Re: Frozen Iris: response

Duane Buell wrote:
> QUESTION: I believe I saw a message a few days ago that indicated
> a distinction between the "coastal form" and the "interior form"
> of setosa, if I remember the terminology correctly. Could we get
> further information on exactly what the differences are considered to
> be - or referred to a reference that would elaborate on the
> differences?
>
Duane:
My reference to our iris being "kissing cousins" was more a reference to
the fact yours are closer geographically to mine than anyone else's I
know.
But for the taxonomic difference: mine are Iris setosa, as yours, found
in the more coastal areas (though not exclusively). I. setosa ssp.
interior, are found fairly far inland. The first patch I saw which I
could definitely establish as ssp. interior was near Denali State Park,
at least 150 miles inland. There are others closer to the coastal areas,
I suspect. 
The taxonomic difference is slight, but after you see the two variations
it is easy to pick up on. I. setosa ssp. interior has more papery,
violet-purple colored spathes than the species, and the spathes are
somewhat shorter, not going up the flower axil as far. Their leaves are
narrower. I think ssp. interior is also a little more free blooming.
One difference which was visually apparent to me about ssp. interior
plants I saw around Nenana and Fairbanks was they had more tailored,
smaller (but more prolific), butterfly-like blooms compared to coastal
I. setosa, which can almost look "lush" if it is a large-falled
specimen. I've never seen reference to this difference in any
literature, so I'm wondering if this is not a difference created by
environment (cooler zone 2 weather & soils in Fairbanks). I have brought
several ssp. interior home to see if that is a environmental or genetic
difference. They will be blooming this summer and we'll see if those
blooms "bulk up" in this area or not.
Kathy Haggstrom
Anchorage, AK
Zone 3
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index