Re: SPEC: atroviolacea
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: SPEC: atroviolacea
- From: H* <H*@aol.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 18:11:44 -0600 (MDT)
In a message dated 98-04-05 13:06:45 EDT, you write:
<< The Adamgrove catalog lists I. pallida "Australis" (Todaro, 1861) as
violet-blue standards; darker, strappy falls with stalk height at 26"-32".
This would certainly be something different from "pumila atroviolacea".
Note the species designation as "pallida", not "germanica". This is
consistent with the 1939 Checklist, which has no entry for I. germanica
australis (or any variant thereof), but lists AUSTRALIS (Todaro, 1861) with
Pallida Australis as a synonym.>>
Interesting. So now we see that Todero--the botanist-- described at least two
different irises, PUMILA ATROVIOLACEA (1856) and AUSTRALIS (1861). So I shall
recast my question. Given that PUMILA ATROVIOLACEA as we know it cannot be the
same as I. germanica--nor I. pallida--nor I. kochii-- because of the size
difference, but, given that the synonym ATROVIOLACEA is offered in the BIS
book for I. germanica Australis, then what Atroviolacea is being cited by the
BIS species book as a synonym for Australis? Might it be the obsolete medium
Blue TB listed by Salter from before 1859?
We should probably recall to mind at this point that some named forms of
species were also listed in the 1939 Checklist in caps and not in italics--eg.
DALMATICA. AUSTRALIS is in this category. So is PUMILA ATROVIOLACEA, now
considered a hybrid, if I read the Checklist right.
Which doesn't explain why Australis is in the I. germanica section of the BIS
book, and why the book doesn't have much to say about the forms of I.pallida.
Still soliciting taxonomic insights in Richmond,VA..........
Anner Whitehead
Henry Hall Henryanner, VA
