Re: Iris setosa
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Iris setosa
- From: "* E* E* <a*@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:05:50 -0700 (MST)
Croftway@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 19/01/97 18:30:44, Clarence said:
>
> << Interestingly, Anne Blanco White has a most interesting article in the
> latest
> British Iris Society Year Book, entitled: "Iris hookeri Returns to the
> Species Lists". Have you seen it Ian? Based on Japanese research, the
> chemical composition of the iris that Mathew et al have referred to as I.
> setosa subspecies canadensis, is much different from other forms of I.
> setosa. (Of course, its dwarf form makes it look much different!)
> >>
>
> How does canadensis differ from other dwarf forms of setosa, e.g. arctica?
> Does the new name change apply to all Canadian/Alaskan dwarf forms of setosa,
> or just canadensis?
My understanding is that I. setosa canadensis is now I. hookeri. It
would make no biological sense if hookeri was on both sides of the
continent. I.setosa, by the way, occurs in Alaska, British Columbia,
and the Yukon, not just in Alaska. I.hookeri occurs in Quebec, the
Atlantic Provinces (Newfoundland, PEI, NS, and NB) and Maine.
What is really interesting is that I.tridentata, their closest relative,
is only recorded from the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. What happened
to separate hookeri and tridentata - there a quite a number of states
between the two. The separation of setosa and hookeri can easily be
explained by the last glaciation.
Ian
