Re: 'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii? clone

---

Been away for a few days.  Playing catch-up again.

 

No such thing as a dumb question (well, maybe a few, but not if they are genuine).

 

By clone I mean an individual plant derived from a single seed.  Any offspring vegetatively propagated from a single plant from a single seed are the same clone.  Nearly all registered Iris cultivars are single clones, but so is any vegetatively reproduced individual of any pure species  (i.e. all I. pallida cengialtii Loppio' are a single clone, but all individuals of I. pallida cengialtii are not). 

 

For all practical purposes, a clone is to a botanist as is a cultivar to a horticulturalist (but there are registered cultivars in some groups of plants that are made up of more than one clone).

 

There are also a few clones that are actually registered as more than one cultivar.  Most examples of this involve a sport that is registered as a different cultivar from its parent stock.  Even though it looks different, it is still the same clone as the original, in many cases the sport can even revert back to the original form again.  Thus, 'Madonna' is the same clone as 'Albicans', even though it is a different color and registered with a different cultivar name; same thing for 'Florentina' and 'Elsie Crouch Diltz'; same for 'Beverly Sills' and 'Beverly in White'; and so on.

 

My suspicion that 'Tid Bit' is a clone (individual plant) of I. pallida cengialtii is based on the morphology of it's offspring.  Since I haven't actually seen the plant itself, I am only making (I think) an educated guess.  I might be wrong (but I'll bet it has I. pallida cengialtii as a strong part of its background, even if it isn't pure).  The photo Laetitia sent actually reminds me a lot of I. pallida "cengialtii" 'Mostar', but 'Tid-bit' appears to be darker.  'Mostar' is a bit different from my other two clones of cengialtii, 'Munich Blue' and 'Loppio' in different shape and proportions to the flower, and in having more veining near the base of the falls; also, 'Mostar' is lighter in color than these.  'Loppio' comes from a different area than cengialtii is supposed to be from too.  A sample of three is not much to go on though!

 

As for Sturtevant's introductions, I have suspicions about a few of her introductions' parentage, most of the ones I find suspect are TBs (marginally so) listed as having a clone of I. pallida as one parent and a tetraploid as another.  One would need to count chromosomes to be sure, but they appear to be I. pallida and to be diploid, based on every detail of plant behavior and morphology.  Among these are 'True Charm' and 'Prince Charming'.  Parentage is not given for 'True Delight', but it appears to likely be from the same parentage.  I suspect that the plicata I. pallida parent self-pollinated, or crossed with another I. pallida in her gardens, and that the pollen used on the flower did not actually produce the seeds.

 

I do not think that mistaken registered parentage diminishes Sturtevant's work, it is just an example of the fact that any cross-pollinations made where insects (or even wind) can move pollen around can be diluted from pollen from other flowers.  I don't know Sturtevant's methods, but if she is like most early hybridizers, she probably didn't bag her flowers, and likely didn't even remove the stamens.  Of course I'm just guessing.

 

The only way to be certain of purity is to remove the anthers before they are mature, and to keep the flower totally isolated from any animal life (most especially flying insect pollinators, but even things such as mites and thrips!).  I'm sure that in most cases the intended parentage is correct, but there are exceptions, and it can happen to even the most careful.

 

There are many registered cultivars that are pure species, yet that were never registered nor recognized as such.  Many we can never be positive about, but we can be pretty sure just from things like morphology, behavior, and cytology.  These are most often not field collected plants, but rather seedlings grown in cultivation; or, they are field collected, but field data has been lost.  No matter how many generations they have been in cultivation, if they are of pure species parentage, they are still individuals of that species. 

 

It seems to me that there are more I. pallida and I. lutescens than any other species that were registered without recognition that they are pure species; however, I'm sure there are plenty of others that I just am not recognizing.  I can't help being suspicious that a number of MTB's are still pure I. variegata, but I know that the majority are not.  For many there are big gaps in the known early pedigrees, so it is impossible to be certain (except perhaps some day through genetic analyses). 

 

There are also a number of I. x germanica clones (cultivars) in cultivation that are registered under cultivar names and rarely recognized as species.  For example 'Crimson King', 'Nepalensis', 'Susa', 'Vulgaris', 'Florentina', 'Elsie Crouch Diltz', 'Kotchii', etc. etc.  Also, in my mind, 'Albicans' and 'Madonna' are probably I. x germanica, as are likely a number of the older "created" Intermediate Bearded (44 chromosome) cultivars.  However, in the case of the "created" cultivars, they can't be referred to I. x germanica with any confidence until the actual parentage of the "wild" I. x germanica is known.  [Anything with the same parentage, whether occurring naturally or in a garden is still referable to the same "notho"species name.]

 

Another good example of a cultivar that is clearly a wild species is 'Amas' and certain other similar clones of wild collected TB tetraploids.  Each plant was given a name, often in the form of a species, but they probably represent relatively few or perhaps even only one wild biological species.  Some do bear species names such as cypriana, mesopotamica, ricardii, trojana, varbossiana, etc., while others such as 'Amas' are not referred to a species name, even though they are clearly derived from wild populations.

 

There is a philosophical question were we might ask how much change in "captivity" is needed before the domestic creature is considered a new species.  To me, as long as the "captive" plants [or animals] can breed with the wild, they are the same species.  We call wild cats, dogs, horses, cattle, chickens, and many other animals by different species names from their domestic derivatives.  Personally I think this is silly, a dog is still a wolf, even though it looks a bit (or even a lot) different, and chickens breed freely with jungle fowl when they meet, but regardless, these animals have been "domesticated" for many many many (thousands of) generations.  Iris have not.  A few things that cannot be traced with certainty to wild ancestors, or are so different that they are hardly comparable any more exist, such as corn, wheat, etc., but there aren't many things this totally changed by captive breeding (yet).

 

Sort of got off on a tangent there.  Fuel for all sorts of debate I fear.

 

Dave