Re: Fw: Mislabelled iris

Barbara Mann wrote:
> 
> I bounced a couple of messages earlier in the week; my excuse is I brought
> back a bug from Denver and wasn't up to figuring out how the universe was
> working.  John,  thank you no end for keeping track of the iris-list.  So
> here's one, and I'll rescue and send the other, also.
> >
> >
> >Anner was talking about misnamed historics and others:

> >>I call an iris "mislabeled" when there is a slip-up in 
> >>attaching the name to the actual rhizome that is
> >>shipped, or because the clumps, one of which
> >>actually was the right thing, grew too close together and the wrong piece
> >>was dug, or somesuch similar scenario.

>
>I've lately been noticing a blantant and unfortunate instance of the above.
>Years ago I bought ON LINE, a Schreiner's 1980 intro, from Rancho de la Flor
>de Lis.  When it bloomed, it did rather match the description:  "stds. light
>blue with pronounced blue brushing along midrib to deep blue central streak
>on falls, blue beard tinged gold".  I had it for over ten years, and in
>those years I grew to understand what to expect from a given supplier, and I
>began to doubt that Schreiner's would have introduced such a poorly-formed
>iris.  And last year I finally saw a picture of it from an early 80's
>catalog; it was a typical wide ruffled Schreiner's iris, with a definitely
>gold beard.  So I figured it was R. de la F de L. which had made a mistake
>and sent a volunteer seedling instead, and I pulled mine out and composted
>it.  But I saw this very same iris growing and listed as ON LINE in three of
>the convention gardens in Denver.  I'm now pretty sure that it was
>Schreiner's that made the mistake in the first place, all those years ago.
>So even the big guys can make a mistake, and it's worth checking what you
>have against the R & I's, and against the best pictures you can find.
>
>Barb in Santa Fe, in a 'way too chatty mood
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index