You know, Robert, that association with cengialti is something I'm not sure about. Don't we consider cengialti an MTB or pretty close on? Am I misremembering something?
I've always understood SWERTI was typically a BB in proportions--that is, short, but not wiry --but an established clump in a fully vetted display collection here in Virginia which had always been happy and floriferous but dumpy bloomed at 35"after transplanting into a position it absolutely adored. See attached, which is a large photo so you can dig the details. This is USDA Zone 6/7, and the plant is sitting on red clay in full sun, grown with no fertilizer.
Note that this plant presents the pinched falls that contemporary experts consider a discriminator for this cultivar.
My guess is there have been several small plicatas sailing under this name over the years--how could it not be so?--and I'll go so far as to say I don't know what Swert/Sweert grew, because--- if I recall correctly--- upon viewing the image in the Florilegium, I was seriously not struck by its resemblance to anything I knew.
There are all sorts of funny little plicatas in the early seventeenth century still life paintings, so that 1612 is really not a bad date for documentation and cultivation and appreciation of plants in this sort of color pattern, not that that is an authoritative botanical statement, but you know what I mean.
Cordially,
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 11:38 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling
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" <i*@telp.com>
To: i*@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
