This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Classification of Iridaceae [2 Attachments]

I apologize for any confusion in not removing the misleading indication that there were two attachments to my query, which there were not. Someone else's attachments elsewhere, apparently, in this thread.
 
AMW
.
-----Original Message-----
From: ChatOWhitehall <ChatOWhitehall@aol.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 2, 2014 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae [2 Attachments]

Here are the irises/ I ask because I tend to use this a lot for general reference.
 
 
AMW 
-----Original Message-----
From: ChatOWhitehall <C*@aol.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 2, 2014 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae [2 Attachments]

So, please, what is the relationship between this Kew Plant List databse and the Kew Monocot World Check List I suggested? 
 
 
 
AMW
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 2, 2014 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae [2 Attachments]
Sean; I agree. The Kew plant list continues to evolve and is only as good for Iris as the Iris knowledge of the person who is currently editing it. Certain authors are almost automatically accepted because of their reputation at Kew. Indeed not even the best Iris experts at Kew necessarily monitor this list. This I why I like the Iris Encyclopedia. Hopefully I will bring to it all the true Iris experts over time. They will have differing points of view at times, but those can be noted. Whereas a general list like the massive Kew list is mainly maintained by interns or graduate students. To give you an example of how bad a graduate student can be I will tell you that when I was one, I identified a slide of Iris pseudacorus as Iris flava. that was before I studied Iris and I used the prevailing Key for Eastern North America. Of course NOW there are better Keys also.

From: "Sean Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2014 1:11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae

 
Speaking of Kew, everyone be careful using theplantlist.org for deciding what's a currently accepted species of Iris. Their new version recognizes more than 60 additional U.S. species, apparently due to an error in a contributing source that accepts every species published by Small and Alexander in Contributions of the New York Botanical Garden.

Sean Z


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, <C*@aol.com> wrote:
You may wish to cross check with Kew.
 
AMW
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodney Barton <r*@yahoo.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 2, 2014 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae [2 Attachments]

Thanks all! It looks like the Wikipedia article is based on Goldblatt. So I'll run with that.

R

From: Lowell Baumunk <L*@iriscolorado.com>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae

 
Rodney,  Youâve probably already checked this out, but the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridaceae gives a brief overview and links to items on all the generaâ.
 
From: i*@yahoogroups.com [i*@yahoogroups.com?] On Behalf Of Rodney Barton
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 9:30 AM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iris-species] Classification of Iridaceae
 
 
Hi All,
 
I'm thinking about a presentation for SIGNA on the "other" irids, and was considering organizing it by tribes within the family. I have Innes, 1985, who cites Goldblatt, 1971, as the most recent treatment of the family. Does any one know of a more recent treatment of the Iridaceae?
 
Rodney
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index