This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: 'Swerti' spelling

 

I did try to get more details. But didn't get the details of what they obtained in terns of colours. But if they said ALL it may very well have included the plicata, as I found.

Here are two examples from the cross of Kupari  x I. pallida. I had over 50 seedlings in this cross.

Various shades of blue and violet, going to purple. Many bicolours in various shades and a couple that could very well be called amoena.


I did take a count, but can't find the numbers right now. But nothing  that had any pattern other then bicolour and amoena.

I find the very dark colours interesting. Much  darker then the mid pallida blue-violet of the pallida I used.

Very different then Kuparii X reginea.

Of note, all of the Kupari X reginea were of height of Kupari or perhaps even slightly taller. None short like reginea.

I now have some F2 seeds collected this year. So can look at these in a couple of years, if all goes well. Did save about 5 plants from this cross. Ditched all the others.

The Kupari X Sweertii produced all plicata. Some very light markings on petals but purple style arms. Only about 10 seedlings in this batch.

Chuck Chapman

-----Original Message-----
From: ChatOWhitehall <ChatOWhitehall@aol.com>
To: iris-species <iris-species@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 9:24 am
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling

 
I am sorry not to have time to run down the appropriate citations on this right now because I think this is important, but, unfortunately, I'm trying to get a coat of stain on a board fence before the rain gets here, so can only answer on the fly.
 
In this context someone needs to mention the early experiments by Dykes and Bliss along this same line. There are accounts in the garden literature of the time and Dykes says something brief about the project, too, in The Genus Iris.
  
By crossing variegata and pallida they succeeded in duplicating the several color forms which had long erroneously been called species--neglecta, squalens, sambucina, etc.---so that they were proven to be of hybrid origin, and if my memory is correct, they duplicated all the previously known color patterns generally, meaning, as I understood it, they came up with F1s identical to or very similar to most of the classic nineteenth century diploid cultivars. Then Dykes in one of his articles said something about a geographical area in which the distribution of the two species was tangent and intermediary forms of some description were found.
 
I don't recall whether the plicata pattern was specifically mentioned.
 
You may find it appropriate to investigate these seminal experiments. 
 
AMW
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Chapman <i*@aim.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 6:21 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling

 
I strongly suspect that what we know as Swertiii (or as cutivar "Iris sweertii) is actually a cross of I.pallida and I. variagata. It was discovered in a garden, not in wild.

I'm preparing an article on an cross of I.pallida kupari and I. variagata regina, that gave a high number of plicata seedlings. All  (100%) had papery pallida spathes.

A  few seedlings that could be called luminata-plicatas.  Almost all seedlings produced seeds, but about 33%  would not produce seeds from attempted crosses, but most of these  did set bee pods.


Here are two pics. One of a plicata seedling and one that resembles luminata-plicata pattern.

Chuck Chapman



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pries <r*@embarqmail.com>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling

 
Chuck; Iris swertii is no longer a valid species name since it is considered an Iris pallida. But the variation was described before we had cultivar designations or rules about them. The International code addresses this by saying this is no longer allowed, but names that were created before 1955 are conserved. There are many names in the 1939 Checklist which find themselves in this situation. They were both described as species by someone first and then decribed as a cultivar using the species name.

From: "Chuck Chapman" <i*@aim.com>
To: i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:32:08 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling

 
As the cultivar called "Iris swertii" is a cultivar it shouldn't have a species name.

so Swertii or Swerti  should be designation.

Chuck Chapman




---- Original Message ----
From: JamieV. <j*@freenet.de>
To: iris-species <i*@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling

 
Interesting!  As latin was typically used, one would expect it to take precedence over other descriptions, which may be only locally understood.  Of course, there was that great confusion created by a certain German author that insisted on keeping his library closed away until after his death, leading to a great deal of synonomy.  Perhaps this pushed the issue.  Frankly, I find latin no more usefull than English, German, French, et al, as it is non-living and despite this fact, still 'evolving'!

Jamie

Am 23.10.2011 18:40, schrieb C*@aol.com:
I believe a Latin diagnosis has only been required since early 1935.
 
AMW 
-----Original Message-----
From: JamieV. j*@freenet.de
To: iris-species i*@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 12:28 pm
Subject: Re: [iris-species] 'Swerti' spelling
 
Tom,

in general, if a latin description of the plant exists, then this spelling would be accepted as correct (precedence), regardless of 'correctness' or not.  If there is no formal description available, which would mean it was never properly published or since lost, then there is no precedence!  As the spelling of his name is apparently incorrect, having spellt it with two 'e's, although the word, which is Dutch, is spelt in general with but one 'e', (swert) and means sword.  This could be the source of the original (mis)spelling.

As to the two 'i's, this was traditional for honourifics, but, as I understand the newest rules of nomencalture, this must not be so.  A single 'i' would suffice (or 'ae' for the feminine).  It gets confusing as, in most European countries, the double 'i' is pronounced ee-ee, not ee-eye, as in English.  A single 'i' would remain ee.  In the end, I find understanding each other of greater importance, although it is too late for most spellings, as the first published takes precedence.

of course, most literature seems to list I. swertii as a synonym of an I. pallida.  Kind of makes the question moot.  Unless it can be defined as a specific clone.  Then we can start from square one.

Are we confused, yet?  Fortunately, I do not grow the plant!

Jamie

Am 23.10.2011 16:45, schrieb Tom Waters: 
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    ------------------------------------  Yahoo! Groups Links  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/  <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional  <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/join     (Yahoo! ID required)  <*> To change settings via email:     i*@yahoogroups.com      i*@yahoogroups.com  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     i*@yahoogroups.com  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/    


--  Jamie V.  _______________________  KÃln (Cologne) Germany Zone 8 


--  Jamie V.  _______________________  KÃln (Cologne) Germany Zone 8

JPEG image

JPEG image

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index