Re: Iris germanica/AMAS

---

Interesting stuff.  I'm probably going to ramble a bit here, since I'm just writing as my mind processes what you all have written, and as ideas pop into my head.

 

Ken's picture (I like this clone) looks to me like a diploid I. pallida x I. variegata hybrid or at least descendent. If If  If appears very like the I. "kashmiriana" clone that is in circulation; however, the bracts on that clone are only partially papery.  While most of these hybrids have an intermediate condition of bracts to that of their parents (I. variegata is all green, I. pallida is all papery), a number of hybrids, especially of later generations, have bracts more like one or the other parent.  It would be interesting to get a chromosome count on this clone.

 

Early on (apparently until Dyke's work), there was a great deal of confusion between I. germanica and these diploid hybrids, because they are rather similar in gross morphology.  Even Kohlein (quite recent) was not fully clear on this distinction.

 

I have not seen many of the tetraploid TB "wild" clones alive and in person, but none of the ones I have seen look like the one in Ken's photo.  They pretty universally have somewhat swollen (round looking), rather short, foliaceous bracts that are papery only toward the tip (in varying degrees from clone to clone).  Some have purplish coloring on the bracts, most do not.  They have a very different form of the flower too, different proportions, with the falls "hanging" down (implies that they are limp, but they are not really).  They also all seem to open from the bud in way that is somewhat unusual among the wild species I've seen (though I need to observe this more, since I first noticed it this year).  The flower seems to open fully before the falls fully unroll.  In other words, the falls are pendant, yet have loosely revolute margins often even into the third day (always for the full first day).  They also all have relatively slender stalks with long branches that spread away from the stalk, giving them a very open look if you are seeing only one stalk (when several are bunched together in a large clump, it's not so obvious).  The stalk height varies from about 20 inches to 40 inches (seems a lot, but not unusual for a wild species to vary a lot in height).  The leaves are not ribbed.  With most (all?), the leaves are semi-evergreen (in my climate).  I would need to check this, but it seems they all have the "wavy" fan look, where the fans are not flat and two dimensional, but have a slight "s" curve when you are looking down on them. 'Amas' seems to me just one of the pack, shorter than average, but not unusual an any other way.  In fact the clone of "varbossiana" I got from Lowell Baumunk is very very similar to 'Amas', but is taller.  I think I left the name "varbossiana" off my list.  It is not that old though, so is not much of a contender for oldest name for the group.  Kohlein has a photo labeled as "I. varbossiana", I think it was from taken at Zagreb, and it is quite different from my plant.  It looks to be a diploid hybrid too.  I don't know if either is correctly identified, but mine (Lowell's) seems to be a better fit.

 

I have not seen all of the plants of this group, but the ones I've seen (several only as photographs), while somewhat varied, all look like one and the same species to me, including I. trojana (assuming the 2 plants I've seen are correctly identified).  I would not consider any of the plants I'm talking about to be hybrids of any sort, rather they seem to be pure wild species.  It is quite likely that I have a wider view of what could be included in one species than many people.  I have no problem with variations in color, height, slight differences in how much of the bract is papery, and so on.  I've studied too many plant populations in the wild to let measurements (unbacked by additional field observation) make the decision for me.

 

A number of the early generation TB tetraploids are of pure wild tetraploid parentage as well (things with parentage given as Ricardi, Amas, trojana, cypriana, mesopotamica, etc.).  Assuming that these names are all indeed the same wild species (I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong), then these offspring are pure species as well.  While they would not have both parents hailing from the same populations, they would be valuable plants for studying the variation present in these species.  I suspect that a number of the old first generation "hybrids" that are supposed to have I. pallida as one parent may really be of pure wild tetraploid parentage as well.  It seems there were an inordinate amount of unreduced gametes going around in just a few gardens in a very short period for all these tetraploids to show up from supposedly mixed crosses of one tetraploid crossed with one diploid.  I'm sure most are really what they are supposed to be, but I'll bet some are not.  I would have to look up details (I haven't made a list), but I've run across a number of old clones whose counts are given as something that is logically impossible based on the stated parentage.  While tetraploid x diploid should be triploid, the possibility of tetraploid offspring is definitely there.

Of course, I'm just guessing on all of this.  Unlike most plants I've studied, I have not had the opportunity to see these Iris in wild populations.  I would love to do so some day.  So, until I get that chance, I don't consider myself more than just an interested amateur, who may be way off base in his opinion.  I really need to see what sort of variation is present in wild populations, and to see them over their entire wild distribution.  With the politics of the region, and my usually empty wallet, it seems unlikely that this is going to happen for me.

 

I probably won't be the one to sort it all out, but I sure do enjoy talking about it, and this discussion is very enlightening.  I have learned more, faster, through this group of people than I can imagine through any other venue.  Too bad there aren't any people from where these Iris grow joining into the discussion.

 

Now that the interest seems to be on the rise again, maybe we call get living collections of all these plants together for comparison?

 

As for the name I. germanica, the name is tied to the type description and specimen, no exceptions.  If the type specimen is the tetraploid type, then we automatically have our name (at least for the ones that are definitely the same).  If it is indeed the 44 chromosome type hybrid, then the name is totally out of the running for the tetraploid species.  It can't be both (even though one could be the parent of the other).  It does not have to be republished as a hybrid name if the specimen is found to be a hybrid.  The "x" is just added to the name to indicate hybrid status.  All hybrids with the same parentage would be called I. x germanica, but not all 44 chromosome hybrids would necessarily share the same species as parents (especially modern ones, which probably have several species in their genome).  I. germanica became a valid name the day Linneaus published it, and it doesn't matter what the plants turn out to be, the name will stand as a valid name for those plants it was applied to.  One thing for sure, no matter what it turns out to represent, it will be the oldest valid name for that sort of plant. 

 

Here is a link to what might be the type specimen of I. germanica; however, without a bit more digging into the literature, I'm not certain if it really is the type.  It is a plant that Linnaeus saw, and he included it under the name I. germanica.  It looks to me like the 44 chromosome type, but it would be really difficult to be sure.

 

 

Here's an interesting thought.  I know that chromosome counts are routinely taken from dried invertebrate specimens.  I wonder if this could be done with the type specimen of I. germanica?  It would answer a lot of questions, and of course it would pose new questions.

 

Not from this discussion, but I think leading to it?  Here is a Linnaeus specimen of I. sambucina.  I did not find one of I. squalens, though it should theoretically exist.

 

 

-----------

 

Funny, all this started with my interest in learning the botany of the Iris I love to grow.  I had no idea there were so many questions in need of answering still.

 

 

Dave