Iris pallida dalmatica

Someone wrote the following, which I accidently erased from my on line file,
but had previously saved in my word processor.  So I am sorry that I do not
know who wrote this comment, to which I will respond below:
"What is the correct name for this interloper masquerading as PALLIDA 
DALMATICA or is it just a named form of I.pallida. I used to have a form 
of I.pallida with a bud count of 8+ collected by Martyn Rix in Yugoslavia 
which was very vigourous and may be more like the type used in Orris 
root production but I lost the clump to my mothers cousin and the whole 
thing now resides in Aberdeen."

My response:  Perhaps the first mention of "pallida dalmatica" was in
Gerarde’s Herbal (1597).  The name and description of Iris pallida as a
species was done by Lamarck in 1789.  The Iris pallida pictured in the
Botanical Magazine (1803)and later by Redoute are the iris described by
Lamarck. It is fairly certain that the iris mentioned by Gerarde is the same
species described by Lamarck.  Sometime in the 19th century a lovely iris
came into commerce in England under the name "Pallida Dalmatica" which was
distinct from the species. With a larger flower and flaring falls, it in
other ways looked like the species.   

Much confusion has ensued ever since. The Royal Horticultural Society awarded
an HC to "Pallida Dalmatica" in 1903, and an AM in 1929. The AIS Registrar,
in the 1939 Check List, recognized this iris as a distinct form under the
name DALMATICA, but unfortunately referred back to the iris mentioned by
Gerarde (which was not the same iris!)  

After much study, and collecting in Croatia and Bosnia, Dykes concluded that
the iris grown in Europe and North America as "Pallida Dalmatica" was not a
form of the species growing in the wild. He opined that it was a garden
variety developed by someone in the 19th century.  No one has ever found it
in the wild.  To compound the problem, an iris named PRINCESS BEATRICE was
introduced by Barr in 1898. Many experts believe PRINCESS BEATRICE is just
another name for the older DALMATICA. 

Unfortunately, Mathew, in The Iris, makes the statement that "The plant grown
in gardens as var. dalmatica does not seem to differ appreciably from the
typical wild plants [of I. pallida]."  I say "unfortunately" because it all
depends on what "the plant grown in our gardens" is. Mathew must have seen
irises growing in gardens under the wrong name, because DALMATICA, or
"Pallida Dalmatica" certainly differs from the species.  In any case,
notwithstanding what Mathew wrote, the iris recognized as a distinct cultivar
called Pallida Dalmatica by Dykes, and which was given high awards by the
RHS, is not the typical species Iris pallida.  It is also not the Iris
pallida grown in Italy for orris root.

It seems this "pallida dalmatica" issue just keeps getting more confused with
each passing decade. The masterful garden writer Elizabeth Lawrence once
wrote something to the effect that demure southern ladies in the U.S. would
wage great wars over who was growing the true "pallida dalmatica."  I should
have had better sense than to have brought this subject up, and I do
apologize for this lengthy message.  If I have written anything that experts,
such as Mike Lowe, think is incorrect, please comment!  Clarence Mahan in VA
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index