This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

RE: Iris savannarum

 

Robert,

 

Thanks for the comments and overview.  So it was Henderson’s work on which the Flora was based for irises?  I think I have an old paper of his and I need to re-read it.  While he was working on it, Henderson came to a meeting of SLI in Lafayette.  I could not guess when that was but at least 20 years ago, I think.  He gave a presentation to the group that was decidedly not well received.  If my memory is correct (it is at least approximant), he proposed that the entire Louisiana group should be called “Iris X Louisianica.”  And he declined to recognize I. nelsonii as a distinct species.  Ike Nelson’s  widow was present and was visibly upset.  Science meets humanity.  Henderson, of course, was doing a service with his work and I am sure did not engender the warm regards that he deserved.

 

As to Small, he is a legend in SLI circles and for whatever errors he made, he indisputably was responsible for initiating the recognition of Louisiana irises in horticultural circles .  You actually understate the extent to which he went wild in naming species.  He claimed in the local press that there were in excess of 100 species just in the New Orleans area alone.  How many he actually put a name on, I am not sure.

 

I had occasion to do some research on an iris organization that Small and an associate created in New Orleans in the 1930s.  It preceded SLI and was gone when SLI was formed in 1941.  The article was reprinted in the last issue of Bayou and Marsh, the newsletter of the Greater New Orleans Iris Society and a low resolution is available here:  https://tinyurl.com/jvmrybx  Or a high resolution version:  https://tinyurl.com/k7d8mgp  Small received considerable coverage in the local press, including his claims about the number of species.

 

In doing the research, I found correspondence between Small and Mary Nelson, a New Orleans iris activist, in which he responded to a question about whether all his “species” were in fact distinct species.  He told her that some might eventually be discovered to be natural hybrids, or of hybrid origin but stabilized, but that they were being tested at the NY Botanical Garden to make that determination.  Tested how?  I have no idea.  It seems that Small’s approach was to slap a species name on a different looking iris, collect a specimen, and then let some future evaluation determine what it actually was. 

 

I recently found an old (1930s) article by Ethyl Anson S. Peckham, an early luminary of AIS, who described a collecting trip in Louisiana on which she accompanied Small.  On one occasion they came across and especially dark blue iris, and, bam! Small assigned a new species name on the spot!  I guess he was a kick ass and make names kind of guy.

 

Percy Viosca was correct about the limited number of species, but Small did a distinct service in making the variety among and within the species widely known.

 

My understanding is that giganticaerulea is the only name of Small’s that is still recognized (by many) but savannarum was also a Small species designation, so there may be two.  Or maybe giganticaerulea and savannarum are the same thing.

 

Patrick

 

From: iris-species@yahoogroups.com [mailto:iris-species@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:02 AM
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Iris savannarum

 

 

Patrick: I am taking a risk at responding because I have not seen all the posts relating to this thread, but I can give some incite as to who decides what is a species. When I was working on my phd I worked with Taxonomists and Ecologists because I had not quite made up my mind as to which I would choose to call myself and for that matter my major professor was also both. At the time I was not concentrating on Iris but I can tell you a bit as to how the system works.

 

Taxonomists are somewhat like lawyers you ask two of them for their opinions and you get three answers. Generally for years up until very recently the practice of authoritarianism occurred. In other words the identification is what an authority in the field says it is. But authorities do not all agree. Generally most other taxonomist look at the amount of research that an investigator has done on the subject and decide whether they would trust their judgement. Iris have been a particularly knotty problem. John Kunkel Small was a beloved and renowned taxonomist and highly respected for his Flora of the Eastern United States, but when he described 50+ additional species of Louisiana Irises based on the hybrids he saw during a train trip across the South his reputation plummeted among taxonomists. Percy Viosco later proved their hybrid origin and most taxonomists threw out all or almost all the Small names. But another taxonomist later did an intense study of the Irises of Florida and proposed the resurrection of 10 species including savannarum and hexagona. But the cloud of Small's work hung over this group and many taxonomist with just a passing knowledge of these irises were reluctant to bring back any of the old names even though Viosca noted that he had only looked into the names of Irises in Louisiana not Florida. Henderson I think tried to play it safe and with limited evidence only resurrected savannarum in the Flora of North America.

 

Today taxonomists who now prefer to be called systematists use new tools that are supposed to reduce the subjectivity of their opinions. By using computers they can choose according to the data they put in, the most parsimonious explanation and suggest the reality of a species or whether it is not an end line in the tree of evolution. Using new tools Meerow has come close to proving the reality of hexagona as a separate species. From what I have seen I would agree and suspect that at least some of the Florida names should be valid. Criteria for what constitutes a separate species has continued to become more rigorous but their will always be and element of judgement involved. I believe Randolph proved the value of separating Iris nelsoni as a separate species but some less informed or less venturous taxonomists may hold different opinions. After all the loss of credibility of Small still looms over Irises even 80 years later. 

From: "'Patrick O'Connor' p*@cox.net [iris-species]" <i*@yahoogroups.com>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 7:48:42 AM
Subject: RE: [iris-species] Iris savannarum

 

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

 

From: i*@yahoogroups.com [i*@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:13 PM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Iris savannarum

 

 

Patrick, I collected an iris from Dixie County, Florida that had no sign of flower stalks the first week of April, clearly blooming much later than savannarum in its native habitat. Here in Michigan it bloomed the first week of July, two or three weeks later than other Hexagonae (except possibly brevicaulis).

 

I donated some seed to SIGNA (14LA050 hexagona var. hexagona), basing my ID on the description of hexagona in Flora of North America (which seperates savannarum as a species, rather than a variety). I'm curious to know if anyone successfully grew any. My parent plant was eaten by rodents during the polar vortex, but I have one seedling.

 

Photos of the plant in question:

 

Sean Z

Zone 6a

SE Michigan

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:33 AM, 'Patrick O'Connor' p*@cox.net [iris-species] <i*@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Mark,

 

Thanks for that information.  I should have also asked….what county are these irises in?

 

I am involved in the Society for Louisiana Irises Species Preservation Project, and we have an irises obtained from Brevard County that is about to bloom.  It is growing in a large pot and the pot is sitting in pool with 3-4 inches of water.  There is only one bloom stalk, but it is five feet tall.  The donor gave it as I. savannarum, but some people consider all the East Coast irises in the Series Hexagonae to be I. hexagona.  I feel that I. savannarum in fact is closely related to what we call I. giganticaerulea, and that there are other Florida natives that in fact are I. hexagona.  They do not grow five feet tall and do not bloom as early.  I. giganticaerulea will often reach five feet in its native habitat, and it is an early  bloomer.

 

In case you are interested in the Louisiana Iris Species Preservation Project, you can check it out here:  http://www.louisianairisgnois.com/SpeciesPreservation/

 

Patrick

 

From: i*@yahoogroups.com [mailto:i*@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:36 PM
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-species] Iris savannarum

 

 

Patrick,

     They are over four feet tall, not far from five.  But, they are growing right at the edge of an Alligator pond...   I had not been monitoring the clump, but I would estimate it has been blooming a good ten days.

Mark A. Cook 

 

On 3/21/2017 8:25 PM, 'Patrick O'Connor' p*@cox.net [iris-species] wrote:

Mark,

 

Two questions.  How tall would you say these irises are?  And, on approximately what date would you say the first bloom occurred?

 

Patrick

 

 

 

-- 
Mark A. Cook
USDA Zone 8b
Dunnellon, Florida USA

 




--

Bob Pries
Zone 7a
Roxboro, NC
(336)597-8805

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index