Looks great Bob.
More easily usable then most dichotomous keys. Photos a great idea.
Reading plant features can be tricky for someone not trained, photos
reduce that problem
A multi access key would be great , but seems very daunting.
Chuck Chapman
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Robert Pries ' robertpries@embarqmail.com [iris-species]
<iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises
It always seemed sad to me that no one as far as I know has constructed
a dichotomous Key to the genus Iris. The closest was a set of partial
keys created by Dykes but he knew only half the species we know today.
Nonetheless one can take Dykes monograph and create from it a
comprehensive key to the genus as he knew it then. Just for fun I
decided to do just that. One aggravation in his key and many others is
often one does not have the traits, seeds, roots, etc. in front of you
when you are trying to go through the key. Those of us who are used to
using keys often would skip ahead to see other traits that might tell
us which path to choose given the key trait is not available. I hope to
make it possible to follow his key by giving illustrations of the
choices and some of their not mentioned characterist ics. It is a very
time consuming project and I mainly have just illustrated the Junos and
some of the bulbous. But you can see what I am attempting at
http://wiki.irises.org/bin/view/Spec/InfoDykesKeyillus . I hope to
broaden this key in the future to include all of the Iris species. Is
this task worthwhile? I have not made it obvious to find on the
Encyclopedia because it still has so much to finish.
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "'aclyburn17@frontier.com' aclyburn17@frontier.com
[iris-species]" <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:59:36 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises
Â
Now you're gone and mentioned something I badly need:
An identification key to identifying native American iris species.
Is there one available?
(I'm hoping for one simple enough for a beginner to use.)
I first learned to use an identification key back when I studied
Entomology in college. They are wonderful!
Anita Clyburn
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:57 AM, "Chuck Chapman
irischapman@aim.com [iris-species]" <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Â
Most iris that are named are a clone, given a cultivar name as per
common horticultural practice. Because of this, a reproduction of
original clone will not work. There will be some genetic differences
that may not show up until they are grown side by side in the same
environment.
Over time, pants can drift in subtle was that can be hard to
recognize. So there can be genetic divergences between same cultivar
as grown in different locations.
Provence is still the best way to identify a historic iris, as to
original identity. Matching un-named plant s to a historic name is a
problem. There are many subtle observational data to use, by someone
experienced in these.
If you wish to get more precise, you could use a genetic fi
ngerprinting
method. None has specifically been developed for iris, but if you
wanted to do a comparison between a named cultivar and a possible
match it could be done. Use same chromosome cutting enzyme on both and
run product on a gel and compare. No so hard if you have a lab set
up, but expensive if you have to have a lab do it. Cheaper just to
buy plant known to be correctly identified. If we don't have an
original to compare to, then best provence would have to be used.
Recovering a strain that is named can be done as it depends on
phenotype, not genotype. Can't be done if name is based on a clone
identity.
Chuck Chapman
----------------------------------------------------------
From: "sdunkley1@bellsou th.net [iris-species]"
<iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:33:00 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] naming irises
Â
I can't be sure my reasoning is in line with that of the well informed
but I personally do not equate clone and cultivar even when the
cultivar is clonal in the singular sense. I personally set up a
conceptual separation that being clonal is simply a characteristic of
some cultivars. It a characteristic so not conceptually of the same
logical type (not meaning botanical type here!). Is there some tweaking
I can do on this?
Bob, all the cautions and qualifications you speak of I can follow
perfectly. Not to criticize what you've said in the least, it was very
useful, but the question of how to identify or reestablish a cultivar
in light of these sorts of things still remains to be answered. So I
cast a broad net for ponders even if answers aren't at hand. What are
the prospects for resolving these problems systematically and moving
towards a methodology for identifying historic irises?,This problem
can't be unapproachable on every front? If it is then our systematics
has an broad area needing conceptual work it seems. If good examples
exist on other plant groups fronts then I'd love to hear so I can
explore. Or if we are exploring new territory then the iris world could
help lay groundwork for others.
Shaub Dunkley
--
Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805
--
Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805
