Re: unusual Iris delavayi?

 

Hi Jamie,

I've also had little luck growing 40-chr. species from garden-collected seed; for example, "wilsonii" is often not even yellow.

I don't remember exactly how tall the iris were at Kew, but if you go only on height, the first I. delavayi is certainly too tall to be any other 40-chr. Siberian species as currently recognized. Personally, I don't completely trust natural populations to conform to any particular list of species. Even beyond the problem of incomplete lists, the theory of evolution predicts that natural populations won't always divide neatly into a set of species no matter how you refine the concept of species; that would be true even without natural hybrids. I find it quite interesting that in Brian Mathes's 1981 book, The Iris, he describes Iris bulleyana as "a plant of somewhat dubious origins" and suggests that the species might have been described from a hybrid. But since Zhao Yu-tang has confirmed it as a species, wild-collected 40 chr. seeds from China are almost always identified as Iris bulleyana.

Even I noticed a problem or two with labels at Kew. I did discard one picture. It looked like an Iris virginica or maybe an Iris versicolor, but the label I photographed said something else. Mostly, however, I'm labeling the photos based on labels in the garden. As I upload them the the SIGNA species database, I'll add comments if I see something that looks a bit bogus. As usual, I'm sure others will add their comments if they see something doubtful.

Ken

On 7/21/2016 1:18 AM, Jamie j*@freenet.de [iris-species] wrote:
 

Ken,

both would seem to be I. clarkei, not I. delavayi, or possibly a hybrid(?).  The former tends to horizontal stands, while delavayi's are considered oblique, which I interpret as more upright.  In the descriptions there is a big difference in stature.  I. delavayi is over a meter tall, up to 150cm, while I. clarkei is around 60cm. In other fotos of I. delavayi I've seen, the falls seemed more truncated at their tips, reminiscent of I. bulleyana. Still, these could have been hybrids!

Descriptions aside, I have found many incorrectly marked plants at Kew over the decades and take the designations with a grain of the proverbial salt.  Original plants may have died out and been replaced by hybrid seedlings, markers repositioned by visitors, etc.  As is the case with most botanical garden, the staff that does the planting often has only a non-blooming plant and a sign (often non-permanent).  Mix-ups happen.

I've been trying to collect the 40-chr. species and often find the seed producing non-definable plants.  Clearly, OP hybrids are common or collections are incorrectly ID/defined.  A loverly crap shoot!

Jamie

Cologne


Am 20.07.2016 um 22:18 schrieb Kenneth Walker k*@astound.net [iris-species]:

I saw what I thought was an interesting Iris delavayi at Kew Gardens. The first photo shows flowers with standards deflexed so they are below the falls (you can see a wider crop at http://www.signa.org/index.pl?Display+Iris-delavayi+4 if you are interested). The second photo is of a different clone at Kew. It is only partly open, but I think the standards will simply be "spreading" as seems more common for this species.

Ken Walker
Concord, CA USA


_

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