Re: Re: I. pallida

---

I am at a complete loss as to what this post means. I am not disagreeing with Foster or Dykes. I note that the (aphylla x pallida) is an error in the 39 checklist. I have no idea where its origin lies. Foster never claimed to my knowledge that ‘Loppio’ was a hybrid. As is any species there is a certain degree of variability. Pallidas from very dark blues to very light blues to pinkish lavenders to whites are all within the range of the species. Dark purple alone would be insufficient reason to assume that ‘Loppio’ was related in any way to aphylla. Of course just because Foster referred to ‘Loppio’ as an Iris pallida variety cengialti does not rule out that he could have been wrong, but I am not suggesting that he is wrong. I do not understand why you are saying that I disagree with Foster or Dykes for that matter.

irischap <irischapman@netscape.net> wrote:

--- In iris-species@yahoogroups.com, Robt R Pries wrote:
>
> Chuck: I think Dave has a good grasp of these cultivars. Part of the
problem is that the literature is riddled with misinformation. But
then we often can not be sure of some current reports either. One is
faced with a dilemma in that it is difficult to be sure that even when
you are looking at a plant to know if it is the same as the plant that
was originally given a particular name. Plants tend to get mixed up in
gardens through time. The SIGNA checklist treats most of the
conundrums conservatively, but where the evidence is fairly strong I
was not beyond noting the inaccuracy of past literature. The SIGNA
checklist qagrees with Daves discussion of `Loppio' and notes that the
AIS 39 checklist presented this (aphylla X pallida) in error.
>
>
>

It seems strange that Sir Michael Foster, knighted for his
contribution to Botany, a friend of Charles Darwin and mentor of W R
Dykes would make such a mistake. He collected many pallida species
directly from the wild and hybridized various clones to check out
their species classification. It could be that other species grew
nearby that could have produced a natural hybrid which may have been
what Foster suspected, and this could have been aphylla or perrieri.
There are many natural hybrids where natural distribution overlap. The
unusually dark pigment would also suggest to me that possibility.

It would be interesting to see his arguments for his conclusion re Loppio.

Allhthough I havn't seen his arguments there is this said about it by
W R Dykes

"The Loppio variety of I. Cengialti 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. Cengialti. 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.
Cultivation is easy in a sunny well-drained position in a soil that
is not deficient in lime. Seedlings show considerable variation in
color and it is for this reason that the claim of the Loppio form to a
varietal name is at least doubtful."


Dykes also suspected that a lot of pallida clones in Italy were
natural hybrids.

Chuck Chapman

Chuck Chapman





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/2gGylB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
iris-species-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/