Re: Re: Method

---

Dear James, et al.

            I understand the limitations of our present discussion. And much of what you suggest is very important. Not quite 20 years ago I read a book that galvanized me into action. Although you may see the limitations of our present discussion let me assure you I have been working the last 20 years toward more lofty goals.

            The book I refer to is ?The Vanishing Garden, A Conservation Guide to Garden Plants? by Christopher Brickell and Fay Sharman. They explain how many cultivars and species where being lost, even those that had been previously brought into cultivation. They also described a system that was developing at the time and has now grown worldwide, The National Council for Conservation of Plants and Gardens(NCCPG). The NCCPG has been a great success but most people in the USA are unaware of its efforts. There are now similar organizations working around the world in many countries but not the USA. Due to arrogance, pride, petty fiefdoms, etc. Botanical gardens and plant enthusiast have been unable to work together to achieve these ends in the USA. I made dozens of phone calls and wrote many letters trying to get established institutions to see the merit of replicating the NCCPG within the USA. The project was too big for my small efforts. It did not help that a well known nurseryman was campaigning for something similar but was using the idea to gain plants for his nursery and really cared less about the information that could be gathered from such collections. Seeing the need for such an effort I have dedicated my life to reaching a similar goal within the Iris Society. There has been very slow progress and with mixed results and most people are only aware of some of the intermediate steps that have been taken.

            Let me outline for you the steps that I have taken so far. My first effort was to create a collection that could be used for reference and dissemination of materials. With the limitations of my space I created the post of Conservator on the Dwarf Iris Society board of directors. I polled the entire membership about 400 people to see what cultivars were still extant of the over 1,000 that had been registered. Specimens were obtained of each. The next step was to make sure there were three gardens that would have all of these plants so they would not be lost for study. Jim Fry and I had both established gardens with these 500 and we were looking for a third when disaster struck. Jim died, I lost my job and subsequently the two collections were dispersed and much lost. Once I got back o my feet new efforts were in progress.

            I believe strongly in communication within groups. To promote the idea on conservation within Iris I organized the first Iris symposium in 20 years at the Missouri Botanical Garden. Although many great Iris people knew a little of what developments were occurring in Iris many had never met. At that event Brian Mathew and George Rodionenko met for the first time. Within my even mentioning conservation George made that his topic to present to the symposium.

 I decided that it would be beneficial if more gardens with smaller collections would work even better. But at the time no reference existed that would define possible collections. I created the SIGNA checklist so that such a reference would exist. It would be very easy for someone to choose a species, go to the appendix of the checklist, see what varieties and cultivars have been recorded for that species and start creating a ?National? collection for that particular group. I have been working all this time on expanding the information in the checklist to an encyclopedia with illustrations so that it might be possible to even know if one is collecting the correctly named plant.

            The system of national collections in Great Britain has spawned a number of monographs on various plant groups. Often the holder of a specific group gains so much knowledge growing those plants they can publish it as a monograph. The Iris Species Encyclopedia, that I am working on, tries to catalog the available information on the variation exhibited in each species. It is hoped that in the future there will be several people creating books, booklets are small references on many difference species of Iris. Maybe David would like to be the holder of SIGNA?s national collection of germanica type species, after some time he could publish a small book for SIGNA on the group. It is important that these collections be established within the structure of the plant society otherwise there is little knowledge of their existence.

Too often people assume that a single plant can represent a species. I have tried to dispel this type of thinking in several ways. I worked very hard to get AIS and SIGNA to establish awards for superior clones of species.  Hopefully that would encourage individuals to begin to recognize variation within these populations.

There are many, many ways to tackle information and just because a given method has not been heard by the listener, one can not assume it is not being discussed. By putting ideas out there, one also opens the opportunity to possibility to begin the efforts. Is there anyone that would want to be the secretary that would keep track of the national collections of Iris species for SIGNA? How many people would like to maintain a collection for study? I very much agree that groups can accomplish much more than individuals. I may not appreciate all that government does, but I certainly know it can be very helpful in making my life more productive. Each little discussion is only a fraction of the entire picture and one should not assume that it is what will answer all the questions. Each discussion though often clarifies a question or two.

James Harrison <JBHPHD@CHARTER.NET> wrote:

Dear Friends,

In my humble opinion, the debate you are having about I. germanica can not
be settled in the way in which it is proceeding. Interesting, yes.
Conclusive, no.

In spite of the good discipline in the nomenclature system, the error
factors enter in subjective field classification and in other ways. Photos
and descriptions are not the same as specimen planted in the field. Though
there is improvement in the rapidity and reliability of data gathering with
digital photography and data transmission via the internet; and the
aarchival tools which our members have designed to make comparative data
easily available.

Nature does not come in discrete packages. The Genus is a level in which we
may reliably find discrete packages. Species can be so defined, but not if
there are inter-breeding populations. Since some degree of interbreeding is
possible, this means that intermediate types will develop with more or less
random gene _expression_.

Further, it raises the question of what is a species, and of course we know
this as the discussion between the lumpers and the slpitters. Evaluating
phenotypes, when is there more variance within a population than there is
between the modes or media (if that could be defined) of the designated
species.

To settle, or mayve just illuminate, these questions, we need to persuade
our state universities to establish or support or monitor iris plantations
which are available to the public. Each state needs to establish gardens
devoted to their natives, in all its variants.

In addition, the state gardens need to have representative samples of the
other species which will grow in the state if not native. All should be
organized for viewing, with a catalog list.

If a state has different climates, as NC coastal, NC piedmont, and NC
apline, then there should be at least three different gardens under the
supervision of the closest university.

Then as we visit, we can provide evaluation and correction when specific
items are misidentified.

Only this method will rule out the noise in the system which can not
ordinarily be controlled for but will be distort concluysions and create
arguments among friends. These noise factors now in full play in our
current system are climate, i.e. range of temperature, water, drainage, soil
pH, soil trace elements, altitude, fertilization and prayer. Combinations
of these factors can result in variant color, size and even form.

Some people think that everything can be privitized. I think in the human
community we have to do a lot for the common good that is not for profit.

They say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

PS. If I had any sense I would save this till morning and edit it for
clarity. But I don't. If I waited, I would never send it, but trusting you
gentle friends to kindly point out my errors I will send it along for your
edification. I am in a countdown to retirement on Wednesday and blast off
for a cruise up the Danube from Romania to Budaapest. Is there any contact I
shouold make for seed transmission or...

James Harrison, PhD
Asheville

The problem basically is unless specific clones are
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:42 AM
Subject: [iris-species] Digest Number 451


>
> There are 4 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
> From: Kenneth Walker
> 2. Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
> From: Robt R Pries
> 3. Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
> From: Robt R Pries
> 4. Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
> From: "David Ferguson"
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:40:15 -0700
> From: Kenneth Walker
> Subject: Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
>
> I have a photo of a bloom from SIGNA 00C035, one of the germanicas from
> Greece,
> on Dennis's web site:
> http://www.badbear.com/signa/display-photo.pl?Iris-germanica+3+3.
> Obviously, its not the same as seeing the flower in person, but you can
> see some of
> it's characteristics.
>
> Ken Walker
> Concord, CA USA
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robt R Pries
> Subject: Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
>
> Unfortunately the rules of botanical nomencalture do not allow for the
same or even similar words to be used at the same rank or level. This is why
even the different spelling of Iris amasiana and Iris amasia could not be
considered. Occassionally when a name violates the code but has become
extremely common in usage, there will be a vote by the 10,000 or so
taxonomists that attend the recurring convention that decides these matters.
In that case the name is said to be conserved despite its violation of the
rules. But in theis case it would not be the same since one would have to
accept one usage or the other. I am sure Iris hookeri and Iris hookeriana
have a similar problem but both have been conserved (actually there may
never have been an official action this). The goal is to have as little
confusion as possible. Since the official diagnosis of Linneaus was for the
species germanica and I know of no one that has officially redesignated
these hybrids as xgermanica, most li!
> kely
> xgermanica would be an invalid name.
>
> Hensler wrote:----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robt R Pries"
> >If we are to accept germanica as a valid species then what would we call
> our common hybrid?
>
> x-germanica?
>
> Christy
>
> Skip & Christy Hensler
> THE ROCK GARDEN
> Newport, WA
> http://www.povn.com/rock/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robt R Pries
> Subject: Re: Iris germanica/AMAS
>
> Ken; since this came from a seed one probably would assume it is fertile.
Did it form any pods? It would be interesting to know what its chromosome
number might be. Maybe it is a tetraploid. Is it any larger that the common
44c germanica? Interestingly from the picture it would appear to have papery
bracts at the time of flowering, this is usually associated with pallida and
germanica usaully has bracts that are half green.
>
> Kenneth Walker wrote:I have a photo of a bloom from
SIGNA 00C035, one of the germanicas from
> Greece,
> on Dennis's web site:
> http://www.badbear.com/signa/display-photo.pl?Iris-germanica+3+3.
> Obviously, its not the same as seeing the flower in person, but you can
> see some of
> it's characteristics.
>
> Ken Walker
> Concord, CA USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:19:25 -0600
> From: "David Ferguson"
> Subject: 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 spre!
> ad 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 wa!
> s from taken at Zagreb, and it is quite different from my plant. It l
> ooks 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.
>
> My opinion, at present, is that most of the tetraploids from the ne. end
of the Mediterranean and eastward are probably representatives of one
species. In my bias, I would personally not even call it a highly variable
species; not from what I've seen so far. Rather, I'm amazed at how many
names have been given based on such minor variation! This sort of naming is
common with horticulturally popular plants though. There is also evidence
that some of these plants were scattered Eastward by civilization, but have
not tended to become naturalized quite the way the 44 chromosome hybrids
have (ie. perhaps I. belouini from Morocco and Spain?). This is part of why
I think these are the most likely "other" parent of I. x germanica (but
that's another discussion).
>
> 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 i!
> t 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.
>
>
http://linnaeus.nrm.se/botany/fbo/i/bilder/iris/irisger1.jpg.nrm.se/botany/fbo/i/bilder/iris/irisger1.jpg>
>
> 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.
>
>
http://linnaeus.nrm.se/botany/fbo/i/iris/irissam.html.en.se/botany/fbo/i/iris/irissam.html.en>
>
> -----------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/2gGylB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
iris-species-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/