Re: Iris germanica/AMAS

---

Here is the list of publication dates I've found for various names that have been related to the Near Eastern tetraploids.  I believe they are all validly published unless otherwise stated, and that the citations are correct.  There are some comments to go with some of the names. 

 

I. junoniana, while the oldest name, appears to properly apply to a species not the same as Iris 'Amas'.  Some material from near the type locality of this name is however clearly of the type discussed here.

 

I. kashmiriana comes in second, and there is considerable question as to just what the name applies to.  I cannot find anything to definitively identify it with any particular extant plant.  I don't know if there is a type specimen, but the identity of that specimen would determine whether the name is the oldest for this group of plants.  Flower color is given as white, but this is not a defining trait of a species of Iris, as nearly all are varied in flower color, and it is almost certain that the species in question (based on offspring) carries white genetics.  I need to study type descriptions and hopefully see type specimens, but my hunch is that I. kashmiriana is something distinct.

 

I. trojana then comes out as likely the oldest undisputed name which applies to this type of plant.  However, there seems still a question of whether the proper name is really I. trojana or I. kashmiriana.

 

If I. germanica var. amasia Foster was published in 1889, I think that date is early enough that anything that defines it with a specimen, photo, etc. may be good enough to make the name valid (I would need to check details in the ICBN).  However, it sounds like it was published at varietal ranking, so even if valid, it is not a contender as of the date of publication.  It would have had to be published as a species.  If it was subsequently published as a species at a later date, it would become a contender as of that date.  However, since that date would be after the publication of I. amasiana Bornm. ex Hausskn., it would be an later homonym, so invalid at the time of publication.  Therefore, I. amasia (Foster) ?Hort. is apparently out of the running.

 

I. croatica is included in the list too, but I do not think it is closely similar.  To me it is one of the I. aphylla group of "species", just a bigger southeastern member of that complex.

 

Iris junonia Schott & Kotschy ex Schott - in Oestr. Wochenbl. (1854) 209.

 

Iris kashmiriana Baker - in Gard. Chron. (1877) II. 744.

 

Iris trojana A.Kern. ex Stapf - in Verh. zool. -bot. Ges. Wien, (1887) 650; Baker, Handb. Irid. (1892) 12.

 

Iris germanica var. amasia Foster ? in ?Gardener?s Chronicles (1889).

 

Iris amasiana Bornm. ex Hausskn. - in Flora (1889) 140. in syn. [synonym of I. danfordiae (Baker) Boiss.]

 

Iris cypriana Foster & Baker - in Gard. Chron. (1888) ii. 182; Baker, Handb. Irid. (1892) 37.

 

Iris mesopotamica Dykes - Genus Iris, 176 (1913).

 

Iris belouini Bois & Cornuault - in Rev Hortic 1915, lxxxvii. 547.

 

Iris macrantha Hort. ex Simonet - in Bull. Soc. Nat. Hort. France, 1935, Ser. VI. ii. 107. [= I. germanica var. amasia & 'Amas']

 

Iris croatica Horvat & M.D.Horvat - in Acta Bot. Croatica xx-xCxi. 8 (1962).

 

Iris ricardi Hort. (never legally published)

 

Iris skamnilii (never published)

 

Iris askabadensis (? never published)

 

On a somewhat related note, I did find the following also.  This would sort of eliminate the "germanica" problem, if we just take everything tall and call it a subspecies of a hybrid.  I DON?T THINK SO!  I didn't take the time to see what else was lumped together in 2001.  I have to assume that the tetraploids from the Near East become I. germanica ssp. germanica in this treatment???