Re: Re: ID'ing unknowns

Hi all,

Just a little rambling here, some thoughts based on my experience.

To me, not having the name is not terribly important.  I keep the unnamed
ones because I like them.  I figure that someday I'll figure out most of
them, and if I don't - oh well.  In the mean time I accumulate a few more
and figure out a few more every season.

Even so, It's nice to know the names (it tells you a lot more about the
plant than just the name; you can then look up ancestry, history, etc.).
It seems that documentation (or lack of) for early cultivars is a large
part of the problem.  I spend hours looking at old descriptions, and
sometimes it's totally hopeless to even make a guess.  Few of the very
early ones had photos published of them when they were named or released
(some even predate photography entirely), and the descriptions are often
very poor or lacking in detail.  Often descriptions were not even accurate
in what was included; they seem to have been written with the proverbial
rose-colored glasses one (yellow with a hint of green might be some sort of
"green" with no mention of yellow;  magenta or brown might be "bright red"
or "blood red", or whatever; lavender became "true pink", and so on).  I
think this often had a lot to do with marketing.  Old catalog photos were
not just often, but I think usually touched up to make them look better,
especially when color came along.

Part of the problem for some is in the early checklists too.  The only
description available sometimes seems to be in the checklist, and the only
description may be the codes used for color and pattern.  These codes were
pretty limited and limiting, and could not take into account even a
fraction of the wide range of variations and subtleties and that exist.

I think it is a lot easier to identify unknowns now than it used to be,
there are a lot more photos available as time goes by, and the photos are
now usually in color.  I suppose color is a mixed blessing, as it is not
always reliably reproduced (perhaps usually not), but a trained eye can
often tell if a photo is a bit too red, too green, to blue, or whatever
from the background.  Knowing that it is shifted, the relative colors
within the photo are still useful for comparison, even if they aren't
correct.  The details of pattern are usually there, even if the colors are
off, and one can get an idea of identity sometimes, even if not sure.  Even
though far from perfect, I still think the saying that a photograph is
worth a thousand words holds true.  Even ancient reproductions from the
earliest days of photography show details that are very useful for
identification, and that couldn't easily be written down.

There are many names out there that may still be grown, for which there are
no photographs nor any good descriptions available.  I agree that
photographs are not always definitive, but they are great help, and as more
properly identified photos become available, the state of knowledge and the
number of plants properly identified tends to increase (I believe).  Every
additional photo can help more.  Photographs can show the haft markings in
great detail, while a verbal description just doesn't cut it.  I think a
lot of cultivars need a lot more information put into an available format.
I think both verbal description and photos are important.  Some things
difficult to photograph (purple sheaths - see below), ribs on the leaves,
etc. need to be put in writing.

There is one trait that is rarely mentioned that can be helpful for some
Iris.  It was discussed as sort of a novelty two or three years ago on this
forum (or was it on Iris Photos).  That is the character of purple
pigmented leaf sheaths (the part that wraps around the rhizome).  The
character often called "purple base foliage" really refers to pigmenting
that occurs above the soil line near the base of the leaf, but not actually
all the way to the true base of the leaf.  It seems to be inherited from
two or three smallish species originally (ie I. variegata, I. aphylla, I.
junonia, etc.), but is absent from I. pallida, the near eastern TB
tetraploid species, I think all the Aril species, etc.  It rarely manifests
itself below the soil surface, where the leaf usually is white or near
white.  The trait I call "purple leaf sheath" is found in certain dwarf
species (I've seen it in the species with 16 or 32 chromosomes, and in I.
aphylla and kin).  It is very common in SDB and IB Iris cultivars, but
rather rare in TB's.  It is not universal in any class or species, and is
useful for identifying clones.  It also immediately points to a cultivar
having dwarf ancestry, even if it isn't a dwarf.  In this trait the color
varies in intensity from clone to clone (cultivar to cultivar) as well.  It
is found only underground, and if exposed to sun the purple pigment usually
goes away as the tissue becomes green.  This was referred to as "purple
rhizomes" at one point, but it is not the rhizome, rather it is the extreme
base of the leaf.  On some cultivars it is bright and attractive, but it is
only visible when you dig the plants up.

Sometimes both purple leaf traits are found on cultivar, and in extreme
(and attractive) cases the leaf may be purple from half way up right down
to the tuber; however, usually the two traits are separate.  The ones that
show both traits are most often IB's.

I have a short list of cultivars with purple sheaths, but I'm not sure how
many people have recorded it, let alone noticed it.   I also suspect that a
few cultivars are listed as having PBF which really have purple sheaths.
When I purchase new plants, I always record both traits as I take the
plants out of the box.  However, the notes are scattered through copies of
invoices now, and not all consolidated into one file.

I agree that the haft pattern is very helpful in identifying cultivars, but
I wanted to add that it is not fool-proof.  If you look at any two petals
(even from the same flower) you will see that the pattern is not identical.
Even so, it is recognizably similar.  To take the fingerprint analogy a bit
further, they are similar just as the finger prints on all ten of your
fingers are (probably) very similar.  However, they are not identical.
Also, the pattern varies somewhat with the condition of the plant when it
flowers.  Plants under stress often have smaller and/or narrower petals,
and the haft marking pattern may have fewer elements and look different
than on a full-sized flower produced on the same but healthier plant (fewer
veins in the petal I think).  This same difference may even occur between
first and last flowers on the same stalk.  Also, I have seen certain clones
that are so similar in haft markings that the markings are useless for
recognition, but this is rare.  However, most of these with like markings
have differences in other details, so they still may be easy to tell apart
(if you know what to look for).  Perhaps it is due to years of looking at
things as a botanist, but the details of the patterns of the markings on
the flowers have always been one of the first things I look at when trying
to identify a cultivar.  It was just automatic for me, and I took it for
granted to the point that I never actually thought about it as something to
mention when trying to help others identify plants.

There is nothing better than actually seeing a cultivar to learn to
recognize it though.  The more times you see it the better.
Identifying cultivars is a bit like identifying individual people or
animals.  Once you know them, they are easy, but getting to know them takes
time and observation.  You would never mistake one of you children for
another, even if they are identical twins, but others probably will.
That's because you know them.  The mind is good at familiarizing and
recognition, and sometimes it is difficult to put in writing what comes
naturally for the mind.

Switching topics slightly.  This has to do with photos, but this is to
point out two great photo references for oldies.  One is the Iris Photos
Archives, where more and more photos of old and sometimes rare cultivars
are to be found.  The other is the HIPS web site, which has many many
photos.

I would like to see the HIPS website updated a bit more thoroughly though.
There are a number of photos that HIPS has that are not in the indexes on
the web site (I don't know if there are limiting factors such as copyrights
though).  I have wondered if there is a way (perhaps with group or
individual agreement of members) if photos from the Iris Photos archives
could be moved over to HIPS for their use.   This might open a can of
worms, since there are photos relevant to a lot of other groups as well.

Well enough rambling for now.

Dave

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index