SPEC: I. maackii

Greetings.

I'm revisiting a conversation held earlier about the Iris species cited above.

When last I spoke I conveyed the opinion of Clarence Mahan about this 
species. We had been discussing whether it was or was not anything other than 
I. pseudacorus and Dr. Waddick had been quoted and a passage from Dykes 
offered. For your convenience I'll pick up with my last post on the subject. 
Clarence speaks first.

<<<<   I have grown seed of I. maackii twice, once from SIGNA and once from 
seed obtained from St. Petersburg.  Both times it was I. pseudacorus.  When 
the elder Regel was Director at St. Petersburg Botanical Garden he probably 
had a plant of pseudacorus which has persisted.  >>>
-----------------------
I --and this is Anner speaking again-- think that the most interesting thing 
from the Dykes passage is the description of the pod as 'beaked', which is 
not a feature of I. pseudacorus as I know it, assuming I understand the 
concept of a beaked pod correctly.>>>>>>>>>

The pseudacorus in my garden has set seed pods and they are approaching 
maturity. At the blossom end is a small protuberance. This is not what I 
would call 'beaked' as such, but it is clearly something that someone else 
might call 'beaked'. Therefore the distinction I was noting between the 
description of the pod of the herbarium sample of I. maackii that typified 
the species, and the configuration of the typical pod on I. pseudacorus, is 
not valid.

Anner, in Virginia
ChatOWhitehall@aol.com 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/7075/0/_/486170/_/964146800/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index