Re: HIST: Wine And Roses

Dave, those are the photos that I found - neither is correct.  The
pinkish self is obviously way off.  The amoena is closer, but still not
correct -  W&R has pink standards.

I have a plant that was purchased as WINE AND ROSES, but I am almost
positive it doesn't have the pink rim on the falls.  It bloomed for the
first time this spring, and was uninspiring :-(.

There's a good photo of the real thing on p. 46 of the 1973 Schreiner
catalog.  Form is somewhat similar to LATIN LOVER (at least in the
photos).  Relatively narrow, droopy falls.

Here's a link to a photo of LATIN LOVER.
<http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/shadowood/latinlover.html>
There are also a few photos of LL in the hortnet photo archives.

Hard to tell for sure, but in the catalog photo, it looks like W&R may
have some (more?) yellow in the throat, either at the base of standards,
or hafts or both.

<Here are some photo links for 'Wine and Roses'.  Note that one is very
                   incorrect (or two different Iris bear the name), but
I included it anyway.
 Dave>

--
Linda Mann east Tennessee USA zone 7/8
East Tennessee Iris Society <http://www.korrnet.org/etis>
American Iris Society web site <http://www.irises.org>
talk archives: <http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-talk/>
photos archives: <http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-photos/>
online R&I <http://www.irisregister.com>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index