This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

[Fwd: Species Iris question]

I receive e-mail from someone trying to verify the
the identity of Iris biglumis, a synonym of Iris lactea.
She sent two pictures, the second was from a plant
identified as lactea and certainly looks like it to me.
I'm less certain of the first picture from the plant
identified as biglumis.

The e-mails are below. Can only one else provide insights?

Ken Walker

-------- Original Message --------

Hi Ken,

 

            I was consulting your pictures of irises and some of your links in hopes of clarifying a plant identification problem I think I may (or may not) have.  I hope you can help me confirm the identity of a species iris I have.  Unfortunately I have not found much on anything other than Iris lactea within the Series Ensatae.  Several years ago I bought a seedling identified as Iris biglumis.  The SIGNA iris species database states that the botanical synonym of Iris biglumis is Iris lactea, which I also have.  I have included my poor attempt to take pictures of each of these plants below.  The main difference between the two plants is that the flowers of Iris biglumis are larger and occur at the base of the plant, while the flowers of Iris lactea are paler, smaller and at the top of the plant.  Iris biglumis flowers before Iris lacteal in my garden, but that may have more to do with location than anything else.  Please let me know if you require any further information.  I would truly appreciate any feedback that you could provide.

 

Thanks again!

 

Kathleen



----- Response to some e-mails I sent ------


          The first one (Iris biglumis?) is a shorter plant than the other.  My records say ~8”, while Iris lactea is approximately 12” in height.  However, the first one does grow in a sunnier part of my garden.  I have no record of stem length for the first one.  The flowers looked like they were almost at the base of the plant.  My best guess would be that the stems were under 2” in length.  I do not have a record of stem shape.  The leaves on the first one are shorter and broader, the second longer and narrower.  The first one has formed a larger clump more rapidly than the second, but this could just be a product of location in the garden.  Neither plant has set seed for me (although they may have been the victim of a deadheading frenzy).  As you pointed out in your second e-mail, there are some similarities in the flowers.  In my garden I had the general impression that Iris lactea appeared more delicate, and Iris biglumis (?) appeared more robust.

 

Figure 1 - Purchased as Iris biglumis seedling, flowers at base of plant.

 

Figure 2 - purchased as Iris lactea seedling.

 

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