The posted swertii may be right, but it is different in look from ones that were even more pinched that i have seen. Dykes gave a number of other characters such as green leaves and gray seeds which would be nice to have before making a definitive determination. Many botanist today sort of ignore these variations which may be botanical varieties, or even only botanical forms, which is why the name usually gets relegated to synonymy. I have met botanists who really do not care and have some disdain for information that is really of value to a gardener but does not add anything they feel to their goal of explaining evolution. As a plant ecologist I have a bent towards population dynamics and the variation within a botanical taxon is of more interest.
I have always disliked that bit about the AIS trying to subsume the natural bearded species into the AIS height/proportion classification. I don't know whether it is the classification itself, or the presentation in TWOI, but it bothered me the first time I encountered it as a little-tusker, and it bothers me now. I mean, it just seems so arrogant.
There was no reason they could not have established that classification for the garden irises and left the--often highly variable-species out of it.
I don't think the SWERTI I posted is wrong. It came from Lowe and its got the pinch and usually looks like it is "supposed" to.
AMW
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <robertpries@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling
Anner; as usual you raise a number of interesting points. Lawrence back in the 1950âs tried to place species into the rather arbitrary size classes that we use in the Iris Society for classification of cultivars. It really did not work well. Species, or let us say botanical entities, show variation. For example, if my memory serves, he called iris aphylla an MTB. But there are plants of aphylla in the wild that range from MDBs to TBs so trying to pigeon hole a natural entity in this way is not usually possible. If we speak of Iris swertii in the botanical sense it is unlikely that all the swertii s would conform to a single class. If we speak of âSwertiâ as a cultivar it is what the description of the cultivar indicates. According to the Checklist it is a TB but of course that meaning of TB in the 1939 checklist is not the same as TB is today. So we are referred back to the botanical literature. Since Botanical nomenclature by tradition starts with Linneaus the botanical name refers to the first description after Species Plantarum which is Lamarckâs Encyclopedia Methodique. Lamarck decribed both swertii and plicata on his Encyclopedia and although they were known and written about before Lamarck gets credit for the names Iris plicata was obviously another pallida that had the plicata pattern, and it appears that it was Iris pallida subspecies pallida, while Iris swertii was Irs pallida subspecies cengialtii. Sometimes I fear that we have not really improved the situation today because our official cultivar descriptions are so highly parsed to save printing costs.
It is hard to make determinations from pictures but the one you show looks more like what I expect from Iris plicata then Iris swertii.
From: C*@aol.com
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:04:47 AM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling
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 <r*@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <i*@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
