Re: Re: I. pallida

---

I have interpreted the following quote to mean that Dykes did not consider 'Loppio' as worthy of distinction nor botanical recognition from other "var. cengialtii", which implies strongly that at least Dykes didn't consider it to be of hybrid origin, but merely just another plant of the same thing.  I have not read much of Foster's writing, but I have never seen any indication that anybody considered 'Loppio' to be a hybrid, except for the published parentage in the AIS checklist (although it certainly could be a hybrid - but I doubt it - it certainly doesn't show any obvious leanings toward I. aphylla in morphology).  My impression of var. cengialtii is based on few clones, but my clones are all much darker than is normal for I. pallida. 'Loppio' is the darkest (not by much) and the least blue (more purple, leaning to the red side a bit more).

 

While I am not entirely clear on the point, it seems that the seedlings referred to are seedlings from 'Loppio', which implies that it is fertile, producing viable offspring, that also do not differ from the norm for var. cengialtii.

 

Of course some of this is based on the assumption that we are still growing the same 'Loppio' that Foster and Dykes saw (it seems reasonable to assume that we are).

 

I also wonder about the last comment below.  I can't think of any statement that Dykes made (that I've seen) that implies that he considered "a lot of pallida clones" to be natural hybrids.  He did go into a lot of discussion about apparent origins of various supposed I. pallida x I. variegata hybrids.  He did leave a bit of a margin for error in his statements about plicata type pallida in stating at least once that they might be hybrids or I. pallida.  He fell just short of stating that they are wild I. pallida, but did state that they are I. pallida in their characters, and a couple of times referring to them as I. pallida.

Dave