Re: I. pallida

---

Hi Chuck,

 

These are good examples of confusion that surrounds many of the older cultivars.

 

First to 'True Charm'.  It is quite possible that it is not pure I. pallida, but it behaves as such, and is I. pallida by morphology.  It does not look like any plants with tetraploid parentage that I've seen.  It is a good point however, that I probably should not list it as if it is pure I. pallida, when there is a question about this.  The photo was just already labeled this way, and I neglected to change or comment on it.  Somewhere I have found 'True Charm' listed as "diploid", but cannot find the source of that information anywhere now (I didn't write down the citation).  I need to check my notes, but it seems that it set pods last year, so it is very unlikely that it is a triploid (as the parentage would indicate is most likely).  Anyway, it needs to be worked with some more to learn just what it really is.  Assuming the "True Charm" I have is indeed the "true" one, I don't believe the parentage published by 'Sturtevant' to be true.  I suspect that 'True Charm' (and 'Prince Charming') were really from selfed or bee-pollinated pods from 'St. Clair', with no tetraploid involvement at all.  I also suspect that 'True Delight' and the other two are siblings.

 

Just as a side note.  'Oriflamme' is clearly not true I. x germanica, simply because it is a 48 chromosome hybrid or species (perhaps of pure Near Eastern tetraploid TB ancestry?).  'Erebe' is a mystery to me (listed as supposedly the same as 'Kochii', but I seriously doubt it based on 48 chromosome offspring it apparently threw), and 'Macrantha' is(was) the same as or close to 'Amas', and was a wild-collected 48 chromosome plant from the Near East (not I. x germanica).  The "germanica" label goes back to published associations of the Near Eastern tetraploids with I. x germanica in the literature (I think Mathews had a lot to do with this association), but this associations merely pointed out similarities, and weren't intended to formally synonymize the names.

 

As for 'Fairy', there are more than one of those.  The 'Fairy' of van Tubergen is supposed to be I. aphylla (I don't know the plant).  The 'Fairy' of Kennicott via Peterson (and of Farr) is listed as a TB, and is morphologically referable to I. pallida.  It is the one that is moderately common in cultivation.  There are some other old 'Fairy' cultivars mentioned in the AIS checklist as well.

 

The cultivar 'Loppio' has been listed in several ways, but is clearly I. pallida cengialtii.  It was collected by Foster in the early 1912, and recorded apparently in 1912.  I. don't know where the "I. aphylla X I. pallida" reference comes from, but it is perhaps in reference to the I. aphylla that is a synonym of I. pallida and not the one that is recognized as a distinct species now.  I. [pallida] cengialtii has been confused with I. aphylla in the literature too. 

 

Here is what Dykes had to say about it: "The Loppio variety of I. Cengialtii was collected by Foster on Monte Baldo near the Lago di Loppio and differs from the type in its foliage which in the early stages tends to be of a bluish green by contrast with the somewhat yellow-green of I. Cengialtii.  It also flowers later and has darker, and less blue-, purple flowers and the purple line at the base of the spathes is also more marked." 

 

Other writers since have considered it nothing more than a color variant of var. cengialtii, and given it no formal recognition as being distinct.  'Loppio' was a parent of 'Loptec'.  Don't know if there is a published chromosome count for 'Loppio'.  I might have just noted it as another count for 'cengialtii' if I found it sometime in the past.

 

I only have the three clones of I. pallida cengialtii, and they are all darker than I. pallida, but 'Loppio' is the darkest and least blue.  It also blooms last, but just by a few days, with considerable overlap.  'Mostar' is usually the first of the three to come into flower.  Not unusual for such variation within any taxon.  They are all distinctly smaller than even the smallest of the plants that fit the description of I. pallida var. pallida, and the foliage is less upright and lower than in other I. pallida, and makes a less "organized" mass.  Even in 'Loppio', where leaves are described as bluish-green (it is) it is decided "greener" than in most I. pallida (at least it is in my yard).