I am well aware that "correct seed identification is not guaranteed".
I am
well aware that seeds are extremely difficult to identify.
My question was in
no way intended to be a complaint about the seed
exchange or the seed
donors. My apologies to the donor of 05J033 (I
don't have old seed lists
with me on vacation, so I don't know who you
are) if I've caused any
offense.
However, I really resent the suggestion that I did no research
into
this ID. I have no material to compare it to (that's the point of the
seed exchange, right?), nor can I travel to China to have a
knowledgeable botanist show me delavayi in the wild. My ID was based
largely on comparing my plant to the photos of delavayi I've been able
to find online, and reading through what written descriptions I have
access to. Most photos seem to show a flower with elongated perianth
parts, falls bending nearly vertically, standards flared to 45° or
more,
and signals that blend well out into the falls, similar to other
sino-siberians. Siberians, on the other hand, have wider, rounded
petals, with vertical standards and a more well-defined signal. The
plant I grow as siberica is six inches taller than 05J033. Pure
species
sino-siberians (e.g. forrestii and chrysographes), as well as
Californicae,
have so far overwintered poorly for me or not increased,
while siberians
(and these seedlings) have been vigorous. Given its
range, I might expect
delavayi not to do well for me without
protection (though of course I try
anyways).
My plant seems to key out as sanguinea in the Flora of China at
efloras.org (taken from Zhao, I believe). I'm pretty sure my plant
exhibits "claw of outer perianth segments with reticulate pattern."
Perhaps someone can tell me where I've gone wrong or recommend a
better
method of IDing this plant.
Sean Z
Quoting Jim Murrain <j*@kc.rr.com>:
> Dear
Iris Species,
> Jim Murrain allowed me use his account to respond to a
recent
> series of notes.
>
> First, the info on both the
printed and web versions of the
> seed list clearly states "Correct seed
identification is not
> guaranteed, but based on information supplied by
donors." Few people
> realize the state of seed donations to SIGNA, but
there are many
> challenges. Identifying or even verifying seed ID is
essentially
> impossible except in a few extreme and very obvious
situations. We
> rely on donor accuracy.
>
> Second, I think
it is essential for every gardener to give
> some doubt to every new plant
acquisition until it has been observed
> for a few growing seasons and
confirmed that it it fits to some valid
> source materials. I usually
leave the original tag, but often add a
> second corrected tag. Many
gardeners never 'notice' that their 'I.
> songarica' is actually I. lactea
(one of the most common errors).
> Confirmation should start with the
given ID.
>
> Third, seed like dormant bulbs or dormant plants, are
very
> easy to confuse. At some point, they all look pretty much alike
and
> there are few people who can ID a seed or bulb to exact species.
At
> the Seed Ex we make extra efforts to work on only one packet at
a
> time. Labels always stay with each donation. If any seeds are
>
dropped or left on the counting table they are discarded, never
> tossed
back into a prior packet. We hope that donors are as
>
conscientious.
>
> Finally, each seed packet consist of seeds from a
single
> donor. There are many reasons.
>
> 1. Recipients can
contact either the Seed Ex or the
> donor direct to ask questions and feed
back about ID among other
> things.
>
> 2. Prospective buyers
may have more 'faith' in some
> donors than others. We suggested the
possibilities of combining
> donations for each sp or cv, but SIGNA
members objected loudly.
> Buyers wanted to pick donors as well as
variety.
>
> 3. Seed recipients may find that the donor is a
>
'neighbor' and have the opportunity to communicate easily and
>
directly.
>
> So it is extremely import to us as Seed Chairs to
get
> accurate information about seeds, donors, collection info,
>
identification etc. We try to transmit the essentials in every seed
>
list. It is equally important to each recipient to look at the seeds
> and
resulting plants, which brings me to Sean Zera's recent question
> about
ID.
>
>
> Dear Sean,
> When I read you question and saw
the picture, my first
> thought was Iris delavayi. The form is obviously
siberian, but the
> shape and habit of the style arms in particular
suggest a 40
> chromosome sib. The fact that the first bloom stalk was
about 1 m
> also suggested I delavayi and the mid-June bloom in MI sort of
sealed
> things. The donor I see was also a neighbor from
MI.
>
> Before I would have started a series of 'complaints'
about
> mis-IDed seed, I would have looked at some literature on the
species,
> checked web sites and tried to contact the donor. I don't think
I
> would have assumed wrong ID , but tried to see if it fit the info
on
> the ID as given. I suspect you didn't look very far before you
jumped
> to the conclusion that the ID was in error.
>
> I
have seen literally thousands of I delavayi in bloom in
> China and the
US, but not in MI, and this seems the most obvious. If
> you give this
plant generous spring water (I have seen it growing in
> flowing water),
acid soil and tlc, the 2nd year bloom stalk could
> approach double this
height. Then read up about I delavayi and see
> what else might fit quite
as well.
>
>
>
> The new seedlist will come out soon.
Donations are down
> significantly. I urge all members of this seedlist to
save seeds and
> donate later this year. We welcome your orders and
appreciate your
> membership.
>
> Thanks Jim Waddick, SIGNA
Seed Ex co-chair
> --
> Dr. James W. Waddick
> 8871 NW
Brostrom Rd.
> Kansas City Missouri 64152-2711
> USA
> Ph.
816-746-1949
> Zone 5 Record low -23F
> Summer 100F
+
>
>
