Re: SPEC: I. maackii

Anner,

Your comments propelled me out to the garden to obtain specimans of the
seed pods. The differences among the different seed pods are daunting to
contemplate. However, a close examination of the I. pseudacorus seed pod
and the other seed pods did highlight one factor of note.

The I. pseudacorus seed pod had an overall shape that ended in a
downturn much like a human nose or an animal 'beak.' In cross-section,
my sample is triagonal, and the two upper sides descend to meet the
bottom side at the tip of the pod in a manner creating a sort of droop
nose or beak. Another sample seed pod on the same stem ascends to meet
the flat topside, yet the overall shape of the pod retains an overall
curve reminiscent of the beak on some fish, birds, or humans <g>.

The sample seed pod from I. versicolor also seems to have this trait of
curving, but somewhat less so than the I. pseudacorus.

The sample from SIB 'BABY SISTER' is shorter and much fatter, yet it is
also a curving triagonal pod with two sides curving down to meet the
flatter third side.

The I. douglasiana sample, is fat and curved much like SIB 'BABY
SISTER', but it is less blunt and has more of a small and pointy beak at
the very tip end of the pod.

The JI SNOWY HILLS sample seems to be hexagonal rather than triagonal.

Could the original reference have been talking about the overall shape
of the whole seed pod and its curvature? Could the 'beak' have been a
characteristic at the tip end of the seed pod similar to my I.
douglasiana sample, but was only present as a variation within the same
plant or colony of I. pseudacorus?

I suppose the question is whether Dykes' description was that of a
beaked pod or a beaked beak??? Let's see them answer that one on 'I Want
to Be a Millionaire!

Dallas Patterson
nye@fidalgo.net


ChatOWhitehall@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spend your money on the things you enjoy…NOT your bills.
Join beMANY! get LOW rates on your long distance TODAY.  
Click for details.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6840/0/_/486170/_/964152844/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index