Sorry, I think I was talking about two different Anderson data sets.
All but the most recent Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden are
available for free here:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/702
If you click the plus symbol next to the year, there's a link to
download a pdf (1936 was 30MB, though the later ones are much larger).
Anderson didn't collect the setosa interior himself - he described it
from herberium specimens.
Sean Z
Quoting Chuck Chapman <i*@aim.com>:
> Found a reference to Anderson's morphological study, quote as follows.
>
> "In reality, biologist Edgar Anderson took these iris
> measurements in the late 1920's on the Gaspà Peninsula in Quebec, Canada."
> So comparison was to hookeri, even if he said attributed parent of
> versicolor as ssp interior in other articles.
>
> Chuck Chapman
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>
> To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] I. versicolor
>
> Â
> I checked out the Flora of North America and I do believe Norlan got
> it wrong when he attributed Anderson as saying hookeri. I am fairly
> certain Anderson talked about Iris interior not hookeri as a parent.
> I do know there are other disputes with the Flora of North Americas
> treatment of Irises.
>
> From: "Sean A. Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
> To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 5:22:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [iris-species] ÂI. versicolor
>
> Â Apparently I can't trust the Flora of North America at efloras.org,
> which states "E. Anderson (1936) showed rather conclusively that Iris
> versicolor arose as an amphidiploid between I. virginica (n = 35) and
> I. hookeri (I. setosa var. canadensis) (n = 19)." Needless to say,
> though, I wasn't just making that up.
>
> Having just checked the reference, Anderson actually described var.
> interior because only plants from that region of Alaska fit his
> careful morphological predictions of what the setosa parent of
> versicolor should look like.
>
> Anderson points out that allopolyploidy explains why there are no
> albino versicolors. I. virginica is already an ancient tetraploid, so
> in order to be albino both sets of chromosomes must possess the
> mutation. It's even worse for versicolor, which has three sets of
> ancestral chromosomes.
>
> Sean Z
>
> Quoting Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>:
>
> > Iris virginica is not a hybrid. It is a species of hybrid origin.
> > That origi n is believed to have occured ten thousand years ago
> > during the last ice age. The parent was not hookeri but Iris se tosa
> > interior whose range was pushed south by the ice sheet. The
> > researcher who i nvestigated this was Edgar Anderson director of the
> > Missouri Botanical Gardens and most of his papers on this are found
> > published in the Missouri Botanical Gardens A nnals. Anderson was a
> > great friend of the Iris Society and h ad an iris test garden at
> > MoBot. He was also the author of Iris xrobusta which IS a hybrid as
> > denoted by the x in its name. R obusta is a fairly commonly grown
> > plant with several selected cultivars, Gerald Darby being one of the
> > best known. Nature is constantly evolving but generally species are
> > no longer considered hybrids after having found a niuche in the
> > natural world for thousands of years. Many Irises like the Pacific
> > Coast Natives are still in the process of speciation. Some authors
> > would say that all the more or less 10 species of PCN are all one
> > species that is constantly separating and coming together. O thers
> > sort out the 10 species and note thatÂperhaps as many plants growing
> > in this region are hybrids as there are pure species. N ature does
> > not have semantics that is a human invention. ÂÂ
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sean A. Zera" <z*@umich.edu>
> > To: i*@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 9:51:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: [iris-species] ÂI. versicolor 'Murrayana'
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the current assumption is that versicolor is a hybrid
> > between virginica and hookeri (a.k.a. setosa v. canadensis). Not
> > counting hookeri, the nearest setosa is in southern Alaska, thousands
> > of miles away from versicolor or virginica.
> >
> > Since virginica and versicolor (and probably Ãrobusta) are mixed up or
> > simply not distinguished in the nursery trade, and are planted in
> > large numbers in wetland mitigations and restorations, I'd be
> > surprised if there aren't lots of populations established outside
> > their original ranges.
> >
> > Sean Z
> >
> > Quoting Chuck Chapman < i*@aim.com >:
> >
> >> I just looked at article on Murrayana.
> >>
> >> Very interesting.
> >>
> >> A couple of observations. The offspring of Murrayana X vesicolorÂ
> >> sound very much like offspring of crosses of virginica x versicolorÂ
> >> Except that the "Robusta" plants are usually fertile.
> >>
> >> Also versicolor were produced from a natural cross of setosa x
> >> virginica. And hokerii is very closely related to setosa. Hookeri
> >> and versicolor are both native to Newfoundland.
> >>
> >> I found Cast Ashore (a robusta) in an area that has versicolor but
> >> no virginica. so you can have plant relics or hybrid relics in
> >> strange locations.
> >>
> >> Chuck Chapman
> >>
> >> Sometimes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Eleanor Hutchison < e*@mymts.net >
> >> To: iris-species < i*@yahoogroups.com >
> >> Sent: Wed, Oct 5, 2011 10:31 pm
> >> Subject: [iris-species] I. versicolor 'Murrayana'
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Todd, I rec'd this iris today, so looked up a bit more information
> >> about it and came across your interesting article at Dave's Garden,
> >> "The Story of Iris versicolor 'Murrayana'".
> >> Â
> >> I hope I planted it at the correct depth, as it had roots heading
> >> up one of the stems.
> >> Â
> >> El, Ste Anne, Manitoba, Canada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
