Following is post by Clarence Mahan re Dalmatica
Seems Dykes considered to be garden hybrid and not a species.
Chuck Chapman
Perhaps the first mention of "pallida dalmatica" was in
Gerardeâs Herbal (1597). The name and description of Iris pallida as a
species was done by Lamarck in 1789. The Iris pallida pictured in the
Botanical Magazine (1803)and later by Redoute are the iris described by
Lamarck. It is fairly certain that the iris mentioned by Gerarde is the same
species described by Lamarck. Sometime in the 19th century a lovely iris
came into commerce in England under the name "Pallida Dalmatica" which was
distinct from the species. With a larger flower and flaring falls, it in
other ways looked like the species.
Much confusion has ensued ever since. The Royal Horticultural Society awarded
an HC to "Pallida Dalmatica" in 1903, and an AM in 1929. The AIS Registrar,
in the 1939 Check List, recognized this iris as a distinct form under the
name DALMATICA, but unfortunately referred back to the iris mentioned by
Gerarde (which was not the same iris!)
After much study, and collecting in Croatia and Bosnia, Dykes concluded that
the iris grown in Europe and North America as "Pallida Dalmatica" was not a
form of the species growing in the wild. He opined that it was a garden
variety developed by someone in the 19th century. No one has ever found it
in the wild. To compound the problem, an iris named PRINCESS BEATRICE was
introduced by Barr in 1898. Many experts believe PRINCESS BEATRICE is just
another name for the older DALMATICA.
Unfortunately, Mathew, in The Iris, makes the statement that "The plant grown
in gardens as var. dalmatica does not seem to differ appreciably from the
typical wild plants [of I. pallida]." I say "unfortunately" because it all
depends on what "the plant grown in our gardens" is. Mathew must have seen
irises growing in gardens under the wrong name, because DALMATICA, or
"Pallida Dalmatica" certainly differs from the species. In any case,
notwithstanding what Mathew wrote, the iris recognized as a distinct cultivar
called Pallida Dalmatica by Dykes, and which was given high awards by the
RHS, is not the typical species Iris pallida. It is also not the Iris
pallida grown in Italy for orris root.
It seems this "pallida dalmatica" issue just keeps getting more confused with
each passing decade.
Clarence Mahan in VA
-----Original Message-----
From: ChatOWhitehall@aol.com
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 8:25 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
That is correct about PBF being a variable and possibly fugitive characteristic. It is a trait more significant in it's presence than in its apparent absence.
That said, as I understand it, and as Parkinson noted, I. pallida may show PBF; however, the clone 'Dalmatica' is not on the usually accepted list of irises with it.
Edinger said at one time he had a whole slew of different 'Dalmatica' clones from diverse sources. No one is surprized, right?
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Chapman <i*@aim.com>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 5, 2011 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
Now that I'm back home, I double checked my Dalmatica. It indeed has pbf. But a narrow band, at base of leaves.
So another trait uncharacteristic of true species.
PBF can vary quite a bit from climate to climate. It can show up in colder climates in same cultivars that don't show it in warmer climates.
Chuck Chapman
-----Original Message-----
From: David Ferguson <m*@msn.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 5, 2011 12:21 am
Subject: RE: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
The plant that we refer to as "Dalmatica" now, does not have any purple at the
base of the leaves. However, it would be interesting to know if it is the same
plant referred to by Parkinson, and if different, which one is the "real" one.
Dave
________________________________
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> From: C*@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 09:41:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
>
>
>
> If we accept--and I do-- that the great English horticulturist John
> Parkinson intended to refer to I. pallida Lam. in his Paradisi in
> Sole... , then purple based foliage is documented in at
> least some clones of this species as early as 1629. In the context of
> discussing the bearded irises generally, and describing them severally,
> he said:
>
>
> "Iris Dalmatica major: The Great Dalmatian Flowerdeluce.
>
> The greater Flowerdeluce of Dalmatia, has his leaves as large and broad
> as any of the Flowerdeluces whatsoever, his stalke and flower doe
> equall his other proportion, onely the colour of the flower is
> differing, being of a faire watchet or bleake blew colour wholly, with
> the yellow frize or thrum down the middle of the lower or falling
> leaves, as before is said to be common to all these sorts of
> Flowerdeluces, in all other parts it little differeth, saving only that
> this is observed to have a small shew of a purplish red about the
> bottome of the greene leaves.
>
> Cordially,
>
> AMW
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ferguson
> To: iris-species
> Sent: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 11:21 pm
> Subject: RE: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
>
>
>
> Another two-cents worth.
> There was an interesting comment made during this discussion that I
> didn't comment on, but just now saw it mentioned again. Somebody
> mentioned that I. pallida can have PBF. I just wanted to comment that
> I have never personally - ever - seen any purple on the foliage nor on
> the spathes or bracts of any selection of Iris pallida of any variety.
> Not even on cultivars that many doubt are pure I. pallida (but that
> have all the characteristics of the species).
> On the other hand, I have seen PBF on lots of hybrids that have I.
> pallida as one parent, with the PBF apparently always coming from the
> other parent. Lots (if not most) hybrids that have I. variegata as the
> other parent (or even children of these removed by a generation of two)
> will show PBF, and some of these do resemble I. pallida somewhat.
> Also, I realize the fact that when talking about unreduced gametes, I
> ignored the vegetative abnormalities that can result in polyploidy
> (still unreduced cells - but not gametes, and through various other
> happenstances. I didn't mean to imply that I think these unimportant,
> indeed as stated here, they are often the way that polyploids come to
> be.
> best wishes to all,
> Dave Fergusoncentral NM (where I haven't seen an Iris flower for
> several days now, and envy those of you who are still getting to enjoy
> them).
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
i*@yahoogroups.com
i*@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
i*@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
