Re: Cult: Borers
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: Cult: Borers
- From: H*@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:05:07 -0700 (MST)
In a message dated 98-01-30 09:12:54 EST, you write:
<< I would say that the borer is expanding its range slowly as irises become
ever more popular and abundant. There is always the danger of borers
"leapfrogging" from the margins of their normal range to places far away. >>
At the risk of sounding fatuous I would like to say that I have been struck by
two pieces of possibly related information. First, the received wisdom,
anecdotal and imperfect as such material always is, but not entirely to be
discounted, is that in Virginia the borer is rarely found below Fredericksburg
in the central region and it is most prevalent in the north, in the foothills
and mountainous regions to the west down to the Carolina border, and thus into
Kentucky and Tennessee, where it is not often found below Nashville. Now, this
suggests that Zone 6 and the colder regions of Zone 7 will support the borer,
but that as one gets into the warmer areas of 7 and toward 8 the creature is
not prevalent or does not persist if introduced as a general rule. The second
thing I have noticed is that this "normal range" of the borer in Virginia is
also the "normal range" of naturally occurring populations of Iris versicolor
in Virginia according to the Atlas of Virginia Flora. Further to the east and
south in the warmer areas and in the areas where the rivers become brackish,
I. virginica is found. We have been told that there is a known special
relationship between I. versicolor and the insect, and I think that it is
entirely possible that there is a significant question of temperature
dependency in both.
Anner Whitehead, Richmond, Va
Henry Hall, henryanner@aol.com
