Re: naming irises

 

When it comes to historic registered Irises there are many things we should not take for granted. In theory most are clones but I think it dangerous to equate the word cultivar with clone. Attitudes towards cultivars have evolved and prior to 1953 it is hard to know for sure what a given hybridizer had in mind as to its definition. For example today we always list the pod parent first, but some early hybridizers we know listed the pod parent last because they felt males were more important. Political correctness intruded on even then on âscienceâ. It is not inconceivable that an early hybridizer may have gathered together all his seedlings from a given cross that looked alike and sold them under one âcultivarâ name. In fact there is good evidence for this happening at least a few times.  Even today there have been reports of a given cultivar performing differently from two different nurseries. This may not be an error on either nurseries part. The genotypes of plants can change with time. It was a revelation to me some years ago to read a doctoral thesis of a student of Mitra. Randolph and Mitra proved way back that Iris pumila arose from Nature hybridizing Iris Attica and Iris pseudopumila. They compared chromosomes and gave drawings of the chromosomes from under a light microscope. This student repeated their experiment using the new tools of an electron microscope and verified their results. But what amazed me about her study was that she looked at several cultivars and from different sources. A couple of old popular pumila cultivars she obtained from different nurseries. They were identical to look at but when one looked at their chromosome counts it was discovered that one had fewer chromosomes than the other. The genotype was not the same. I believe it is well established that through growth a particular cultivar can actually see changes in its genetic make up. This is probably the situation with Intermediates that originally were infertile but after many clonal copies became fertile. The point is this it is dangerous to make large generalizations without looking at specifics. Todays historic cultivars may or may not be identical to those that were first named, even though the description remains the same.



From: "sdunkley1@bellsouth.net [iris-species]" <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:40:55 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises

 

Hopefully I don't get too esoteric here to the interests of this iris-species Group. But to the credit of this Group it seems like a place my ponders may get comment on by some very knowledgeable people.

I gather cultivar is very human purposes driven as concept and application. I would like to take cultivar as interpreted by the AIS and apply it against the purpose of identifying irises where there is no apparent community consensus as to the identification of the cultivar. There are "contenders" but no consensus. This is the realm, if you will, of "historic" irises. (I am a member of the Historic Iris Preservation Society and this identification business is core to our needs and purpose as irisians. At some 780 members now perhaps our purposes are not so esoteric after all? And this doesn't even add in those outside HIPS that have the same concerns which globally surely dwarfs 780.)

At the moment I am personally hesitant to say outright historic "AIS cultivars" because some of these irises originate in the time before there was an AIS. Or after the AIS was formed but before "cultivar" was adopted into the lexicon. Before the 1953 Congress that adopted the first International Code for Cultivated Plants (ICCP). So I leave it up to knowledgeable folks to clarify on this sort of terming thing.

I'm reading a couple articles by the lecturing professor who Bob later said was Wilber Hettersheid. I read a longer version of Hettersheid's assertion which Bob summarized as, "At his lecture he pointed out that a plant that fits the description of a cultivar, is that cultivar.". And this surprised Bob greatly. So what surprises might this hold for the purposes of identifying historic irises?

Among ponders I have: Can the guiding principle we use today, that the AIS only registers clones, be applied in retrograde? How far? To the start of the registry? Or if there are a set of clones all conforming to the description of a historic cultivar, then can that set all be ascribed to that cultivar? Obviously great importance is placed on defining what is the determining description. In the literature there is the commonplace talk of a breeder's original seedling. The selected clonal entity that the breeder registered as a cultivar to make it uniquely referenced. A seedling number is in some checklist descriptions. Awards awarded this entity. Photos. References in the literature. Etc. Proof enough that the cultivar is a clonal one? A body of collective description that indicates we must ascribe only one clone to the cultivar even if multiple look like what could be "it"?

For those situations where "seedling" and other denotions of singularity are absent, and the literature scantier does the possibility of being able to ascribe multiple clones to the same cultivar become more viable? Like often happens as we go back further in time. Like what might Lemon have really meant by some of his bee pod created entities? Conceivably could we cast all of this aside; contended irises are placed before the Registering function or some AIS endorsed group. They makes a determination on whatever basis they deem fit and the irises become part of an already named cultivar or they do not?




--
Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index