AR: oncos
- Subject: AR: oncos
- From: a*@cs.com
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:54:14 EDT
In a message dated 10/27/01 1:42:09 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
brianr@modempool.com writes:
> Did you notice how quiet someone got at the mention of the name
> > Archibald and collection nos.? This is akin to saying 'my Fords came
> right
> > from Henry himself'(not Betty's clinic). Jim Archibald and Paul Furse
> went
> > to the middle east in the late 60's and are responsible for several of
> these
> > iris being in cultivation today. You will also notice she didn't post any
> >
No -- it's akin to saying "I don't know where my Ford was assembled"!
This in no way diminishes the contributions of those who collected species
back in the 60s -- but the point is that most of the "species" in circulation
today can NOT be traced to a specific source. In some cases, we do know they
are more recent imports. In others we can only hope that they descend from
those older, collected clones.
1. If someone gets a collected clone, under number, directly from the
collector [such as the Archibald's] -- that is in itself ample reason to
trust its identity. For collections from the '60s, however, the catch is
whether after 30 to 40 years any of them are still being grown by number
under controlled conditions. Some 20 years ago, I took part in a species
preservation project that tried to locate any surviving specimens of those
older collections. Neither of the two botanical gardens in this country
known to have received rhizomes had survivors. Neither of the two that were
thought to have received rhizomes had survivors. None of the SIGNA or ASI
members who responded to our queries had received their species under number.
OF COURSE, I would be delighted to learn that someone, somewhere, still has
a fully-documented clone collected in that period -- but with the additional
passage of time it seems highly unlikely.
2. Sometimes, it's "close-but-not-proven". For example -- I have a copy
of a 1967 slide of PF8207, which was a clone of I. korolkowii collected by
Paul Furse. In the late '70s, I acquired a clone of I. korolkowii whose
flower looks remarkably like that of PF8207. It could actually be increase
of that clone, a descendant of it, or merely another example of that form.
But it looked like korolkowii and bred like korolkowii, so I used it and
passed it on as such -- but as korolkowii "to the best of my judgement",
certainly NOT as PF8207.
3. More commonly, party "A" gets a start from party "B", who got it from
"C", who said he got it from "D", who supposedly got it through the old
species shares program in the late 60s or early 70s -- but somewhere along
the way its collection # was lost!. That's not an exaggeration, it's
actually one of the most straightforward real-life examples I can offer. The
very best that can be hoped for in such a case is that a check against
published descriptions of that species will show that whether it is 1)
clearly mislabeled; 2) possibly a member of that species, or 3), probably
that species. It would certainly be useful to research the collections of
that period, but it would be foolhardy to attempt to reconstruct the
provenance.
Historically:
In the '70s, most of the species I acquired through purchase or trade came
without provenance but did match published photos and descriptions.
In the '80s, most turned out to be aril hybrids. Sometimes the difference
was subtle -- like a flower hoogiana in color, but with rounded form and an
onco-like signal. Sometimes, it was glaring -- like a clean bicolor labeled
as I. heylandiana.
In the '90s, in addition to mislabeled aril hybrids I started getting
arilbreds labeled as species. Only ONE acquisition survived to bloom true to
its description.
The path may seem convoluted, but my message is simple:
1. If you are fortunate enough to receive a species with provenance,
verify its identity to the best of your ability and PRESERVE the provenance.
2. If you receive a species without provenance and a check against
published records shows that it COULD be true -- preserve what you know and
pass that knowledge on with any increase you share.
3. If you receive a species without provenance and a check against
published records shows that you have an imposter -- PLEASE cut your losses!
Inform your source, but do NOT pass it on.
But we should never, EVER, pass on "species" rhizomes or seeds without
verifying the identity to the best of our ability.
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/
