Re: Re: Iris pallida cultivars and nomenclatural question

It is quite an interesting situation with Iris, where names that were
described originally as botanical species have come to mean color patterns
in a variety of types of cultivated Iris.  This causes a lot of confusion.
In the case of most of these, such as "squalens", "amoena", "plicata", and
"neglecta", the species names nave not continued to be recognized as valid
species, but rather as hybrids or as synonyms of species.  So, the
botanical usage of the names has become rather obscured, and the names tend
to now appear only in synonym lists or discussions of species
hybridization.  Originally the names I. squalens, amoena, and neglecta were
based on clones or groups of clones that the authors of the names thought
were distinct species worthy of recognition.  In these cases however, it
turned out that they were actually hybrids (likely natural) of I. pallida x
I. variegata.  The name Iris plicata is lost to botany as a synonym of I.
pallida.  This is all quite separate from horticultural usage of the names.

The horticultural usage stems from the use of the same names for any Iris
that had coloration similar to the "species".  It is a shame that this
happened, but it is done and entrenched into the Iris "culture" now.
Interestingly, these names all considered to represent cultivars now too,
and have been attached to one or a few similar clones which fit the
original descriptions of the "species", and may or may not be the
clonotypes of the names (meaning the same clone from which the name was
originally described).  One term, "variegata", is also used in the same way
for color pattern, but it is also still considered to be a valid species.
So, we have a species "Iris variegata" which is usually a variegata in
coloration, but which can also be a neglecta or an amoena.  Also, we have
the variegata color pattern which is the yellow standards over dark-colored
falls and which was based on the prevalent coloration of the species I.
variegata.  This is an unusual situation in both botany and horticulture,
and is sort of a muddled mess.  Luckily species names and names in the form
of a species are not allowed as cultivars now.  Also, luckily, most of the
other terms for coloration are not based on species names (as far as I
know).

As for the use of a botanical name for hybrids between species, it is
common practice to have botanical names for hybrids.  Generally they were
first described as species and later found out to really be hybrids.  As
long as validly published by the rules set forth in the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature, these names are botanically "legal" (regardless
of whether they are synonyms, hybrids, etc.).  So, totally separate and
unrelated to horticultural terminology, the names have a botanical meaning
too.  The oldest name applied to the various hybrids of I. pallida x I.
variegata would be the valid botanical name for those hybrids.  If other
species are involved in the background of a clone, then it is not part of
that group, and does not belong under that name.

To sum up.  In the Horticultural sense these names, and 'Sambucina', and
many others are all cultivar names for a particular clone and/or they are
terms for color patterns.  But, in the botanical sense these are species,
hybrids, synonyms of other names, or they are invalidly published and can
not be used at all.  The two things are not related.  Horticultural naming
tends to be based on individual clones, and the classification tends often
to be based on gross appearance and not on genetic relatedness.  Botanical
naming at the species level is (or is supposed to be) based on populations
that reproduce among themselves but are reproductively isolated from other
populations.  Members of the same species may not be identical, but they
are part of the same population, and they are genetically related.

The idea of naming hybrids is somewhat apposed to this, but it gives a
means of "labelling" like hybrids and for everyone to know basically what
you are talking about when you use the name.

In the case of I. pallida x I. variegata, I suspect the valid name for the
hybrids would be Iris x squalens, and all plants of this cross (and their
offspring) fall under this name, regardless of coloring, stature, or
horticultural requirements.  They are all related.  If the name "squalens"
is not the oldest (ie. "sambucina" is probably the same age and has equal
priority) then whichever name is oldest is the one that should be used.

There is no subjectivity to it, and nothing about the qualities of the
plants or the appropriateness of the name comes into play.  It is just
follow the rules, or it is not valid.

I do see a problem with using any of these botanical names as a term for
the diploid hybrids.  And that is exactly one of the things Neil was
pointing out.  There are sometimes other species involved, and yet
horticulturally these plants with other species include in their background
might still best be considered as part of the same horticultural grouping.
So, the horticultural practicality wouldn't quite match the botanical
treatment.  Of course that is also true of all those color categories.

Perhaps I am stirring up the mud where it doesn't need stirring.  Just
looking to sort things out in my head.

Thanks,

Dave




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index