Re: SPEC: Intergeneric hybrids
- To: <iris-talk@onelist.com>
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] SPEC: Intergeneric hybrids
- From: J* a* C* W*
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:46:03 -0700
From: "Jeff and Carolyn Walters" <jcwalters@bridgernet.com>
> From: HIPSource@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/3/00 7:54:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jcwalters@bridgernet.com writes:
>
> << KOOTENAY. Sib-B1L (Preston 1932); Rept. Dom. Hort. 63. 1928; (Sibirica
> maxima X SNOW QUEEN): Kellogg 1932; Rowan. 1938.
> (Note: This is a straight 28-chromosome Siberian cross, so presumably it
is
> the cultivar identification of the Siberian parent and not the hybrid
> offspring).>>
The 1949 Checklist adds to the above:
KOOTENAY. Etc., R., 1930.
Isabella Preston, Specialist in Ornamental Gardening at the Central
Experimental Farm in Ottawa, Canada was a careful record keeper, as one
would expect a person in her position to be. Her KOOTEANAY was recorded by
the AIS as being both registered and introduced. There is no other Kootenay
listed in any AIS Checklist, nor should there be according to the
long-standing rules of the AIS.
> TRUE BLUE listed on page 532 as the named hybrid of I. spuria X I.
siberica.
There is no pedigree information for TRUE BLUE in any AIS Checklist. What
is the source for this pedigree? The Checklists are not infallible or
omniscient, but it is impossible to assess the value of this additional
information without knowing its provenance.
>
> MRS. H. R. MOORE Spur-W4 (Fry-Jr. 1928) Fry. Nur. 1928; Wayman 1932;
1939;
> (SPURIA AUREA X orientalis).
> (Note: "orientalis" was the 1939 Checklist designation of the species
> currently known as I. sanguinea; the spuria species that has been called
I.
> orientalis is designated I. ochroleuca in the '39 Checklist, but is the
> usage consistent in this entry, or could this be a straight spuria
> hybrid?).>>
>
> Garden Irises (p. 531) gives it I. aurea x I. orientalis. I. orientalis
> itself is listed in its expected place in the Series Sibericae. I.
ochroleuca
> is listed in the Spuriae, as is I. aurea. The change in the name from I.
> ochroleuca Linn. to I. orientalis Miller is referred to in the BIS book
as
> 'recent', a relative term, but it the species was still I. ochroleuca in
WOI.
This was speculation on my part, but there appears to have been enough
confusion about nomenclature that it remains a possibility.
>
> The 1932 Wayman's catalog, which I have here beside me, includes her
among
> the Spurias and says " A cross between Aurea Species and Orientalis
Gigantea,
> producing flowers at least one third larger than Aurea, taller and of
more
> rugged growth. Color white, the standards suffused yellow and the falls
> having a bright yellow central area. Very handsome." Orientalis is
grouped
> with the Siberians.
Fryer's was in Minnesota; Wayman's was in New York and Florida. Can we be
sure that they both had the same understanding of the usage of orientalis?
BTW, the '39 Checklist does not recognize "aurea" as a valid name for any
iris species.
The 1939 Checklist recognizes that the name I. orientalis has been used for
the species it chooses to call I. ochroleuca. In the entry for orientalis,
the following statement appears:
"There is much confusion concerning the name I. orientalis. By some
botanists it is regarded as the proper name for I. ochroleuca, but this
catalogue follows Dykes in maintaining the name I. orientalis for a member
of the sibirica section."
Curiously, on the basis of information contained in the 1939 Checklist
itself, the choice of I. ochroleuca for the spuria species so designated
appears to be a flagrant violation of the rule of priority in botanical
nomenclature. The sequence goes like this (page citations from '39 AIS
Checklist):
1768 - publication of name orientalis for a spuria species by Miller
(p.411)
1771 - publication of name ochroleuca for a spuria species by Linnaeus
(p.404)
1794 - publication of name orientalis for a siberian species by Thunberg
(p. 411)
1811 - publication of name sanguinea for a siberian species by Donn (p.481)
Therefore, by priority, the proper specific name for the spuria is
orientalis and ochroleuca is invalid. Furthermore since the spuria is
rightfully orientalis, that name is unavailable for the siberian species,
which by default takes the next name applied to it in point of time, which
is sanguinea. That, I believe, is the currently recognized situation, but
it appears that the information for reachig this conclusion was available
as long ago as 1939 at the least.
Jeff Walters in northern Utah (USDA Zone 4/5, Sunset Zone 2)
jcwalters@bridgernet.com
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
Sign up for eLerts at:
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
