Mr. Ferguson, thank you for all your interesting comments on the issues presented by the name "Iris pallida."
I will have to give more time than I can spare right now to fully to savor their ramifications, but I did want to offer promptly a few stray thoughts.
First, I think you are correct to remark upon the variability of Iris pallida Lam. This aspect of the species fascinated, among others, Sir Michael Foster, who had a collection planted together for comparison purposes. Dykes appears to have bogged down in this issue.
Also, I am confident you will agree with me that one thing which sometimes throws people badly off when they begin to explore some of the nineteenth and early twentieth century horticultural literature is the use of the term "pallida" as a mere descriptive category, so that not all plants described as "pallidas" are to be referred immediately to the species, although they may, and probably do, derive from it at some remove.
Just as "variegata" and "neglecta" and "germanica" and "squalens" and "neglecta" and so forth were used in catalogs and horticultural literature to describe groups of bearded irises with similar characteristics-- notably color patterns-- so the term "pallida" was also used to describe plants which bore a resemblance to what was understood to be essential Iris pallida Lam. These plants were selfs or near selfs with good foliage, generally taller than those irises --including species-- classified as the horticultural "germanicas." Some of the plants described as "pallidas" were known to be hybrids. Miss Sturtevant's 'Shekinah' leaps to mind.
In his considerations of 'Dalmatica', and the species generally, I understood Chuck to be referring to Iris pallida Lam., sensu strictu, and not to this descriptive horticultural category.
My own experience of 'Kupari' is that it is a shorter and more feeble plant than most forms of I. pallida. I cannot immediately recall any form of I. pallida which is properly referrered to as 'Florentina.' We do know that "plicata" forms of one sort or another were in cultivation comparatively early because, again, we have paintings in which they are clearly recognizable.
I have, myself, understood that the showing of PBF is usual in some clones of Iris pallida, and does not constitute prima facie evidence of admixture--or recent admixture--- with other species or natural hybrids.
You are, I believe, entirely correct about the normative width of pallida leaves, and about several morphological factors being heavily influenced by cultural conditions.
Thank you for your interest.
Cordially,
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: David Ferguson <manzano57@msn.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 3:45 am
Subject: RE: [iris-species] Tetraploid Iris Pallida? PBF
A few thoughts.
It would be interesting to compare various "Dalmatica" collections and see how
many clones in cultivation are going under that name. It would be fun to have a
time machine and to be able to look at the plants people were describing so many
years ago, but alas, we can't. It is very hard for me to believe that my clone
bearing the name (which I'm pretty sure is the clone that bears the name
"officially" by current standards) would produce purple on the leaves under any
circumstance, but I'll keep watching it. To my eyes, it IS pure I. pallida,
through and through, just a little larger than average. Many of my other
clones of "true" I. pallida are just as large, and most are not significantly
smaller, but growing conditions could have a strong affect on size. I expect
very few of them are of proven known wild origin, but they have all of the
earmarks of being Iris pallida, and I have no reason to doubt that is what they
are. They vary from the traditional light bluish purple (basically lavender) to
white, and there is a group of them that are light reddish shade of
purple (light magenta or "rose pink" might be names invoked for the color).
'Dogrose' and 'Thais' are good examples of this "rosy" coloring. 'Florentina'
is very dark by I. pallida standards, but otherwise much like 'Dalmatica' and
'Odoratissima' (and very strongly grapey fragrant). 'Kupari' (another
supposedly wild collected clone) is basically a white version of 'Odoratissima',
but has a tinge of brown in the spathes (but then so does 'Odoratissima' -
sometimes). Some are plicata (some bluish, and some reddish). 'Swertii' is a
bit odd, a well-known I. pallida plicata clone with smallish somewhat twisted
flowers, but it really isn't that different either - and is also reputed to be,
but not proved to be of wild origin. All exhibit the traits of "pure" I.
pallida in morphology, and presumably all are diploid (many have been counted as
such, but many I suspect have never been counted). I suspect most were
originally grown from garden seed, but there is no evidence of other
identifiable diploid species in their characteristics (except perhaps the rosy
hue that some exhibit), and it is also possible that many of them were
originally wild collected. I'm not going to get into the origin of the plicata
pattern debate here, but do expect that it can be found in wild I. pallida if
people go out and look for it.
These garden plants are all fertile, except that 'Dalmatica' has no pollen.
There are also the few assorted smaller plants that are in cultivation, but
more delicate in all proportions and with brownish spathes; most (all? - I can't
remember) lacking the grape fragrance. Most of these little ones probably were
originally field collected (???).
And, not a one of them shows any PBF in when grown in this area.
There is a little group of garden "pallidas" that are supposed to documented
hybrids of I. pallida with a tetraploid, but morphologically they are I.
pallida, and their chromosomes should be counted to verify their ploidy. It
would be interesting to see if these are diploid, triploid, or tetraploid (I'm
betting on diploid). There are several white ones (I don't have names handy,
and don't remember them). Also, Sturtevant produced some of these that are
plicatas, including 'True Charm' (St. Clair X Oriflamme), 'Prince Charming'
(Oriflamme X St. Clair), and 'True Delight', which I suspect are all siblings
from one selfed 'St. Claire' seed pod, that I suspect that Sturtevant thought
was crossed with 'Oriflamme', but that really was not.
By the way I finally found where I had seen two of these "siblings" are
mentioned as diploids - here: http://www.hips-roots.com/articles/notable-gracesturt.html
The claim that they are diploid is not referenced, but it would be interesting
to find if they actually have been counted as such. If so, a tetraploid cannot
be one of the parents.
"There were numerous other popular and/or significant introductions during the
1920s: ................... plus a number of diploids (Airy Dream, Dream, Anne
Leslie, Bluet, B.Y. Morrison. Gold Imperial, Taj Mahal, True Charm, and True
Delight)."
Chuck, I guess I'm curious how you are defining I. pallida, because it sounds
like you are not allowing any of these garden cultivars in your definition (?).
I personally doubt that I. variegata had any influence on most, if any of
these, but I could of course be wrong. I doubt that any of these garden plants
represent multiple generations of selections, but rather chance seedlings that
are probably first generation (or only a few generations removed from wild) in
the garden. In a first or early generation interspecies hybrid, the influence
from the other species should be much more evident than in these plants. It
would be quite plausible that the odd-ball flowers and the larger vigorous
seedlings (still pure I. pallida) where kept and propagated. In a few
generations (or even just one) you could have something noticeably a bit "off"
and "improved" from the wild plants. If hybridization is involved (I doubt
there is much hybrid influence - if any - myself), the various eastern TB
tetraploid "species" would seem more likely candidates as parents, based on
morphology (they are more similar to I. pallida), but of course they would not
produce diploid offspring with I. pallida. Rather, most would be dead-end
triploids and a few might be tetraploids. In my limited experience though, such
hybrids do not express a grape fragrance, but rather a "rootbeer" or more
traditional "bearded Iris" fragrance, and usually they have spathes and flowers
more like the tetraploid parent. There is a long history of hybridization
between I. pallida and I. variegata, but all of the documented ones that I know
(not a huge number, but quite a few) are easily recognized as such (even a few
generations in), and again the smell is different (often the "Elder Iris"
smell), and the spathes are again not pallida-like. There are a few of these
"sambucina" hybrids that have been called "I. pallida", but clearly they are
not.
I also strongly suspect that there is a lot of diversity in the wild populations
of I. pallida, and that only a small fraction of that is documented in western
botanical and horticultural literature. After all this is a species of
moderately wide distribution that grows in a variety of climates and habitats.
There is a strong tendency for people growing plants in gardens to expect
everything under a name to look exactly the same and "conform to type", but
based on my own experience as a field botanist, I know that rarely is this
actually the case in the field. I suspect (???) that there are indeed wild
populations of I. pallida that are made up of or at least include larger plants,
and that they are probably somewhere along the eastern Mediterranean coast where
from they have been collected and distributed for a long time (though not
necessarily originally from within the Dalmatian region). I suspect that some
of the wild plants do exhibit not only "blue" or occasionally white flowers, but
also on occasion plicata patterns, and "rosy pink" coloration. The odd-balls
are usually the plants collectors go for, and so they always appear in a
disproportionate proportion in gardens and collections. As a side note, wild
plants showing PBF wouldn't surprise me too much, but much more so than larger
wild plants, or flower color and pattern variations would.
And, regarding lack of pollen and seed variation from plant to plant. These are
not uncommon in wild populations of many species of wild plants. As with any
variation from the norm, they could be clues to an odd ancestry, but most often
they are just individual variation. While I don't know if it is so in Iris, the
presence of "imperfect" pistillate plants that do not produce pollen within
populations of mostly "perfect" monoecious plants is actually pretty common -
something I see routinely. It may be an adaptation that promotes out-crossing
and reduces somewhat inbreeding within populations. It may also be an
adaptation that allows certain individuals to put more energy into seed
production. The number of full pods I've gotten over the years on 'Dalmatica'
does not indicate any degree of reduced fertility that I can see, though I've
not really been looking for such.
OK, enough of that.
Dave
________________________________
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> From: C*@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:25:27 -0400
> 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
> 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 >
> To: iris-species
> >
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
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/
