Hi all,
The at least "23 genera" paper is a phylogenetic study
based on plastid DNA segments, which presents the evidence
to support splitting Iris into all these genera. It does
not convince me in the slightest, though I find the study
very well presented, fascinating, and educational. I have
not read the "rainbow" paper yet, but in it some of these
genera (and a few more) are officially described. It is
interesting to note how closely this paper parallels the
ideas that Rodionenko has been publishing since the 50's.
I should note that I think Rodionenko makes certain traits
too important (such as the development of bulbs), and that
results in too many genera. However, I do find his
classification to be mostly much more natural than the
classification that the AIS and most Americans &
western Europeans have been following for some time now.
My opinion - there is nothing in the "23 genera" paper
that proves it necessary to divide Iris up into so many
genera, and I find the whole concept premature and
excessive. However, the evidence
can be
used as support for this. It can also be used to back up
other scenarios, such as - at the other extreme - a system
with only two large genera and a few stragglers that
are of uncertain placement. In fact, depending on
interpretation of the data, it can be used to argue for 3,
5, 7, or how ever many genera you choose to read into
the data. Personally I would favor two genera, and
perhaps two or three smaller genera that may not fit into
either group. Basically still the "Beardless" (Chamaeiris
is the oldest generic name available - not Limniris) and
the [mostly] "Bearded" Iris (genus Iris). The bulk of
the Crested Iris, Juno, Pardanthopsis, and
Belamcanda would end up in the genus Iris, and the rest in
genus Chamaeiris.
A good case can be made for a Crested Iris genus
(Evansia), to include the Nepalensis group and the
true Asian crested Irises (japonica, tectorum, etc.); for
a genus Juno; for a genus Iris (for all the Aril/Bearded
types). If those three are divided, then the genus
Belamcanda would have to be recognized too, to include I.
domestica and I. dichotoma (which are way too closely
related to one-another for me to personally accept as
being members of two distinct genera - but of course they
still can be). Iris verna comes out as a long branch
sister to the ones listed above, and would have to be left
out of all four genera if the data is interpreted strictly
(I would personally put it in genus Iris (tentatively)
under this scenario.
Following through with the same logic. There is a major
two-way split in the Beardless Iris, with one group (this
would become Chamaeiris) including the bulbous species and
the Spurias, and with the other group (this would become
Limniris) including most of the rest. I would not take it
any further than this. However, in this study,
Siphonostyllus (with two species I. unguicularis and I.
lazica), Lophiris (two American Crested species I.
cristata and I. lacustris), and the other [mostly]
American Crested Iris group (can be called Dielsiris or
Rodionenkoa; including tenuis, missouriensis, longipetala,
and gracilipes) all fall outside of the Beardless group
and would have to have their own genera.
So, in this scenario there would be ten genera,
well-supported, based on the same data. I would find this
arrangement much more natural and realistic than having
20-some genera of Irises.
However, it should be remembered that this is plastid DNA
(assuming I read the article correctly), which is
inherited nearly entirely maternally. A study based on
nuclear DNA would probably give somewhat different
results, because that DNA has a different history, and is
more likely to reflect past hybridization events (of which
I would suspect there were very - very many). This would
probably especially affect the long-branch taxa (those
rooted near the base of the "tree"). Many taxa might be
rooted differently in such a study, showing somewhat
different results. In fact different runs of the same
data in the same computer programs will show some variance
in the results.
This last bit has only a little to do with the data
presented here, it is interesting to note that many of the
more "primitive" long-branch taxa share the trait of
bearing a crest on the falls. This is a trait that is
scattered through almost all of the major groupings of
Irises, and is likely a primitive ancestral condition in
the Irises. It's presence or absence, and differences in
definition of what exactly qualifies as a crest, has
created a lot of confused classifications in the past.
The Reticulatas, some of the Louisiana Iris, some of the
more primitive Spurias, the series Chinensis, the Junos,
etc. all show a crest in some stage of development, and I.
brevicaulis (a Louisiana) even has a beard. So, it should
not be worried about too much that some of the traditional
classifications (rather unnatural in many cases) are going
out the window. I never accepted most of the Crested Iris
as being "beardless" anyway, it was always obvious that
most of them were more closely related to Bearded Iris and
Junos than to most of the "Beardless" species.
If anyone is interested, I can send an outline drawn from
Rodionenko's recent work (up to 2008) that sums up his
classification (outdating the 1961 classification that is
presented in the SIGNA publications). I also have a
modified version of the trees in the "23 genera" paper
that shows some alternate classifications based on the
same data.
Well, I guess that's enough of my unsolicited comments.
Best wishes to all,
Dave Ferguson
Albuquerque, New Mexico
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
From: i*@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:10:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Phytotaxa iris paper
Sean.
I
hard-copied the paper Paige recomended. I
haven't read it yet, but I think that will
do for me. Thanks to both of you for
bringing this to my attention.
Walter
On Friday, February 12, 2016 6:26 PM,
"Paige Woodward p*@hillkeep.ca
[iris-species]"
i*@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
Hi, Sean. That paper
appears to be *very* closely
related to one published
open-access in August 2014
on Plos ONE.
You can download it here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265177549_At_Least_23_Genera_Instead_of_One_The_Case_of_Iris_L_sl_Iridaceae
Evgeny V. Mavrodiev is the
corresponding author on the
earlier version of the paper
(I assume they are versions)
and so his email address is
provided. You might want to
ask him what the major
differences are and whether
he could spare you a copy of
the later version. If he
can, I’d surely like to see
a copy.
Best,
Paige
> On Feb 12, 2016, at
12:34 PM, Sean Zera
z*@umich.edu
[iris-species]
i*@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
>
> Anyone want a hard copy
of that Phytotaxa paper?
>
> Can a rainbow consist
of a single colour? A new
comprehensive generic
arrangement of the ‘Iris
sensu latissimo’ clade
(Iridaceae), congruent with
morphology and molecular
data
>
> It's $28 per copy, but
shipping is another $25 from
New Zealand, so if anyone
else wants a copy we ought
to be able to split the
shipping.
>
> Sean Z
