" too.  I suspect they will be tetraploids too, and I am anxious to see what they grow into.  All of these plants from wild seed could be valuable in learning more about these plants.  I don't think any truly wild population of tetraploids can actually ever be called by the name I. germanica though, unless somebody proves that a type specimen actually was one of these tetraploids, and not a 44 chromosome hybrid after all.
I think in light of Neil and Robert's comments, I should add a few more.  First as to species concept.  I think that the concept is somewhat different with every biologist.  We all see different perspectives and twists to the definition of a species.  Personally I think that a species name should reflect what is seen in natural populations and not be for mere convenience of classification.  If something behaves as a race of a larger entity, it should be treated as such.  However, regardless of what opinion one has as to rankings, I think it is a crime to ignore a population that is different just because it is considered "the same" at some level.  As a side note, I think that the endangered species act does recognize infraspecific taxa such as varieties and subspecies, as well as species (a very fine line).  Many species are derived from hybridization, and would venture to guess that all species have some history of hybridization, so it is very difficult to draw the line.
In the case of I. x germanica.  I don't think many consider it to be a real species, myself included.  It would have to reproduce itself as a wild population to qualify, and as far as I know, it does not (???).  However, the designation of I. x germanica is still proper botanically and is still useful to identify plants with a common heritage. 
The big problem with I. x germanica is that it's parents are not defined, so it is nearly impossible to properly define what it is, or even if all the clones assigned to the name are really the same. 
This is were the populations of TB Iris come into the picture.  First, which are the parents or I. x germanica, and second, how do the named clones relate in real populations in the wild.  I don't think anyone has answered whether or not all the tetraploid TB's are the same species or not.  We can't define a species based on a few individuals, they have to be studied in the field.  It is quite possible that all the named clones of tetraploid TB Iris are distinct species, but I seriously doubt it.  It seems that most come originally from the same region, and most are very similar (even if they are recognizable).  They may be one species or several, and I think this question needs further investigation.  I would be very surprised if all the clones from one of these species all looked the same, even if they came from exactly the same location.  Most wild species have a healthy amount of individual variation, and most of the TB clones are easily similar enough to imagine as being variations of one species.  Of course that doesn't mean they really are.  This is a question for population studies, not morphological studies of a few individual plants taken out of context.
I agree with Neil (and I'll be Robert too), in that I would like to see a lot more information about wild collected plants from the land of tetraploid TB's.
I would like to see a living collection of existing "wild" tetraploid clones all brought together into one place.  This would allow for breeding experiments, better morphological comparisons, and for easier comparative molecular studies.  Of course this still isn't field work, but it would tell a lot.  I'd love to have more of them in my garden too!
Back to the fuzzy distinction between species and lower rankings, and even hybrids.  I can think of several examples of wild populations of plants that are monoclonal, and which reproduce strictly asexually.  Some of these are sexually sterile, and all indications are that they are of hybrid origin, perhaps even F1 hybrids.  However, many of them are considered as species, especially the ones that nobody knows the parent species for (perhaps the parents are extinct?).  This is very hard to defend biologically.  I think it is "allowed" simply as a way to file them away within the system of biological nomenclature and not loosing them as another ignored but very real hybrid polulation. 
I would also be curious to know (but we can't know) if I. x germanica arose from spontaneous hybridization or as garden hybrids (perhaps accidents).  Personally I suspect that most clones likely are the result of people introducing foreign species into the range of the 40 chromosome Iris populations of the Mediterranean.  These foreign plants could supply pollen to the wild plants and the hybrids could easily happen purely by chance.  They are so well adapted to survive that they could easily live on and even spread vegetatively, and it seems inevitable that they would stand out from the smaller or less brightly colored wild plants and be moved into gardens as well.  Of course I'm just guessing, but that's the whole fun of it - right?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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