Re: SPEC: Iris pumila

The stalk is a definitive trait that would let you
know you don't have a pumila. But the
pumila/chamaeiris(lutescens)such as atroviolacea do
not have the stalk and were thought at the time to be
pumilas. Only After Simonet/Randolph's chromosome
counting did we recognized these as hybrids although
their sterility would have been a clue. Old varieties
refered to as pumilas that metion a branch certainly
were not pumilas. Ahner you are better at parsing ny
language than I. It is always impossible to prove a
negative. There may have been pumilas in the USA that
some grower recieved but never recorded. I have a
great deal of respect for Louise Beebe Wilder but she
and even me can make mistakes.

--- ChatOWhitehall@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:59:44 AM Eastern
> Standard Time,  
> rpries@sbcglobal.net writes:
> 
> <<I don't think the Schreiner pumilas went back as
> far  as
> 1928 but I could be wrong certainly the were used
> widely in  hybridizing when they became available
> and
> my guess would have been in the  40's.>>
>  
> It is the importation of seeds which I thought I
> recalled  occurring in the 
> late 1920s. Then there would, of course, be the
> growing on.  
> 
> The easiest place to trace it back would, I think,
> be the Schriener  
> catalogs. The earliest I have right here which
> appears to be useful is  the 1936 where 
> named forms of the species are not yet offered but, 
> on page 37, under 
> "Species and Unusual Types of Iris," is found an 
> entry for-----
>  
> "Pumilla [sic]: a diminutive species whose flowers
> are without true  stems, 
> being borne on elongated ovaries. Colors: blue,
> yellow, and purple.  From 
> central Europe, near Vienna. We know of no-one else
> in American offerring  true 
> stock of this species."  
> 
> 
>  
> << They were the first true pumilas we knew in this 
> country.>>
>  
> Maybe. 
>  
> I am inclined to phrase it that "they are the first
> pumilas we KNEW were  
> true in this country." 
>  
> We really don't know what was being sold under the
> name in those decades  and 
> centuries before people became sophisticated about
> things. As  early as 1916 
> Louise Beebe Wilder, no one's fool, was complaining 
> about getting the wrong 
> stuff when she ordered Iris pumila, and  she knew
> the difference. There is this 
> from her book, "My Garden" of that  date.
>  
> "Varieties of I. Chamaeiris and pumila are
> constantly sent out  
> misnamed--that is, the former is nearly [note that
> nearly] always sent where  the latter is 
> ordered, and this is irritating since pumila is both
> dwarfer and  prettier 
> than Chamaeiris and may be easily distinguished by
> the fact that it  has NO 
> stem, while the taller sort has very distinctly an
> inch or  two."  
>  
> Cordially,
>  
> Anner Whitehead
> Richmond VA USA
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to
> majordomo@hort.net with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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