Re: oncos
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] oncos
- From: a*@cs.com
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:29:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/24/01 7:38:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
brianr@modempool.com writes:
> Thanx for the info. Someday I'll have my own pics to share with you. Her
> web site is great, wonder if she actually did it? I've spoken with this
> person on the phone and according to her, 'onco species are simply
> unobtainable'. This is absolute and utter nonsense. I've found sources
> for seventeen species and actually managed to acquire seven different
> rhizomes (iberica elegantissima, iberica iberica, gatesii, sari,
> kirkwoodii, paradoxa, and nectarifera) and seed of three species (meda,
> lycotis, and urmiensis) which hasn't been available for 30 years. Sometimes
> being 'pooh-poohed' by someone who supposedly is 'in the know' can be a
> real motivator.
>
I'm certainly glad that any misunderstanding proved to be a motivator rather
than a discouragement -- but I do NOT appreciate being misquoted.
"Simply unobtainable" is a phrase I would never use -- because there is
absolutely NOTHING "simple" about this question! It could be a logical
misperception, of course, if a newcomer to the field were not yet familiar
with its complexities.
So, to set the record straight:
1. Fully-documented, true-to-name aril species are now extremely difficult
to obtain. The last time I got my hands on one was roughly 15 years ago.
That's not to say there aren't still some well-documented clones available in
the private trade -- just that they are EXTREMELY difficult to find.
2. Today, "species" rhizomes are rarely listed by collection number.
A listing of "I. kirkwoodii", for example, means merely that the grower got
it under that name -- he or she may (or may not!) have attempted to verify
its identity. Years ago, I offered this one myself though the ASI sale --
because even though I received it without a collecton #, my clone clearly
matched the identifying characteristics recorded for the species. This does
NOT mean that I can vouch for later offerings.
When I co-chaired the ASI Plant Sale, I collected "species" rhizomes from
every available source and bloomed them before offering them in the sale --
but the vast majority turned out to be mislabeled arilbreds that didn't
remotely resemble the characteristics of the species so they were NOT passed
on. I thus concluded that among "species", misidentification is a MAJOR
problem.
To take a well-documented example -- as far back as the '70s, experts were
questioning whether ANY of the "I. sari" in the United States were still
pure because two different species had been collected under that name and
subsequently inter-crossed. I grew a number of "I. sari" clones in the '70s
and '80s, but almost all were obviously of hybrid origin and none of the
remainder clearly matched any of the original descriptions. Therefore, I
doubt that ANY "I. sari" available today is true to the original species
definition. Of course, in this particular case, I HOPE that I can be proved
wrong! If you think that you have a true "I. sari", please compare it
point-by-point with the original, detailed description and post that to the
list.
But no -- repeat, NO! -- "species" rhizome should be accepted as "true" until
after it has matured and bloomed. Even then, it should be accepted ONLY IF
both plant and flower characteristics have been checked and found to match
the original species description.
3. "Species" seeds are one step down on the totem-pole. Sometimes
open-pollinated, sometimes hand-pollinated -- they clearly rank below
"species" rhizomes in terms of reliable IDs.
Obviously, the hand-pollinated have a better chance of proving true than the
open-pollinated -- but there's still the bloom-and-verify stage to be
completed. I, too, have obtained seeds of "meda, lycotis, and urmiensis"
down through the years. None -- repeat, NONE! -- have bloomed true to the
species description.
Taking all of this into consideration, open-pollinated seeds are
automatically suspect. Yes, they COULD prove to be pure species and hope
springs eternal -- but, all things considered, chances are remote. The
assumption must be that they are hybrids AND the grower must be responsible
for analyzing any resultant plants and demonstrating that they are truly
descendants of that species.
Species preservation is a project dear to my heart, and I certainly don't
want to discourage anyone from becoming involved! Unfortunately, however,
those who pass on "species" without verifying their identities just compound
the problem instead of contributing to the solution.
Sharon McAllister
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gi0tnD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
