Yes, and you will see that a lot in many places and it is not per se wrong although it also is not right. In the BIS book (p. 42) --the most recent treatment of the genus from the advanced horticultural point of view--meaning it attempts also to address botanical issues -" I. dalmatica hort." --thus--hort meaning " of gardens" is listed as a synonym of---------> Iris pallida Lam. subsp. pallida.
However, you are dealing with names from the HORTICULTURAL standpoint, and Kew from the BOTANICAL standpoint. Different registration systems, different approaches, different results, because in this instance the subject of discussion--------the name----is that of a natural iris which became a named garden plant.
So, thinkin on, if "Iris dalmatica of gardens" is also "Iris pallida subspecies pallida", then Kew considers it a natural iris.
<<Chuck, is there a specific citation that leads you to say "Not a collected form. Identified in a garden. All current evidence indicates that it is a garden clone and perhaps a hybrid." (just asking , not challenging) >>
Don't try to go there, John. There is no consensus at this time.
The 1939 CL says it is the pallida clone listed by Gerard. Mahan has written that the 1939CL is wrong and it emerged in the nursery trade in the nineteenth century in the UK. His current posion on this is unknown. Barr said it was a collected form which was sent out from the UK in the nineteenth century. Dykes could not make up his mind what it was and contradicted himself. He thought that because he could not find anything like it in Dalmatia it had to have been an old garden hybrid, which does not even follow logically. I have a record of Iris pallida dalmatica as distinct from the species type in the wholesale trade in Europe--Krelage-- in 1858.
Edinger's opinion, shared with me recently, is that at this time it is correct only to speak of "Dalmatica" to refer to a group of especially fine cultivars of Iris pallida Lam. bearing a certain defined set of distinct salients, but not any one unique clone of known provenance. Notable among these salients are flaring falls.
"This of course on top of the who-hah I am looking at from someone listing I. ochroleuca Gigantea as a pod parent. This declared as "obsolete" in the '39, and I. ochroleuca now considered to be I. orientalis and Gigantea prpbably a garden name."
Call me a dumb bunny, but I don't see there is a problem from your end on this.
In the 1939 Check List. Iris 'Ochroleuca Gigantea' is written in caps, meaning it is an AIS approved --legit--name of a yellow spuria cultivar known to have been listed in the trade as late as 1926, but in 1939 believed by the AIS to be "obsolete" meaning that the name was no longer seen in commercial catalogs. I do not see any reason that the name could not still be used correctly if the plant legitimately bearing it survived----and confirming that the plant is correctly named is not your problem. Stuff that was marked as "obsolete" did not disappear from gardens, it just wasn't being sold any more, so far as AIS could tell.
<<Who knew that being Registrar could be so much fun...>>
I will share what someone once told me when I was fretting some exasperating muddle "Remember, there is a limit to how far you have to go to protect idiots."
We are always here for you, John, probably with more opinions than you need. Love and kisses from SIGNA, and thanks for all you do.
