Re: Re: Iris pallida

---

Hi Chuck,

 

 

Here is a little bit from the botanist side of me.  Some more thoughts.

 

While you may well be correct in your suppositions on the origins of the plicata pattern, and I don't mean to argue that you are not; I simply doubt it personally.  I wonder if you may be discounting the I. pallida line of reasoning a bit prematurely.  I would like to here why you think these cultivars are not I. pallida.

 

As for the plicata pattern in wild populations:     Such an individual in a wild I. pallida population would likely be noticed and propagated, because it would be different.  This could also quite possibly be a unique mutation within that one clone that was not even present in the rest of the population.  Potentially collecting it could remove it entirely from the wild population.  Rare (perhaps unique) mutations, especially in striking features such as coloration, are often brought into cultivation simply because they are unusual.  So, the lack of additional plicata clones having been found growing among wild I. pallida in recent times does not in itself negate the possibility that it was indeed found once or perhaps only a few times.  Also, negative evidence does not prove that it is not there now, just that it hasn't been (re-) found.  Also, without knowing exactly where the original plant was found, the odds of finding another might be very low if it is indeed a rare or unique mutant.  Knowing where to look can be very useful (as I've found out through personal experience numerous times).  If one does assume it was originally a wild I. pallida (maybe a false assumption), it would most likely have been from a heavily populated coastal region in sw. Europe; if so, the entire wild population could well have been destroyed by human activities long ago.

 

Another fact that I've observed, which may be incorrect if examined closely, is that none of the diploids that are clearly of I. pallida x I. variegata ancestry that I have grown are plicatas of the same sort as the "pallida" type plicatas I listed.  The patterns expressed are always different.  There are some similarly colored diploid MTB's, which may have some of that ancestry, but a few quick checks of some show involved ancestries of many generations of cultivated cultivars.  I suspect most have additional species involved too; however, I haven't checked ancestries thoroughly enough to truly understand them yet.  Several (if I remember correctly) do have ssp. cengialtii in their makeup, which seems to keep them on the small side, while adding a strong I. pallida compliment of traits, and they could actually be exceptions to my "rule", of pure I. pallida X I. variegata ancestry (??).  I do have a couple of these plicata MTB's that could pass for pure I. pallida cengialtii, but they are not (sort of an argument against me, since this shows that hybrids can look like species).  They have a slightly different plicata pattern than the larger cultivars I listed though.

 

While no more conclusive as to the actual origins of I. plicata, Dyke's stated the following:

 

"I. plicata, which is to all intents a pallida except in colour (cf. I. swertii, which stands in the same relation to I. cengialtii), is probably either an approximately albino form or a hybrid of I. pallida in which some factor or combination of factors succeed in suppressing the purple colour except for the veins on the edges of the standards and falls.  Plants of this type, of which "Mme Chereau" is perhaps the best known example, are common in gardens and the amount and exact shade of the veining vary considerably."

 

later he says:

 

"..., for I. plicata is only apparently an example of I. pallida in which some factor is present that prevents the purple coulour from appearing except at the edges of the segments."

 

then later:

 

"..., while I. pallida has produced either under cultivation or in the wild state the plicata forms, which are wholly white except for the lavender or purple reticulations bordering the segments."

 

While this is not stated entirely without qualification, it appears to me that Dyke's had reached the same conclusion - that I. plicata was in fact I. pallida. 

 

I would tend to take issue with Dyke's association of 'Swertii' with ssp. cengialtii, as at least the plant we call 'Swertii' now does not remind me much of the few plants of spp. cengialtii that I've grown.  It seems to be just a small but normal I. pallida.  Regardless, cengialtii is just a variant of I. pallida. 

 

In the future I hope to grow seedlings from the plicata cultivars I am growing.  If there are other species in their backgrounds, this should show in at least some of the offspring produced.  My expectation is that all the offspring from crosses of any of these cultivars will grow up into normal I. pallida plants.  It will be very interesting and informative, especially if I am incorrect.

 

Also, I didn't mention before, but 'Fairy' has a different, more limited, subtle and washed patterning than the others, and I have wondered if it is genetically the same.  It does have the strong grape scent so common in I. pallida.

 

Not related to the pattern, perhaps to be refuted by some of you who have been sniffing your plants, but I've noticed this grape soda fragrance in I think all of these pallida type plicatas that I've flowered.  I've never noticed it in any of the plants that appear to be of I. pallida X I. variegata origins (which tend to be rather unpleasant and stinking to my perceptions).  Again this doesn't prove anything, but fits with I. pallida identity.  I haven't noticed this fragrance in any ssp. cengialtii yet either.

 

Well enough of that.  That about exhausts what I have to say on the subject.

 

Take it or leave it, and may spring come soon (I want to sniff some I. pallida again - it's an annual pleasure I wish I'd discovered years earlier).

 

Best wishes,

Dave