Re: Kohlein's book
- Subject: Re: Kohlein's book
- From: D*@prodigy.com (MR ROBERT R PRIES)
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 20:58:37 MST
Clarence, You give an excellent example of exactly the very point I
was making. The Japanese Iris was called by the name of Iris
kaempferi as late as 1971 by Kuribayashi and Hirao in their classic
The Japanese Iris. The World of Iris printed in 1978 uses Iris
ensata, but for almost two hundred years Thunbergs name Iris ensata
was not known to be the Japanese Iris. It is my understanding that
Thunbergs original description in the Transactions of the Linnean
Society in 1794 was so bad for that many years no one could be sure
of what he had described. Reasonable botanists certainly disagreed
and it seems unfair to criticize Kohlein for clinging to the
tradition that had developed in the gardening community. It is
interesting that if the change to Iris ensata had been suggested in
the last five years, the present botanical code suggests that
Kohleins conservative approach would have been the proper one. I
fear that, yes, you are applying current dogma to a book that was
written twenty years ago. I acknowledged the typos and translation
errors, but I do feel Kohlein suffers most from his time and place.
I acknowledge also that you, Clarence, are probably are the most
well read person in all of AIS, but science does not deal in
absolutes. Our knowledge changes. One must take account of a
writers time and place. Kohlein is a popular writer first, not a
scientist. He is a well respected plantsman, and provides for his
readers a wealth of personal experience above the content of most
garden writers. I have not suggested that this be the first, or only
book a beginner buy. Nonetheless, I do believe it offers much
information unavailable in other sources, and if it makes one think,
so much the better. Perhaps you more critcal approach is good. When
are you going to give us your revision of The World of Iris? Bob
Pries
