Re: Re: squalens, sambucina etc (a bit long) (was Iris pallida cultivars & nomenclatural question)

David; two issues;
 
First off the top of my head many early whites were the result of Iris kashmiriana breeding. I seem to remember that it was believed to be more dominant that what had existed before but my memeory is fuzzy on that. I am not even sure anymore that I really know what kashmiriana is. We have discussed this before.
 
Second, I am concerned that when we finally publish the Iris encyclopedia that the taxonomy of Pallida/variegata crosses will be correct. Unfortunately old descriptions and a lot of original diagnoses from years back were very weak. They don't always provide the answers we are looking for. Sometimes the more I research something, the less i feel I really know. My concern is if I am not extremely careful I may make a mistake that will confuse people for another decade. I intend to check with some of the leading experts on rules of taxonomy such as Piers Trehane, member of the Royal Horticultural Societies Advisory Panel on Taxonomy and Nomenclature. But these are very tricky issues. I seem to remember that page priority is accepted generally but someone said if you ask two taxonomists you wil get three opinions.

David Ferguson <manzano57@msn.com> wrote:
Wow!  Thanks Neil.

I guess I hadn't really been thinking of the umbrata discussion in relation to species hybrids, but it makes sense, and also the fact that white in different species or even different individuals might be the result of different genetic influences entirely.  I know that inheritance is not always simple, but I fell into the trap of white is usually recessive, and white with white should make white, perhaps with the "variegata" pattern of the falls having some influence.  Obviously it can be much more complicated than that.
 
Also, it turns out I remembered incorrectly, and the I. variegata parent was a "regular" yellow one.  I went back into the archives and looked at the photos of the five siblings that he posted, and they are (to my eyes) amazingly similar.  The most different is paler than the others with more pronounced (but still fine) dark veining on the falls.  I wonder if the pallida white somehow suppresses or covers the dark pattern on the falls that should come from I. variegata.  So many I. pallida x I. variegata hybrids have a modified I. variegata type pattern with solid colored standards and with dark coloring (usually as course veining) overlying lighter coloring (usually close to the same as the standards).  Perhaps this is from a colored I. pallida crossed with I. variegata?  Maybe it's not that simple. 
 
I have also wondered about the 'Flavescens' type pattern, with a clear light ground, no noticeable dark pigment, except for some haft veining. These come in white and pale yellow.  I have wondered if this might be from a plicata I. pallida parent.  These are actually quite a lot like Tom's hybrids, but they have no
anthocyanin, except in the haft veining.  A few others are G. P. Baker, Mrs. Horace Darwin, Mrs, George Darwin, and Innocenza. [If my plant of 'Innocenza' is correct, it is definitely NOT a pure I. variegata, not even close.]
 
Looking through my collection of I. "x sambucina" photos, I find actually quite a lot that resemble Tom's hybrids, but a number of them are more strongly pigmented blue/purple than his are (so far).  Another well known one is 'Queen of May', but the dark veining is stonger.  Nuee Nuee d' Orage is similar but shows some yellow in the lighter areas.  Celeste, Beotie, Coppelia, Lavandulacea, etc. are also similar.
 
I don't know if all of these are first generation I. pallida x I. variegata, or even purely that cross, but they "have the look".
 
As for the priority of the "sambucina" over "squalens", sequence in the original publication seems to me a reasonable way to argue for one name over the other.  Also, sambucina has never (to my knowledge) been used as a name for a color pattern the way squalens has - another possible source for confusion.
 
There is a principal called "page priority" which states that if a name appears first in a publication, it automatically has priority over a subsequent name appearing in the same publication.  However, in botany, this has not been an "official" rule for a long time (I'm not certain it ever was??).  It seems that in recent decades it has been abandoned entirely in practice too.  There is probably some note or recommendation about it still written in the code, but I'd need to search for it.  It is used in zoology, but I'm not sure if it is a rule in the zoological code of nomenclature that must be followed, or just a recommendation.
 
There is also a first reviser rule.  I need to look up the specifics, and am not really up to the challenge at the moment; however, the basics are that if two names are of equal priority, the first one to be used in a later publication is the winner, and has priority.  The citation I gave from (I think it was) Dykes, where he said in effect "I. pallida, I. variegata, and I. sambucina type hybrids" may be good enough to qualify as the "first revision", and so the name may be officially I. x sambucina, all other arguments aside.  On the other hand, if somebody else used the name I. squalens to include I. sambucina earlier, then it is I. x squalens.  It's just very difficult to be sure. 

One could just do the deed and publish it one way or the other in no uncertain terms, cite Dyke's statement, and be done with it - hopefully.  However, there is always the chance that somebody might come along and say "but so-and-so picked the other one already".
 
This is the sort of situation that leads to some of the many (apparent) name changes that still plague botanical nomenclature.
----- Original Message -----
From: n*@charter.net
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:29 AM
Subject: [iris-species] Re: squalens, sambucina etc (a bit long) (was Iris pallida cultivars & nomenclatural question)

--- In i*@yahoogroups.com, "David Ferguson"
<m*@m...> wrote:
"The original publications of some of these names are as follows:
Iris sambucina Linnaeus 1759, 3A in Systema ed. X:863.
Iris squalens Linnaeus 1759, 3B in Systema ed. X:863...." [in
response to a question posed by Linda Mann]

Dave,

I found the information in this post of extraordinary interest,
especially the extended quote concerning the rules of nomenclature
for hybrids.  Thank you for posting it.

Just as a comment--could not a case be made for *sambucina* simply
because it is first--before *squalens*--in Linnaeus' publication in
1759?  I realize the "first" pertains only to the alphabetical order
of the names, but with all else equal, it would seem that if a choice
*must* be made, the occurrence of "3A" precedes "3B" and could be
argued as having priority?

As a separate issue, the question you raised as to how the "Quaker
Lady" color type could occur among the typical bicolors, and a white
occur in progeny from an amoena and *pallida mostrans*--The factors
involved in the various elements of color involved are not simple. 
There appear to be many steps involved in the synthesis of
anthocyanins, each presumably controlled by a different enzyme and
DNA precursor.  A diversion of the path of synthesis of a pigment
into a different track occurs in a number of cases where white vs.
violet-blue are concerned.  More than one instance of a white crossed
with a white, both whites due to genetic recessives, has resulted in
a violet-blue, simply because the alteration of the synthesis path
has occurred at a different point in the synthesis.

In other words, there are several different reasons why an iris
blossom may be white rather than the normal violet-blue.  The white
ground in an amoena, which I would assume is the same as the white
ground color in *reginae* or yellow in the typical "variegata" forms
of *Iris variegata* have a different genetic origin than whites
appearing among populations of *Iris pallida,* or for that matter,
those appearing among populations of *Iris aphylla,* as in 'Ostrey
White.'

In addition, the fall overlay veined pattern or the solid overlay
pattern, usually associated with veined hafts, is a separate genetic
issue in amoena, variegata and neglecta bicolors from the color in
the petal ground.  Linda Mann's suggestion of using the
term "Umbrata" to describe this overlay is a good one it seems to me,
and helps underscore the genetic difference between this overlay
issue from whatever color the ground may be.

Without "Umbrata," but with both yellow and violet-blue present, the
blossom color resulting would be on the order of the "Quaker Lady"
blending you mention.

Neil Mogensen   z 7  western NC mountains





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index