Re: Iris virginica 'Alba'

---

Darlene: I have been delighted that you have been getting such good explanations of the word clone. English is a language that keeps evolving because of the way we use and abuse our words. It is nice to hold on to a strict definition. You asked how you should write I. virginica alba. Technically you may write it in several ways which I will explain.

First it may be written as I. virginica forma alba Van T. The Van T. denotes Van Tubergen who wrote the original description in his catalog. Often the author gets left off but technically it is more correct to include them. yet including them can just confuse people. If there were no botanical description officially recorded, you may still use the botanical Latin to describe it as a form of virginica with no author. Despite a large tome of botanical rules of nomenclature I know of no rule that says you are in violation of the official code by doing so.

Second, it may be written as I. virginica âAlbaâ. This is more problematic. In this case you are writing the alba as if it were a cultivar name in title case and single quotes. (Sometimes my e-mail strips off the single quotes without my knowing). While in the 1950âs many cultivars used Latin as the cultivar name, today the International Code for Cultivar names prohibits the use of Latin on new names. Since âAlbaâ, to my knowledge, was never officially registered for virginica as a cultivar name prior to the creation of that rule, it would not have been grandfathered as acceptable. I doubt most people would check on this or even care.

One issue that should be understood is that not all cultivars are clones. The definition of a cultivar is based on it conforming to the registered description. In Iris more than 99% are clones and irisarians often take for granted that this is true. But cultivars may also be seed strains, so long as they conform to the description of the cultivar. An example would be the PCN âValley Bannerâ.

Many years ago I heard a lecture by one of the principle authors of the horticultural code. He pointed out that if a cultivar were to be lost it could be recreated, and so long as the plant conformed to the old description, it would go under that name. An example of a modern plant doing so is the daffodil âKing Alfredâ. In Iris I suspect that some of the Dutch Iris fall into this same situation. It makes me think that our present cultivar descriptions are rather weak and that certainly pictures should be a part of registration.