Because it was described way before the concept of cultivar had been created Iris swertii is often written I. swertii Hort. ex Lam. Whether it was collected as such, or developed in medieval gardens is not really known, but this is the botanical name. When Ethel Ansom Peckam wrote the 1939 checklist the convention for having one I or two Iâs was in flux. But there is no doubt that she wrote Swerti as a cultivar name. Generally these old cultivar names are conserved despite the fact that they violate the modern rule that a cultivar name should not be Latinized or be derived from a botanical name. So if you are referring to Swerti as a cultivar today it is probably best to spell it with one I and it would be enclosed in single quotes and title case. If you are writing it as a botanical name which it is a valid synonym for a form of Iris pallida subspecies cengialti then it would have two Iâs and be italicized. I believe it is a rather unimportant point so long as communication is clear. The rules of the horticultural code and the botanical code have been changed many times since the original publication of 'Swerti'.
From: "Tom Waters" <irises@telp.com>
To: iris-species@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 10:45:11 AM
Subject: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling
Hello all,
A question for those into bearded species and historics. The cultivar 'Swerti' or 'Swertii' - which is the preferred spelling? My understanding of the conventions of Latinizing non-Latin names says it should be 'Swertii', but perhaps there is a tradition of usage behind the other spelling, which seems quite prevalent. Do earliest references favor one over the other? Any comments welcome.
Thanks, Tom
