Re: SPEC: Iris plumeri
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: SPEC: Iris plumeri
- From: H* <H*@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:21:38 -0700 (MST)
In a message dated 98-04-01 19:43:37 EST, you write:
<< Maybe Anner knows a little more about this. If Roger's Catalog has an
error, I am sure he would correct it if it was pointed out. >>
Gentlemen,
I am not in a position to speculate about Mr. Nelson's catalog copy or his
intent.
Since I referred to this iris in my own post, I will share what I know in the
interests of clarification.
First, the recently published Cambridge University Press book, A Guide to
Species Irises, Their Identification and Cultivation, does not accord species
status to PLUMERI.
Second, the AIS Alphabetical Iris Checklist from 1939, in an entry consistent
with that in the 1929 Checklist, lists PLUMERI as a legitimate name for a red
toned TB listed first in the catalog issued by Ware Nurseries in England in
1888, but thought to be much older. In short, it was, and is, an old garden
hybrid cultivar of uncertain antecedents. It was listed in Bertram Farr's 1912
catalog and was widely distributed as a result. It was described as "an
interesting old sort" by Austin W.W. Sand in Cornell Extension Bulletin 112,
Bearded Iris: A Perennial Suited to all Gardens (1925), who described it as a
"brilliant vinaceous-lilac self" which "tends to bronze in the sun". Sand
further distinguished it from "the bicolor Plumeri so commonly sold by
nurserymen".
The subordinate listings for Plumeri indicate that the name has been used
erroneously to refer to the cultivar SPECIOSA.
SPECIOSA , according to the 1939 Checklist, is a legitimate name for an "Old
French Variety" dating from before 1830, and listed by Lemon in 1839. It is,
or was, a midtoned blue to violet self. It also was listed by Farr in 1912,
and as a separate cultivar. But the checklist notes numerous
synonyms--Atropurpurea, Bougere, Bourgere, Jacqueminot, Minerva, Pallida
Speciosa, etc, including, of course, Plumeri--indicating rich promise for
confusion. Presumptively, it, or one of them, one was the iris dismissed by
Sand in 1925.
Anner Whitehead, Richmond, VA
Henryanner@aol.com