Re: (unknown)


David,

Thanks! Judging from the inflorescence, the plant I received as gracilis is something else. Off list I received a translated key to Neomarica from Capellari's thesis . It includes drawings and would be helpful for anyone trying to ID one of these. I'd be happy to forward it to those interested. Request off list please.

Rod

Rodney Barton
SIGNA Membership Secretary
3 Wolters St
Hickory Creek TX 75065



From: David Ehrlich <idavide@sbcglobal.net>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 1:14:51 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] (unknown)

Rodney--
  I do not have a photo of Neomarica gracilis, but I'm attaching a drawing of it sent to me by a member of the Pacific Bulb Society (which was added to their wiki).  The drawing originally comes from the doctoral thesis of Lindolpho Capellari Júnior, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.
 
You can try this URL for the entire thesis –
http://libdigi. unicamp.br/ document/ ?code=vtls000202 796
It’s in Portuguese.


____________ _________ _________ __
From: Rodney Barton <rbartontx@yahoo. com>
To: iris-species@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:42:43 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] (unknown)


David,

Would you have photos illustrating the differences between the Neomaricas?

Rodney

Rodney Barton
SIGNA Membership Secretary
3 Wolters St
Hickory Creek TX 75065




____________ _________ _________ __
From: David Ehrlich <idavide@sbcglobal. net>
To: iris-species@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:50:13 PM
Subject: [iris-species] (unknown)


I was recently looking over the Iris Species Database on the site and was surprised at the lack of precision in names.  Here are some errors I found:
    1. You have Dietes grandiflora, D iridoides and D.vegata all listed.  Whether Dietes grandiflora and D. iridoides are reduced to synonyms or kept distinct, D. vegata is no longer an allowable name.
    2. You list Hesperoxiphion peruvianum under the name Cypella peruviana.  Well, that’s the old name, and you should use the currently accepted name.  Far worse, the photo you include with it is that of H.. herrerae, and that should certainly be corrected.
    3. Your listing for Neomarica gracilis has a photo of N. candida or N. northiana.  Well, the flowers are practically impossible to tell apart in the photos.  But N. gracilis is very different in form, having a gracile inflorescence; the other two do not.  Both the flower pedicel and the peduncle of N. gracilis are long and slender; much much longer than the bracts from which they emanate.  That’s not the case in the plant photographed
I guess I feel it's important to properly and correctly identify plants when you can.
 
David Ehrlich



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