RE: Digest Number 611


can anyone suggest a good web site to find REASONABLe iris bulbs... Janice



-----Original Message-----
From: iris-species@yahoogroups.com [i*@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:31 AM
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iris-species] Digest Number 611




There are 14 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

      1. Iris koreana
           From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
      2. Iris koreana #2
           From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
      3. Iris koreana #3 (last one for today)
           From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
      4. Re: Iris koreana #2
           From: "John, Sue, & Brianna Foster" <fostesky@verizon.net>
      5. Re: 'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii? clone
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
      6. Re: 'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
      7. Re: Re:  'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
      8. Re: Re:  I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
      9. Re: Re:  I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
     10. Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
     11. Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
     12. Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?
           From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
     13. Re[2]: Iris koreana #2
           From: Edmundas Kondratas <konde@delfi.lt>
     14. Iris koreana #2
           From: "John, Sue, & Brianna Foster" <fostesky@verizon.net>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:40:17 -0400
   From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
Subject: Iris koreana

Iris koreana is now blooming in my garden.  Quite a little charmer!

Dennis in Cincy

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:46:20 -0400
   From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
Subject: Iris koreana #2

another angle...

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:48:24 -0400
   From: Dennis Kramb <dkramb@badbear.com>
Subject: Iris koreana #3 (last one for today)

and yet another angle...

don't let the close-up view fool you... these flowers are very small...
approx 1.25" (3cm) across.

Dennis in Cincy

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:02:10 -0400
   From: "John, Sue, & Brianna Foster" <fostesky@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Iris koreana #2

Very pretty!
Any idea how far north it would be hardy?
I think I'd really enjoy having some.
Sue in NH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Kramb" <dkramb@badbear.com>
To: <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 19:46
Subject: [iris-species] Iris koreana #2


> another angle...
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/2005



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:55:59 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: 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

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:08:59 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: 'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

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

Some of this is probably obvious and not anything new for many of you, but
here'goes anyway.

No such thing as a dumb question (well, maybe I've heard a few, but rarely
one out of genuine curiosity).

Due to science fiction usage, all the media hype about cloned sheep, and so
on, the definition of "clone" in many people's mind has been twisted
slightly off kilter.  Yes if you grow a new human by cutting off part of
another, the new individual would be a "clone", but in the sense most
botanists use the word, the original and the copies would represent the same
clone (as would identical twins).  The main qualifications is that they are
genetically the same, from the same pair of original gametes.

When I say clone in relation to plants, I mean a group of plants derived
from a single seed.  Any plants vegetatively propagated from a plant
originally from a single seed are the same clone.  [[Rare exception:
sometimes there are seeds that enclose twins, which produce two plants, not
necessarily identical twins.  Technically if they are identical twins, they
would still be the same clone, but not if they are paternal twins derived
from separate male gametes.]]  Nearly all registered Iris cultivars are
single clones, but so is any vegetatively reproduced individual of any pure
species  (i.e. all plants of 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 the definition of a cultivar is sometimes a bit
looser).

There are also single clones that are actually registered as more than one
cultivar.  Most examples of this involve a sport that is registered as a new
cultivar.  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'; 'May Allison' is the same clone
as 'Celeste'; same for 'Beverly Sills' and 'Beverly in White'; and so on.

My suspicion that 'Tid Bit' is a clone 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, I don't know that many 'Sturtevant' cultivars, but
most of the ones I find suspect are 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 these appear to be pure 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 intestinally used (or thought
to be used) on the flower did not actually produce these seeds.

I do not think that mistaken registered parentage diminishes Sturtevant's
work, it is just an example of the fact that any cross-pollination 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
was 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 hybridizer (I've gotten some pretty weird hybrids from what was
thought to be careful pollination of several types of plants in the past,
and I'm quite careful - some desirable, most garbage).

There are many registered Iris 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 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 as actually being
pure species.  However, I'm sure there are plenty of others that I just am
not recognizing.

I. x germanica has a fair number, but is is a hybrid "notho species" as
apposed to a true species.  It has a number of clones (cultivars) that are
registered under cultivar names and rarely recognized as species.  For
example 'Crimson King', 'Nepalensis', 'Susa', 'Vulgaris', 'Florentina',
'Elsie Crouch Diltz', 'Kotchii', 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.]

I can't help being suspicious that a number of MTB's are still pure I.
variegata, but almost none are registered as such.  I realize that the
majority are not, and for many there are big gaps in the known early
pedigrees, so it is impossible to be certain for many (except perhaps some
day through genetic analyses).

It is even possible to get a pure species offspring from a mixed ancestry,
though the odds of chromosomes pairing up just right for this to happen are
usually extremely low; however, as long as the parents carry a full set of
chromosomes from the same species in both the mother and the father, it is
possible.  Problem is, it would be very difficult to know for sure, without
being able to actually identify all the chromosomes, and without being able
to know for sure that there were no crossovers or other events that have
altered the original chromosomes.

Another good example of a cultivar that is clearly a wild species is 'Amas',
a wild collected TB tetraploid.  This and similar plants have been given
several names, often in the form of a species, occasionally as cultivars.
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 (as is rampant in
Hawaii), 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 that are so different
that they are hardly comparable to their ancestors do exist, such as corn,
wheat, etc., but there aren't too 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

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:17:43 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re:  'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

Chuck wrote:

"On Tid-Bit the spathes do look pallida but the branching is low and wide,
not the typical pallida look."


From what I remember, my three cultivars of cengialtii also have lower and
wider branching than "typical" I. pallida, but I will need to check photos
or perhaps wait till the flower to verify this.  They are much smaller and
more delicate, with thinner stems.  The foliage looks different too, but
again I need to let them grow a bit more before I can really quantify the
difference.  As I recall cengialtii is less "stiff" looking, and more
"grass-like" with a richer green (but varies from clone to clone) coloring.
I seem to recall that at least 'Mostar' has some raised ridges on the leaf,
somewhat as in I. variegata and I. aphylla, but not so pronounced, and this
is never noticeable on more typical I. pallida.

Dave



[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:19:18 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re:  I. pallida cengialtii?

"Some seeds were on the SIGNA list this year. They may have some left. I got
mine."

Interesting, I've not gotten a SIGNA seed list yet this year.  Thought it
wasn't sent yet.  mmm - was really looking forward to it too.

Dave




[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:19:18 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re:  I. pallida cengialtii?

"Some seeds were on the SIGNA list this year. They may have some left. I got
mine."

Interesting, I've not gotten a SIGNA seed list yet this year.  Thought it
wasn't sent yet.  mmm - was really looking forward to it too.

Dave




[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:24:14 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

Laetitia wrote:

"TID-BIT is registered with the parentage of cengialti x pallida. Which
means
its only half cengialti."

I'm curious, where did you find the parentage?  I couldn't find anything
except a year and Sturtevant as the introducer.  Great information to have!

That parentage would indeed mean it is pure I. pallida, though it would not
be pure to subspecies.  That is if you accept that cengialtii is a
subspecies of I. pallida.


Dave



[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:28:19 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

Hadn't read Chuck's comments on parentage of cengialtii based on the Iris
Chronicles No. 12 when I sent the last post.  I guess my question to
Laetitia is answered.

On the flip side, it still doesn't say that 'Tid-bit' is not referable to
cengialtii, it even implies by association that it might be.  Pretty weak
evidence, but still not a negative.


Dave

[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:35:53 -0600
   From: "David Ferguson" <manzano57@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Re'Tid-bit' - I. pallida cengialtii?

I should have read everything before replying to any, but my computer is
being very slow about loading email messages this evening; I keep thinking
it's done and then pop, there are more!

I'm curious about dates of the following publications.  I have not seen them
yet, but it would be worth while for me I think, since Sturtevant seems to
have used I. pallida heavily in her breeding.

Thanks, Dave


The Iris Chronicles No. 12

BAIS issue 13 pg 12


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
   Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:51:11 +0300
   From: Edmundas Kondratas <konde@delfi.lt>
Subject: Re[2]: Iris koreana #2

Hello Sue,

Friday, April 15, 2005, 3:02:10 AM, you wrote:


JSBF> Very pretty!
JSBF> Any idea how far north it would be hardy?
JSBF> I think I'd really enjoy having some.
JSBF> Sue in NH

I.koreana as show the name is from Korea. According B.Mathew it grow
in central and souther Korea and though I have no true zones data of
this area comparing with zone map of China I can guess it may be 6 or 7
wih temperatures for former from -23 to -17 C and from -17 to -12 C for
last. If in your area you have good snow cower you may know that each
1cm of beeing compresed snow eliminate 1 grad of C. So you can decide
how succesful you can grow this species. Noteworthy, that in nature it
grow in dry or dryish places in shruby landscape, maybe semishade
for better performance is good.
Best regards,
Edmundas Kondratas
Kaunas, Lithuania                           k*@delfi.lt




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
   Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 06:20:28 -0400
   From: "John, Sue, & Brianna Foster" <fostesky@verizon.net>
Subject: Iris koreana #2

I never thought of Ohio as a southern state but many of Dennis' pictures
have got me thinking now that it is. It sounds like koreana would probably
be iffy here but it's worth a shot in protected spot. I think I have some
seed stuffed in a box with some others I wasn't sure of. If I leave it
stuffed in a box in the pantry I'll never know. Temps of -20F, -28C aren't
uncommon here but I generally have decent snow cover. The cold, wet springs
may be a bigger problem.

Daffodils are just barely breaking ground here. Iris are a ways off yet.
Still some snow on the backside of the house and in the deep shade.

Still I've got nothing to loose trying.

Sue in NH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmundas Kondratas" <konde@delfi.lt>
To: "John, Sue, & Brianna Foster" <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 05:51
Subject: Re[2]: [iris-species] Iris koreana #2


>
> Hello Sue,
>
> Friday, April 15, 2005, 3:02:10 AM, you wrote:
>
>
> JSBF> Very pretty!
> JSBF> Any idea how far north it would be hardy?
> JSBF> I think I'd really enjoy having some.
> JSBF> Sue in NH
>
> I.koreana as show the name is from Korea. According B.Mathew it grow
> in central and souther Korea and though I have no true zones data of
> this area comparing with zone map of China I can guess it may be 6 or 7
> wih temperatures for former from -23 to -17 C and from -17 to -12 C for
> last. If in your area you have good snow cower you may know that each
> 1cm of beeing compresed snow eliminate 1 grad of C. So you can decide
> how succesful you can grow this species. Noteworthy, that in nature it
> grow in dry or dryish places in shruby landscape, maybe semishade
> for better performance is good.
> Best regards,
> Edmundas Kondratas
> Kaunas, Lithuania                           k*@delfi.lt
>



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/2gGylB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    iris-species-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index