SV: What is right and what is wrong - I. scariosa syn. I. glaucesens vs. syn. astrachanica

---

When Dr Rodionenko originally talked about Iris
astrachanica in print he described it as a iris
variable in color and about 20cm (8inches) tall
similar to pumila. Later seeds were sent to Bee
Warburton. Somewhere along the way the seeds must have
gotton mixed up because the plants she distributed
were MTB in size. Since she did quite a bit of MTB
hybridizing it is not unlikely that she actually had
seedlings from some of her plants. Unfortunately
Rodionenko has never written a proper botanical
description of astrachanica but it seems that
colleagues that saw his original plants say they
looked like scariosa and believe that is what he had,
Maybe this is why he never formally described
astrachanica. Meanwhile the Warburton plants have been
distributed widely and for many years no one noted
that these did not seem to fit Rodionenko's original
notes. Unless a plant similar to the warburton plants
can be collected from the wild in the original locus
it is best to assume that scariosa and astrachanica
are synonymous and the distributed astrachanica is an
MTB hybrid.

--- Lars Høpfner <hoepfner@privat.dk> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Can anyone help us. Our International seedexchange
> manager Jytte Hansen and
> I are discussion I. scariosa.
>
> In the url to Signa is mentioned that I.
> astrachanica is a syn. of I.
> scariosa – I don’t agree!
>
>
>
> http://www.ecosystema.ru/08nature/photo/eng/abc.htm
>
> http://www.badbear.com/signa/signa.pl?Iris-scariosa
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
>
> Lars Høpfner
>
> Langengen 38, Svogerslev
>
> 4000 Roskilde
>
> Denmark
>
>
>
>