The TX study bit you Linda and now you bit me. I had to check up on Ricardii.

Hard to say on the Dykes/Ricardii thing. Was he not portraying Ricardii quite accurately or was he speaking accurately but only in the context of the gardening community in Britain? It tries to grow in the winter there and frosts gets it. One Georgia fellow in some old AIS bulletin I read was bemoaning he couldn't succeed with some of the so called "tender" irises yet acquaintances in New England did well by them. Then he pointed out the reason, in New England they stay dormant, generally speaking, and so do not become "tender" as they too frequently do in Georgia. They are hardy in New England (let's guess zone 5 or 6) but not Georgia zone 8. huh? We are back to semantic problems just like we are with "rebloomers".

You asked about what it's called now. The 1939 checklist lists it as a cultivar that is a synonym for I. mesopotamica. That species is now absorbed into Iris germanica so I wonder if Ricardii is the better horticultural name? I'm ignorant of whether it still exists in the US or not under either name. Mathew in The Iris says "natural" populations occur in S. Turkey, Syria and Israel. Does it frost at collection points? I don't know. It will take freeze or it wouldn't grow in Britain at all. It is the late" frosts that are the trouble makers where Dykes grew it. Which probably means you and I should expect the same thing in our locales. No help on whether it is one of those irises that will fare ok in New England. I'm sure more literature exists that speaks where it succeeds or fails.

So even if mom was "not hardy" it didn't pass to Mme. Chobaut. She does well about everywhere, no? The dad was unknown so no help there.

Shaub

On 11/7/2014 5:55 PM, Linda Mann wrote: