Re: HIST:pumila atroviolacea

From: HIPSource@aol.com

In a message dated 4/26/99 12:20:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
7kjellum@3rivers.net writes:

<<  Since p.atroviolacea is the only thing that survived in the cemeteries,
 should I just concentrate on planting more of it there to be historically
 correct? >>

Karen, perhaps I am simply dim this morning--it would not be the first time 
that has happened--but I am not following you here.

If you are looking for something with a similar history to bloom with little 
ATROVIOLACEA, that may not be easy since it has a very early bloom time. But 
If you are looking for recommendations for historic irises  with similar 
history to plant in your garden with the little purple, but not necessarily 
to bloom at the same time, we can recommend some nice ones for sure. 

Regarding your second question. Are you asking "Since only the little purple 
survived where I found it, am I distorting history in my yard if I give it 
some companions?" To which I would say no. 

I do think it might be impacting the historical record to plant different 
older irises into the cemetary at this point, and purists might condemn it, 
but history isn't over yet and bringing rhizomes to the dead is something few 
can heartily object to, especially in derelect and near forgotten burial 
sites as you have described.

If I haven't understood you,  please do take another whack at it.  

Anner Whitehead
HIPSource@aol.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that we add over 1,000 new e-mail communities every day?
http://www.ONElist.com
Explore a new hobby, discover a new friend, laugh at a new joke!
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index