Patrick,
I wonder which that clump that is in my photo really is?
Iris hexagona or Iris savannarum?
Mark A. Cook
On 3/24/2017 7:48 AM, 'Patrick
O'Connor' p*@cox.net [iris-species] wrote:
Sean,
Thanks
for the response. The picture looks more like what I think
of as I. hexagona as opposed to I. savannarum.
I
noticed that the Flora of North America recognizes
savannarum as a species, and that makes sense to me. We
have a hexagona from South Carolina that blooms with
brevicaulis and is very different than what I have seen of
savannarum. I think that perhaps the more northerly East
Coast irises are hexagonas and that savannarum occurs
further south.
I
do wonder, by what authority the Flora of North America
separated savannarum? Other authorities don’t recognize
it. How are such decisions made? Scientific articles such
as those by Arnold lump everything except brevicaulis, fulva
and (maybe) nelsonii into the hexagona bucket. In
Louisiana, we wonder about the relationship of I.
giganticaerulea to the East Coast irises. I understand that
what constitutes a species follows manmade rules, but I
can’t see that giganticaerulea is just a form of hexagona.
It may be closely related (or the same as) I. savannarum,
however. By the way, a few days ago, I visited a field
about 20 miles from New Orleans that had so many
giganticaeruleas you almost could not avoid stepping on them
as you walked. It is amazing to see them in such a mass.
The
Flora does not recognize I. nelsonii as a species. I
thought it was settled that nelsonii was a species, so by
what authority would the Flora demote it? Nelsonii surely
was derived from fulva, but the small niche it lives in
would not be hospitable to fulvas. Nelsoniis are found in
more shade and constant water. If a fulva were planted back
in a swamp with nelsoniis, it would not survive.
I
keep hoping some scientific research will straighten out the
Series Hexagonae. And that I will understand the report
when it is published.
Patrick
--
Mark A. Cook
USDA Zone 8b
Dunnellon, Florida USA
