Re: SPEC: atroviolacea

Ian asked about discrepancies in descriptions, thus:

<<  ....tiny  plant and tiny flower.  Put  it next to any pumila and you
couldn't tell the difference." .... On the other hand, it is very difficult to
imagine that the same plant  can be places in germanica by BIS Species irises,
which was Dykes's view.... It seems to me as if we are talking about two
entirely different plants with the same name.  Is this the explanation?>>

Ian, 

I don't know a great deal about the little irises, more's the pity, but I did
take a look at the 1939 AIS Checklist, and the BIS Species book, and the World
of Irises, and I can tell you what they suggest. To wit:

First, The 1939 Checklist  has three listings for "Atroviolacea", which are:

1) As a legitimate name for an obsolete TB blue self from Salter before
1859--not a species. 

2) As an illegitimate name for a DB listed by Schreiner in 1938, considered
synonymus with PUMILA  ATROVIOLACEA --which see below.

3) As a "synonym" for the species I. kochii--which is listed as an IB.

PUMILA ATROVIOLACEA (Todaro, 1856) as a DB, is also listed, and is a
legitimate name, but is not listed as a species, which are distinguished by
being in italics.

Now, the BIS book gives "Atroviolacea" as a synonym of I. germanica f.
Australis, and notes that Dykes considered the possibility that this was I.
kochii, which idea the author discounts as not consistent with some aspects of
Todaro's description, by which I must assume we are talking about Todaro's
description of Australis.[?]

Further,  the World of Irises, p. 147, says that 'chromosome counts and
cytogenic studies ...demonstrated that some of the smaller dwarfs, more prized
individually and supposed to be pure I. pumila species, were natural hybrids
of I. pumila with some of the larger "chaemaeiris" dwarfs. [this term is
defined in the previous paragraphs] Atroviolacea, the most famous of these,
listed by Todaro in 1856, is often called the "cemetary iris" because it was
carried by our ancestors across the country and often used to cover graves.'  

So, as I read it, PUMILA ATROVIOLACEA (Todaro, per the 1939 Checklist),
properly considered a hybrid, not a species, is a small iris-----some catalogs
list it as being 3-4" tall----and therefore not the same plant as whatever
Todaro described that Dykes thought might be I. kochii--which is considerably
taller.

The question that I can't answer is whether Todero described two separate
irises--Australis and Atroviolacea---or whether there has been a nonsense
somewhere-- or a "revision" of one sort or another.

Perhaps someone else can take it onwards from here, or kindly straighten me
out if the nonsense is one of mine own.

Anner Whitehead, Richmond,VA
Henry Hall Henryanner@aol.com
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index