Skip to main content

Full text of "Bulletin of the American Iris Society"

See other formats 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
BHL-SIL-FEDLINK 


https://archive.org/details/bulletinofameric1061unse 


BULLETIN 

OF  THE 

American  Iris  Society 

JULY,  1947 
No.  106 

PLICATA  NUMBER 

CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword _ - _ ... _ _ _ __  1 

Medalists — Jesse  E.  Wills  _ T _  3 

Kenneth  D.  Smith _ _ _  4 

Plicata  or  Feathered 

R.  S.  Stnrtevant  _ - _  5 

Sydney  B.  Mitchell  _  13 

Robert  Schreiner  _  21 

Agnes  Whiting  __ _  26 

Family  Tree  Banded  Beauty  _  31 

K.  D.  Smith  ___: _ _ _ _  32 

Angus  Wilson  and  others  _  35 

The  Annual  Meeting  1947,  Sam  Y.  Caldwell _  38 

Texas  and  Louisiana,  Geddes  Douglas  _  45 

Southern  California  Trek,  Carl  Taylor _  50 

Southern  United  States  Irises,  Species  and  Hybrids,  Geo.  M.  Heed _  52 

SPECIES — I.  atrofusca,  Tuviah  Kushnir  _  83 

I.  gracilipes  BLUE  ROSE,  I.  Verna  _ _  91 

Member  Groups,  Kent,  England;  Seattle,  Wash.  Regions  6,  7,  18 _  92 

i  Oue  Members  Write,  Ratings,  Registrations,  Classification _  95 

On  Judges  and  Judging,  J.  Marion  Shull _  107 

Fertilizing  Irises,  Guy  Rogers,  Texas  _  109 

The  Green  Light,  Mary  Tharp _  112 

In  the  Garden,  Mrs.  Leo  F.  Reynolds,  Tennessee _  116 

Varietal  Comments,  Wm.  Mohr  Seedlings  _  118 

“Pineappling”  _ 122 

In  Memoriam,  Ruth  Marsailis  Dormon  _ _: _  123 

Errata  _ 123 

ANNUAL — Midwest  Hemerocallis  Society  _  124 

Nashville  1948  Trials  _ _- _  124 

Awards  1947  _ r _  128 

Published  Quarterly  by 

I  THE  AMERICAN  IRIS  SOCIETY,  32nd  ST.  AND  ELM  AVE.,  BALTIMORE  11,  MD. 

Entered  as  second-class  matter  January,  1934.  at  the  Post  Office  at  Baltimore,  Md. 

under  the  Act  of  March  3,  1879. 

$3.00  the  Year — Additional  copies  50  cents  each  for  Members 


THE  AMERICAN  IRIS  SOCIETY 

OFFICERS  1947 

Directors 


Terms  expiring  1947 : 
Terms  expiring  1948: 
Terms  expiring  1949 : 


Dr.  Franklin  Cook 
Carl  S;  Milliken 

F.  W.  Cassebeer 
Geddes  Douglas 

J.  P.  Fishburn 
David  F.  Hall 


Howard  R.  Watkins 
Jesse  E.  Wills 

Dr.  H.  H.  Everett 
Dr.  R.  J.  Graves 

E.  G.  Lapham 
W.  J.  McKee 


President:  Dr.  Franklin  Cook,  2747  Hurd  Ave.,  Evanston,  Ill. 


Vice  President:  Dr.  Robert  J.  Graves,  R.F.D.  No.  1,  Concord,  N.  H. 

Secretary:  Howard  R,  Watkins,  821  Washington  Loan  &  Trust  Bldg.,  Wash¬ 
ington  4,  D.  C. 

Treasurer:  E.  Greig  Lapham,  1003  Strong  Ave.,  Elkhart,  Ind. 

/ 

Chairmen  of  Committees: 

Awards — Dr.  R.  J.  Graves,  R.F.D.  No.  1,  Concord,  N.  H. 

Editorial — Geddes  Douglas,  Nashville,  Term. 

Exhibition — Mrs.  Ralph  E.  Ricker,  1516  Rose  St.,  Sioux  City,  la. 

Registration — Chas.  E.  F.  Gersdorff,  1825  No.  Capitol  St.,  Washington, 
D.  C. ;  Assistant,  Mrs.  Walter  Colquitt,  487  Albany,  Shreveport,  La. 

Scientific — Dr.  L.  F.  Randolph,  N.  Y.  State  College  of  Agriculture,  Cor¬ 
nell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Recorder  of  Introductions — Robert  E.  Allen,  50  West  50th  St.,  New  York. 
Photographic — Mrs.  P.  E.  Corey,  707  Pearl  St.,  Reading,  Mass. 

Kodachrome  Slides — Mrs.  P.  E.  Corey,  707  Pearl  St.,  Reading,  Mass. 
Write  for  list  of  Slides.  Rental  Fee — $5.00. 


The  Bulletin  Staff: 

Geddes  Douglas,  Editor 

Sam  Y.  Caldwell,  R.  S.  Sturtevant,  J.  E.  Wills,  Assistants. 

Address  all  CONTRIBUTIONS  to  THE  BULLETIN,  440  Chestnut  St., 

Nashville  10,  Tenn. 


JOIN  THE  AMERICAN  IRIS  SOCIETY— DUES  PER  ANNUM,  $3.00 


IRIS  CHECK  LIST — 1939 — Lists  19,000  names  of  iris  and  parentages;  over 
500  pages.  Price  $3.00  to  members;  $4.00  to  non  members.  Mail  Check  and 

order  to:  Howard  R.  Watkins,  Secretary. 


FOREWORD 


■  The  necessity  for  an  up-to-date  book  covering  all  the  aspects 
of  iris  culture  has  long  been  apparent.  Most  of  the  authoritative 
works  are  out  of  print.  Our  secretary’s  office  had  a  supply  of 
“Dykes  On  Iris”  but  this  supply  has  been  exhausted.  Mr.  Rock¬ 
well’s  delightful  little  book  on  iris,  and  Rainbow  Fragments,  by 
Mr.  J.  Marion  Shull  are  no  longer  available. 

To  meet  this  need  the  Board  of  Directors  decided  to  publish 
what  was  first  termed  a  manual  on  iris  culture,  but  what  later 
has  turned  out  to  be  a  delightful  treatise  on  iris  in  general.  Many 
note-worthy  authors  are  contributing  to  the  success  of  this  under¬ 
taking.  John  Wister,  B.  Y.  Morrison,  Richardson  Wright,  J. 
Marion  Shull,  Sydney  Mitchell,  R.  S.  Sturtevant,  Miss  Caroline 
Dormon  and  George  C.  Reed,  each  a  specialist  in  his  own  field, 
will  have  a  part  in  the  writing  of  this  book.  A  symposium  on  iris 
culture  has  been  conducted  by  the  Bulletin  and  the  results  are 
being  tabulated.  This  information  will  be  made  available  on  a 
regional  or  sectional  basis.  There  will  be  articles  on  color  pho¬ 
tography,  beardless  iris,  Spurias  and  in  fact  everything  that  we 
thought  would  be  of  interest. 

The  material  for  this  book  is  being  assembled  at  the  present 
time  and  will  be  printed  in  August  and  September,  and  we  hope 
will  be  ready  for  distribution  by  November  1st,  the  paper  situation 
permitting.  For  the  permanent  bound  volume  the  price  to  all  will 
be  $2.50  per  volume,  members  or  nonmembers.  For  the  paper 
bound  volume  the  price  will  be  $1.50  per  volume,  but  to  those  who 
wish  to  join  the  American  Iris  Society  a  special  price  of  50^  is 
being  made  for  a  limited  time.  If  you  are  a  new  member  in  1947 
and  have  sent  in  your  $3.00  membership,  send  us  50 $  additional 
and  we  will  enter  your  order  immediately  for  the  book.  Send  your 
money  with  name  and  address  clearly  printed  so  no  mistake  can 
be  made,  to  Mr.  Howard  Watkins,  821  Washington  Loan  &  Trust 
Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  Bulletin  wishes  to  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  ns 
appreciation  to  those  dealers  and  commercial  members  who  have 
assisted  so  successfully  in  the  campaign  for  new  members  in  1947 
and  the  promotion  of  the  sale  of  our  new  book  on  iris. 

Geddes  Douglas — Editor 


l 


2 


JESSE  E.  WILLS— MEDAL 
FOR  DISTINGUISHED 
SERVICE 

The  city  salesmen’s  club  of 
Nashville  has  a  standing  prac¬ 
tice  that  when  anyone  makes  a 
suggestion  he  is  immediately  ap¬ 
pointed  as  chairman  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  to  act  upon  that  sugges¬ 
tion,  and  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Jesse 
E.  Wills  and  the  American  Iris 
Society  the  procedure  has  been 
much  the  same. 

Jesse  joined  the  American  Iris 
Society  in  1936,  and  soon  after 
made  some  suggestions  concerning  the  rating  practices.  He  was 
immediately  made  an  accredited  judge,  and  later  chairman  of  the 
Awards  Committee  in  1940.  Comments  in  regard  to  the  policies 
of  the  Society  resulted  in  his  being  elected  a  director  in  1939. 
His  business  acumen  and  leadership  in  that  body  resulted  in  his 
elevation  to  the  presidency  of  the  A.  I.  S.  in  1943.  He  served  as 
president  through  1946,  and  is  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  he 
is  the  only  president  of  the  A.  I.  S.  who  never  attended  an  annual 
meeting  during  the  tenure  of  office. 

For  facts  and  figures,  Jesse  Wills  was  born  August  31,  1899, 
graduated  from  Vanderbilt  University  in  1922,  and  in  1930  mar¬ 
ried  Ellen  Buckner  of  Nashville,  Tenn.  Currently  Mr.  Wills  is 
executive  vice  president  of  the  National  Life  &  Accident  Insurance 
Co.  of  Nashville,  and  a  director  of  that  organization. 


IRIS  GROUP  IN  COOK  GARDEN 

Frances  Douglas ,  Thos.  A.  Nesmith ,  Mrs.  Nesmith.  Walter  Welch , 
Chas.  E .  F.  Gersdorff ,  Ed.  Bretschneider,  Mrs.  Paul  Cook ?  Mr.  Cook , 
G.  Douglas ,  Mrs.  B.  D.  Kingree,  Dr.  W.  E.  Tobie ,  Guy  Rogers,  Mrs. 

Tobie,  Mary  Williamson. 


3 


Over  a  period  of  years  he  has  given  unstintingly  of  his  time  to 
the  affairs  of  the  A.  I.  S.  His  was  a  difficult  task,  when  one  con¬ 
siders  the  fact  that  his  presidency  was  during  the  war  years  when 
meetings  were  impossible  and  everything  had  to  be  done  by  mail. 
In  spite  of  this  the  membership  of  the  Society  more  than  doubled 
during  this  time,  and  by  the  conclusion  of  his  presidency,  interest 

fi 

in  iris  and  in  the  affairs  of  the  Society  is  at  an  extremely  "high 
level. 

In  discussing  his  services  to  the  Society  we  should  not  forget 
that  after  all  Jesse’s  main  interest  in  iris  is  in  raising  them,  and 
that  at  the  present  time  four  of  his  introductions  are  outstanding 
— Snow  Crystal,  a  lovely  blue  and  white  plicata;  Russet  Wings, 
ruffled  and  brighter  than  its  name  implies;  Vigil,  a  stately,  tall 
white;  and  that  gorgeous  ruffled  medium  blue — Chivalry — a  cur¬ 
rent  contender  for  the  Dykes  Medal. 


Kenneth  Dudley  Smith,  re¬ 
cipient  of  the  American  Iris  So¬ 
ciety  medal  for  hybridizing,  was 
born  in  Staten  Island,  N.  Y., 

Sept.  9,  1896.  He  graduated 
from  Dartmouth  College  in  1919 
and  subsequently  received  his 
L.L.B.  from  Columbia  in  1923. 

He  was  married  to  Ilse  Clason 
in  1927  and  began  growing  iris 
soon  after  1930.  Mr.  Smith  made  his  first  cross  in  1933,  Andante  x 
Dauntless,  and  from  one  of  these  seedlings  crossed  in  1935  with  the 


KENNETH  D.  SMITH- 
MEDAL  FOR 
HYBRIDIZING 


French  iris  Nene  bloomed  his  first  named  variety,  Lord  Dongan.  He 
made  many  crosses  in  that  year,  1935,  and  subsequently  raised  some 
750  seedlings  in  the  garden  of  Miss  Caroline  Burr  at  Blauvelt,  N.  Y. 


Kenneth  Smith’s  career  as  a  hybridizer  lias  been  marked  by  a 
series  of  a  few  crosses  which  have  been  veritable  landmarks  in  his 


4 


production  of  fine  iris — Violet  Crown  x  Easter  Morn  produced  the 
famous  pair  Violet  Symphony  and  Stella  Polaris.  No-We-Ta  x 
Eros  gave  him  Pink  Ruffles.  W.  R.  Dykes  x  Marschel  Ney  pro¬ 
duced  two  famous  yellows  of  great  merit,  Yellow  Jewel  and  Yellow 
Glory.  Doxa  x  Jean  Cayeux  produced  the  dwarf  hybrid  Honey. 
(Andante  x  Dauntless)  x  Nene  gave  Lord  Dongan  and  Commando. 
More  recently  Orange  Glow  x  Matula  produced  a  series  of  fine  reds 
and  Lake  George  x  Great  Lakes  gave  Blue  Valley.  This  particular 
cross  produced  a  whole  series  of  excellent  blue  irises,  and  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  Blue  Valley  one  of  them  has  been  named  Neighbor  in  honor 
of  Mrs.  Louise  Blake. 

In  addition  to  his  hobby  of  breeding  iris,  Kenneth  Smith  has 
obtained  considerable  note  as  an  amateur  photographer  and  has 
been  awarded  the  honorary  degree  of  Associate,  by  the  Royal  Pho¬ 
tographic  Society  of  Great  Britain.  Examples  of  his  character 
studies  and  studies  in  still  life  are  well  known  in  the  photographic 
world. 

His  service  to  the  A.I.S.  has  been  long  and  important.  He  has 
been  regional  vice  president  in  the  New  York  district  from  1938- 
1946  and  served  as  director  in  the  society  from  1939-1941.  In  addi¬ 
tion  to  this  he  conducted  his  first  unofficial  symposium  in  1940 
which  has  become  an  annual  feature  of  the  Awards  program. 

PLICATA  OR  "FEATHERED” 

By  R.  S.  Sturtevant 

■  In  1789  Lamarck  applied  the  name  plicata  to  a  collected  or 
garden  form  of  iris  then  current  and  in  1833  mention  is  made  of 
both  Plicata  Aurea  and  Variegata  in  reference  to  the  listings  of 
E.  von  Berg  in  Germany.  In  1873  Peter  Barr  used  the  word 
Plicata  as  a  group  term  and  it  still  holds  though  in  The  Genus 
Iris  Mr.  Dykes  reduces  the  type  to  a  form  of  I. pallida  and/or 
Lcengialti  and  tentatively  suggests  its  origin  as  analagous  to  that 
of  an  albino.  This  implies  most  clearly  that  classification  as  a 
Plicata  is  purely  arbitrary  and  wholly  dependent  on  a  visual 
recognition  of  a  color  pattern  that  is  familiar  and  actually  unde¬ 
fined.  Hence,  we  offer  these  notes  for  general  discussion  and  as  a 
possible  basis  both  for  more  accurate  descriptions  and  perhaps  for  a 

4 

clear  cut  distinction  as  to  just  what  a  Plicata  may  be. 


5 


Until  about  1920  plicatas 
appeared  only  in  F2  and  suc¬ 
cessive  generations  though 
Mr.  Bliss  at  least  had  been 
working  for  years  in  his  at¬ 
tempts  at  improving  on  Mme. 
Chereau.  Among  the  varie¬ 
ties  of  unknown  origin,  how¬ 
ever,  one  could  find  the  pro¬ 
totypes  of  the  great  majority 
of  the  recent  introductions. 
In  the  1924  Classification 
(Bulletin  13)  there  is  only 
one  known  “lavender 
ground”  plicata  —  Azora, 
three  “yellow  ground’7  vari¬ 
eties,  Jean  Chevreau,  Lou¬ 
don,  and  Montezuma  which 
might  be  considered  a  ques¬ 
tionable  inclusion.  There  were,  however,  a  number  of  varieties 
on  a  “Blended  ground”  and  many  on  a  white  ground,  the  “Pli¬ 
cata”  group  then  designated  by  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society. 
This  classification  proves  our  most  concentrated  reference  of  dis¬ 
tinctive  descriptive  terms  as  well  as  listing  and  classifying  the 
known  varieties. 

That  list,  included  Cygnet,  True  Delight,  and  Fairy,  in  each  the 
color  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  style-branches,  the  ground 
white  in  effect  from  a  distance.  True  Delight  was  generally  ac¬ 
knowledged  as  a  plicata.  Cygnet  was  first  described  as  a  plicata 
(1922)  but  Miss  Sturtevant  dropped  the  word  in  later  descrip¬ 
tions  as  she  considered  it  misleading.  The  inclusion  of  Aksarben 
(Sass)  and  Demi-Deuil  (Denis,  1912)  as  “very  heavily  sprinkled 
and  veined,”  blended  plicatas  seemed  more  logical  as  they  were 
merely  deeper  colored  examples  of  easily  classified  plicatas  from 
similar  sources.  There  was  no  question  at  that  time  as  to  including 
varieties  such  as  Minniehaha  and  Prestige  among  the  yellow  bi¬ 
colors  or  variegatas  though  the  markings  on  the  falls  were  not 
unsimilar. 

Currently  we  have  an  intensified  problem,  varieties  of  known 


Plicata  "Fancy”  Iris  Daffy 


6 


plicata  parentage.  Elsa  Sass  is  unmistakably  a  yellow  self  but 
distinctively  of  a  cool  tone.  Moonlit  Seas,  again  is  almost  unique, 
its  varied  tints  not  smoothly  blended  but  shot  and  washed  as  with 
water  color  pigments  on  both  standards  and  falls.  Golden  Fleece 
and  Gilt  Edge  are  yellow,  reverse  bicolors  as  we  call  them  but 
the  edges  of  the  falls  are  definitely  deeper  in  tone.  Dr.  MitchelFs 
‘'Fancies’7  for  example  with  their  “marbling”  present  a  problem. 

Such  plicata  derivatives  may  well  provoke  as  endless  a  dis¬ 
cussion  of  classification  as  color,  dwarf  or  intermediate  are  now 
doing. 

With  this  introduction  let  us  see  if  we  can  evolve  a  definition 
of  what  we  mean  by  the  term  “plicata,”  or  at  least  develop  a  con¬ 
sensus  of  opinion  that  will  help  us  visualize  such  a  variety.  After 
all  any  classification  is  only  an  abbreviated  description  and  useless 
if  it  leads  to  further  confusion. 

Attempt  a  definition  of  your  own.  Compare  varieties  and  espe¬ 
cially  seedlings  that  you  recognize  as  plicatas  and  then  answer 
(at  least  in  your  own  mind)  the  following  statements.  Are  they 
right — or  wrong? 

Botanically  a  plicata  has  no  recognition. 

Genetic  origin  or  the  number  of  chromozomes  is  important  to  the 
breeder  only. 

A  plicata  is  identified  by  its  distinctive  markings. 

Its  style-branches  tend  to  reveal  a  concentration  of  the  prevail¬ 
ing  tints  and  hence  are  often  conspicuous. 

Its  standards  are  marked  above  the  claw  (whether  sanded, 
feathered,  or  edged  on  a  clear,  flushed,  or  clouded  ground  color). 

Its  falls  have  no  distinctive  markings.  (Venation,  light  or  dark 
centers  or  borders  are  frequent  in  non-plicatas.) 

Habits  of  growth,  branching,  form,  color,  even  the  reticulations 
on  claw  and  haft  are  common  to  all  bearded  irises  in  varying 
degrees. 

Yellow  in  irises  is  a  plastic!  color.  It  is  known  as  a  ground  color, 
alone  or  in  combination  with  the  anthocyanin  blue  in  many  ways. 
It  is  a  pollen  color  and  few  if  any  bearded  irises  lack  a  hint  of 
yellow  in  the  hairs  of  the  beard,  the  reverse  of  the  petals,  the  often 
conspicuous  reticulations  of  the  haft,  or  even  the  sides  of  the 
style-branches. 

The  markings  we  associate  with  the  term  plicata  are  never 

yellow. 

*/ 


If  the  above  statements  are  generally  answered  in  the  affirma¬ 
tive  we  automatically  throw  many  varieties  out  of  the  plicata 
group  and  perhaps  develop  new  terms  for  new,  smaller  and  hence 
more  helpful  groups. 

In  my  notes  of  last  year  I  found  it  necessary  to  segregate  varie¬ 
ties  like  White  City,  like  Mary  Nichols,  like  Naranja,  or  like 
Arctic,  each  typical  of  other  varieties  and  ALL  with  a  deepening 
of  color  toward  the  center  of  the  flower  as  distinctive  in  its  way 
as  markings  of  a  border  line  plicata  at  least. 

Beard  color  is  associated  with  the  new  pinks.  At  present  the 
named  varieties  are  all  delightfully  light  in  tone  but  among  the 
seedlings  there  is  brilliance  and  depth  and  even  plicata  markings 
and  the  common  bond  of  beard  color  will  cease  to  be  much  help 
to  the  future  purchaser. 

Patterns  or  markings  fortunately  permit  reasonably  accurate 
definition  and  from  continued  use  bring  a  clear  cut  picture  to  the 
mind.  The  following  terms  are  ones  in  common  parlance  for  the 
most  part  but  often  through  use  in  describing  irises  have  taken 
on  a  special  meaning. 

All-over  pattern :  Though  most  evident  on  the  standards  it  is  often 
present  at  least  in  part  on  the  falls.  It  is  thus  not  necessarily 
actually  all  over  the  surface  but  may  appear  as  a  flush  toward  the 
edges  of  the  haft  of  the  falls.  It  may  be  due  to  a  stippling  of  dots 
thinly  or  closely  spaced.  When  the  contrast  with  the  ground  color 
is  slight  the  term  sanded  is  prevalent  while  peppered  suggests  a 
sharp  contrast. 

Of  similar  effect  from  any  distance  is  a  finely  netted  or  coarsely 
laced  pattern.  Naturally  a  flushed  or  clouded  ground  irregularly 
sprinkled  or  splotched  does  not  give  an  all-over  effect.  Whether 
the  recently  used  term  Marbled  belongs  here  is  quite  possible. 
Edge  Markings  are  usually  found  to  a  greater  extent  on  the  stand¬ 
ards  and  vary  from  a  rare  wire  edge  to  a  heavy  fringe  feathered 
well  into  the  center  of  the  petals  .  The  terms  etched,  penciled,  clear- 
cut  border  are  self-explanatory  though  curiously  the  word  border 
is  more  frequently  applied  in  describing  the  falls  of  amoenas  and 
variegatas. 

Central  markings.  Reticulations  occur  only  at  the  claw  and  haft 
while  venation  may  continue  out  to  the  perimeter  of  the  fall. 
Either  may  be  fine  or  coarse,  even  so  blurred  and  closely  spaced 
as  to  show  almost  continuous  color.  So  many  irises  with  variegata 


8 


or  plicata  blood  tend  to  have  light  hafts  and  even  light  centers  to 
the  fall  that  any  venation  frequently  is  clear  cut  toward  the  beard 
and  merged  into  a  solid  border  at  the  edges  of  the  blade. 

In  the  standards  there  seems  to  be  no  comparable  marking — the 
reticulations  at  the  claw  may  extend  upward  into  an  etched  edge 
but  with  heavier  markings  the  color  seem  to  feather  inward  from 
the  edge. 

A  Median  line  is  an  awkward  description.  It  is  far  from  in¬ 
dicative  of  a  plicata  but  applies  to  both  the  standards  and  falls 
of  one  of  the  novelties  at  least  and  the  term  banded  or  striped  is 
also  coming  into  use.  A  flame  of  contrasting  color  flaring  from  the 
center  outward  (the  reverse  of  feathering  inward  from  the  edge) 
is  a  possible  development.  It  is  not  quite  the  word  for  the  color 
distribution  in  Moonlit  Seas  or  Bertha  Gersdorff  but  I  doubt  if 
they  will  be  called  plicatas  despite  their  origin. 

From  a  distance  the  effect  of  a  much  marked  plicata  is  that  of 
any  other  iris  of  similar  coloring  but  we  all  know  the  different 
feel  from  a  mixed  paint  job,  one  seen  through  a  veil,  or  built  up 
with  a  splatter-dash  of  varied  hue.  The  tracery  of  intriguing  pat¬ 
terns  may  well  give  added  pleasure  to  a  variety  of  excellent  garden 
effect. 

FLOWER  FORM.  Whereas  other  new  varieties  have  shown 
vast  improvements  in  form,  size,  carriage,  etc.  the  Plicatas  like 
the  Amoenas  and  Variegatas,  still  fall  into  quite  recognizable 
groupings  analagous  to  those  of  the  twenties  or  earlier.  In  size  of 
display  value  few  are  comparable  but  in  shape  the  old  ruts  are 
clearly  seen  with  few  modifications. 

The  old  Mme.Chereau  had  straight-hanging  falls,  almost  irre- 
treviably  pinched,  the  modern  Blue  Shimmer  depends  on  much 
of  its  garden  value  on  its  wide,  almost  flat,  but  straight-hanging 
falls.  It  is  almost  over-balanced  and  the  form  though  with  varied 
ruffling  is  typical  of  most  Sass  plicatas  of  today. 

The  first  Sass  plicatas  had  smoothly  rounded  falls,  often  with¬ 
out  the  wavy  edge  we  know  of  in  Pink  Ruffles.  We  referred  to  it 
as  a  pallida  form.  Most  of  the  Benton  plicatas  I  have  seen  have 
a  similar  charm,  in  their  well-balanced,  well-rounded  blooms. 

Ma  Mie,  or  the  larger  True  Charm  with  a  bit  of  ruffling,  has 
more  flaring  falls  and  is  paralleled  by  the  form  of  the  big  tetra- 
ploid  Los  Angeles,  its  carriage  delightful. 

A  whole  group  of  the  Denis  plicatas,  Mme.Boullet,  Mme.de 


9 


Sevigne  and  others  had  more  horizontal,  ovate,  and  “variegata” 

carriage  AND  narrowness  of  the  fall.  Yon  can  recognize  it  today 

in  Use  Louise  and  a  whole  host  of  “fancies/’  many  derived  from 

Mine.  Louis  Aureau  if  I  am  not  mistaken.  At  its  present  worst 

von  can  see  it  in  Wabash  or  Flora  Zenor. 

*/ 

In  early  days  these  with  a  white  ground  veered  toward  good 
pallida  flares  when  the  influence  of  Mme.Chereau  pinching  was 
overcome.  Both  the  pale  yellow  and  blended  grounds  were  perhaps 
evenly  divided  between  the  rounded  blooms  of  light  tone,  and  the 
darks  with  horizontal  falls  and  often  variegata  venation. 

When  the  modern  plicata  presents  as  fine  form  as  Helen  Mc¬ 
Gregor,  or  Great  Lakes,  as  Snow  Flurry,  or  Mimosa  Gold,  then 
there  will  be  real  beauty.  Los  Angeles  and  many  of  its  kin  are 
comparable  in  this  respect  but  none  of  the  more  varied  approach 
even  the  lovely  '‘pink  buds”  in  the  beauty  of  well-balanced  detail. 

There  IS  infinite  variety  from  the  lightly  etched  pastelles  of 
Suzette  and  the  Bentons  to  the  harsh  contrasts  of  Minnie  Colquitt 
or  Firecracker,  real  highlights  in  the  garden.  There  is  still  a  long 
way  to  go. 

TYPICAL  PATTERNS.  In  the  following  all  too  incomplete 
groupings  I  have  included  both  old,  that  I  grouped  in  Bulletin  13 
in  1923,  and  such  current  varieties  as  I  have  actually  seen  this 
year  in  Nashville.  An  attempt  to  use  word-of-mouth  or  catalog 
descriptions  was  a  complete  failure  as  in  the  case  of  both  Magic 
Carpet  and  Ilse  Louise  I  pictured  them  as  dark  and  saw  them  as 
very  light  to  light. 

The  distinctions  between  types  are  not  clear  cut,  e.g.  Tiffany 
shows  a  faint  wide  etched  border  when  it  first  opens  in  rainy 
weather  but  it  fades  very  quickly.  Note  that  I  have  not  tried  to 
distinguish  in  every  case  the  Check  List  classification  as  to  color. 
Plicata  markings  are  rarely  distinguishable  on  a  “blue”  or  “red” 
ground  that  is  deeper  than  a  flush  even  if  we  think  to  look  for 
them. 

TYPE  1.  Color  confined  to  the  center  of  the  flower,  styles,  haft, 
and  often  the  inner  third  and  at  the  edges  of  the  petals.  Examples 
are : 

True  Delight  and  Los  Angeles  as  it  ages  and  perhaps  Maid  of 
Astolat. 

The  blend  Pancroft  and  the  yellow  Montezuma  were  1920;  King 
Karl  and  Jubilee  a  bit  later;  Benton  Duff,  Diane,  Primrose,  of  rc- 


10 


cent  origin.  In  these  the  styles  frequently  are  the  same  tint  as 
the  standards  even  more  so  than  in  White  City  for  example  so 
that  one  wonders  whether  they  are  plicata  except  in  origin. 
TYPE  2.  Standards  more  or  less  fringed  at  edges;  F.  with  light 
center,  coloring  of  styles  and  markings  often  very  similar. 

a)  Markings  light,  etched  or  sanded. 

True  Charm,  Anna  Farr,  Ma  Mie,  Edith  Kourke,  F.  B.  Meade, 
Snow  Crystal  with  white  ground  and  Tiffany,  Suzette,  Balmung  on 
a  warm  blended  ground.  A  marked  variety  of  forms. 

b)  Markings  dark,  S.  with  definite  edge. 

Mme.  Chereau,  Camelot,  San  Francisco,  Theodolinda,  Picottee, 
Claribel — all  blue  on  white.  The  old  Pocahontas,  Delight,  Beau 
Ideal,  and  Hilda  were  red-purple  on  white  and  I  find  no  compara¬ 
ble  novelties,  nor  any  on  colored  grounds — a  curious  omission. 
TYPE  3.  S.  suffused,  often  netted  or  sanded  as  well  as  feathered; 
F.  usually  light  at  center  though  occasionally  a  dark  median  line 
is  presented,  and  at  least  a  partial  edging. 

a)  Very  Light.  Florentine  and  Lady  Naomi  on  white;  Patrice  and 
Lady  of  Shalott  off  white. 

b)  Medium.  Bridesmaid,  Dimity,  Lona,  Blue  Shimmer,  Benton 
Daphne  on  white  and  Mary  Garden,  and  Peachblow  on  a  blended 
ground. 

c)  Dark.  Usually  red-purple  on  white;  Parisiana,  Midwest;  Tip 
Top  (Hall). 

d)  Medium  in  tone  but  the  falls  clearly  veined.  Mme.Boullet,  Ilse 
Louise. 

TYPE  4.  Acknowledged  and  advertised  plicatas  with  little  of  the 
familiar  looks  or  markings. 

a)  S.  self  colored,  practically  unmarked;  F.  often  veined  or  ir¬ 
regularly  washed  at  center  in  contradistinction  to  the  usual  light 
center.  Idaho  Witchery,  Innovation,  Magic  Carpet,  Royal  Coach — 
all  light  in  tone  and  charming. 

b)  S.  “flamed  light  to  either  side  of  mid-rib;  F.  light  in  center; 
a  most  interesting  group  of  marked  contrasts — usually  from  the 
Sass  Bros.  Minnie  Colquitt,  Orloff,  Firecracker,  and  others  I  have 
not  seen  this  year.  Most  are  brilliant  and  effective  but  of  poor 
shape  and  none  too  tall. 

In  the  lighter  tones,  the  center  “flame' ’  ceases  to  be  perceptible. 

c)  Very  heavily  sprinkled  and  veined  throughout,  often  almost  a 
self  in  effect. 


In  Aksarben  the  venation  was  almost  velvety  at  the  sides  of  the 
falls,  in  Banded  Beauty,  (as  pictured)  it  is  clear  cut  only  at  the 
sides. 

Koyal  Scot  seems  to  be  the  only  named  “ fancy”  I  have  seen 
though  Mr.  Douglas  has  a  row  of  such  in  great  variety  of  tone  but 
little  change  from  the  fairly  narrow  fall  tapering  to  the  haft.  The 
venation  is  not  clear  cut  as  in  most  varieties  of  variegata  origin 
but  is  more  blurred  and  closely  spaced  on  a  light  ground  and  to 
me  the  terms  striate,  banded,  and  especially  marbled  carry  a  com¬ 
pletely  different  picture.  I  am  waiting  to  see  them. 

Moonlit  Seas,  Bertha  Gersdorff,  et  als,  despite  their  origin  have 
such  irregular  washings  of  contrasting  tone  springing  from  the 
-*  center  that  I  do  not  think  of  them  as  plicatas  though,  intrinsically 
it  may  be  analagous  to  the  ‘  *  flame  ’  ’  in  Firecracker.  The  old  Sea¬ 
gull  (Farr)  was  also  an  oddity  as  were  the  blotches  on  the  falls 
of  Mariposa  (Mohr). 

The  inclusion  of  Elsa  Sass  or  better  Golden  Fleece  as  plicatas 
strikes  me  as  far-fetched  and  far  from  helpful  as  the  yellow  bor¬ 
ders  with  or  without  a  white  haft  and  center  are  all  too  familiar 
among  the  old  variegatas. 

These  notes  are  but  a  first  step,  if  the  present  interest  in  *  ‘  pliks  ’  ’ 
continues  we  need  reports  from  keen  observers.  I  am  frankly  in 
a  state  of  bewildered  confusion.  Neither  the  articles  (and  I  have 
not  seen  Mr.  Mitchell’s)  nor  the  catalog  descriptions  have  helped. 
The  old  plicata  definitely  had  darker  or  more  heavily  marked 
standards,  it  was  etched,  or  sanded,  etc.  Just  why  Lady  Priscilla 
or  Benton  Baggage  should  be  called  “ plicatas”  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
explain.  Too  loose  a  classification  is  of  no  advantage  but  just 
where  would  you  draw  the  line? 


12 


PLAYING  WITH  PLICATAS 

By  Sydney  B.  Mitchell 

* 

■  The  title  I  have  given  these  casual  comments  is  indicative  of 
my  attitude  towards  iris  growing  and  breeding.  These  are  recrea¬ 
tional  activities,  refuges  sometimes  from  a  too  tiring  or  too  tough 
world,  and  so  different  from  my  professional  work  as  to  constitute 
play.  They  must  be  kept  in  their  place,  not  allowed  to  become 
too  serious  or  too  egotistical,  certainly  not  too  commercial.  Above 
all  they  must  provide  continuing  and  varying  interest.  It  happens 
that  I  like  novelty  and  variety,  so,  at  the  height  of  my  yellow  iris 
breeding  which  included  the  introduction  of  California  Gold, 
Happy  Days,  Naranja  and  Fair  Elaine,  I  turned  to  the  plicatas 
as  a  group  susceptible  of  considerable  improvement,  and  in  the 
past  decade  I  have  bloomed  several  thousand  plicatas,  of  which 
a  very  few  have  been  named  and  sent  out.  Remembering  the  state¬ 
ments  of  years  ago  that  we  had  enough  “ blues”  and  the  still  cur¬ 
rent  dislike  of  many  iris  growers  for  all  variegatas,  I  ought  to 
have  been  prepared  for  the  general  condemnation  of  the  plicata 
pattern  from  some  of  our  members,  but  hardly  for  the  rather 
puerile  comments  which  have  lately  been  published.  Constructive 
criticism  is,  I  believe,  always  appreciated  by  breeders — and  I  shall 
try  to  give  some  here — but  wholesale  condemnation  is  hardly  sport¬ 
ing  and  leads  one  to  wonder  if  there  was  not  perhaps  some  truth 
in  the  designation  of  some  of  our  writers  as  belonging  to  the  unfair 
sex.  With  maturity  should  come  tolerance,  I  think,  so  though  I 
myself  consider  flower  arrangements  utterly  alien  to  love  of  flowers 
and  of  gardening,  subordinating  lovely  individuals  of  beautiful 
form  and  color  to  mere  materials  for  design,  I  recognize  the  right 
of  others  to  participate  in  this  exercise.  To  me  they  seem  just 
crazy,  but  then,  aren’t  we  all? 

If  my  predilection  of  the  present  needs  further  justification  let 
me  remind  our  readers  that  the  plicata  pattern  has  interested 
many  of  our  best  breeders,  Fernand  Denis  and  Ferdinand  Cayeux 
in  France,  A.  J.  Bliss  and  Cedric  Morris  in  England,  Grace  Sturte- 
vant,  William  Mohr  and  the  Sasses  in  America.  I  would  at  once 
agree  that  for  mass  effects  in  the  garden  pure  clear  seifs  are  most 
effective,  blues  and  yellow  above  all,  but  we  also  grow  there  the 
less  effective  blends  for  their  subtlety  and  the  bicolors,  though 


only  half  an  amoena  or  a  variegata  is  really  visible  at  any  distance. 

But  it  has  always  been  evident  that  the  iris  grower  is  also  in¬ 
terested  in  the  individual  flower  and  spike  and  in  the  variation 
possible  in  color  patterns.  In  this  connection,  because  Gwendolyn 
Anley’s  Irises,  Their  Culture  and  Selection  (London,  Collingridge, 
1946)  is  still  little  known  in  this  country,  I  am  taking  the  liberty 
of  quoting  from  this  wholly  desirable  new  book  some  lines  from 
its  Foreword  by  Sacheverell  Sitwell,  the  eminent  writer  and  art 
critic.  "It  is,  of  course,  because  they  have  a  particular  appeal  to 
my  taste,  but  I  am  delighted  to  think  that  it  is  one  of  our  best 
painters,  Cedric  Morris,  who  has  produced  such  striking  new  va¬ 
rieties  of  plicatas.  As  an  artist  he  is  well  known  for  his  paintings 
of  birds  and  flowers,  and  perhaps  these  results  could  have  been 
obtained  by  no  hand  or  eye  that  had  not  his  training.  It  is  to  be 
noticed  that  the  writer  of  an  article  on  American  irises  in  the  Year- 
Book  for  1944  says  he  has  "long  been  persuaded  that  the  plicata 
pattern  promised  more  interesting  and  desirable  variation  than 
any  other/’  so  the  interest  in  plicatas  is  not  confined  to  England. 

.  .  .  There  are  iris  lovers  to  whom  the  plicata  is  less  beautiful  than 
the  clear  yellow  or  blue  self.  The  plicata  in  their  opinion  is  not 
natural  but  artificial.  Its  faults  are  those  of  the  gloxinia,  that  it  is 
freckled  or  sanded.  But  these  are  tastes  that  would  condemn  a 
speckled  bird’s  egg,  and  would  have  it  not  other  than  clean  blue 
or  brown  or  white.  They  could,  as  well,  despise  the  thrush’s 
dappled  throat  and  chest,  and  it  would  be  as  sensible  to  prefer 
the  blackbird  above  all  other  songbirds  because  its  plumes  are  uni¬ 
form  and  of  one  color.  Or  let  us  alter  the  metaphor  and  say  that 
such  opinions  would  prefer  the  canary  to  the  bullfinch.  There 
must  always  be  the  two  schools  of  flower  lovers,  those  who  would 
improve  on  Nature,  and  those  who  prefer  her  plain  and  una¬ 
dorned.”  It  is  hardly  surprising  to  me  that  Tom  Craig,  the  well 
known  California  painter,  is  as  devoted  a  plicata  breeder  as  is 
Cedric  Morris. 

The  first  record  I  know  of  the  existence  of  the  plicata  pattern 
I  found  in  the  Prado  in  Madrid  where,  seventeen  years  ago,  I  came 
across  a  flower  picture,  a  bunch  of  bearded  irises,  done  by  the 
Flemish  Jan  Brueghel,  (cir.  1570-1625),  often  called  Brueghel  de 
Velours,  possibly  a  corruption  of  "fleurs,  ”  as  this  son  of  the  more 
famous  Pieter  Brueghel  was  a  flower  painter.  In  that  picture  is 
unmistakably  a  blue  edged  white  ground  plicata,  so  the  pattern 


must  have  existed  in  gardens  well  over  three  hundred  years  ago. 
I  can  find  no  record  that  plicatas  have  been  discovered  wild, 
though  W.  R.  Dykes  looked  hard  for  them  in  Dalmatia  among 
the  varied  wild  forms  of  I.  pallida.  The  early  plicatas,  like  the 
pallidas,  had  glaucous  leaves,  a  comparatively  tall  stem  with  very 
short  lateral  branches,  and  papery  spathes.  In  “  Dykes  on  Irises,” 
page  252,  we  find :  ‘  ‘  The  so-called  plicata,  with  white  flowers  edged 
with  purple,  is  obviously  some  form  of  I.  pallida,  but  seems  to 
contain  some  inhibiting  factor  which  prevents  the  purple  from 
extending  all  over  the  segments.” 

Of  the  first  three  irises  I  bought — this  was  while  I  was  at  col¬ 
lege — one  was  a  plicata,  Mme.  Chereau,  tall,  close  branched,  skinny, 
with  white  flowers  edged  pale  blue  and  with  the  pinched  falls  so 
characteristic  of  early  plicatas:  it  was  introduced  by  Lemon  in 
1844,  in  France.  Later  plicatas  showed  some  improvement  and 
variation.  I  still  remember  growing  Jeanne  d’Arc  (Yerdier), 
Ma  Mie  (Cayeux),  Camelot  (Bliss),  Anna  Farr  (Farr)  and  Paris- 
iana  (Vilmorih),  this  last  a  valuable  parent.  A  decidedly  attractive 
early  American  plicata  was  the  somewhat  pinker  edged  True 
Charm,  raised  by  Grace  Sturtevant.  In  France  M.  Denis  was  ap¬ 
parently  crossing  white  ground  plicatas  with  variegatas  or  what 
were  then  called  squalens,  forms  of  pallida  X  variegata.  These 
were  the  first  marked  color  variations  I  remember,  as  Mme.  Cho- 
baut  had  a  creamy  ground  and  consequently  redder  markings  and 
Demi-Deuil — the  French  word  means  half  mourning,  and  suffered 
much  mauling  on  American  tongues- — was  an  odd  purple  on  white, 
suffused  in  a  broken  pattern,  an  early  example  of  a  type  for  which 
I  have  suggested  the  name  “fancy,”  following  the  precedent  of 
the  old  English  carnation  raisers. 

These  early  plicatas  were  all  diploids  as  were  also  the  series  of 
different,  colored  plicatas  raised  by  the  Sass  brothers  and  sent  out 
in  the  early  twenties.  From  an  exchange  with  Jake  Sass  I  had 
his  Jubilee,  Lona  and  King  Karl,  and  Beau  Ideal  and  Midwest, 
raised  by  II.  P.  Sass.  Mrs.  Whiting  (A.  I.  S.  Bulletin,  July,  1946, 
No.  102,  page  34)  says  “came  from  chance  seed  from  Mme. 
Chereau  and  probably  involved  variegata  as  it  cropped  out  later.” 
When  Jake  Sass  saw  Jubilee  and  his  other  buff  ground,  peach 
flushed  plicatas  flowering  on  foot-high  stems  in  my  garden  he  was 
disturbed  by  their  dwarf  habit.  When  I  suggested  that  perhaps 
they  contained  variegata  in  their  make-up  and  that  might  account 


15 


for  their  poor  growth,  he  told  me  they  came  from  Her  Majesty, 
an  old,  heavily  lined  pink  we  could  barely  grow  in  California.  It 
just  happened  about  that  time  that  M.  Denis  sent  John  C.  Wister 
a  note  in  French  about  the  breeding  of  Her  Majesty  and  it  was 
forwarded  to  me  for  translation,  though  I  do  not  believe  it  was 
ever  published.  M.  Denis  had  selfed  Her  Majesty  and  got  straight 
variegatas  from  the  seed,  so  that  is  presumably  one  way  the 
variegata  strain  came  in.  In  any  case  it  was  very  important,  as 
it  laid  the  foundation  for  later  yellow  ground  plicatas.  Quite 
different  was  Midwest,  a  taller,  more  slender  thing  with  red  purple 
edges  and  a  noticeably  ruffled  form.  Crossed  with  a  varigata,  it 
gave  King  Karl.  I  bred  it  with  the  pollen  of  a  sister  of  San 
Francisco  and  from  this  diploid  seed  parent  I  got  Advance  Guard, 
a  tetraploid  which  has  proved  a  very  good  plicata  breeder. 

With  the  introduction  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles  some 
twenty  years  ago  a  new  type  of  plicata  came  to  our  gardens. 
These  had  tall,  widely  branched  stems  and  large,  well  shaped 
flowers.  This  is  how  they  came  about.  One  morning  in  the  spring 
of  1922  the  late  William  Mohr  showed  me  a  letter  he  had  just  re¬ 
ceived  from  Grace  Sturtevant  suggesting  that  he  might  have  lines 
of  mesopotamica  derivatives  with  plicata  parentage  and  that  it 
would  be  interesting  to  cross  them  and  get  big  plicatas.  We  went 
through  his  records  and  found  seedlings  from  Conquistador  X 
Parisiana  and  from  Parisiana  X  mesopotamica,  the  latter  event¬ 
ually  named  Esplendido.  From  this  cross,  after  Mr.  Mohr’s  tragic 
death,  I  flowered  Los  Angeles,  San  Francisco  and  several  sister 
seedlings  in  my  garden,  getting  so  excited  over  the  obvious  white 
ground  of  the  bud  of  the  first  to  flower,  Los  Angeles,  that  I 
couldn’t  sleep  and  at  daybreak  went  out  and  found  our  dream 
had  come  true. 

Later  on,  in  part  continuing  this  line,  I  raised  the  less  dis¬ 
tinguished  Sacramento,  which  had  a  creamier  ground,  yellow 
beard  and  redder  markings.  It  was  from  [Sherbert  X  (Juniata  X 
Jacquesiana)  1  X  San  Francisco,  and  Cedric  Morris  writes  me  that 
it  was  the  basis  of  his  plicata  breeding.  Sherbert  came  from  Miss 
Sturtevant,  and  its  parents  were  Caterina  &  Mrs.  Horace  Darwin, 
a  little,  old  white  with  basal  linings  which  marked  it  as  a  plicata 
though  it  had  no  marginal  lines.  From  Sherbert  X  Fortuna  came 
Carl  Salbach's  near  .yellow  ground  plicata  Comstock,  now  long 
superseded.  Fortuna  was  from  Alcazar  X  Esplendido,  which  shows 


JG 


the  persistence  of  the  plicata 
factors.  In  the  late  twenties  and 
early  thirties  I  attempted  to  get 
big  yellow  ground  plicatas  by 
crossing  big  white  ground  pli¬ 
catas,  mainly  Los  Angeles,  with 
the  large  existing  yellows  I  then 
had,  mainly  pale  ones,  but  I  got 
little  desirable  with  plicata 
markings,  though  blends  like 
Peacemaker  and  whites  like  Bri¬ 
dal  Veil  were  the  by-product  of 
such  crosses  in  the  second  gen¬ 
eration.  I  did  not  then  realize 
that  in  tetraploids  the  recessive 
pattern  could  not  be  expected  to 
appear  in  the  F2s  in  the  regular 
Mendelian  ratio  of  one  to  four 
but  only  in  a  proportion  of  one 
to  thirty-five.  This  I  later 
learned  from  Professor  Ran¬ 
dolph.  In  addition,  this  was  the 
heyday  of  my  interest  in  yellow 
iris  breeding,  and,  characteristi¬ 
cally,  I  pretty  much  forgot  pli¬ 
catas  for  a  time — as  I  may 


again. 


From  1935  to  the  end  of  the 
decade  indifferent  health  and 

Banded  Plicata— Fired ance  preoccupation  with  profession¬ 

al  work  greatlv  slowed  down  mv 
own  breeding,  but  what  little  I  did  was  with  plicatas,  and  this  was 
entirely  stimulated  by  the  important  introductions  in  this  pattern 
put  out  in  the  early  thirties  by  Cayeux  and  in  the  later  ones  by 
the  Sasses. 


When  we  visited  M.  Cayeux  in  1930  it  was  evident  he  was  in¬ 
terested  in  plicata  breeding,  indeed  I  saw  then  an  enormous  dull 
plicata  seedling  which  he  referred  to  in  a  derogative  sense  as  a 
“monster.”  But  in  1933  he  sent  out  Seduction,  the  product  of 
crossing  two  of  his  own  plicata  seedlings,  a  clean,  well-bred,  white 


17 


ground  flower  without  faults  of  form  and  with  an  advance  towards 
pink  in  its  markings.  It  has  been  used  by  American  breeders  and 
has  been  a  considerable  factor  in  my  own  pink  plicata  breeding. 
But  in  1934  Cayeux  sent  out  Madame  Louis  Aureau,  a  dark  rather 
purplish  pink,  heavily  marked  plicata,  too  dwarf  in  stature  here 
for  its  large  flower,  which  itself  had  fine  flat  flaring  falls,  sug¬ 
gesting  in  form  and  substance  the  Dominion  derivatives.  Through 
the  kindness  of  Robert  Schreiner  I  learned  its  parentage  and  was 
not  surprised  to  find  that,  like  so  many  Cayeux  introductions,  it 
had  Bruno  in  its  life  line.  I  believe  this  variety  has  and  will  con¬ 
tinue  to  have  great  influence  on  plicata  breeding.  It  is  particularly 
evident  in  some  of  Schreiner’s  introductions  and  I  know  that 
Cedric  Morris  used  it.  In  my  own  breeding  it  has  been  par¬ 
ticularly  important  for  form  and  size  of  flower,  though  it  certainly 
puts  a  lot  of  mud  into  its  progeny  which  later  has  to  be  bred  out. 

From  1936  on  the  iris  world,  particularly  the  plicata  addicts, 
has  been  stunned  by  the  introduction  of  a  series  of  plicatas  raised 
by  II.  P.  Sass.  Siegfried  in  1936,  Orloff  in  1937,  and  Tiffany  in 
1938  were  tremendous  advances  in  yellow  ground  plicatas,  and 
between  them  they  also  brought  in  size,  new  color  and  ruffling. 
An  examination  of  their  published  parentages  hardly  suggests  that 
they  were  deliberately  planned  for,  which  is  no  reflection  on  their 
breeder.  It  shows  rather  that  the  years  of  inbreeding  of  the  Sass 
plicata  and  variegata  lines  resulted  in  the  almost  simultaneous 
flowering  of  several  new  plicata  and  one  combined  plicata  and 
variegata  lines,  Siegfried  and  City  of  Lincoln  being  sisters.  Like 
all  really  important  breeders,  the  Sasses  had  used  their  own  seed¬ 
lings  intensively,  and  through  such  wonderful  parents  as  King 
Tut  the  inherent  possibilities  of  the  strain  have  come  out.  The 
later  Sass  plicatas,  improvements  on  these  pioneers,  were  naturally 
specifically  planned  for  and  have  been  real  advances,  Ruth  Pollock 
and  Coritica  in  the  yellow  ground  line,  Rose  Top  in  the  pink  and 
Minnie  Colquitt  in  the  white  ground  red  purple  pattern  being 
perhaps  the  most  distinct  of  these  up  to  date.  Blue  Shimmer  (J. 
Sass,  1942),  by  its  clean  blue  on  Avhite,  set  a  new  standard  for  an 
old  pattern.  All  future  plicata  breeders  will  owe  a  debt  to  the 
Sasses  for  it  was  through  their  work  that  the  variegata  strain  was 
combined  with  the  plicata  and  the  opportunity  thereby  given  for 
the  brilliance  of  the  future  flowers. 

In  a  hurried  resume  of  plicata  breeding  time  and  space  are 


18 


lacking  for  more  than  brief  mention  of  other  American  contribu¬ 
tors.  Personally  I  am  most  impressed  with  some  very  brilliant  red 
and  yellow  seedlings  I  have  just  flowered  from  Clarence  White, 
real  advances  here  in  height,  size  and  color  over  earlier  Orloff 
derivatives  like  David  Hall  's  Firecracker,  the  brightest  red  I  have 
yet  seen  in  commerce.  Mr.  White  also  has  some  lovely  “fancies” 
and  strange  things  he  calls  “weirdies.7'  Fred  De  Forest,  using* 
in  the  main,  he  tells  me,  two  of  my  earlier  plicata-bearing  yellows, 
Alta  California  and  Naranja,  has  contributed  the  fine  and  distinct 
Tiff  an  j  a,  the  later  Patrice,  and  this  year  he  offers  an  inconstant 
plicata,  Daffy,  which  by  its  variations  of  color  shows  what  the  pat¬ 
tern  can  do  when  it  goes  on  the  loose. 

Of  plicatas  from  abroad  the  big  news  is  that  one  English  breeder, 
Cedric  Morris,  has  been  working  in  this  field,  among  others,  in  a 
highly  intensive  way,  imbreeding  his  own  seedlings  in  the  manner 
which  to  me  seems  the  essential  prelude  to  a  program  likely  to 
give  new  things.  I  have  corresponded  with  him  for  a  couple  of 
years  and  know  that  my  Sacramento,  the  French  Madame  Louis 
Aureau  and  that  plicata  carrier  Mary  Geddes  are  the  materials 
with  which  he  started  his  plicata  breeding.  I  had  hoped  when  I 
undertook  to  write  this  paper  to  be  able  to  report  on  his  plicatas, 
as  I  have  about  a  complete  set  of  those  sent  out  to  date,  but  the 
receipt  of  two  importations  in  1946  which  suffered  long  delays  and 
dried  out  badly  has  given  me  few  and  doubtfully  characteristic 
flowers,  only  Benton  Daphne,  Benton  Aurora  and  Benton  Lett 
flowering  at  all.  The  first  mentioned,  which  flowered  prematurely 
last  spring  on  a  rhizome  received  in  February,  promises  to  be  very 
useful  as  a  breeder,  carrying  the  good  qualities  of  Sacramento, 
which  had  size,  form  and  good  branching  stems,  into  a  far  pinker 
and  more  pleasing  color.  The  other  two  were  nice  but  not  dis¬ 
tinguished  on  their  first  flowers.  This  is,  I  am  sure,  going  to  be 
an  important  plicata  strain,  good  in  itself  and  probably  well  worth 
incorporating  into  other  strains,  for  its  breeder  has  the  back¬ 
ground,  taste  and  standards  so  desirable  if  we  are  to  get  new 
irises  of  character  and  of  balance  ,not  just  big  blobs  of  color, 
crowding  each  other  towards  the  top  of  disproportionate  stems. 

Finally,  a  little,  I  hope  not  too  much,  about  my  own  playing 
with  plicatas.  Every  breeder  naturally  and  properly  works  for 
flowers  which  will  be  better  under  his  own  conditions,  though  this 
does  not  preclude  their  being  of  value  elsewhere.  There  is  now 


19 


little  or  no  problem  of  the  ability  of  California  introductions  to 
stand  winter  cold.  Even  good  eastern  breeders  use  Purissima  and 
mesopotamica  derivatives  to  get  size,  height  and  branching.  So 
we,  under  our  semi-arid  conditions,  use  eastern  irises  of  variegata 
ancestry  to  get  color  and  brilliance  without  the  short  stems  which 

our  dry  summers  seem  to  impose  on  them.  Lovely  as  are  Orloff  and 

_  • 

Ruth  Pollock,  they  are  both  rather  low  under  our  conditions. 

My  objective  therefore  has  been  to  raise  a  race  of  plicatas  in 
all  available  and  perhaps  in  new  colors  which  would  have  the 
stature,  branching,  size  of  flowers  and  form  of,  let  us  say,  Los 
Angeles,  using  in  the  endeavor  several  plicata  lines  of  my  own. 
These,  combined  with  the  Sass  and  French  plicatas,  supplemented 
by  pollen  from  Carl  Salbach’s  and  from  other  plicatas,  have  given 
me  in  these  last  few  years  several  thousand  seedlings  of  great 
variety  of  color  and  many  with  the  other  qualities  sought.  I  have 
had  no  single  objective  and  I  have  therefore  selected  for  introduc¬ 
tion  thus  far  yellow  ground  plicatas  like  Contra  Costa,  distinct 
pink  plicatas  like  Love  Affair,  grayish  blended  things  of  par¬ 
ticularly  good  individual  flowers  like  Bali  Belle,  and  almost  pure 
white  plicatas  like  Mariposa  Mia.  From  my  breeding  with  pure 
plicata  strains  have  come  many  “fancies,”  that  is  flowers  of  all- 
over  stippled  pattern  on  white,  of  which  the  apricot  and  yellow 
Precious  is  a  good  example,  creams  with  very  little  marking  like 
Occidental,  and  bicolor  blends  like  Oklahoma,  not  readily  recog¬ 
nizable  as  of  plicata  derivation.  Among  selected  seedlings  of  which 
I  am  working  up  stock  are  such  things  as  a  large  ruffled  cream 
and  white,  tentatively  called  Whipped  Cream,  which  has  met  with 
much  favor  from  visiting  iris  growers,  a  bicolor  fancy,  (9-57), 
which  is  close  to  the  variegata  pattern  without  its  to  some  ob¬ 
jectionable  contrast,  a  very  crisp  pink  and  white  with  flaring  falls 
(0-126-2),  and  many  others.  I  am  now  at  the  stage  where  I  have 
reduced  plicata  crossings  to  see  what  I  have  and  will  get.  Better, 
cleaner,  more  brilliant  colors,  broader,  ruffled  form,  brighter,  better 
beards,  with  good  stems  and  placement  are  what  we  are  after.  The 
plicata  pattern  is  certainly  unstable,  and  as  my  friend  Clarence 
White  says,  we  may  eventually  get  in  the  hardy  race  the  colors 
and  patterns  sought  through  the  temperamental  oncocyclus. 

The  end  is  certainly  not  in  sight.  This  spring  I  saw  in  Tom 
Craig’s  garden  in  Los  Angeles  a  plicata  the  use  of  which  may 
revolutionize  plicata  breeding,  and  if  its  stem  proves  taller  next 
year  may  be  the  advance  guard  of  another  day. 


20 


PLICATA  EXPERIENCE 

By  Robert  Schreiner 

The  plicata  color  pattern  is  a  manner  of  coloring  peculiar  to 
the  iris  flower  alone.  In  no  other  flower  do  we  have  blooms  with 
this  curious  margining  of  blue,  rose,  or  lavender  “stitched,  stip¬ 
pled,  or  suffused"  along  the  edge  of  the  petal.  The  effect  is  quaint 
and  sometimes  startling.  The  novel  colorings  in  plicata  iris  rival 
some  of  the  leading  self  colored  iris  varieties  for  exquisiteness.  Our 
older  conventional  plicatas  generally  have  white  backgrounds 
etched  with  color.  An  example  is  that  classic  variety,  Los  Angeles. 
Others  have  a  background  of  cream  or  yellow  in  varying  shades. 
And  recently  the  evolvement  of  the  “marbled”  or  “striated" 
varieties  have  added  another  highly  interesting  group. 

It  is  interesting  to  glance  over  the  early  history  of  this  kind  of 
iris.  The  early  iris  breeders  Mr.  A.  J.  Bliss  and  Miss  Grace 
Sturtevant  published  extremely  valuable  information  about  the 
behavior  of  this  character  in  iris  breeding  in  the  early  bulletins 
of  the  society.  These  early  records  seem  to  indicate  this  color 
pattern  must  have  arisen  as  a  mutation  during  the  early  period  of 
iris  breeding.  It  is  perhaps  significant  to  note  that  Mr.  W.  It. 
Dykes  in  his  many  writings  never  recorded  the  finding  of  a  single 
albino  flower  of  the  species  I.  'pallida.  The  very  earliest  plicatas 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  plicata  iris  were  derived  from  the 
pallida  family.  From  these  various  writings  and  the  exchange  of 
experiences  of  Mr.  Bliss,  Miss  Sturtevant  and  Mr.  Wm.  Mohr 
the  evidence  seems  to  indicate  that  the  plicata  color  pattern  was 
a  recessive  factor. 

The  nucleus  of  our  plicata  iris  centered  in  the  main  in  the 
varieties  developed  by  Miss  Sturtevant  who  produced  such  varie¬ 
ties  as  True  Charm,  True  Delight  or  an  example  of  one  of  Mr. 
Bliss’s  iris  would  be  Princess  Osra.  Another  family  of  plicatas 
trace  their  ancestry  to  the  French  iris.  Interestingly,  here  we  note 
both  the  modification  and  variation  in  the  original  blue  margining 
of  plicatas — the  French  iris  show  the  influence  of  cross  breeding 
with  I.  variegata  as  well  as  shades  of  purple  and  wine.  Such  va¬ 
rieties  would  include  Parisiana  or  the  plicata  bearers  Opera  and 
J acquesiana  both  of  which  figure  prominently  in  the  history  of 
plicata  development.  Another  important  plant  to  keep  in  mind 
is  the  Farr  variety  Juniata,  a  blue  which  subsequently  figures  in 


21 


the  evolution  of  our  modern  plicatas.  Still  another  important  sec¬ 
tion  is  the  work  of  the  Sass  Brothers.  Their  iris  in  particular 
were  exceptional  for  their  many  colors  and  types.  The  early  use 
of  Midwest,  a  plicata,  and  some  of  the  older  variegata  varieties 
gave  a  whole  range  of  colors  which  included  the  huffy  King  Karl 
and  Jubilee  which  were  the  most  widely  known  and  recognized. 
The  primary  use  of  plicatas  in  some  of  the  very  first  crosses  the 
Sasses  made  should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  later  breeding  as 
here  is  where  this  character  was  extracted  as  a  recessive  character. 
This  plicata  inheritance  carried  as  a  recessive  was  even  in  their 
great  breeding  bonanza  King  Tut. 

All  the  early  plicatas  like  most  of  our  garden  iris  of  the  times 
were  of  the  diploid  family.  In  1927  the  introduction  of  the  Mohr- 
Mitchell  tetraploid  hybrid  plicatas  brought  a  new  era  into  our 
garden  plants.  We  now  had  large  sized  flowers  with  fine,  widely 
branched  stems.  From  the  hands  of  these  master  breeders  we  had 
Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  with  Sacramento  and  others  to 
follow  as  their  invaluable  contributions.  Following  closely  the 
Sasses  also  raised  a  race  of  tetraploid  plicatas.  Their  ancestry 
traces  back  through  Conquistador  which  in  turn  was  a  seedling 
of  Juniata,  the  plicata  bearer  mentioned  earlier.  This  is  the  source 
of  the  blue  plicatas  such  as  Claribel.  Their  other  family  of  plicatas, 
the  yellow  background  creations,  represent  an  achievement  in 
which  these  breeders  were  singularly  successful  and  famous.  Their 
creations  in  this  colorful  class  yielded  such  iris  as  Tiffany,  Ruth 
Pollock  and  Balmung  to  mention  a  few. 

Attention  should  be  drawn  to  two  or  possibly  three  interesting 
innovations  that  arose  from  plicata  breeding  in  the  last  few  years. 
They  are  first  the  new  family  of  plicatas  called  by  various  terms 
such  as  “marbled,”  “striates,  ”  or  as  Prof.  S.  B.  Mitchell  classes 
them  the  “fancies.”  Here  instead  of  margining  or  dotting  the 
colors  seem  to  be  feathered  or  frosted  over  the  entire  flower.  In 
some  lights  it  does  have  the  visual  resemblance  to  the  plicata  pat¬ 
tern  overlaid  on  a  ground  color  of  blue  as  in  Gypsy  Baron  or 
Florentine  or  on  a  creamy  tan  as  in  Orloff  or  on  a  rose  base  as  in 
Mme.  Tjouis  Aureau  or  a  heavily  flushed  yellow  as  in  the  case  of 
Bertha  Gersdorff.  The  individuality  of  these  flowers  is  most  un¬ 
usual.  A  second  interesting  development  out  of  plicata  breeding 
has  been  those  white  iris  resulting  from  inbreeding  plicatas.  The 
intrinsic  qualities  of  these  white  iris  distinguish  them  from  the 


09 


conventional  whites.  Two  good  examples  of  such  resulting  whites 
are  the  varieties  Matterhorn  and  Snow  Velvet.  An  interesting 
corollary  to  the  white  derived  from  the  plicatas  are  the  new 
'demon  ice”  series  first  typed  by  Elsa  Sass.  Some  of  the  finer  new 
varieties  of  this  general  color  include  Moonlight  Madonna  and 
Misty  Gold.  These  yellows  genetically  arise  from  the  combination 
or  cross  of  two  yellow  ground  plicatas.  And  they  show  a  close 
kinship  to  the  whites  of  plicata  extraction  with  the  obvious  in¬ 
clusion  of  yellow  coloring  inherited  from  their  variegata  ancestry. 

The  final  group  of  plicata-derived  hybrids  is  that  class  of  iris 
best  known  by  the  variety  Moonlit  Sea.  It  is  a  bearded  iris  that 
is  colored  in  a  manner  that  for  all  the  world  brings  to  mind  the 
particular  variegation  in  coloring  found  in  the  Japanese  iris  7. 
kaempferi) .  So  many  of  the  Jap  iris  are  colored  in  this  manner 
with  the  radiating  creamy  veins  and  variegations.  All  three  of 
these  groups  of  iris  are  plicata  bearers  and  when  crossed  to  a 
plicata  parent  or  intercrossed  with  each  other  will  yield  a  definite 
portion  of  the  conventionally  marked  plicatas  along  with  an  end¬ 
less  and  perceptible  variation  to  each  of  the  color  types  used.  The 
orchid  is  widely  known  for  its  rare  charm  yet  these  iris  dotted, 
stippled,  margined  and  flecked  have  all  the  rare  charm  of  their 
more  publicized  sister  flower. 

Our  most  successful  breeding  experiments  with  the  plicatas  were 
the  use  of  the  French  line  of  plicatas  of  Mons.  Cayeux.  In  par¬ 
ticular,  the  use  of  Mme.  Louis  Aureau,  which  seems  to  be  an  ex¬ 
ceptionally  fine  parent.  Also  the  use  of  the  family  line  of  Floren¬ 
tine  and  combining  these  with  the  bright  colored  Sass  varieties, 
particularly  the  yellow  ground  series.  Another  cross  was  the 
combination  of  the  French  strain  with  the  Mohr-Mitchell  strain, 
the  selection  of  the  finer  seedlings  of  these  primary  crosses  and 
the  bringing  together  of  these  two  crosses’  products.  One  of  our 
particularly  successful  primary  crosses  was  the  cross  of  Siegfried 
x  Mme.  Louis  Aureau  and  its  reciprocal.  From  this  cross  of  over 
500  seedlings  we  selected  and  named  Magic  Carpet  in  1942.  It 
has  the  best  coloring,  very  exceptional  size  and  is  a  vigorous 
garden  subject.  The  variation  of  this  cross  to  shades  of  brown,  tan, 
and  rose  marked  examples  as  well  as  some  of  the  extremes  was 
most  extensive.  Some  bizarre  types  arose.  Dark  purplish  markings 
some  almost  brutally  scratched  and  brushed  on  the  white  or 
creamy  backgrounds  came  from  this  cross.  Magic  Carpet  is  prov- 


23 


ing  to  be  a  very  fine  parent  as  it  yields  size  and  good  color  to  its 
seedlings.  One  cross  with  Tiffany  has  given  us  a  more  vivid, 
larger  Firecracker.  Another  cross  with  Lady  of  Shalott  sur¬ 
prisingly  enough  gave  a  pink  plicata  of  height,  size  and  branching 
and  a  clarity  of  color  that  is  most  refreshing.  To  date  I  have  not 
seen  a  pink  plicata  that  approaches  it  for  size,  branching  and 
appealing  color.  An  interesting  sidelight  on  Siegfried’s  children 
is  that  Siegfried  mated  with  Tiffany  yielded  Misty  Gold,  finely 
ruffled  lemon  gold  shade,  a  most  delectable  color.  Siegf  ried  crossed 
with  Electra  produced  a  whole  series  of  iris  in  the  manner  of 
Golden  Fleece. 

Our  original  thought  was  to  use  the  color  and  sturdiness  of  the 
hardy  Sass  strain  to  impart  color  to  the  other  families  of  plicatas. 
The  happy  combination  of  71/me.  Louis  Aureau  with  a  seedling  we 
obtained  from  Prof.  Mitchell  years  ago  under  the  garden  name 
Rosy  Asia  gave  us  Lady  of  Shalott,  a  lady  like,  nice  pink  plicata 
best  visualized  as  a  dainty  pink  marked  iris  recalling  Seduction’s 
charm.  The  markings  are  clear  and  dainty,  the  flower  heavily  sub- 
stanced,  crisp  and  lovely.  The  cross  of  Siegfried  x  Naranja  gave 
Bright  Lights,  the  deepest,  rich  butter  yellow  background  we  have 
seen  in  the  plicatas;  the  falls  have  a  center  zone  of  clear  white. 
This  gives  the  flower  a  reverse  bicolor  garden  effect.  The  use  of 
the  newest  Sass  yellow  plicatas  as  Coritica,  Ruth  Pollock  and 
Balmung  is  just  beginning  to  show  in  our  seedling  beds;  due  to 
the  neglect  during  war  time  this  interesting  work  suffered.  A 
combination  of  Bright  Lights  x  Ruth  Pollock  has  given  us  three 
seedlings,  the  best  probably  8-44,  a  completely  yellow  background, 
solid,  no  heart  of  white,  deep  yellow  shade  with  a  complete  over¬ 
all  cast  much  more  so  than  any  other  like  iris.  The  markings  are 
precise,  a  tan  brown  shade.  This  solidly  colored  development  in¬ 
terests  us  very  much  and  combinations  of  it  with  other  seedlings 
of  ours  and  crosses  with  T  iff  an  j  a  are  being  anticipated  with  im¬ 
patience.  In  1940  when  Gypsy  Baron  ( Mme .  L.  Aureau)  x  Clari- 
bel)  blossomed  for  the  first  time  we  noticed  its  extraordinary 
flower  pattern.  It  is  a  highly  novel  flower  interesting  and  ideal 
for  the  close-up  spot  where  the  intricate  tracery  holds  one’s  fancy 
for  a  long  time. 

What  are  the  hopes  for  the  future  in  plicata  breeding?  I  believe 
the  field  in  plicatas  is  just  beginning  to  be  explored  and  it  will 
be  hard  to  exhaust  the  possibilities.  The  variation  in  pattern  is  so 


24 


extensive  it  is  most  stimulating. 
Last  June  our  new  seedling  bed 
gave  a  seedling,  a  blue  violet  pli- 
cata,  189-40  ( Siegfried  x  Mme. 
L.  Aureate)  x  Athala  with  mark¬ 
ings  a  rich  intense  blue  violet 
with  the  center  of  each  petal 
having  a  pronounced  media  line 
of  the  same  rich  shade  running 
down  bbth  the  standards  and 
falls.  The  contrast  to  the  lus¬ 
trous  white  was  most  effective. 
It  could  be  seen  a  mile  off  but  it 
did  not  hold  up.  However,  the 
first  few  hours  the  flower  was 
open  it  gave  us  an  inspiration 
and  an  idea  of  how  beautiful 
such  an  iris  can  be.  So  the  quest 
contiues.  Possibly  some  of  the 
l  eaders  of  the  Bulletin  recall  the 
old  Millet  variety  Ileliane.  In 
color  its  markings  were  close  to 
the  depth  of  Black  Wings  and  it 
had  a  very  deep  but  dull  orange 
beard  looking  almost  like  a 
large  caterpillar.  The  flower 
Plicata  T  iff  an j  a  was  medium  small  but  the 

striking  quality  of  this  iris  interested  us.  We  succeeded  in  making 
a  cross  of  it  with  Tarantella  to  improve  the  branching  but  size  was 
still  wanting.  So  this  seedling  was  combined  with  one  of  the  deep 
violet  segregations  of  Siegfried  x  Mme.  Louis  Aureau.  Seedlings 
are  progressively  getting  closer  though  we  have  not  as  yet  equaled 
Heliane’s  charm.  Perhaps  it  will  always  elude  us.  A  real 
pink  plicata  is  something  to  obtain  and  a  color  we  stand  in  great 
need  of.  The  strange  paradox  about  getting  a  good  iris  like  this 
is  that  because  the  shade  of  necessity  must  be  delicate,  done  in 
the  manner  of  Suzette,  the  garden  effect  at  a  distance  seems  a  bit 
insipid.  Once  the  register  gets  a  little  darker,  it  may  carry  as 
pink  but  close  up  the  markings  soon  show  up  a  red  cast. 


25 


SASS  PLICATAS 

By  Agnes  Whiting 

The  first  irises  that  Hans  P.  Sass  and  Jacob  Sass  named  were 
plicatas.  Miss  Grace  Sturtevant  introduced  their  very  first  ones 
in  1923  and  1924.  The  others  came  out  in  their  own  lists  a  few 
years  later.  As  there  is  considerable  interest  now  in  the  various 
types  of  plicata  markings  and  in  the  terms  used  to  describe  them, 
here  are  brief  descriptions  of  them,  taken  from  a  1933  Sass  catalog. 

The  color  names  are  from  Ridgway. 

MIDWEST  (H.  P.  Sass  1923)  Large,  heavily  ruffled  flowers  with 
a  flushing  and  dotting  of  rose  on  a  white  ground. 

JUBILEE  ( J.  Sass  1923)  A  large  flower  of  extra  heavy  substance 
with  the  characteristic  ruffling  of  our  plicata  series.  Standards 
Naples  yellow,  dotted  purple;  falls  white,  striped  brown  at  the 
haft,  with  purple  dots  along  the  distinct  yellow  beard. 

LONA  (J.  Sass  1923)  Standards  pale  purplish  vinaceous,  white 
at  center,  ruffled;  falls  cream,  dotted  and  striped  Eupatorium 
purple  with  a  yellow  glow  at  the  haft  and  center. 

AKSARBEN  (J.  Sass  1923)  One  of  the  earliest  and  still  one  of 
the  best  plicata  blends.  Standards  and  falls  marked  fawn  and 
velvety  brown  on  a  cream  ground. 

KING  KARL  (J.  Sass  1924)  Beautifully  ruffled,  light  pinkish 
cinnamon  standards.  Falls  cream,  sanded  in  an  all  over  pattern 
of  Liseran  purple.  The  bloom  takes  on  beautiful  rosy  tones  as  it 
ages. 

MATILDA  (J.  Sass  1929)  The  bluest  of  all  the  plicatas  and  a  j? 
flower  of  beautiful  pattern  and  coloring.  White  ground  with  a 
stippling  of  soft  bluish  violet. 

NEITAWKA  (J.  Sass  1929)  The  darkest  and  most  heavily  pat¬ 
terned  plicata;  suggestive,  in  general  effect,  of  WILLIAM  MOHR. 

It  is  so  heavily  stippled  with  purple  as  to  look  like  a  self  at  a 
distance.  Large,  gracefully  ruffled  flowers. 

OLD  GOLD  (II.  P.  Sass  1929)  The  first  deep  yellow  plicata  type, 
although  the  pattern  is  light.  Standards  primuline  yellow;  falls 
old  gold  with  a  buff  overlay;  beard  vivid  yellow,  tipped  brown. 
(This  was  a  chance  seedling  from  MIDWEST). 

PIXIE  (II.  P.  Sass  1929)  A  dwarf  plicata  blend  of  JUBILEE 
coloring,  which  blooms  late  with  the  tall  bearded  iris.  Branching 
stems  8-10  inches  high. 


\ 


26 


CHESTNUT  (J.  Sass  1930)  The  brownest  of  all  the  plicatas. 
The  ruffled  standards  are  cinnamon  drab;  the  falls  cream,  dotted 
petunia  violet  with  brown  stripes  on  the  yellow  haft. 

BEAU  IDEAL  (J.  Sass  1931)  A  distinct  and  unusual  plicata, 
notable  for  the  wide,  solid  border  of  Chinese  violet  on  a  white 
ground.  A  large  flower  of  fine  substance. 

These  were  not  the  first  seedlings  the  Sasses  had  raised.  They 
had  been  making  planned  crosses  since  1910.  But  they  introduced 
these  because  they  were  different — no  one  had  seen  anything  like 
them.  They  are  sometimes  called  the  1  sanded  and  dotted’  group, 
as  contrasted  to  the  feathered  plicatas  of  MME.  CHEREAU  type. 
Unfortunately,  very  little  is  known  of  their  exact  origin.  Some  of 
them  came  from  HER  MAJESTY  by  mixed  pollen,  probably  con¬ 
taining  variegata  and  possibly  MME.  CHEREAU.  In  1936,  Mr. 
Hans  Sass  wrote  me,  “MIDWEST  bloomed  first  in  1917,  from  a 
mixed  lot  of  seed  which  I  gathered  after  a  great  hail  storm  in 
July  1915.  Most  of  my  crossings  were  destroyed  so  1  gathered 
what  seed  I  could  find  and  planted  it  in  a  mixture.  ” 

It  is  supposed  that  all  of  these  older  plicatas  are  diploids. 
MIDWEST,  KING  KARL  and  OLD  GOLD  have  been  counted 
and  found  to  have  24  chromosomes.  None  of  them  is  very  tall, 
but  all  of  them  have  wide,  full,  heavily  ruffled  petals  and  excellent 
substance.  The  colors  are  clean  and  fresh  and  clumps  of  them  are 
most  attractive  in  any  garden.  I  think  that  if  any  like  them, 
especially  MIDWEST,  KING  KARL  or  MATILDA,  were  to  ap¬ 
pear  in  other  hybridizers’  gardens  today,  they  would  be  noticed, 
admired  and  saved. 

But  long  before  this,  things  had  been  done  in  the  Sass  gardens 
that  are  still  of  great  interest  to  Iris  breeders  and  the  Science 
Committee  of  the  A.  I.  S.  In  1904  Jacob  Sass  found  a  chance  seed 
pod  on  HONORABILE,  containing  only  one  seed.  At  that  time, 
the  only  other  iris  in  his  garden  was  FLAVESCENS.  The  plant 
from  this  seed  bloomed  in  1907.  It  was  a  Bradley’s  violet  self  of 
good  size  and  fair  height  and  it  was  called  “Jake’s  Blue.”  They 
still  have  it  in  their  gardens  and  last  year  Dr.  Randolph  made  a 
count  of  it  and  found  it  to  be  tetraploid.  How  this  came  about, 
presumably  from  two  diploids,  we  will  leave  for  the  scientists  to 
explain.  But  it  accounts  for  the  fact  that  many  of  the  seedlings 
that  came  in  the  next  few  years  were  large  and  fine.  In  1911, 


27 


Hans  Sass  crossed  “ Jake’s  Blue”  with  MME.  CHEREAU.  They 
seemed  to  cross  readily  and  when  they  bloomed  he  described  21  of 
them  in  his  records.  They  were  all  of  good  height,  10  were  plicatas 
of  CHEREAU  type  but  larger,  edged  with  rose,  lavender  or  blue. 
The  rest  were  blue  or  purple.  When  they  bloomed  in  1915,  he 
numbered  the  tallest  blue  No.  1.  It  too  has  been  counted  and  found 
to  be  tetraploid.  He  saved  only  two  of  the  plicatas,  edged  rosy 
lavender,  but  says  they  were  'floppy’  so  he  did  not  use  them  in 
breeding.  He  thinks  now'  that  they  too  may  have  been  tetraploids 
as  they  were  much  larger  than  MME.  CHEREAU. 

Nearly  all  of  the  later  named  Sass  irises  stem  from  No.  1,  except 
the  variegata  line  which  came  from  No.  2,  a  variegata  seedling. 
Because  of  the  plicata  inheritance  in  No.  1,  blue  and  white  plicatas 
appeared  among  its  descendents.  When  the  two  lines  were  com¬ 
bined  in  the  BALD  WIN-KING  TUT  cross,  yellow  ground  plicatas 
made  their  appearance.  The  blue  and  white  ones  of  course  came 
first. 

In  1928,  before  the  arrival  of  Mohr’s  San  Francisco  in  the  Sass 
gardens,  Jacob  Sass  bloomed  a  hardy  blue  and  white  plicata  from 
Conquistador,  which  he  numbered  28-21.  (The  first  two  figures  of 
the  J.  Sass  numbers  denote  the  year.)  Soon  after  this,  Hans  Sass 
got  a  good  one  from  his  (No.  1  x  Amas)  x  Argentina,  which  he 
numbered  27-30.  (In  H.  P.  Sass’s  numbers  the  last  two  figures 
denote  the  year.)  Neither  of  these  were  named,  but  both  were  used 
in  breeding.  Hans  used  Jacob’s  28-21  with  a  blue  seedling  from 
No.  1  x  Amas  and  got  a  fine,  large  hardy  blue  and  white  plicata 
which  he  named  NASSAK  (LI.  P.  Sass  1932).  Later  Jacob  crossed 
his  28-21  with  San  Francisco  and  got  his  splendid  and  equally 
hardy  one,  CLARIBEL  (J.  Sass  1936).  BLUE  SHIMMER  (J. 
Sass  1942)  came  from  BLUE  MONARCH  which  is  from  WAM- 
BLISKA  X  MATILDA.  The  lovely,  delicate  over  all  pattern 
of  BLUE  SHIMMER  is  reminiscent  of  that  of  the  older  and 
smaller  MATILDA.  The  parentage  record  of  the  fine  large  purple 
and  white  plicata,  MINNIE  COLQUITT  (LI.  P.  Sass  1942)  is  lost. 

SIEGFRIED  (H.  P.  Sass  1936)  was  the  first  large  yellow 
plicata.  Its  forebears  (see  chart)  include  No.  1  and  KING  TUT, 
as  well  as  two  of  the  older  small  plicatas,  MIDWEST  and  JUBI¬ 
LEE.  TIFFANY  (H.  P.  Sass  1938)  came  from  a  chance  pod  on 
a  red  seedling  from  KING  TUT  X  MORNING  SPLENDOR,  so  its 
plicata  marking  may  have  come  from  its  unknown  pollen  parent. 


28 


ORLOFF  (IF  P.  Sass  1938)  came  from  EL  TOVAR  X  AMENTI. 
Mr.  Sass  thinks  that  EL  TOVAR  may  carry  plicata  because  of  the 
yellow  in  the  center  of  the  standards.  AMENTI  is  a  soft  blend, 
but  it  came  from  No.  1,  through  RAMESES.  By  studying  the 
accompanying  chart  of  the  newest  yellow  plicata,  BANDED 
BEAUTY,  we  can  see  how  all  three  of  these  plicata  lines  have 
been  combined.  Included  also  is  No.  128-34,  a  large  yellow  blend 
that  carries  plicata  from  MIDWEST  as  well  as  from  No.  1  through 
RAMESES.  Ten  years  ago  Mr.  Hans  Sass  wrote,  "The  plicata 
coloring  may  be  recessive  but  I  am  sure  that  it  can  be  bred  up  by 
selection  so  that  we  will  have  a  pure  strain  of  plicatas.”  And 
this  chart  shows  how  it  has  been  done.  All  of  the  sister  seedlings 
of  BANDED  BEAUTY  are  yellow  plicatas,  all  large,  bright, 
cleanly  marked  and  well  branched.  The  form  and  coloring  of 
BANDED  BEAUTY  are  especially  fine  and  it  has  excellent  sub¬ 
stance  and  branching.  The  standards  are  yellow,  lightly  patterned 
and  flushed  with  red  brown ;  the  yellow  falls  are  so  heavily  marked 
with  red  brown  at  the  edges  that  they  have  a  very  striking  banded 
or  bordered  effect.  It  will  be  introduced  in  1948. 

Several  other  Sass  yellow  plicatas  have  been  named  that  do  not 
appear  on  the  BANDED  BEAUTY  chart.  ROYAL  COACH  (H. 
P.  Sass  1939)  came  from  MARY  GEDDES  X  MISS  ARAVILLA. 
MARY  GEDDES  is  from  DEJAZET  X  SHERBERT.  MISS 
ARAVILLA  came  from  KING  TUT  X  KING  MIDAS.  It  is  in¬ 
teresting  to  note  that  KING  MIDAS  is  from  DEJAZET  x  LENT 
A.  WILLIAMSON.  BONANZA  (J.  Sass  1939)  came  from  EL 
TOVAR  by  a  seedling  from  BUTO  X  KING  TUT.  I  do  not  know 
the  parentage  of  BUTO,  but  if  it  is  not  from  No.  1,  then  EL 
TOVAR  may  indeed  carry  plicata.  BALMUNG  (H.  P.  Sass  1939) 
came  from  an  AKSARBEN  seedling  x  TIFFANY.  RUTH  POL¬ 
LOCK  (H.  P.  Sass  1939)  came  from  a  Rameses  blend  -  TIFFANY. 
Its  complete  parentage  record  is  shown  in  Bulletin  85.  CORITICA 
(H.  P.  Sass  1943)  is  from  the  same  parentage.  PEACIIBLOW 
(H.  P.  Sass  1943)  is  from  ROYAL  COACH  X  ORLOFF.  It  is  a 
light  yellow  ground  plicata,  delicately  patterned  and  flushed  with 
rosy  brown.  It  has  a  lovely  garden  effect  of  warm  peach  yellow. 
ALEPPO  PLAIN  (J.  Sass  1943)  is  one  of  the  reddest  of  the 
yellow  ground  plicatas.  The  creamy  yellow  ground  is  heavily 
dotted  and  sanded  to  form  a  wide  border  of  rich  pansy  purple.  It 
came  from  ORLOFF  by  a  plicata  seedling  of  which  I  have  no 


29 


record.  ROSE  TOP  (H.  P.  Sass  1943)  is  a  large,  well  propor¬ 
tioned  flower  of  creamy  white,  heavily  patterned  with  rose  pink. 
The  standards  have  an  almost  all  over  stippled  and  veined  effect; 
the  falls  a  more  definitely  bordered  pattern.  It  is  from  a  seed¬ 
ling  of  RAMESES  X  EL  TOVAR,  by  TIFFANY. 

An  interesting  phase  of  plicata  breeding  is  the  appearance 
among  them  of  two  toned  yellows  of  the  ELSA  SASS  type.  When 
Mr.  Hans  Sass  crossed  TIFFANY  and  ORLOFF,  he  expected 
heavily  marked  yellow  ground  plicatas,  and  most  of  the  seedlings 
were.  But  among  them  were  several  clear  lemon  yellows,  free  from 
any  typical  plicata  markings,  but  with  lighter,  nearly  white  areas  in 
the  center  of  the  falls.  The  best  one  of  these  he  named  ELSA 
SASS  (H.  P.  Sass  1939).  A  few  years  before  this  Jacob  Sass  had 
a  seedling  from  WAMBLISKA  X  RAMESES  which  he  named 
DORE  (J.  Sass  1935).  It  is  a  light  yellow  with  a  touch  of  deeper 
yellow  at  the  edge  of  the  falls.  This  he  crossed  with  SIEGFRIED 
and  got  his  GOLDEN  FLEECE  (J.  Sass  1940)  which  is  similar 
in  coloring  to  ELSA  SASS  but  is  larger  and  has  a  somewhat 
deeper  and  more  pronounced  yellow  border  on  the  falls.  In  1940 
we  found  a  two  tone  yellow  among  our  seedlings  from  HAPPY 
DAYS  X  MATULA.  It  is  a  light  creamy  yellow  with  a  very  nar¬ 
row  margin  of  deeper  yellow  on  the  falls  so  we  named  it  GILT 
EDGE  (Whiting  1941).  MATULA  comes  from  RAMESES  so 
may  inherit  this  tendency  to  border  effects.  Schreiner’s  MISTY 
GOLD  (Sch.  1943),  a  clear  lemon  yellow  with  a  border  of  darker 
yellow  on  the  falls,  is  from  TIFFANY  X  SIEGFRIED.  MOON¬ 
LIGHT  MADONNA  (J.  Sass  1943)  came  from  ELSA  SASS.  It 
is  of  similar  pattern  but  deeper  yellow  coloring.  MATTIE  GATES 
(Sass  Brothers  1946)  came  from  GOLDEN  FLEECE  by  a  seed¬ 
ling  of  two  yellow  plicatas.  It  is  a  beauty. 

Some  breeders  think  that  these  two  tone  or  bordered  yellows  of 
plicata  parentage  are  a  type  or  form  of  plicata  and  should  be 
classed  as  such.  It  all  depends  on  the  exact  definition  of  ‘plicata’ 
or  on  individual  interpretations  of  it.  Certainly  there  is  no 
‘feathered’  marking,  no  sanding,  dotting  or  stippling,  for  which 
some  of  us  may  be  thankful.  The  ‘plicata  factor’  is  still  somewhat 
of  a  mystery.  But  I  still  hope  to  see  a  white  or  cream  iris  with  a 
well  defined  feathered  edge  of  yellow.  I  think  it  would  be  lovely. 


30 


FAMILY  TREE— IRIS  BANDED  BEAUTY 


Tiffany 

(H.P.S. 

1938) 


[  #90-31 
|  (H.P.S. 
|  red) 

-I 


King  Tut 

(H.P.S. 

1925) 


Morning 

Splendor 

(Shull 

1923) 


f#48-38 

(H.P.S. 

plicata) 


Rameses 

(H.P.S. 

1929) 


Banded 

Beauty  ( 

(H.P.  Sass) 


33-38 

(H.P.S. 

plicata) 


[Alluwee 

(H.P.S. 

1932) 


Siegfried  ( 
(H.P.S. 

1936) 


Jubilee 

Seedling 


Nebraska 

(H.P.S. 

1929) 


128-34 

(H.P.S 

yellow 

blend) 


( Rameses 

|  (H.P.S. 

|  1929) 

i 

■> 

I 

|  #19-29 
[H.P.S. 


El  Tovar 

(H.P.S. 

1933) 


[Old  Gold 
(H.P.S. 
1929) 


Trojana 
Col.  1887) 


f#40  H.P.S. 

J 

|  #30-28 
[(H.P.S.) 


Orloff 

(H.P.S. 

1938) 

Amenti 

(H.P.S. 

1936) 


[Rameses 

|  (H.P.S. 

| 1929) 

) 

Midgard 

(H.P.S. 

1926) 


[#40 

j  (H.P.S.) 

#100 

[(H.P.S.) 


Trojana 
(Col.  1887) 

j 

Lent  A. 
Williamson 
Wmsn.  1918) 


King  Tut 
(H.P.S. 

1925) 

Baldwin 

(H.P.S. 

[1926) 


Midwest 

(H.P.S. 

1923) 


#2  H.P.S. 


[Midwest 
I  (H.P.S. 
|1923) 

j 


[King  Tut 
|  (H.P.S. 

| 1925) 

|  Cardinal 
|  (Bliss 
[1919) 


[Afterglow 
I  (Sturt 
|1917) 


31 


Plicata 

Banded 

Beauty 


PLICATA  BREEDING 
By  Kenneth  D.  Smith 

■  My  plicata  breeding  may  be  divided  into  four  distinct  lines 
with  the  original  crosses  made  as  follows : 

Cross  1.  (Andante  x  Dauntless)  x  Nene. 

Cross  2.  Ariane  x  Mt.  Robson 

Cross  3.  ?  x  ? 

Cross  4.  Siegfried  x  Madame  Louis  Aureau 
It  will  be  noted  from  the  above  that  out  of  eight  possible  parents 
only  three  plicatas  were  used,  they  being  Siegfried  (H.  P.  Sass), 
Ariane  and  Madame  Louis  Aureau  (Cayeux).  In  the  second  gen¬ 
eration  Cayeux’s  Acropole  and  Florentine,  with  the  Sasses’  Bal- 
mung,  Orloff  and  Elsa  Sass  were  also  brought  in. 

For  those  parentage  minded  it  must  be  remembered  that  Elsa 
Sass  is  Tiffany  x  Orloff  and  Ariane  is  Chaldee  x  Fakir.  Chaldee 
is  a  white  plicata  with  blue  influence  and  Fakir  is  a  blue  self  with 
pink  influence.  Madame  Louis  Aureau  is  Fakir  x  Ferdinand 
Dennis  and  this  latter  is  a  red  plicata  with  yellow  influence. 
Acropole  is  Fakir  x  San  Francisco  and  Florentine  is  Chaldee  x 


32 


Sigurd.  Unfortunately  I  can  find  no  record  of  Sigurd.  The  par¬ 
entage  of  Mt.  Robson  has  been  lost. 

Cross  1.  (Andante  x  Dauntless)  x  Nene.  Its  first  generation 
gave  Lord  Dongan,  Commando  and  seedling  B-103,  the  only  iris 
out  of  that  particular  cross  that  did  not  have  a  smooth  haft.  It 
had  what  I  called  plicata  leanings  for  it  was  dotted  or  stitched  to 
a  slight  degree.  For  the  second  generation  I  crossed  B-103  in  1939 
with  Ariane  and  in  1941  seedling  1-31  bloomed,  and  was  imme¬ 
diately  named  Use  Louise  in  honor  of  Mrs.  Smith. 

In  the  third  generation  three  seedlings  have  been  retained  under 
number,  a  brown  tan  plicata,  a  deep  purple  blue  plicata  and  a 
Madame  Maurice  Lasaillv  in  red  tones,  a  definite  drift  away  from 
plicata  leanings. 

Valentine  x  Florentine  also  produced  a  distinct  oddity.  The 
buds  before  opening  are  mauve,  yet  when  opened  the  flower  is 
white.  Sometimes  the  outer  edge  of  the  falls  shows  this  mauve 
coloring.  From  this  same  cross  came  Edith  Rorke  with  white 
background  and  the  plicata  markings  blue. 

Valentine  x  Orange  Glow  gave  me  Red  Witch,  a  brighter  but 
lighter  Christabel.  Elsa  Sass  x  Wood  Thrush  produced  Marion 
Vaughn,  the  only  seedling  worth  while  from  some  sixty  seedlings 
with  Elsa  Sass  blood  in  them.  1-46  x  Orloff  gave  a  red  plicata  on 
a  white  ground  and  also  a  pink  plicata.  More  of  the  Moonlit  Sea 
type  were  also  secured  by  crossing  1-14  with  Ariane,  and  from 
this  same  cross  came  many  of  the  Minnie  Colquitt  type. 

Ariane  x  Valentine  produced  a  heavily  marked  plicata  with  the 
crimped  edging  of  Matula.  But  it  had  no  garden  value  and  the 
stalks  would  not  grow  out  of  the  foliage. 

Mauve-lavender  plicatas  were  secured  by  2-16  (Siegfried  x 
Madame  Louis  Aureau)  x  Acropole. 

To  sum  up :  When  Siegfried  was  first  introduced  its  novelty 
caused  a  sensation  in  the  iris  world.  But  in  my  garden  it  lacked 
stamina  and  the  falls  twisted  in  an  objectionable  way.  These 
twisted  falls  were  also  found  in  other  of  the  Sass  plicatas  that  I 
used.  On  the  other  hand  the  Cayeux  plicatas,  while  lacking  the 
wide  range  of  colors  found  in  the  Sass  plicatas,  had  fine  form  and 
extremely  good  branching.  By  combining  these  two  strains  I  was 
fortunate  in  retaining  the  best  points  of  each. 

I  believe  there  is  quite  a  future  in  plicata  breeding.  But  the 
day  of  the  dull  drab  plicata  is  over  and  will  never  return.  Fanciers 


now  demand  plicatas  that  will  fit  into  the  garden  picture  and  this 
means  that  they  must  be  soft  in  color  so  as  not  to  clash  with  their 
neighbors.  People  should  in  the  future  be  able  to  say,  “I  like 
plicatas”  instead  of  "I  hate  plicatas,”  for  I  think  hybridizers 
nowadays  with  their  breeding  programs  are  securing  the  necessary 
results. 

Cross  2.  Ariane  x  Mt.  Robson,  a  most  interesting  cross.  First 
generation  seedlings  were  mostly  lavender  seifs  with  a  distinctive 
brown  haft  (similar  to  Lord  Dongan) • but  a  few  showed  faint 
plicata  markings.  One  of  these  crossed  by  seedling  1-58  (Siegfried 
x  Madam  Louis  Aureau)  (See  Cross  4)  gave  for  the  second  genera¬ 
tion  a  series  of  seedlings,  all  of  which  were  large  in  size,  all  plicatas, 
mostly  of  oriental  coloring  and  very  late  in  flowering.  Some  even, 
according  to  Robert  Allen,  appeared  to  be  plicata  inverts.  “The 
Jacob’s  coat  of  many  colors”  was  named  Wonderful,  and  the 
purple  plicata  invert,  Dongan  Hills. 

Third  generation  crosses  will  bloom  in  1947. 

Cross  3.  ?  x  ?  Why  guess  at  parentages?  But  I  am  sure  there 
were  no  plicata  parents!  Two  seedlings  were  numbered  in  the  first 
generation,  a  brilliant  yellow  plicata  with  narrow  falls  and  a 
white  flush  below  the  beard,  while  the  latter  was  nearly  a  dupli¬ 
cate,  but  perhaps  a  trifle  duller  by  comparison.  Both  just  made 
the  grade  as  plicatas.  Some  more  technically  minded  might  perhaps 
classify  them  in  the  group  with  Golden  Fleece. 

The  second  generation  came  through  as  follows :  A  brilliant 

glowing  Golden  Fleece  but  lacking  in  stamina;  Lovely  Melody 

(1-29  x  Balmung)  and  Golden  Days.  The  haft  extremely  wide, 

the  orange  beard  massive  and  the  falls  appear  to  be  washed  with 

«> 

gold. 

Plicata  breeding  necessarily  does  not  have  to  be  carried  on  so 
so  that  only  plicatas  are  produced.  Plicatas  may  increase  the  bril¬ 
liancy  of  already  existing  colors  or  secure  new  colors. 

Cross  4.  Siegfried  x  Madame  Louis  Aureau.  Two  of  the  first 
generation  seedlings  were  named  Valentine  and  Wood  Thrush. 
These  were  mostly  conventional  plicatas,  usually  with  reddish  or 
brownish  markings,  and  all  have  now  been  discarded.  All  seed¬ 
lings  from  this  cross  were  plicatas. 

In  the  second  generation  Valentine  x  Florentine  gave  a  Moonlit 
Sea  type  done  in  light  blue  and  yellow.  It  in  turn,  selfed,  gave 
Sea  Nymph,  a  clear  lemon  ice  self. 


34 


NOTES  ON  PLICATA  BREEDING 

By  Angus  Wilson 

I  first  started  breeding*  irises  in  quite  a  small  way  in  1935  and 
planted  out  two  short  rows  of  seedlings  in  the  vegetable  garden. 
They  were  mostly  crosses  from  Californian  varieties  I  had  im¬ 
ported  from  Mr.  Salbach.  When  they  bloomed  in  1936  a  very 
beautiful  flower  appeared  from  a  cross  between  King  Tut  and 
Esplendido.  It  was  the  first  “  sanded  plicata”  I  had  ever  seen — a 
cream  flower  sanded  with  purplish  maroon.  I  named  it  ODO;  it 
won  a  silver  medal  in  a  plicata  group  in  London  in  1938  and,  to¬ 
gether  with  another,  the  second  award  in  the  Rome  trials.  It  was, 
however,  sterile,  a  weak  grower  and  subsequently  died  out.  I  am 
sure  it  cannot  have  survived  the  bombardment  of  Rome! 

At  about  this  time,  however,  the  sanded  plicata  seems  to  have 
emerged  simultaneously  in  England,  France  and  America.  Cay- 
eux’s  new  catalogue  arrived  and  I  read  that  a  heavily  sanded 
French  plicata  named  Madame  Louis  Aureau  had  won  the  Dykes 
medal.  It  was  20  dollars  a  root — a  high  price  for  English  gar¬ 
deners.  However  I  risked  the  twenty  dollars  and  was  amply  re¬ 
warded  for  it  was  from  Madame  Louis  Aureau  that  all  my  sanded 
plicatas  of  the  best  quality  came.  I  found  that  the  plicata  charac¬ 
teristics  of  this  flower  reappeared  when  it  was  used  as  a  seed  or 
pollen  parent  in  crosses  with  other  plicatas,  and  produced  plicatas 
of  high  quality.  I  mated  it  mostly  with  an  obvious  parent —  Sacra¬ 
mento — and  produced  a  whole  set  of  sturdier  and  quite  hardy 
variations  of  this  lovely  old  flower;  and,  secondly,  with  another 
good  American,  Mary  Geddes.  Rather  surprisingly  this  cross  also 
produced  innumerable  plicatas,  more  varied  and  interesting  in 
color  and  markings — DORA  MORRIS,  a  white  ground  streaked  and 
stippled  maroon :  CEDRIC  MORRIS,  rather  similar  but  with  a 
yellow  ground  color:  TARANAKI,  a  cream  flower  intricately 
sanded  with  Indian  red,  and  many  more.  My  friend  Cedric  Morris 
was  staying  with  me  when  they  flowered  and  urged  me  to  show 
them  at  the  Iris  Show  in  London  in  1938.  Rather  diffidently  I  did, 
and  was  astonished  to  receive  a  silver  medal.  (It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  when  discussing  these  flowers  with  Professor  Mitchell 
at  Berkeley  he  said  he  was  sure  that  Mary  Geddes  had  plicata 
blood.) 


35 


Then  the  war  came  and  I  was  obliged  to  turn  my  garden  into  a 
market  garden  to  grow  food  for  local  shops  and  canteens.  I  re¬ 
gretted  it  bitterly  but  as  far  as  the  development  of  the  iris  in  its 
plicata  forms  is  concerned,  it  was  probably  a  godsend.  Mine  was 
beginners  luck,  but  now  Cedric  Morris,  a  brilliant  breeder,  took 
up  the  reins  and  after  a  year  or  two  of  very  scientific  work  pro¬ 
duced  flowers  far  lovelier  than  mine,  and  by  now,  I  think,  has 
carried  the  creation  of  the  plicata  iris,  in  all  its  engaging  forms  to 
what  I  personally  consider  the  highest  degree  of  perfection. 

■  In  the  foregoing  article  on  Plicatas  by  Professor  Mitchell,  men¬ 
tion  is  made  of  the  BENTON  series,  Mr.  Morris  writes  as  follows 
concerning  the  approach  he  has  used  in  the  problem  of  producing 
plicatas;  “I  am  afraid  you  will  find  these  notes  irritatingly  un¬ 
scientific  and  probably  of  no  use  to  you.  About  twelve  years  ago 
I  crossed  Sacramento  and  Golden  Hind  and  got  a  series  of  yellow 
seifs  and  bad  bronzes.  I  discarded  all  of  these  except  one  yellow 
self  and  this  I  crossed  back  to  Sacramento.  The  result  was  more 
yellows,  bronzes  and  one  variegata.  On  two  of  the  yellows  I  put 
Mary  Geddes — the  results  were  more  yellows,  bronzes  and  two 
near  yellow  plicatas.  These  near  plicatas  were  crossed  together 
and  the  result  back-crossed  to  their  yellow  parents.  The  resulting 
seedlings  were  then  crossed  together  until  I  got  some  real  yellow 
plicatas.  Eventually  I  got  a  line  producing  75%  yellow  plicatas 
which  I  was  breeding  for.77 

That  Mary  Geddes  carried  the  factor  for  plicata  has  long  been 
apparent.  Plicatas  were  constantly  appearing  in  Mr.  Washington’s 
seedling  patch,  presumably  from  the  Mary  Geddes  influence.  In 
1939  this  writer  bloomed  a  cross  of  Soldano  X  China  Clipper. 
Soldano  is  a  red  blend  derived  from  the  Mary  Geddes  line  and 
China  Clipper  a  yellow,  reverse  bicolor  with  faint  plicata  mark¬ 
ings  at  the  haft.  It  also  stems  from  Mary  Geddes.  The  cross  pro¬ 
duced  better  than  50%  cream  ground  plicatas  with  red-purple 
markings  and  the  reverse  bi-colors  with  plicata  markings,  in  about 
equal  proportions.  One  of  the  latter,  subsequently  named  Star- 
bright,  was  crossed  with  Athala,  (Cayeux)  and  this  union  pro¬ 
duced  around  90%  plicatas.  The  bluest  of  these  seedlings  was 
crossed  with  Blue  Shimmer  giving  100%  pure  white  ground 
plicatas. 


36 


One  of  the  more  popular  plicatas  of  current  vintage  is  Snow 
Crystal  (Wills)  which  came  from  the  cross  (Sensation  X  Paulette) 
X  Narain,  a  cross  which  produced  approximately  3  plicatas  and 
27  blues.  When  crossed  with  Blue  Shimmer  only  plicatas  result — 
with  a  certain  percentage  of  pure  white  iris.  These  whites  are 
white  even  to  the  beard  and,  I  understand,  are  called  recessive 
whites,  differing  in  genetic  behavior  from  the  more  widely  known 
“dominant”  whites  derived  from  Kashmiriana. 

C4.  Douglas. 

■  No  resume  of  plicata  breeding  is  complete  without  mention  of 
the  three  fine  introductions  from  Mr.  Dave  Hall,  Firecracker, 
Royal  Scott  and  Tip  Top,  and,  the  very  different  variety  from 
Orville  Fay,  Fire  Dance.  The  two  red  and  yellow  combinations 
Fire  Cracker  and  Royal  Scott  stem  from  Sass  breeding,  in  fact 
the  latter  is  from  Orloff  x  Elsa  Sass.  Remembering  that  Elsa  Sass 
is  from  Tiffany  x  Orloff,  this  gives  an  insight  into  the  intensive 
line  breeding  that  has  produced  these  brilliant  colored  plicatas. 
Tip-Top  is  almost  a  reverse  bi-color.  The  stands  are  deep  blue 
and  the  falls  almost  white.  It  comes  from  two  Hall  seedlings. 

Mr.  Fay  tells  us  that  Fire  Dance  was  out  of  two  Hall  un-num- 
bered  seedlings,  both  of  which  came  from  the  cross  that  produced 
Firecracker.  It  is  a  most  unusual  plicata.  The  stands  are  rather 
heavily  marked  and  the  falls  are  dotted  around  the  margin.  The 
dots  are  so  closely  spaced  that  a  solid  band  has  been  formed  of 
some  half  inch  in  width  giving  a  sharp  contrast  to  the  cream 
colored  fall.  .  .  .  That  the  profound  influence  of  the  Sass  iris 
Tiffany  upon  the  breeding  of  yellow  plicatas  extends  far  and  wide 
is  further  evidenced  by  other  outstanding  introductions.  Suzette 
(Knowlton)  comes  from  Tiffany  x  Seduction  and  Tiffanja  (De- 
Forest)  stems  from  Tiffany  and  Naranja. — ED. 


ANNUAL  MEETING  1947 


By  Sam  Y.  Caldwell 

As  June  started  “busting  out  all  over/7  a  horde  of  rabid  iris 
bugs  began  theR  seasonal  migration.  Destination — Evanston,  Illi¬ 
nois,  and  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  American  Iris  Society. 

Many  of  the  250  enthusiasts  who  swarmed  toward  Chicago's 
north  shore  suburb  took  advantage  of  their  opportunity  to  visit 
notable  iris  collections  while  en  route.  At  Bluffton,  Indiana, 
growers  were  moaning  over  excessive  rains  and  cold  weather  that 
had  delayed  bloom  far  beyond  the  normal  period.  Mary  William¬ 
son,  however,  and  her  mother,  Mrs.  E.  B.  Williamson,  displayed 
both  delightful  hospitality  and  fine  irises  among  the  early  things 
that  were  flowering.  Daybreak’s  well  branched  stalks  rose  proudly 
above  the  green  lawn  at  the  rear  of  the  Williamson  home.  Mary’s 
own  Master  Charles  took  the  spotlight  when  he  unfolded  rich 
purplish  blossoms.  But  none  eclipsed  Sunny  Ruffles,  flowering 
perfectly  in  the  center  bed.  Plicata  fans  were  pleased  by  Tiffanja's 
heart  warming  performance. 

Just  outside  Bluffton,  Paul  Cook’s  remarkable  plantings  offered 
a  good  show  of  early  season  color.  Among  the  named  varieties 
and  selected  seedlings  growing  in  his  garden  beds,  a  deep  purple- 
black  iris,  tentatively  called  Sable  Night,  drew  most  attention. 

Throngs  roved  the  field  of  splendidly  grown  seedlings.  When 
two  visiting  firemen  discovered  a  common  interest  in  hybridizing 
they  would  squirt  intellectual  iris  talk  all  over  innocent  bystanders 
who  were  just  there  because  they  like  irises.  Thick,  juicy  poly¬ 
syllables,  like  “homozygosity,  epistatic, ”  and  “heterozygous”  were 
bandied  about  without  breaking  a  single  jaw.  Chromosomes  went 
down  for  the  count.  Characteristics  ebbed  and  flowed,  now  re¬ 
cessive,  now  dominant.  Awed  listeners  went  home  to  muse  over 
tetraploids  with  tangerine  beards  and  dream  of  genes  with  light 
brown  hair.  It  was  altogether  fascinating. 

Among  the  Cook  seedlings  were  pinks  and  blends  and  numerous 
blues  of  superior  quality.  Paul  himself  moved  slowly  with  critical 
eye  through  the  long  rows  and  rarely — very  rarely — stopped  to 
attach  a  label  and  a  number  to  a  stalk  that  appeared  to  “have 
something."  “Tag  it  today  and  take  it  off  tomorrow,”  was  his 
resigned  comment. 


38 


Most  unusual  were  three  rows  containing  hundreds  of  deep 
purple  to  near  black  blossoms,  and  visitors  vied  with  each  other 
in  trying  to  select  “the  blackest.”  Acknowledged  champion  at 
the  time  I  saw  the  planting  was  a  brown  bearded  specimen  with 
the  rest  of  the  flower  seemingly  constructed  of  black  velvet.  It 
should  have  value  as  an  outstanding  novelty.  I  predict  that  when 
a  dark  iris  comes  into  your  future  it  will  be  from  the  amazing 
iris  factory  of  Bluffton’s  Paul  Cook. 

The  E.  G.  Lapham  garden  at  Elkhart,  Indiana,  was  small  but 
full  of  bloom.  A  fine,  full-flowered  clump  of  L.  Merton  Gage  pro¬ 
claimed  it  as  a  truly  top  notch  variety.  Cristabel,  too,  gave  a  good 
account  of  itself,  and  a  brilliant  Red  Gleam  was  in  the  eye  of 
every  visitor.  The  Lapham  field  planting,  at  nearby  Wakarusa, 
likewise  carried  a  generous  blanket  of  color.  Of  particular  interest 
were  numerous  flowering  plants  marked  as  having  also  bloomed 
last  fall. 

Not  far  away,  at  Middlebury,  Indiana,  the  hillside  garden  of 
Walter  Welch  exhibited  superbly  grown  named  varieties  and  a 
sizable  patch  of  seedlings.  Mr.  Welch  is  interested  in  producing 
orange  colored  irises.  In  addition  to  hybridizing  tall  bearded  sorts 
he  works  with  the  dwarfs,  of  which  he  has  hundreds  of  seedlings 
coming  along. 

Out  in  Iowa  there  was  not  merely  rain  and  cold  but  actually 
two  inches  of  snow. just  a  week  before  Mrs.  Charles  G.  Whiting 
began  to  welcome  guests  into  her  garden  at  Mapleton.  But  Old 
Man  Winter's  hopes  of  spoiling  the  iris  show  went  up  in  smoke 
when  Mr.  Whiting  burned  120  gallons  of  oil  in  improvised  smudge 
pots.  The  named  varieties  were  saved,  though  many  seedlings 
perished. 

Young  M.  E.  Long,  son  of  the  well  known  “J.  D.,”  of  Boulder, 
Colorado,  told  me  of  seeing  wonderful  bloom  on  the  Whiting  irises 
on  June  5.  He  was  most  impressed  by  Rocket,  Blue  Rhythm  and 
a  smooth  red  seedling.  “Some  of  the  cold-damaged  seedlings,” 
he  added,  “were  carrying  late  buds  and  might  still  give  a  fair 
display  of  bloom  this  season.” 

Meanwhile,  in  Evanston  there  was  much  apprehension  lest  the 
convention  days  arrive  with  everything  ready  except  irises.  Nature 
had  turned  a  cold,  damp  shoulder  on  this  community,  much  as 
she  had  treated  other  sections.  Plants  looked  wonderful  and  were 


39 


loaded  with  buds.  It  appeared,  however,  that  none  would  open 
in  time. 

But  just  as  the  swallows  always  arrive  in  Capistrano  on  sched¬ 
ule,  so  did  the  flamingos  show  up  in  Dave  Hall ’s  garden  on  June  7 
to  herald  the  opening  of  the  Annual  Meeting.  Everyone  was 
happy. 

Iris  fans  breezed  about  the  North  Shore  and  Orrington  hotels, 
renewed  old  acquaintances,  made  new  ones  and  discussed  every¬ 
thing  from  Amigo  to  Zwanenburg.  After  Saturday  morning  reg¬ 
istration  at  the  North  Shore,  the  busy  two-day  program  got  under 
way.  From  bus  and  private  car  guests  poured  into  David  Hall's 
garden  in  AVilmette,  overflowed  into  his  “Back  40”  and  then  into 
the  “Back  80.”  AVhile  bloom  was  not  abundant,  the  open  flowers 
were  of  high  quality  and  pleased  the  visitors.  Chief  interest  cen¬ 
tered  on  two  of  Mr.  Hall’s  famous  pinks,  still  under  number 
(46-14  and  46-16),  and  on  Guy  Rogers,  affable  ambassador  from 
the  great  Southwest,  complete  in  Texas  boots.  After  all,  it  did 
rain  for  a  few  minutes  that  morning — about  equal  to  the  annual 
precipitation  at  AVichita  Falls — and  Texans  are  allergic  to  wet 
feet. 

Among  the  seedlings  showing  color  were  several  in  attractive 
yellow-  or  buff-pink  hues.  “Peach  colored,”  is  what  some  ob¬ 
servers  called  them.  So,  perhaps  to  the  family  of  “Flamingo 
Pinks”  and  “Shrimp  Pinks”  will  be  added  new  relatives  known 
as  ‘  ‘  Peachy  Pinks.  ’  ’ 

Next  port  of  call  was  the  Evanston  home  of  A.  I.  S.  President, 
Dr.  Franklin  Cook.  Youthful,  enthusiastic  Dr.  Cook  has  planned 
his  garden  very  carefully,  using  flowering  trees,  trees  with  decora¬ 
tive  foliage,  French  hybrid  lilacs  and  other  deciduous  shrubs  along 
with  evergreens  as  background  for  beds  and  borders  in  which 
irises  are  featured.  Color  grouping  of  the  iris  varieties  has  been 
worked  out  for  pleasing  effect. 

Though  bloom  was  not  sufficient  to  paint  the  finished  picture, 
there  was  enough  color  to  make  the  garden  very  lovely.  Gloriole 
and  AVinter  Carnival  were  splendid  in  a  border  beside  the  house. 
A  stunning  three-blossom  “picture  stalk”  of  AVhite  AVedgewood 
grew  in  a  bed  on  the  east  lawn,  and  a  fine  clump  of  Mary  Arernon 
stood  against  the  neutral  green  of  a  large  red  cedar.  Above  the 
clump  on  either  side  of  the  cedar,  foliage  of  Purple-leaved  Plum 
repeated  some  of  the  bronzy-red  coloring  of  the  iris  flowers. 


40 


Across  the  street  from  Dr.  Cook's,  Orville  Fay  and  his  irises 
were  ready.  Sunny  and  somewhat  better  protected  from  winds 
than  the  other  plantings,  this  garden  offered  rather  plentiful 
bloom.  Great  splashes  of  yellow  adorned  the  clumps  of  Orville’s 
new  Xantha  (which  later  paid  off  handsomely).  Good  branching 
and  finely  formed  sugar-and-cream  flowers  distinguished  his  Desert 
Song,  and  Fire  Dance  made  a  striking  plicata.  The  bloom  on 
plants  of  Snow  Flurry  was  just  about  perfect. 

After  feasting  on  iris  beauty  and  lore  all  morning,  some  240 
guests  did  ample  justice  to  the  noontime  luncheon  served  at  the 
Michigan  Shores  Club.  Then,  since  it  had  not  been  possible  for 
everyone  to  cover  all  three  gardens  during  the  morning,  the  Hall, 
Cook  and  Fay  displays  were  visited  and  re-visited  throughout  the 
afternoon. 

The  Society ’s  Annual  Meeting  and  Dinner  took  place  at  6  ;30 
in  the  evening  at  the  North  Shore  Hotel.  After  an  excellent  dinner 
menu,  Junius  Fishburn,  of  Roanoke,  Virginia— chiefly  distin¬ 
guished,  he  claimed,  by  being  an  ex- vice  president  of  the  Society 
— directed  the  program  ably  and  pleasantly  through  the  evening. 

President  Franklin  Cook  told  the  audience  of  the  Society’s 
progress,  problems  and  plans.  A  dealers’  association,  he  feels,  will 
help  surmount  some  of  the  difficulties  now  confronting  commercial 
interests  in  the  iris  fancy.  Breeders  must  stress  hardiness  in  va¬ 
rieties,  so  that  gardeners  generally  will  use  irises  along  with  other 
hardy  perennials  in  planting  their  home  grounds.  A  simple,  work¬ 
able  system  of  classification  is  needed.  The  Scientific  Committee 
is  working  on  this  problem.  Regional  performance  ratings  are  in¬ 
valuable  to  people  who  want  to  know  what  varieties  are  most 
likely  to  succeed  in  their  own  gardens.  Such  ratings  will  be  offered 
Society  members  through  the  Bulletin.  The.  system  of  numerical 
rating  of  irises  has  been  suspended  for  the  time  being  because  of 
careless  judging. 

Dr.  Cook  spoke  of  the  Society’s  “growing  pains”— of  how  it  has 
reached  approximately  2,500  members.  He  expressed  appreciation 
to  Bulletin  Editor  Geddes  Douglas,  to  Secretary  Howard  R.  Wat¬ 
kins  and  the  staff  of  the  Washington  office,  and  to  committee  mem¬ 
bers  and  officers  who  give  many  hours  of  their  time  to  the  Society. 

Messrs.  Douglas  and  Watkins  made  informal  reports,  as  did 
the  Regional  Vice  Presidents  in  attendance,  who  were  introduced 
bv  Mr.  Fishburn. 


41 


Special  guest  and  speaker  of  the  evening  was  Mr.  Geoffrey  L. 
Pilkington,  President  of  The  Iris  Society  (England).  After  con¬ 
veying  greetings  from  our  fellow  iris  growers  in  England,  Mr. 
Pilkington  reviewed  the  advancement  that  he  has  noted  in  iris 
breeding  since  his  last  visit  to  this  country  in  1939.  Immense 
progress,  he  believes,  has  been  made.  Yellows  and  whites  are  now 
excellent,  and  breeders  might  well  move  on  to  something  else.  The 
pinks  are  a  most  remarkable  development.  But  we  need  more  good 
blues,  he  feels,  and  more  work  can  be  done  on  reds.  Also  there 
is  room  for  a  better  purple — one  without  the  striation  of  present 
day  varieties. 

‘ ‘ Plicatas, ’ 5  he  said,  “are  becoming  a  disease. ”  He  is  not  al¬ 
together  happy  about  them.  People  are  calling  things  “plicatas” 
that  he  is  not  accustomed  to  recognize  under  that  name.  The 
plicated  or  stitched  edges  that  distinguished  older  varieties  are 
not  evident  on  some  of  the  new  introductions.  “Something  must 
be  done,”  he  concluded. 

Mr.  Pilkington  brought  news  to  the  audience  of  the  award  by 
The  Iris  Society  of  its  Foster  Memorial  Placque  to  America ’s  great 
Mid-West  hybridizers,  the  late  Jacob  Sass  and  his  brother,  Hans. 
Most  touching  scene  of  the  meeting  occurred  when  Mr.  Fishburn 
introduced  Hans  Sass  and  the  entire  audience  stood  in  tribute  to 
this  talented,  pioneer  plantsman  whose  work  has  contributed  so 
much  to  the  beauty  of  gardens  here  and  abroad. 

On  behalf  of  the  American  Iris  Society,  Mr.  Fishburn  then  pre¬ 
sented  the  Medal  for  Distinguished  Service  to  Jesse  Wills,  Nash¬ 
ville,  for  his  faithful  service  as  President  of  the  Society  during  the 
difficult  war  years. 

The  Medal  for  Hybridizing  was  given  to  Kenneth  Smith  in 
appreciation  of  outstanding  iris  varieties  that  he  has  produced  at 
his  Staten  Island  gardens. 

“Dirt  Gardener”  Harry  R.  O’Brien  spoke  entertainingly  on 
the  need  of  irises  for  Josephus  Dokes,  the  average  backyard  gar¬ 
dener.  And  Better  Homes  and  Gardens’  Fleeta  Brownell  Wood- 
roffe  brought  good  news  concerning  a  control  for  the  bugaboo  iris 
borer. 

Dr.  L.  F.  Randolph,  Chairman  of  the  A.  I.  S.  Scientific  Com¬ 
mittee,  reported  briefly  on  the  work  of  the  committee  toward  a 
solution  of  the  classification  problem. 

Election  returns  always  bring  an  air  of  excitement,  so  the  final 


42 


event  of  the  evening — presentation  of  the  President  \s  Cup — was 
eagerly  awaited.  In  accordance  with  rules  of  competition  for  the 
new  award,  ballots  had  already  been  cast  by  attendants  at  the 
meeting. 

“This  cup,”  explained  the  donor,  Dr.  Cook,  “goes  to  the  origi¬ 
nator  of  the  most  outstanding  named  variety  of  any  duly  intro¬ 
duced  iris  (not  necessarily  a  new  one)  seen  at  the  time  of  the 
Annual  Meeting  growing  in  any  garden  on  the  program,  and 
judged  by  members  of  the  A.  I.  S.  attending  to  be  the  most  meri¬ 
torious  iris  seen  at  the  meeting.  Unintroduced  seedlings  are  not 
eligible. 

“The  original  cup  shall  be  held  by  each  annual  winner  for  one 
year  only,  until  some  hybridizer  shall  receive  the  award  three 
times,  when  it  will  pass  into  his  permanent  possession. 

“A  small  replica  of  the  original  cup  will  be  donated  to  each 
annual  winner,  suitably  engraved.” 

Tabulation  of  votes  revealed  the  people’s  choice  to  be  Xantha, 
showy  yellow  iris  in  Orville  Fay’s  garden.  Dr.  Cook  passed  the 
handsome  cup  to  his  proud  neighbor.  Dave  Hall’s  marvelous  pink 
Cherie,  handicapped  by  having  only  a  few  flowers  open  at  the  far 
end  of  the  “Back  80”  and  missed  by  many  visitors,  nevertheless 
took  second  place.  Fay  scored  again  when  his  Desert  Song  ranked 
third. 

Sunday  morning  brought  a  treat  to  those  who  like  gardens  in 
which  irises  are  harmoniously  associated  with  other  perennials. 
Mrs.  Fred  Glutton’s  interesting  and  beautiful  gardens  at  Highland 
Park  displayed  irises  in  plantings  with  various  perennials  and 
shrubs  on  a  hillside  slope  where  outcropping  stones  contributed 
to  the  naturalistic  effect. 

The  home  of  Elmer  Claar  in  a  woodland  setting  at  Northfield 
had  a  relatively  new  garden  but  one  containing  a  wide  variety 
of  plant  materials.  While  admiring  the  irises,  the  tulips,  the 
azaleas  and  gorgeous  tree  peonies,  you’d  decide  that  it  would  be 
nice  to  get  over  to  Elmer’s  earlier  in  the  season  for  a  glimpse  of 
the  spring  wildings  and  also  later  in  the  summer  to  marvel  over 
one  of  the  finest  daylily  collections  in  the  country. 

Sunday  afternoon  the  official  program  of  the  A.  I.  S.  Annual 
Meeting  came  to  a  close  as  guests  called  for  tea  and  a  final  inspec¬ 
tion  of  the  garden  at  the  hospitable  Hall  home. 

But  a  goodly  number  hesitated  to  say  goodbye.  Bashful  iris 


43 


buds  that  had  refused  to  open  with  crowds  around  now  began  to 
flaunt  their  standards.  Monday  morning  the  "holdover”  guests 
were  well  rewarded.  Orville  Fay’s  place  was  what  garden  writers 
like  to  call  a  riot  of  color.  Countless  "Oh’s”  and  Ah’s”  wTere 
breathed  and  yards  of  Kodachrome  film  were  shot  at  the  color 
pageant  of  Dr.  Franklin  Cook.  And  the  Hall  irises  were  "in  the 
pink.”  Perhaps  Cherie  was  best,  but  Radiation,  a  soft  lavender- 
pink  self  with  glowing  tangerine  beard,  was  distinctly  different 
and  desirable. 

Centrally  located  Evanston,  community  of  fine  homes,  beautiful 
trees,  green  lawns  and  well  kept  gardens,  proved  to  be  an  ideal 
spot  for  the  Annual  Meeting.  All  our  thanks  are  due  the  local 
officers  Of  the  Society  whose  careful  planning  and  generous  hos¬ 
pitality  made  the  event  a  success. 

While  many  attendants  were  from  the  Chicago  area  and  neigh¬ 
boring  Indiana  points,  it  was  heartening  to  see  that  fine  irises  still 
have  a  magnetic  appeal  that  packs  ’em  in  from  all  over.  Mrs. 
Harry  Bickle  came  down  from  Toronto.  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Robert  J. 
Graves  were  in  from  Concord,  N.  II.,  and  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Walter  E. 
Tobie  arrived  from  away  down  East  in  Portland,  Me.  Boston 
and  vicinity  were  represented  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Thomas  Nesmith. 
Mrs.  L.  J.  (Louise)  Blake  came  up  from  her  well  known  "Hall  of 
Fame”  garden  at  Three  Oaks,  Spartanburg,  S.  C.,  and  Mrs.  Revel 
and  Mrs.  Avent  attended  from  Grenada,  Miss.  Texas  was  well 
represented  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Guy  B.  Rogers.  Another  South- 
westerner,  Eleanor  Hill,  complete  with  Exacta,  exposure  meters 
and  filters,  arrived,  not  from  her  Tulsa  home  but  all  the  way 
from  Porto  Rico.  From  the  Golden  State  came  Mrs.  George  Pol¬ 
lock,  of  Sacramento,  and  the  long  trip  from  the  Pacific  Northwest 
was  made  by  Bob  Cooley,  Fred  DeForest,  Mrs.  Edna  C.  Weed, 
Wilbur  W,  Weed  and  part-time  Northwesterner  Bob  Schreiner. 


44 


POSTMAN’S  HOLIDAY  (TEXAS  AND  LOUISIANA) 

By  Geddes  Douglas 

|  Mr.  L.  H.  Beck  of  Griffin,  Ga.,  has  collected  a  series  of  de¬ 
lightful  myths  concerning  Iris  as  the  messenger  of  the  Gods.  One 
of  these  deals  with  a  visit  by  Iris  to  the  cavern  of  Somnus,  in 
which  Iris,  having  been  given  a  rainbow  as  a  scarf,  flung  it  across 
the  sky  and  ran  down  the  rainbow  to  the  cave  of  utter  darkness. 
As  Iris  stepped  inside,  her  brilliant  robes  lit  the  gloom  and  so 
startled  Somnus  that  he  sent  Morpheus  to  carry  a  vision  to  Hal¬ 
cyon  at  Iris’  bidding. 

I  thought  of  this  lovely  myth  as  the  flagship  ‘ t  City  of  Memphis  ’  ’ 
carried  me  along  a  path  of  billowy  clouds  brilliantly  colored  by  the 
rainbow  hues  of  the  setting  sun.  I  was  unable  to  emulate  Iris 
any  further  however,  for  as  we  descended  into  Dallas  darkness 
followed  close  behind  and  Bolie  Cochran  had  to  turn  on  his  flood 
lights  for  my  first  look  at  iris  in  1947.  An  expanding  airport  swal¬ 
lowed  the  Cochran  home  during  the  war  years,  and  the  current 
planting  in  the  new  home  is  smaller  than  the  old  but  contains  many 
fine  varieties  as  well  as  some  outstanding  seedlings.  Tiffanja  and 
Elmohr  made  gorgeous  clumps  as  did  Remembrance  and  Nightfall. 
Snow  Flurry  and  Cloud  Castle  were  in  full  bloom  and  the  show 
clump  of  the  garden  was  an  old  timer — you  have  guessed  it,  none 
other  than  Los  Angeles! 

The  following  morning  (April'  23rd) .  I  saw  my  first  case  of 
“  pine-appling,  ”  a  new — at  least  to  this  writer — disease  affecting- 
iris.  It  is  described  elsewhere  in  this  issue,  but  it  is  sufficient  to 
say  that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  lightly.  It  is  becoming  serious  in  the 
Southwest,  and  the  answer  to  it  is  not  yet  at  hand.  We  visited  the 
garden  of  Dr.  Sydney  Baird  where  we  saw  good  bloom  on  Pink 
Ruffles,  Spindrift,  Golden  Eagle  and  Lady  Mohr.  Our  visit  was 
a  week  early  to  see  the  doctor’s  seedlings.  Our  next  stop  was  at  the 

A.I.S.  JUDGES  AT  WICHITA  FALLS ,  TEXAS 

Front  Row:  Mrs.  Guy  Y.  Williams ,  Mrs.  A.  M.  Tallmon ,  Mrs.  W.  R. 
Jordan ,  Mrs.  W.  K.  Rose ,  Mrs.  S.  W.  Ray ,  Mrs.  R.  W.  Wallace ?  Mrs. 

Hally  B.  Hampton,  W.  L.  Cochran. 

Back  Row :  Guy  Rogers,  Geddes  Douglas,  Miss  Eleanor  Hill,  Mrs. 

H.  M.  Muse,  Joe  C.  Benson,  Mrs.  Preston  A.  Childers. 


45 


beautiful  hillside  garden  of  Dr.  Ben  Berger.  Dr.  Berger’s  iris 
were  just  beginning  to  open  for  being  rather  shady  his  garden 
appeared  to  be  a  day  or  two  behind  the  others  which  we  saw. 

We  found  Mrs.  William  Benners  and  Mrs.  G.  R.  Scruggs  in  the 
lovely  Benners’  garden  and  passed  a  delightful  half-hour  before 
setting  out  for  Fort  Worth  and  the  garden  of  Mrs.  W.  K.  Rose. 
The  Rose  Garden  boasts  a  wonderful  collection  of  new  varieties 
but  easily  the  most  outstanding  clump  in  the  garden  was  a  mag- 
nificant  display  of  Lady  Mohr.  Some  people  like  this  iris  and  some 
do  not.  Personally  I  find  its  form  delightful  and  its  color  slightly 
uninteresting,  but  the  fact  remains  that  over  the  South  and  the 
Southwest  where  this  writer  has  seen  it,  this  iris  has  given  a  uni¬ 
formly  satisfactory  performance. 

A  delightful  garden  party  was  in  progress  when  we  arrived  at 
Mrs.  Rose’s.  Delicious  refreshments  were  served  which  your  cor¬ 
respondent  thoroughly  enjoyed,  for  not  even  iris  has  ever  inter¬ 
fered  with  my  appetite,  and  thus  fortified  we  set  out  for  Wichita 
Falls.  This  is  a  trip  of  some  one  hundred  thirty-five  miles  across 
the  treeless  plains  of  north  Texas.  Only  the  feathery  first  growth 
of  the  mesquite  and  scattered  dwellings  break  the  monotony  of  the 
gently  rolling  landscape. 

The  beautiful  clouds  of  the  day  before  took  on  a  different  hue 
when  they  clung  lower  and  lower  and  finally  began  to  drip  on 
us  as  we  arrived  at  the  garden  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Guy  Rogers.  The 
rain  held  off,  fortunately,  until  some  fifty  guests  had  had  a  chance 
to  try  some  of  Mrs.  Roger’s  delicious  Mexican  food  served  at  an 
out-door  buffet  supper.  Cold  weather  had  delayed  the  opening  of 
many  iris  in  Judge  Rogers’  magnificent  collection,  but  many  were 
blooming  and  at  their  very  best.  This  writer  has  seen  most  of  the 
prominent  iris  gardens  in  the  eastern  half  of  the  United  States  but 
has  never  seen  iris  better  grown  than  those  in  Judge  Roger’s 
garden,  and  this  in  a  section  of  the  country  not  too  richly  endowed 
as  to  soil  nor  favored  with  a  propitious  climate.  Growth  was  mag¬ 
nificent;  bloomstalks  were  tall  and  sturdy.  Elsewhere  in  this  issue 
Judge  Rogers  gives  his  formula  for  fertilization  especially  adapted 
to  Texas  conditions. 

The  rain  which  missed  the  garden  party  completely  ruined  any 
possibility  of  looking  at  iris  on  the  24th,  the  day  of  the  first 
Regional  Meeting  of  the  newly  created  Region  Eighteen,  a  meeting 
which  we  believe,  will  offer  a  challenge  to  other  regions  for  some 


4G 


MATCHING  A  COLOR  AT  "BRIARWOOD” 

Lillian  Trichel,  Minnie  Colquitt ,  Ike  Nelson ,  Mrs .  Skoog,  Caroline 
Dormon,  Catherine  Cornay ,  Ray  Cornay ,  Marie  Caillet . 

'  J  '  '  1  '  ;f 

time  to  come.  There  were  tour  hundred  and  three  rabid  iris  fans 
at  the  banquet  which  we  believe  is  something  of  a  record.  Con¬ 
gratulations  are  certainly  in  order  to  Judge  and  Mrs.  Rogers  and 
to  Mrs.  Chester  Searls  and  Mrs.  Frank  Cullum  for  a  most  success¬ 
ful  meeting  which  directly  resulted  in  one  hundred  and  seven  new 
members  for  the  A.I.S. 

From  Wichita  Falls  we  motored  back  to  Dallas  and  there  I 
caught  the  plane  again  and  in  the  short  space  of  an  hour  or  so  I 
was  in  Shreveport,  La.  I  say  space  advisedly,  for  now  you  do  not 
measure  space  in  miles  but  rather  in  minutes.  If  you  share  with 
me  a  memory,  however  vague,  of  the  horse  and  buggy,  it  is  slightly 
bewildering  to  be  looking  at  iris  in  Bolie  Cochran’s  garden  just 
before  twelve  o’clock  and  at  one  thirty  be  looking  at  Mr.  Ed 
Dickinson’s  gorgeous  combination  of  iris  and  roses  in  Shreveport! 
Bloom  was  well  advanced  there,  China  Lady  was  putting  on  a 
fine  display  and  Yellow  Jewel  had  an  excellent  stalk  with  three 
flowers  out.  I  almost  burst  with  pride  when  I  saw  Chicory  Blue 
and  Titian  Lady  and  did  burst  when  I  saw  Extravaganza.  But  for 
a  different  reason.  There  it  sat,  and  had  been  sitting  for  two  years. 


47 


sulking  like  a  century  plant.  All  iris  do  not  do  well  in  Shreveport 
for  it  is  almost  at  the  southern  limit  of  the  Tall  Bearded  iris  zone. 
Derivatives  of  Mesopotamia  etc.,  grow  fine  but  the  variegata  sorts 
tend  to  be  shy  blooming. 

Shreveportians  can  well  be  choosey  about  their  Tall  Bearded  iris, 
for  in  the  gardens  of  that  city  is  the  most  representative  collection 
of  beardless  Louisiana  varieties  in  the  world.  No  one  garden  has 
them  all.  All  have  many.  There  is  a  wealth  of  new  seedlings  and 
several  deserve  mention.  Mrs.  W.  R.  Mathews  has  two  called  Delta 
Treasure  and  Delta  Magic.  The  first  is  of  that  lovely  shade  of  soft 
tanned  gold  peculiar  to  the  Abbeville  type.  Delta  Magic  is  a  red 
of  fine  form  and  good  carrying  power.  Mrs.  Alex  Smith  has  named 
a  new  one  Cajan  Surprise.  This  is  another  one  in  apricot  and  gold 
with  bright  yellow  style  arms.  Mrs.  C.  C.  Clark  has  a  noteworthy 
bicolor  from  Contrast  X  Mary  DeBaillon  which  has  light  wdne- 
pink  petals  (standards)  and  deeper  wine  red  sepals  (falls).  A 
new  creation  of  the  late  Mrs.  Ruth  Dormon  is  Coral  Gleam  which 
is  done  in  gold  and  salmon. 

From  Mrs.  Milton  Trichel  come  three  in  beautiful  rose-pink 
shades;  Lillian  Bouldin,  a  bright  pink  bi-tone  with  a  bright  signal 
patch ;  Emma  Sample,  medium  rose  self  with  prominent  gold  patch 

•  i  * 

and  Sibyl  Sample.  I  have  grown  Sibyl  for  two  seasons  in  Nash¬ 
ville  and  it  makes  a  lovely  clump.  It  opens  deep,  bright  rose  and 
immediately  fades  lighter  but  retains  its  brightness.  The  twrb 
shades  of  pink  make  the  clump  odd  but  attractive. 

Native  white  iris  are  a  specialty  with  Miss  Caroline  Dormon, 
artist,  botanist  and  naturalist  of  Saline,  Louisiana.  They  are 
planted  along  a  spring  branch  in  little  swampy  places.  No  effort 
is  made  at  a  “ garden,”  they  are  planted  as  nature  would  have 
planted  them.  Most  beautiful  of  all  is  lovely,  etherial  June  Clouds, 
with  its  delicately  serrated  standards.  Many  types  were  in  evi¬ 
dence — I.  virginica,  var.  Caroliniana,  giant  blue  gigantea  caeru- 
leas,  Abbeville  Reds,  a  beautiful  clump  of  New  Orleans,  a  large 
rose  pink  with  pointed  falls.  Her  farm,  Briarwood,  abounds  with 
every  known  tree  and  shrub  native  to  Louisiana — rare  things  and 
little  known.  One  half  of  the  famous  Mary  DeBaillon  collection 
of  beardless  iris  is  found  in  her  garden,  the  other  half  at  the 
Louisiana  State  University. 

e  too  early  to  see  Minnie  Colquitt’s  (of  plicata  fame) 
collection  of  collected  Foliosas.  These  iris  bloom  after  the  fulvas 


48 


and  the  hybrids.  Many  have  the  idea  that  a  species  is  always  the 
same  color.  This  is  not  true.  I  have  seen  great  fields  of  I.  foliosa 
in  bloom  and  nature  has  reached  into  the  sky  and  brought  down 
every  shade  of  blue  to  color  these  beautiful  flowers.  Unfortunately 
most  Louisiana  hybridizers  neglect  the  Foliosas  as  sources  of  gar¬ 
den  hybrids.  They  give  branching  to  their  offspring,  extend  the 
season  appreciably  and  most  important  of  all  they  give  clear, 
scintillating  blues,  the  most  usable  of  all  colors  in  the  garden. 

A  quick  look  at  Mrs.  Trichel’s  clump  of  snow  white  Yirginica 
was  a  fitting  climax  to  my  stay  in  Louisiana  and  three  hours  later 
I  was  in  my  garden  in  Nashville  looking  at  some  brand  new  pink 
bud  seedlings  just  opening  their  first  blossoms.  And  then  I  stopped 
to  think.  Here  I  have  been  writing  about  iris  all  winter,  planting 
seedlings  and  working  in  them  all  spring  and  then  at  the  first  op¬ 
portunity  I  tear  off  to  look  at  them  all  over  Texas.  But  a  postman 
never  has  so  much  fun  as  when  he  takes  a  “postman’s  holiday”! 


49 


SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  IRIS  TREK 
By  Carl  C.  Taylor 

I  shall  mention,  but  not  dwell  upon,  the  weather,  for  we  had 
perhaps  the  most  disappointing  season  in  years.  The  vagaries  of 
the  weather  veered  from  frost  on  April  3rd  to  temperatures  of 
105°  in  the  shade  soon  after,  then  an  unusually  late  “ Santa  Ana" 
which  is  a  north  wind  of  hurricane  proportions  which  lasted  four 
days,  followed  by  a  rain  and  hail  storm.  Notwithstanding  all  this, 
in  my  garden  there  was  continuous  bloom  on  the  tall  bearded  Iris 
for  three  months.  This  certainly  refutes  the  often  heard  remark 
that  the  Iris  season  is  too  short. 

The  first  visit  in  1947  was  to  the  interesting  garden  of  Clarence 
White  in  Redlands  where  the  oncos  and  the  oncobreds  provide  a 
joy  never  to  be  forgotten.  He  also  had  a  Tobacco  Road  seedling 
of  beautiful  rich  red  brown  color  which  is  fine  on  all  counts.  I 
think  it  is  to  be  called  “Your  Majesty. 77  Two  of  my  favorites 
among  the  oncobreds  are  “Nelson  of  Hilly”  and  “Some  Love.” 
The  former  is  taller  but  the  latter  is  just  as  beautiful.  What  ex¬ 
cellent  material  for  arrangements  is  found  among  the  oncobreds! 

In  Redlands  there  are  also  the  gardens  of  Mrs.  Barry  Diffle  and 
the  Rev.  E.  H.  Brenan,  the  latter  having  some  very  good  seedlings 
from  only  a  fewT  crosses. 

The  next  trip  was  to  the  commercial  gardens  of  Carl  Milliken 
at  Arcadia,  Miss  Elma  Miess  at  San  Fernando,  and  Mrs.  Mildred 
Lyon  at  Van  Nuys.  The  Milliken  display  garden  is  always  lovely, 
consisting  of  several  acres  with  the  Iris  beds  planted  among  live 
oaks  and  fine  flowering  trees  and  shrubs.  The  Syllmar  gardens  of 
Miss  Miess  consist  of  a  display  garden  nicely  laid  out,  but  being 
new  and  having  to  contend  with  unfavorable  weather,  was  not  at 
its  best.  Next  year  we  hope  to  see  it  in  all  its  glory.  Mrs.  Lyon’s 
garden  is  similar  to  the  Syllmar  gardens,  having  moved  to  its 
new  location  this  past  year. 

Next  at  Sherman  Oaks  we  visited  the  gardens  of  Mrs.  Pattison 
and  Mrs.  Ileimer.  Mrs.  Pattison  had  wonderful  growth  this  year 
but  very  little  bloom.  I  predict  a  grand  season  for  her  next  year. 
Mrs.  Ileimer ’s  was  the  outstanding  garden  of  the  year.  With  most 
of  the  newer  better  varieties  all  wonderfully  grown,  we  had  the 
pleasure  of  seeing  them  at  their  best. 


50 


I  am  trying  to  keep  away  from  varietal  comments  but  can't 
refrain  from  mentioning  Chivalry,  a  fine  blue  with  well  formed 
hower  and  excellent  stem.  Mrs.  Heimer  said  she  considered  Golden 
Ruffles  outstanding  and  she  had  a  magnificent  clump.  Mandalay, 
a  splendid  light  copper  color,  and  the  somewhat  similar  Bryce 
Canyon  were  fine.  Black  Banner  is  a  very  dark  red-purple  with 
large  flower  on  short  stem.  Amity  appears  to  be  one  of  the  best 
lavender  plicatas  with  nice  color  and  pattern  and  good  form. 

Quite  a  group  of  judges  assembled  at  Mrs.  Heimer ’s,  Mrs.  Stuet- 
zel,  Mrs.  Pattison,  Robert  Cooley,  Mrs.  Newcomb,  and  next  day 
we  were  joined  by  Mrs.  Burbridge,  Mrs.  Diffle,  Mrs.  Shank,  Miss 
Council  and  Mrs.  Cruise.  This  group  then  visited  the  garden  of 
Mrs.  Steutzel  at  Canoga  Park,  and  then  on  another  fifty  miles 
through  the  beautiful  Santa  Susana  pass  to  Marion  Walker’s  at 
Ventura.  Mrs.  Steutzel  has  a  fine  garden  with  many  of  the  best 
new  varieties.  At  Marion  Walker’s  we  were  most  interested  in  his 
seedlings  of  which  there  were  several  of  great  promise.  Among 
them  is  a  green  Dutch  Iris  which  will  surprise  the  Iris  world 
when  there  is  stock  enough  to  divide.  Another  is  a  splendid  Spuria 
S-l-47.  Some  of  his  tall  bearded  seedlings  for  this  year  look  good 
but  will  have  to  be  observed  another  season.  Among  his  named 
ones  is  Sky  Maid,  a  most  useful  medium  blue.  There  was  also  a 
splendid  clump  of  Esquire  (Loth.)  which  is  a  fine  dark  blue.  At 
noon  we  had  a  picnic  lunch  under  a  spreading  Winter  Nellis  pear 
tree  in  his  interesting  patio.  I  think  Marion’s  progress  in  the  Iris 
world  will  bear  watching.  He  is  a  young  man  in  his  early  thirties, 
is  a  Stanford  graduate  and  is  a  successful  lemon  orchardist  and 
has  the  enthusiasm  to  devote  his  spare  time  to  his  avocation  of 
breeding  Iris. 

We  ended  our  trek  in  the  extensive  garden  of  the  noted  artist, 
Torn  Craig  on  top  of  Mt.  Washington  in  Los  Angeles.  Here  in 
company  with  Prof.  Sydney  Mitchell  and  Prof.  Stafford  Jory  we 
examined  countless  numbers  of  seedlings,  many  of  which  were 
excellent.  We  shall  doubtless  hear  much  more  about  Tom’s  seed¬ 
lings  within  a  few'  years. 


51 


SOUTHERN  UNITED  STATES  IRISES— SPECIES 

AND  HYBRIDS 


By  George  M.  Reed 

Before  1920  only  six  species  of  Iris  were  listed  for  the  Southern 
Atlantic  and  Gulf  States,  all  of  which  had  been  known  for  more 
than  a  century. 

Iris  versicolor  L.  and  I.  virginica  L.  were  recorded  by  Linnaeus 
in  1753,  the  latter  species  being  described  again  by  Radius  in  1822 
under  the  name  of  I.  Carolina.  These  two  species  have  been  com¬ 
monly  confused.  At  the  present  time  I.  versicolor  is  common  in 
the  North  East  extending  south  to  Virginia.  I.  virginica  has  been 
considered  the  more  southern  of  the  two  and  is  listed  generally 
over  the  Southern  states.  Small  (1927)  described  I.  shrevei  as  a 
new  species  from  Farmington,  Arkansas.  Anderson  (1936)  re¬ 
cently  has  considered  this  iris  as  a  variety  of  I.  virginica  extending 
well  northward  into  Ontario,  Can.,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michi¬ 
gan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Missouri,  Kentucky,  and  Ten¬ 
nessee. 

The  third  species  listed  for  the  region  was  Iris  hexagona  Walter, 
who  recorded  it  in  1788.  It  is  commonly  considered  as  confined 
to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  although  it  may  extend  into  some 
of  the  Gulf  States. 

The  fourth  species  is  Iris  tripetala  Walter,  described  in  1788. 
This  species  is  very  different  from  the  others  found  in  the  southern 
region.  A  conspicuous  feature  is  the  greatly  reduced  petals  or 
standards,  in  this  respect  resembling  I.  setosa.  The  rhizome  is 
slender  and  widely  creeping  through  the  soil.  The  leaves  are  quite 
narrow,  about  one  foot  long.  The  flower  stalk  is  slender,  nearly 
erect,  about  one  and  one-half  feet  tall.  Usually  there  is  one  ter¬ 
minal  flower  and  sometimes  another  borne  below.  The  color  is  a 
bluish  purple,  varying  in  brightness,  deeper  colored  veins  are  evi¬ 
dent  and  there  is  a  conspicuous  yellow  zone  at  the  base  of  the  falls. 
The  plant  grows  in  the  low  pine  lands  of  the  Coastal  Plains  from 
North  Carolina  to  Florida  and  has  been  reported  from  Tennessee. 

The  fifth  species  described  was  Iris  fulva  by  Ker-Gawler,  in 
1812,  and  was  recorded  as  limited  locally  to  the  vicinity  of  New 
Orleans.  In  the  same  area  Pursh,  in  1814,  described  this  iris  under 
the  name  of  I.  cuprea.  Rafinesque  (1817)  listed  7.  rubescens,  his 


52 


description  being  based  on  an  earlier  account  of  Robin  (1807), 
who  described  in  some  detail  three  species,  all  of  which  were  named 
by  Rafinesque.  This  iris  is  now  known  to  have  a  wide  range  being 
found  in  southeastern  Missouri,  western  Tennessee,  southern 
Illinois  and  Ohio  (Waller,  1931).  In  some  of  the  more  northern 
areas,  however,  it  may  be  an  escape  from  a  garden  collection. 

The  sixth  species  recorded  was  Iris  brevicaulis  by  Rafinesque, 
in  1817,  a  fuller  description  being  given  in  1837.  In  1902  it  was 
recorded  by  Mackenzie  and  Bush  under  the  name  of  I.  foliosa, 
from  Jackson  County,  near  Independence,  Missouri.  It  is  widely 
distributed  along  the  larger  river  valleys  in  Arkansas,  Missouri, 
Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  as  well  as  Louisiana 
and  other  Gulf  States.  Small  (1927)  described  I.  flexicaulis  from 
the  western  Gulf  Region.  This  species,  however,  may  be  merely  a 
variant  of  I.  brevicaulis. 

There  are  three  other  species  known  from  the  upland  areas  of 
Tennessee,  Alabama  and  Georgia:  Iris  cristata  Aiton  (1789),  7. 
prismatica  Pursh  (1814),  and  7.  verna  L.  (1753). 

In  the  present  account  of  the  southern  iris  the  species  of  chief 
interest  belong  to  the  Ilexagona  group — Iris  brevicaulis  (I.  folio¬ 
sa),  7.  fulva,  and  7.  hexagona. 

In  1924,  Dr.  John  K.  Small  described  two  new  species  of  iris 
from  Florida — Iris  kimballiae  and  7.  savannarum.  These  were 
followed  in  1927  by  7.  flexicaulis  (mentioned  above),  7.  rivularis, 
7.  vinicolor  from  Louisiana,  and  7.  shrevei  from  Arkansas.  Further, 
in  1929,  7.  albispiritus  was  reported  from  Florida  and  six  new 
species  from  Louisiana — 7.  atrocynea,  7.  chrysaeola,  7.  chryso- 
phoenicia,  7.  giganticaerulea,  7.  miraculosa ,  and  7.  violipurpurea. 
Then,  in  1933,  Small  and  Alexander  recorded  ninety  species  of  the 
Hexagona-fulva  group,  which  included  those  mentioned  above  and 
seventy-eight  new  ones.  In  addition,  7.  prismatica,  7.  tripetala,  7. 
versicolor,  7.  virginica,  and  the  new  species  7.  shrevei  from  Arkan¬ 
sas,  as  well  as  the  yellow  flag  of  Europe,  7.  pseudacorus,  are  listed 
as  growing  in  the  general  region. 

This  amazing  increase  in  the  number  of  so-called  species,  with 
one  exception  Iris  shrevei,  belonging  to  the  Hexagonae,  aroused 
wide  spread  interest  in  the  iris  of  the  South.  Apparently  few 
people  knew  much  about  the  great  variation  of  the  southern  iris. 
The  question  then  arises,  Why  were  they  so  little  known  and  why 
had  not  the  botanical  and  horticultural  explorers  heralded  them 
far  and  wide? 


53 


The  description  of  so  many  new  species,  most  of  them  narrowly 
limited  in  their  distribution,  raised  questions  in  the  minds  of  many 
students  and  observers.  The  problem  of  these  irises  has  been  at¬ 
tacked  from  two  standpoints — hybridization  and  ecological  require¬ 
ments — and  the  information  secured  throws  much  light  on  the 
situation. 

Hybridization  in  the  Southern  Iris 

Extensive  studies  in  the  hybridization  of  Iris  fulva  with  other 
related  species  have  been  carried  out.  In  this  connection  two  points 
may  be  specifically  considered — the  flower  color  and  the  condition 
for  favorable  growth  of  the  iris. 

Southern  Iris  Flower  Color.  An  examination  of  the  falls  of  the 
iris  flower  reveals  that  the  cells  of  the  epidermal  or  surface  layer 
extend  outward  in  minute  projections,  or  papillae,  which  give  the 
surface  a  velvety  appearance.  In  the  base  of  these  epidermal  cells 
leucoplasts  may  be  present.  These  are  yellow  in  color  and,  if  no 
other  pigments  are  present,  are  responsible  for  the  yellow  color  of 
the  floral  parts.  The  small  crests  at  the  base  of  the  falls  have 
similar  epidermal  cells  which  contain  leucoplasts  and  account  for 
their  yellow  color.  The  same  is  true  of  the  yellow  lines  or  veins 
at  the  base  of  the  falls.  In  addition  to  the  leucoplasts,  other  pig¬ 
ments,  anthocyanins,  occur  in  solution  in  the  cell  sap,  which  may 
be  red  or  blue  in  color,  depending  upon  whether  the  cell  sap  is 
acid  or  alkaline  in  reaction. 

If  no  leucoplasts  are  present,  the  flower  color  is  blue  or  red,  the 
various  hues  and  tones  being  due  to  the  constitution  of  the  antho¬ 
cyanins,  as  well  as  to  the  thickness  of  the  sepals,  petals  or  other 
parts  of  the  flower.  The  presence  of  the  anthocyanins  and  leuco¬ 
plasts  give  rise  to  the  various  tones  of  orange  and  yellow.  In  Iris 
fulva  the  leucoplasts  and  red  anthocyanins  are  present  and  are 
responsible  for  the  characteristic  flower  color  of  this  species.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  most  of  the  cells  of  I.  foliosa  there  are  no 
leucoplasts  and  the  anthocyanins  are  blue. 

Conditions  of  Growth.  In  the  south,  conditions  are  favorable 
for  the  vigorous  growth  of  these  irises  in  contrast  to  the  situation 
in  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  and  other  northern  areas  which  are  not  nearly 
so  favorable.  The  plants  are  likely  to  be  injured  more  or  less  dur¬ 
ing  the  severe  winters  and,  even  when  they  do  survive,  they  do 
not  grow  as  vigorously  as  in  their  native  habitat.  However,  the 
stems  of  Iris  fulva  usually  extend  to  a  height  of  about  three  feet 


54 


and  I.  giganticaerulea,  three  feet  or  more.  I.  foliosa,  however, 
never  becomes  more  than  about  a  foot  tall.  Under  greenhouse 
conditions  the  plants  are  much  larger  and  more  vigorous  in  their 
growth.  First  generation  hybrids  between  I.  fulva  and  I.  gigan¬ 
ticaerulea  grew  to  be  five  or  more  feet  tall. 

Early  Work  in  Hybridization.  In  1925,  before  the  species¬ 
making  in  the  southern  iris  had  reached  the  flood  stage,  I  under¬ 
took  some  studies  of  hybridization  of  Iris  fulva  and  I.  foliosa 
following  the  earlier  work  of  Dykes  and  Williamson.  Dykes  (1913) 
pollinized  /.  fulva  with  pollen  from  I.  foliosa,  which  was  known 
at  that  time  as  I.  hexagona  variety  lamancei  Gerard  (1895).  The 
seed  was  planted  and  the  seedlings  flowered  in  1910.  One  of  the 
seedlings  was  named  Fulvala  and  a  color  illustration  appeared 
in  his  “The  Genus  Iris/’  Plate  21.  The  hybrid  is  a  compromise 
in  growth  characteristics  between  the  two  parents,  the  foliage 
neither  dying  away  entirely  in  autumn,  like  that  of  I.  foliosa,  nor 
remaining  green  and  of  considerable  length  like  that  of  I.  fulva. 
In  I.  foliosa  the  young  leaves,  in  the  fall,  are  only  about  an  inch 
long  while  those  of  I.  fulva  are  at  least  a  foot  in  length,  the  leaves 
of  the  hybrid  being  four  to  six  inches  long.  The  stem  was  more 
like  that  of  I.  fulva.  The  flowers  had  the  shape  of  I.  foliosa  with 
somewhat  more  rounded  segments.  The  color  was  distinctly  a  com¬ 
promise  between  the  terra  cotta  or  orange-red  of  I.  fulva  and  the 
blue-violet  of  I.  foliosa.  In  another  seedling  the  shade  of  color  was 
more  distinctly  a  blue-purple. 

E.  B.  Williamson,  in  1918,  introduced  the  variety  Dorothea  K. 
W illiamson,  obtained  from  pollinating  Iris  fulva  with  pollen  from 
[.  foliosa.  The  variety  is  a  vigorous  growing  plant  with  flowers 
approaching  the  shape  of  I.  foliosa,  but  rich  violet-purple  in  color. 
The  leaves  are  longer  than  those  of  /.  foliosa  and  the  stems  are 
taller,  up  to  two  and  one-half  feet,  and  bear  several  flowers,  which 
may  open  at  the  same  time.  The  stems,  however,  do  not  exceed 
the  leaves  in  height.  The  falls  remain  nearly  horizontal.  The 
standards  spread  out  in  about  the  same  plane  as  the  falls.  The 
flower  differs  from  Fulvala  in  that  the  falls  are  more  pointed  and 
a  bluer  tone  of  color.  The  color  matches  very  closely  the  Hyacinth 
Violet  of  Ridgway. 

Both  Fulvala  and  Dorothea  K.  Williamson  are  correctly  spoken 
of  as  first  generation  hybrids.  Apparently  neither  Dykes  nor 
Williamson  self-pollinated  their  hybrids  in  order  to  grow  the 


55 


second  generation,  which  is  the  one  in  which  segregation  occurs 
and  thus  would  be  expected  to  show  individuals  varying  greatly 
in  plant  characteristics,  including  flower  shape  and  color. 

In  1931  I  published  an  account  of  my  first  experiments.  In  1925 
Dorothea  K.  Williamson  was  pollinated  with  its  own  pollen  and 
good  viable  seed  was  obtained.  Four  seedlings  flowered  in  1928 
and  two  others  in  1929.  These  plants  belong  to  the  second  hybrid 
generation.  They  varied  in  their  growth  habits  but  the  most  strik¬ 
ing  differences  were  in  the  flower  shape  and  color.  Perhaps  the 
most  interesting  one  of  the  group  was  a  yellow  flowered  type.  Five 
of  these  were  described  and  illustrated  in  color  along  with  Iris 
fulva,  I.  foliosa  and  Dorothea  K.  Williamson,  the  first  generation 
plant. 

Miss  Grace  Sturtevant  (1933)  gave  an  account  of  the  work  of 
Mr.  T.  A.  Washington.  For  many  years,  beginning  before  1920, 
he  was  much  interested  in  the  iris  of  the  southern  Mississippi  River 
region,  collected  them  from  various  localities  and  grew  them  in 
central  Tennessee.  By  1920,  he  had  several  forms  of  Iris  foliosa 
and  7.  fulva,  some  of  which  were  secured  as  far  north  as  Tenn., 
as  well  as  northern  Miss.,  and  La.  lie  crossed  some  of  these  and 
obtained  forms  varying  greatly  in  flower  color,  growing  them  in 
his  garden  where  they  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention.  Around 
1930  several  of  his  varieties  were  introduced  by  Mrs.  Thomas 
Nesmith,  Fairmount  Gardens. 

Iris  fulva 

Color  Plates:  Ker-Gawler  (1812),  plate  No.  1496,  Dykes  (1921), 
plate  21,  Small  (1927),  plate  388,  Reed  (1931.) 

The  iris  was  first  described  by  Ker-Gawler  (1812)  as  “An  un¬ 
recorded  and  singular  species,  differing  from  any  known  to  us  in 
the  color  and  inflection  of  the  corolla.  Found  spontaneous  on  the 
Banks  of  Mississippi,  in  low  grounds  not  far  from  the  town  of 
New  Orleans.  Introduced  into  this  country  in  1811,  by  Mr.  Lyon, 
a  very  intelligent  and  industrious  collector  of  North-American 
plants.  Hardy.  Blossoms  in  June.  Seeds  freely,  and  is  easily 
propagated  by  dividing  the  rootstock. 7  7 

Two  years  later  Pursh  (1814)  described  the  same  plant  as  Iris 
cuprea,  again  referring  to  the  peculiar  color  of  the  flower,  stating 
that  it  was  found  k  ‘  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  near  New 
Orleans;  discovered  by  Mr.  Enslen,  collector  to  the  Prince  Lichten¬ 
stein  of  Austria.  Flowers  of  a  beautiful  copper  color,  veined  with 


56 


purple.  ’ ’ 

Dykes  (1913)  gives  the  distribution  of  the  species  as  the  imme¬ 
diate  vicinity  of  New  Orleans.  Small  (1927)  describes  it  as  form¬ 
ing  numerous  large  and  small  colonies  in  the  general  vicinity  of 
New  Orleans,  sometimes  occurring  in  practically  pure  stands. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Iris  fulva  is  rather  widely  distributed  in  the 
Mississippi  valley  occurring  in  the  swamps  of  southern  Illinois 
and  Missouri  to  Louisiana. 

There  is  no  definite  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  different  ob¬ 
servers  regarding  the  color  of  the  flower  of  Iris  fulva.  Some 
record  it  as  a  tone  of  Corinthian  red,  which  is  fairly  close  to  Pom¬ 
peian  red  but  somewhat  duller  due  to  the  greater  dilution  with 
gray,  or  as  terra  cotta,  but  this  is  a  duller  tone  than  in  the  usual 
flowers. 

Iris  fulva  in  Ridgway’s  (1912)  color  classification  belongs  in 
the  general  range  of  orange-red.  It  is  not  the  pure  mixture  of 
these  two  colors  but  somewhat  diluted  with  white  or  gray.  The 
color  of  the  flowers  in  some  plants  corresponded  to  the  Pompeian 
red,  which  is  a  mixture  of  orange  and  red  diluted  with  gray.  The 
flowers  of  other  seedlings  fitted  fairly  well  with  vinaceous  pink, 
Rhodonite  pink  or  pale  ochraceous  buff,  due  to  the  gray.  In  gen¬ 
eral,  the  color  of  the  standards  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  of  the 
falls;  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  are  thinner  in  texture  they 
are  somewhat  lighter  in  tone. 

The  leaves  are  two  to  three  feet  long,  greenish  yellow  in  color, 
and  tend  to  droop  over  at  the  upper  end.  The  flower  stems  are 
tall  and  slender,  up  to  three  feet  or  more,  and  bear  a  terminal 
cluster  of  flowers  well  above  the  recurving  leaves.  The  height  of 
the  stalk  and  length  of  the  leaves  vary  greatly  with  the  conditions 
under  which  the  plant  is  grown.  There  are  usually  two  terminal 
flowers  enclosed  in  unequal  bracts.  One  or  more  lateral  flowers 
are  generally  produced  in  the  axils  of  leafy  bracts  lower  down  on 
the  flower  stem. 

Soon  after  the  blooming  period  the  plant  tends  to  pass  into  a 
more  or  less  resting  condition;  then  later  in  the  summer  or  early 
fall  growth  is  renewed.  Accordingly  the  leaves  are  considerably 
developed  during  the  late  fall  and,  in  northern  climates,  this  fre¬ 
quently  results  in  considerable  damage  due  to  the  severe  winters. 

When  the  flower  first  opens  the  segments  droop  down,  later 
becoming  elevated  and  assuming  a  horizontal  or  slightly  arching 


57 


position.  The  sepals,  or  falls,  and  the  petals,  or  standards,  are 
very  similar  in  color,  the  former  being  slightly  darker  and  richer 
in  effect.  The  veins  are  somewhat  more  deeply  colored  than  the 
main  surface. 

The  ovary  has  six  longitudinal  ridges  or  ribs  which  give  it  a 
hexagonal  appearance.  The  mature  seed  capsule,  however,  is  nearly 
ellipsoidal,  being  about  two  inches  in  length,  and  contains  a  large 
number  of  seeds  arranged  more  or  less  in  two  rows  in  each  of  the 
three  chambers.  The  seeds  are  large,  pale  brown,  with  a  thick 
corky  husk.  They  are  more  or  less  flattened,  semi-circular  and 
irregular  in  shape  due  to  the  pressure  within  the  developing  pod. 

The  seeds  possess  a  high  degree  of  viability  and  seedlings  may  be 
obtained  easily.  In  the  course  of  our  experiments  several  have 
been  grown  to  maturity  and  they  have  shown  a  remarkable  similar¬ 
ity  to  the  parental  type.  We  have  also  had  clones  from  different 
sources,  all  coming,  however,  from  the  vicinity  of  New  Orleans, 
and  only  minor  variations  or  differences  have  been  noted  between 
these. 

Iris  foliosa 

Color  Plates:  Dykes  (1913)  plate  20,  Small  (1924)  plate  315, 

Reed  (1931). 

Iris  foliosa  was  described  by  Mackenzie  and  Bush  in  1902. 
Actually,  however,  the  iris  was  first  reported  by  Rafinesque  in 
1817  under  the  name  of  I.  brevicaulis,  a  fuller  description  being 
added  in  1837.  Further,  the  same  plant  seems  to  have  been  known 
as  I.  hexagona  variety  lamancei,  being  recorded  as  such  by  Lora 
S.  La  Mance  and  named  but  not  described  in  Garden  and  Forest 
in  1895.  It  was  Mackenzie  and  Bush,  however,  who  clearly  dis¬ 
tinguished  the  species  from  other  kinds  of  iris.  They  stated  that 
it  “  grows  in  dense  masses  in  low  open  dry  woods  and  prairies  in 
Kentucky,  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Kansas.  This  species  is  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  7.  hexagona  Walter,  a  species  of  the  Southern 
States,  to  which  it  has  been  referred  by  Watson  and  other  Ameri¬ 
can  botanists,  by  its  smaller  pedicelled  flowers/7 

This  iris  is  characterized  by  the  relatively  short  leaves  standing 
more  or  less  erect,  little  more  than  a  foot  in  length.  The  flower 
stalks  are  much  shorter,  more  or  less  zig-zag,  prostrate  and  hidden 
by  the  leaves.  There  are  usually  two  terminal  flowers  as  well  as 
others  in  the  axils  of  the  leafy  bracts.  The  falls  are  a  light  bluish- 
purple,  except  near  the  base  of  the  blade  where  there  are  numer- 


58 


ous  white  lines  on  either  side  of  the  clear  yellow  linear  crest, 
which  extend  down  the  claw.  The  standards  are  light  bluish  in 
color,  becoming  pale,  nearly  white,  towards  the  base. 

The  ovary  of  Iris  foliosa  is  six-angled,  or  hexagonal,  due  to  the 
longitudinal  ridges.  The  mature  capsule  is  nearly  spherical,  about 
an  inch  in  diameter.  It  contains  relatively  few  seeds  which  are 
quite  large,  more  or  less  irregular  in  shape  and  size,  with  a  thick 
corky  covering. 

Iris  foliosa  extends  much  further  north  than  I.  fulva,  although 
the  two  overlap  in  a  part  of  their  area.  It  differs  from  7.  fulva 
in  that  the  leaves  die  down  in  the  fall  and  the  new  ones  grow  very 
little  until  the  following  spring.  Consequently  the  species  will 
stand  much  more  severe  winter  conditions  than  7.  fulva. 

In  the  lower  Mississippi  valley  and  along  the  Gulf  there  are 
variants  of  this  iris,  some  of  which  have  been  described  by  Small 
and  Alexander  as  distinct  species.  Albino  forms  have  been  de¬ 
scribed,  Daniels  (1907)  first  recording  one  as  variety  Boonensis. 

Hybrids  of  Iris  foliosa  and  I.  fulva 

Several  different  clones  of  Iris  fulva  were  used  in  making  the 
crosses,  one  of  which  had  been  growing  at  the  Brooklyn  Botanic 
Garden  for  several  years.  All  of  the  clones  resembled  each  other 
quite  closely  and  fitted  with  the  usual  description  of  the  species. 
Iris  foliosa  was  obtained  from  Columbia,  Missouri. 

First  generation  plants  of  Iris  foliosa  and  7.  fulva. 

Fulvala  (Iris  fulva  x.  I.  foliosa  F i). 

In  1907  Dykes  pollinated  Iris  fulva  with  pollen  from  7.  foliosa 
and  in  1910  one  of  the  seedlings  which  flowered  was  named  Ful¬ 
vala.  A  color  illustration  appears  on  plate  21  of  “The  Genus  Iris/7 
1913.  Leaves:  similar  to  7.  fulva,  slightly  broader  and  greener; 
stalks :  erect,  to  3  feet  or  more ;  flowers :  4y2-5  inches,  falls  and 
standards  spreading,  red-purple  (Rood’s  violet);  falls:  3  x  iy2 
inches,  the  veins  darker,  especially  near  the  bright  yellow  crest 
on  the  base  of  the  blade;  standards:  narrow,  2  x  %  inches;  style 
branches :  rather  broad,  pale  towards  the  base,  the  tips  red-purple. 

Dorothea  K.  Williamson  (Iris  fulva  x  7.  foliosa  Fx) 

Color  plate:  Reed  (1931). 

A  first  generation  plant,  introduced  by  E.  B.  Williamson  in 
1918,  was  obtained  by  pollinating  7.  fulva  with  pollen  from  7. 
foliosa.  It  is  a  vigorous  growing  plant  with  broad  green  leaves 
about  as  long  as  the  flower  stalk,  somewhat  reflexed.  The  flower 


59 


stalk  is  nearly  erect,  to  3  feet.  Flowers :  rather  large,  5  inches, 
falls  and  standards  spreading;  falls:  2%  x  1*4  inches,  violet- 
purple  (Hyacinth  violet),  darker  along  the  narrow  central  crest, 
veins  faint;  standards:  1  y2  x  3/4  inches,  paler  but  similar  color 
tones;  style  branches:  narrow,  red-purple,  tips  darker  and  more 
violet. 

Iris  foliosa  x  I.  fulva- — first  generation 

In  1931,  I  published  an  account  of  first  and  second  generation 
plants,  the  parental  species,  first  generation  (Dorothea  K.  William¬ 
son)  and  five  second  generation  plants  being  illustrated  by  color 
figures. 

A  cross  was  made  in  1924  and  the  hybrid  plants  flowered  in 
1928.  The  growth  was  not  so  vigorous  as  in  Dorothea  K.  William¬ 
son.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading;  falls:  2y2 
x  1  y8  inches,  violet-purple  (Petunia  violet),  differing  from  the 
red-violet  Fulvala  and  violet-red  of  Dorothea  K.  Williamson,  in 
being  diluted  with  gray,  darker  along  the  bright  yellow  crest; 
standards:  1  M>  x  %  inches,  violet-purple  (Petunia  violet);  style 
branches :  greenish  at  the  base,  pale  red-purple  at  the  tips. 

Iris  foliosa  x  I.  fulva — second  generation  plants 

A  large  number  of  second  generation  plants  of  the  foliosa-fulva 
crosses  have  been  grown,  of  which  thirty  are  described  in  some 
detail.  The  first  five  plants  were  illustrated  by  color  plates  in 
1931  and  eight  others  in  the  present  paper. 

1.  Flowers :  smaller  than  Dorothea  K.  Williamson,  falls  and 
standards  arching  to  drooping,  violet  purple ;  falls :  narrow,  yellow 
crest  inconspicuous ;  standards :  narrow,  pointed ;  style  branches : 
greenish  yellow,  crests  red-purple. 

2.  Flowers :  larger  than  number  one,  falls  and  standards  spread¬ 
ing,  red-purple ;  falls :  broader,  yellow  crest  silghtly  more  distinct ; 
standards:  broader;  style  branches:  red-purple. 

3.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading;  falls: 
2  x  D/g  inches,  margin  light  blue-violet,  underlaid  with  yellow 
which  is  more  marked  towards  the  base  of  the  blade;  standards: 
1%  x  V2  inch,  darker,  blue-purple;  style  branches:  greenish,  center 
and  tips  red-purple. 

4.  Flowers :  3%  inches,  falls  and  standards  arching  and  droop¬ 
ing  as  in  I.  fulva;  falls:  iy2  inches,  yellow,  with  brownish  veins  at 
base  of  blade;  standards:  %  inches,  yellow;  style  branches:  narrow, 
pale  yellow,  overlaid  with  greenish. 


60 


5.  Flowers:  4 y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  pink 
(Old  Rose  to  Mallow  purple),  no  yellow  at  base  of  blade;  falls: 
2y2  x  1  inch;  standards:  1%  x  V2  inch;  style  branches:  similar  to 
falls  in  color. 

6.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading;  falls: 
214  x  1  inch,  medium  red-purple  (Phlox  purple)  darker  at  base  of 
blade,  no  yellow  at  base;  standards:  1%  x  %  inch,  lighter  than 
falls  (light  Phlox  purple);  style  branches:  color  similar  to  stand¬ 
ards,  tips  large  and  frilled. 

7.  Flowers:  4y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  drooping,  dark  red- 
purple  (Nigrosin  violet) ;  falls:  2 %  x  1  inch,  veins  deeper,  distinct 
yellowish  crest,  with  two  or  more  fainter  lateral  yellow  lines; 
standards:  2*4  x  1  inch,  veins  slightly  darker;  style  branches: 
narrow,  pale  yellow  at  base,  light  red-purple  at  tip. 

8.  Flowers :  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  yellow  with 
pinkish  overcast  (light  Cadmium  yellow,  flushed  geranium  pink)  ; 
falls:  2  x  y2  inch;  standards:  1%  x  1  inch;  style  branches:  broader, 
color  similar  to  falls. 

1 

9.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  dark  red- 
purple  (Nigrosin  violet),  veins  darker;  falls:  2%  x  14/8  inches; 
standards:  2  x  y2  inch;  style  branches:  moderately  broad,  lighter 
than  falls,  red-purple. 

10.  Flowers:  4y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  red- 
purple  (Petunia  violet);  falls:  2%  x  1*4  inches;  standards:  2*4 
x  %  inch;  style  branches:  pale  red-purple. 

11.  Flowers:  5  inches,  standards  and  falls  arching;  falls:  2%  x 
%  inch,  bright  red-purple  (Old  Rose)  underlaid  with  yellow  and 
veined  at  base  of  blade;  standards:  1%  x  %  inches,  color  similar 
to  falls  but  paler;  style  branches:  long,  rather  narrow,  color  red- 
purple,  tips  large  and  fringed. 

12.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  arching,  dark  red- 
purple  (Raisin  purple);  falls:  2y2  x  iy2  inches,  darker  veins, 
yellow  crest  and  faint  lateral  yellow  lines;  standards:  1%  x  % 
inches,  color  of  falls,  a  little  lighter;  style  branches:  paler  than 
standards,  rather  broad,  tips  fringed. 

13.  Flowers:  3y2  inches,  slightly  arching;  falls:  2*4  x  %  inch, 
violet-red  (Dull  Magenta  purple) ;  standards:  1 %  x  %  inch,  violet- 
red,  brighter  than  the  falls  (Mathew’s  purple);  style  branches: 
rather  broad,  paler  and  brighter  than  falls. 


61 


14.  Flowers:  3%  inches,  falls  and  standards  nearly  horizontal, 
dull  red-purple  (Dull  dark  purple) ;  falls:  2y2  x  1  inch,  notched  at 
tip;  standards:  1%  x  %  inch;  style  branches:  medium,  dull,  red- 
purple,  greenish  toward  base,  margin  yellow. 

15.  Flowers:  4y2  inches,  slightly  arching;  falls:  2 y2  x  %  inch, 
dull  blue-purple  (Hyssop  violet),  lightly  veined,  darker  around 
dull  yellow  crest;  standards:  2  x  y2  inch,  paler;  style  branches: 
medium,  dull  red-purple  (Litho  purple),  darker  on  fringed  tips. 

16.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading;  falls:  2% 
x  1%  inches,  red-purple  (Pompeian  purple),  veins  distinct,  darker 
around  yellow  crest  at  base  of  blade ;  standards :  1%  x  %  inches, 
color  of  the  falls  slightly  paler,  veined. 

17:  Flowers:  3 y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  arching;  falls:  2 
x  1  ys  inches,  dark  red-purple  (Rood’s  violet),  faintly  veined, 
darker  around  dull  yellow  line  at  base ;  standards :  1  y2  x  %  inches, 
dark  red-purple  (Aster  Purple),  brighter  than  falls,  veined;  style 
branches :  medium,  dull  yellow  at  base,  crests  dark  red-purple. 

18.  Flowers:  314  inches,  falls  and  standards  slightly  arching, 
dark  red-purple  (Pansy  violet);  falls:  2  x  iy8  inches,  faintly 
veined,  darker  around  yellow  line  at  base  of  blade;  standards: 
iy2  x  y2  inch,  faintly  veined;  style  branches:  broad,  dull  red- 
purple,  with  yellowish  overcast. 

19.  Flowers :  3 y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  nearly  horizontal, 
bright  red-purple  (Liseran  purple);  falls:  2  x  %  inch,  deeply 
veined,  basal  %  of  blade  zone,  grayish  yellow-green ;  standards : 
1%  x  %  inch,  deeply  veined,  base  yellowish;  style  branches:  basal 
part  light  red-purple,  tips  brighter. 

20.  Flowers :  3 y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  drooping,  bright 
red-purple  (Pompeian  red) ;  falls:  1%  x  l1/^  inches,  base  of  blade 
bright  yellow  with  narrow  red-purple  veins;  standards:  1%  x  % 
inch,  paler  than  falls,  veined,  yellowish  toward  base;  style 
branches :  yellowish  green  tinged  pale  red-purple. 

21.  Flowers:  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  slightly  arching;  falls: 
214  x  iy8  inches,  dark  red-purple  (Litho  purple),  veined,  distinct 
yellow  zone  at  base;  standards:  1%  x  %  inches,  dark  red-purple 
(dull  Magenta  purple),  paler  than  falls,  veined  yellowish  toward 
base;  style  branches:  broad,  red-purple. 

22.  Flowers:  4*4  inches,  falls  and  standards  slightly  arching; 
falls:  2%  x  1  inch,  dark  blue-purple  (Hortense  violet),  yellow 
crest  at  base  surrounded  by  conspicuous  white  zone,  dotted  and 


62 


lined  with  blue-purple;  standards:  2  x  %  inch,  dark  blue-purple 
(Hyacinth  violet),  paler  than  falls,  greenish  yellow  haft  veined 
with  blue-purple;  style  branches:  broad,  red-purple. 

23.  Flowers :  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  pink- 
purple;  falls:  2i/2  x  1 %  inches  (Phlox  purple),  with  yellow  tinge 
over  central  area;  standards:  1%  x  %  inch  (light  Phlox  purple) ; 
style  branches :  greenish,  tips  dull  pink-purple.  Plate  III,  1 

24.  Flowers :  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  dark  violet- 
purple  (Dark  violet);  falls  2  x  iy8  inches;  standards:  1%  x  % 
inch,  nearly  white  base;  style  branches:  greenish,  tips  purple.  Plate 

III,  2. 

25.  Flowers:  4y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  drooping;  falls: 
2 y2  x  1%  inches  (Mauve  to  Manganese  violet),  bright  yellow  crest; 
standards:  2  x  %  inch  (Mauve),  base  yellow  with  red-purple  veins; 
style  branches:  dull  purple,  base  greenish.  Plate  III,  3. 

26.  Flowers:  4  inches,  spreading,  orange-pink;  falls:  2*4  x  1  y8 
inches,  (Mallow  purple),  darker  veins,  yellow  crest  and  lateral 
lines;  standards:  2  x  y2  inch  (Mallow  pink) ;  style  branches:  pink 
with  greenish  base.  Plate  III,  4. 

27.  Flowers:  414  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  yellow 
(Light  cadmium);  falls:  2*4  x  1  inch;  standards:  2  x  %  inch; 
style  branches:  greenish  yellow,  tips  red-purple.  Plate  IY,  5. 

28.  Flowers:  large,  5y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  slightly 
drooping,  dark  red-purple  (Aster  purple);  falls:  3x1  y2  inches, 
deeply  veined,  narrow  yellow  crest;  standards:  2 y2  x  %  inch;  style 
branches:  red-purple;  base  dull  greenish,  tips  violet-purple.  Plate 

IV,  6. 

29.  Flowers:  5  inches,  slightly  drooping,  dark  red-purple 
(Blackish  red-purple),  bright  yellow  crest;  falls:  2%  x  1%  inches; 
standards:  2*4  x  %  inch;  style  branches:  dull  red-purple.  Plate 
IV,  7. 

30.  Flowers  .-414  inches,  spreading,  orange-pink  (Light  Rosolane 
purple),  deeply  veined;  falls:  2 y2  x  1  y2  inches;  standards:  2  x  % 
inch;  style  branches:  orange-pink.  Plate  IY,  8. 

Hybrids  of  Iris  fulva  and  /.  giganticaerulea 

Reciprocal  crosses  between  these  two  species  were  made,  several 
clones  of  each  being  used. 

Iris  giganticaerulea  was  first  described  by  Small  (1927)  and  the 
question  as  to  its  relationship  has  yet  to  be  determined.  By  Foster 
(1937)  it  is  regarded  as  a  variety  of  Iris  hexagona.  On  the  other 


63 


hand,  it  might  be  looked  upon  as  a  variant  of  /.  foliosa.  The  plant 
has  stout  rhizomes  which  become  quite  long.  The  leaves  are  one 
to  one  and  one-half  inches  wide,  bright  green  in  color.  The  flower 
stalk  is  erect,  two  and  one-half  to  four  feet,  depending  upon  the 
conditions.  The  flowers  are  a  blue-violet  with  white  lines  bordering 
the  yellow  area  at  the  base  of  the  sepals.  The  capsules  are  relatively 
large,  three  to  four  inches  in  length.  The  plant  grows  generally  in 
the  lower  Mississippi  Valley  region. 

The  flowers  are  large,  5-6  inches;  falls:  3%  x  1%  inches,  nearly 
horizontal,  lavender  violet  to  Bradley’s  violet,  veined,  darker  along 
yellow  crest  and  white  veins  near  base  of  blade;  standards:  3  x  1% 
inches,  nearly  erect,  lavender  violet,  lightly  veined;  style  branches: 
dull  red-purple,  crests  more  lavender  violet,  fringed. 

Iris  fulva  x  I.  giganticaerulea — first  generation  (Plate  I) 

Five  first  generation  plants  of  Iris  f  ulva  x  I.  giganticaerulea  and 
ten  plants  of  the  reciprocal  cross  were  grown  and  they  resembled 
each  other  in  their  general  appearance.  Due  mainly  to  environ¬ 
mental  conditions  there  was  a  good  deal  of  variation  in  the  vigor 
of  the  growth,  plants  grown  in  the  greenhouse  being  much  taller 
and  more  robust  than  those  grown  out  of  doors. 

1.  Flowers:  large,  5%  inches;  falls:  3 y2  x  iy2  inches,  drooping, 

pointed,  red-purple  (Nigrosin  violet),  darker  near  the  bright  yellow 
crest,  base  of  blade  yellowish,  veined  bright  red-purple;  standards: 
3  x  %  inches,  spreading  to  slightly  drooping,  red-purple  (Mathew's 
purple);  style  branches:  red-purple,  margin  yellow,  tips  darker, 
fringed.  ; 

2.  Flowers:  5 y2  inches,  falls  arching,  red-purple  (Amparo  pur¬ 
ple)  and  the  standards  nearly  erect  (Manganese  violet);  falls: 
3%  x  1%  inches,  bright  yellow  crest  with  short  lateral  yellow  rays, 
color  much  deeper  around  basal  zone;  standards:  2%  x  1  inch,  not 
deeply  veined;  style  branches:  red-purple. 

Three  additional  plants  resembled  rather  closely  the  two  de¬ 
scribed  above.  The  color  of  two  matched  fairly  well  number  one, 
the  falls  being  a  similar  red-purple  (Manganese  violet)  and  the 
standards  (Nigrosin  violet).  The  third  was  duller,  the  falls  Ver- 
nonia  purple),  and  the  standards  (Dahlia  carmine). 

Iris  giganticaerulea  x  I.  fulva — first  generation 

Three  first  generation  plants  of  the  reciprocal  cross  were  grown. 

1.  Flowers:  4 y2  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading  (Petunia 
violet);  falls:  3  x  iy2  inches,  bright  orange  crest,  deeper  veins; 


04 


L.6.M. 


Plate  III 


Plate  IV 


standards  2%  x  1  inch,  veins  distinct;  style  branches:  broad,  dull 
red-purple. 

2.  Flowers :  3%  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  slightly 
arching  (Petunia  violet);  falls:  2%  x  1*4  inches;  standards:  2% 
x  %  inches;  style  branches:  narrow  red-purple. 

3.  Flowers:  5  inches,  falls  arching  and  standards  erect  (Ma¬ 
thew's  purple) ;  falls:  3y2  x  1%  inches,  deeply  veined,  short  yellow 
crest;  standards :  2%  x  %  inch,  paler,  finely  veined;  style  branches : 
red-purple. 

Iris  giganticaerulea  and  I.  fulva — second  generation  (Plate  II) 

Many  second  generation  plants  from  the  crosses  between  Iris 
fulva  and  I.  giganticaerulea  were  grown  and  these  showed  great 
diversity  in  form  and  flower  color.  Of  those  described  the  seed 
parent  of  the  first  two  was  I.  fulva  and  in  the  others  this  iris  was 
the  pollen  parent.  A  most  interesting  fact  is  that  no  yellow  flowered 
plants  were  obtained. 

1.  Flowers:  3%  inches,  red-purple  (light  Phlox  purple),  darker 
veined  around  yellow  base  of  blade,  pointed;  standards:  2y2  x  % 
inch,  pale  red-purple  (Phlox  pink);  style  branches:  dark  red- 
purple. 

2.  Flowers :  4  inches,  falls  and  standards  drooping ;  falls :  3  x 
1  y2  inches,  violet-purple  (Litho  purple),  blade  rounded,  lightly 
veined,  darker  around  small  yellow  crest;  standards:  2 y2  x  1  inch, 
violet-purple  (Litho  purple),  slightly  veined;  style  branches: 
yellowish  green,  purplish  tips. 

.  3.  Flowers:  3 y2  inches,  spreading,  red-purple  (Aster  purple); 
falls :  2y2  x  I14  inches,  faintly  veined,  small  yellow  crest;  standards  : 
1%  x  %  inch,  faint  veining. 

4.  Flowers :  5%  inches ;  falls  3%  x  1%  inches,  drooping,  deeply 
veined  red-purple  (Mallow  purple),  base  of  blade  more  deeply 
veined  on  yellow  background,  crest  orange,  grayish  around  yel¬ 
lowish  zone;  standards:  2%  x  %  inch,  pale  red-purple  (Light 
Mallow  purple),  lightly  veined. 

5.  Flowers :  5  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  notched  at 
the  apex;  falls:  2%  x  I14  inches,  red-purple  (Rosolane  purple), 
lightly  veined,  darker  around  narrow  yellow  crest;  standards: 
214  x  %  inch,  light  red-purple  (light  Rosolane  purple),  veins  faint; 
style  branches:  paler  red-purple. 

6.  Flowers:  5%  inches,  slightly  drooping;  falls:  3%  x  17/s 
inches,  reddish  violet-purple  (Amparo  purple),  veined,  bright  yel- 


69 


low  crest;  standards:  3  x  %  inch,  paler  than  falls  (light  Phlox 
purple),  veined;  style  branches:  dark  red-purple. 

7.  Flowers:  5  inches,  falls  and  standards  slightly  drooping, 
notched  at  apex;  falls:  3i/8  x  iy2  inches,  violet-purple  (Haema- 
toxylon  violet),  faintly  veined,  darker  around  yellow  crest;  stand¬ 
ards:  2i/2  x  1  inch,  violet-purple  (Pleroma  violet). 

8.  Flowers :  41/4  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  notched 
violet-purple;  falls:  2%  x  iy8  inches,  violet-purple  (Pleroma 
violet),  veins  faint,  darker  red-purple  at  base  of  blade  along  nar¬ 
row  yellow  crest;  standards:  2^4  x  %  inches,  violet-purple  (Hor- 
tense  violet),  faintly  veined;  style  branches:  red-purple. 

9.  Flowers :  5  inches,  falls  and  standards  notched,  slightly 
drooping;  falls:  3%  x  1%  inches,  red-purple  (SchoenfekFs  purple), 
lightly  veined,  dark  violet-purple  along  narrow  bright  yellow  crest; 
standards:  2%  x  1  inch,  red-purple  (Amparo  purple),  lightly 
veined;  style  branches:  red-purple,  paler  than  standards. 

10.  Flowers :  small  3%  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading ; 
falls:  2i/2  x  iy4  inches,  notched,  yellow  background,  deeply  veined 
red-purple  (Amparo  purple);  standards:  1 %  x  %  inch,  notched, 
red-purple  (light  Amparo  purple). 

Back  Crosses — Iris  fulva  x  (I.  giganticaerulea  x  /.  fulva  FJ 

Altogether  thirteen  backcrosses  of  the  parental  species  and  first 
generation  hybrids  were  grown.  There  was  great  variation  in  the 
size  of  the  flowers,  the  position  and  shape  of  the  falls  and  standards. 
The  color  was  mostly  dull  due  to  the  presence  of  gray. 

1.  Flowers:  5  inches,  slightly  drooping  falls  and  standards  light 
red-purple  (light  Rosolane  purple);  falls:  3  x  iy2  inches,  lightly 
veined,  faint  yellow  crest;  standards:  2 14  x  %  inches,  lightly 
veined;  style  branches:  light  red-purple  tinged  with  yellow. 

2.  Falls:  light  russet  vinaceous;  standards:  vinaceous  lilac. 

3.  Falls:  medium  red-brown  (Hydrangea  red);  standards:  dull 
orange-red  brown  (Etruscan  red). 

4.  Falls:  dull  red-brown  (dark  vinaceous) ;  standards:  dull  light 
pink  (Laelia  pink). 

5.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  or  pale  gray-red  (purplish  vina¬ 
ceous)  . 

6.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  red-brown  (dark  vinaceous). 

7.  Falls  and  standards:  medium  dull  orange-red  brown  (Etrus¬ 
can  red) . 

8.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  light  brown  (Fawn). 


70 


9.  Falls  and  standards:  dark  red-brown  purple  (Dahlia  car¬ 
mine)  . 

10.  Falls:  dark  red-purple  (Auricula  purple);  standards:  dull 
dark  red-brown  purple  (dull  dark  purple). 

11.  Falls  and  standards:  medium  dark  red-purple  ( Schoenf  eld 's 
purple) . 

12.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  black  violet  (Anthracene  violet). 

13.  Falls  and  standards:  bluish  violet  (deep  dull  bluish  violet), 
the  latter  a  little  paler. 

Iris  fulva  “ lutea ”  x  /.  gig  antic aerulea — F , 

A  yellow  flowered  seedling  somewhat  similar  to  Iris  foliosa  x 
/.  fulva  F2  (number  four)  was  pollinated  with  pollen  from  /. 
gig anticaer ulea.  The  flower  was  a  little  larger,  not  so  clear  in  color, 
with  traces  of  pink  in  the  veins.  The  falls  (21/2  x  U/4  inches)  and 
standards  (l1/^  x  %  inches)  were  spreading  to  arching,  not  droop¬ 
ing,  and  the  style  branches  narrow,  greenish -yellow,  with  yellow 
tips. 

The  flower  of  the  Fx  of  the  cross  was  large  (5%  inches),  the  falls 
and  standards  spreading,  red-violet  purple  in  color  (Mathew’s  pur¬ 
ple),  closely  resembling  the  first  generation  plants  of  Iris  fulva  x 
I.  gig  antic  aerulea ;  falls  3  x  iy2  inches,  deeply  colored  veins  radiat¬ 
ing  from  the  narrow  bright  yellow  crest;  standards:  2 y2  x  % 
inches,  veins  distinct;  style  branches:  rather  long,  red-purple,  tips 
darker. 

Hybrids  of  Iris  Fulva  and  I.  IIexagona 
Iris  hexagona  Walter.  Color  plate:  Small  (1924),  plate  314. 

This  species,  described  in  1788,  is  found  along  the  Atlantic  Coast 
region.  The  leaves  are  rather  broad,  three  feet  or  more  long,  and 
erect.  The  flower  stalk  is  three  to  four  feet  tall,  usuallv  more  or 
less  erect  but  slightly  zig-zag.  The  rhizome  is  thick,  bearing  several 
leaves.  The  flowers  are  large  and  borne  in  the  usual  manner  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  flower  stalk.  They  vary  somewhat  in  color  but 
usually  are  some  shade  of  violet-purple. 

One  of  the  characteristic  features  is  the  fact  that  this  iris  blos- 
soips  much  later  than  the  others.  In  Brooklyn,  Iris  fulva  and  I. 
foliosa  are  in  bloom  usually  before  the  middle  of  June  and  it  is 
late  June  or  July  before  I.  hexagona  comes  into  flower. 

Flowers :  5  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading  to  arching,  dark 
violet;  falls:  3y2-iy2  inches,  blade  ovate-rounded,  vellow-green 
crest,  surrounded  by  white  which  extends  slightly  between  the  deep 


71 


red-purple  veins,  haft  lined  greenish  and  greenish  yellow;  stand¬ 
ards:  2%  x  %  inches;  style  branches:  paler,  greenish  at  the  base. 
Iris  fulva  x  I.  hexagona — first  generation 

Altogether  fifteen  first  generation  plants  were  grown  and  they 
showed  remarkable  similarities.  There  was  some  variation  in  the 
size  of  the  flowers  (falls  and  standards).  They  were  also  rather 
close  in  their  color  range.  A  brief  description  of  one  plant  is  as 
follows :  Flowers :  5  inches,  falls  and  standards  spreading,  deep  red- 
purple  (Raisin  purple) ;  falls:  3  x  iy2  inches,  blade  broad  elliptical, 
crest  yellowish  green,  sharply  bounded  by  deeply  colored  veins  of 
blade;  standards:  2y2  x  %  inches;  style  branches:  dull  red-purple, 
margins  yellowish. 

The  remaining  plants  may  be  summarized : 

2  plants:  falls:  red-violet  (Mathew’s  purple)  and  standards  more 
violet-red  (Pleroma  violet),  dulled  by  gray. 

8  plants:  falls:  violet-red  (Rood’s  violet);  standards:  more  red- 
purple  (Hyacinth  violet) . 

3  plants:  falls:  violet-red  (Rood’s  violet);  standards:  more  red 
(Pansy  violet) . 

1  plant:  falls  and  standards:  dark  violet-red  (Raisin  purple). 

No  second  generation  plants  were  grown.  Plowever,  Iris  fulvd 
was  pollinated  with  pollen  from  one  of  the  first  generation  plants 
and  three  seedlings  grown  to  maturity.  These  showed  noteworthy 
differences  in  color,  one  having  violet  falls  (Dauphin’s  violet)  and 
bluish  violet  standards  (soft  bluish  violet).  A  second  plant  had 
dull  orange-red  falls  (Ochre  red)  and  standards  (Etruscan  red), 
the  flowers  of  both  plants  dulled  by  gray.  The  third  plant  had  dark 
brown-red  purple  falls  and  standards  (Dahlia  carmine). 

Crosses  Involving  Iris  “oenantha” 

Iris  “oenantlia,”  described  as  a  new  species  by  Small,  is  a  rather 
tall  robust  plant  with  an  erect  flower  stalk.  The  flowers  are  large, 
five  inches  or  more.  The  falls  and  standards  are  drooping,  dull 
red-purple  (Nigrosin  violet);  falls:  3x2  inches,  dull  red-purple, 
deeply  veined,  crest  bright  yellow  with  usually  two  laterals;  stand¬ 
ards  :  2y2  x  %  inches,  nearly  the  same  color  as  falls,  some  paler, 
and  almost  as  long  as  the  falls ;  style  branches :  relatively  long,  red- 
purple  with  dull  yellow  margins,  tips  large  and  paler  in  color. 

Two  Fx  plants  of  cross  Iris  fulva  x  I.  “oenantha”  were  grown. 
The  flowers  of  both  were  rather  large  with  drooping  falls  and 


72 


standards.  In  one  the  color  of  the  falls  was  an  orange-red  (Pom¬ 
peian  red)  and  the  standards  a  medium  brownish  red  (Acajou 
red).  In  the  other  the  falls  and  standards  were  nearly  the  same 
color,  a  dull  orange-red  (Dragon’s-blood  red). 

Three  Fi  plants  of  Iris  “  oenantha”  x  I.  gig  ant  icaer  idea  were 
grown.  In  one  the  flowers  were  rather  large,  the  falls  drooping, 
the  standards  somewhat  erect.  Falls :  3%  x  2  inches,  violet-purple 
(Hortense  violet  to  Anthracene  violet),  deeply  veined,  much  darker 
around  the  faint  crest;  standards:  3x1  inch,  a  paler  violet-purple 
(Hortense  violet),  veins  distinct;  style  branches:  dull  red-purple, 
tips  fringed. 

The  flowers  of  the  second  plant  were  smaller,  the  falls  spreading 
and  the  standards  more  erect.  The  color  was  a  more  distinctly  redish 
hue.  Falls:  3 y2  x  iy2  inches,  dull  red-purple  (Litho  purple),  darker 
around  the  bright  orange-yellow  crest;  standards:  3x1  inch,  a 
more  violet  hue  (Hortense  violet),  faintly  veined;  style  branches: 
dull  red-purple,  tips  fringed. 

In  the  third  plant,  the  color  was  even  more  of  a  red  hue ;  falls : 
(Mathew’s  purple);  standards:  (Litho  purple). 

A  back  cross  (7.  fulva  x  “oenantha”)  x  7.  fulva  was  grown.  The 
color  of  both  falls  and  standards  was  a  medium  dull  orange-red 
brown  (Etruscan  red). 

Five  back  crosses  of  ( Iris  fulva  x  “oenantha”  x  7.  giganticaerulea 
were  grown : 

1.  Falls:  a  dark  violet-purple  (Prune  purple) ;  standards:  a  dark 
red-violet  (Pansy  violet). 

2.  Falls:  a  dark  red-violet  purple  (Pansy  violet);  standards:  a 
lighter  and  grayer  hue  (Litho  purple). 

3.  Falls:  a  medium  red-purple  (Mathew’s  purple);  standards: 
dark  red-violet  purple  (Manganese  violet). 

4.  Falls:  a  dull  red-purple  (Petunia  violet);  standards:  a  very 
dull  red-violet  purple  (Aconite  violet). 

5.  Falls:  dull  red-violet  (Bishop’s  purple);  standards:  a  very 
dull  red-violet  purple  (Argyle  purple). 

Iris  Dorothea  K.  Williamson  x  I.  “oenantha” 

Dorothea  K.  Williamson  is  a  first  generation  plant  of  Iris  fulva 
x  7.  foliosa.  The  color  of  the  flower  is  a  violet-purple  (Hyacinth 
violet).  In  contrast,  I.  “oenantha”  has  red-purple  flowers  (Nigro- 
sin  violet).  From  this  cross  nine  plants  were  grown.  The  flowers 


73 


varied  in  size  and  in  the  position  of  the  falls  and  standards.  From 
the  standpoint  of  color  there  was  also  great  variation  which  may 
be  briefly  indicated. 

1.  Falls  and  standards:  medium  brown-red  (Acajou  red). 

2.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  red-brown  (dark  vinaceous). 

3.  Falls:  light  brick-red  (orange  vinaceous);  standards:  dull 
orange-red  brown  (Etruscan  red). 

4.  Falls:  dull  red-brown  (Corinthian  red);  standards:  dull  light 
brownish  pink  (Japan  rose). 

5.  Falls:  dull  red-brown  (Corinthian  red) ;  standards:  light  red- 
brown  (light  Corinthian  red). 

6.  Falls  and  standards:  dull  red-brown  (Corinthian  red  to  Aca¬ 
jou  red). 

7.  Falls:  dull  red-brown  (Corinthian  red);  standards:  dull  pale 
gray-red  (Vinaceous). 

8.  Falls:  dull  light  brownish  pink  (Japan  rose) ;  standards:  dull 
grayish  pink  (pinkish  cinnamon). 

9.  Falls:  dull  red-brown  (dark  vinaceous) ;  standards:  dull  pink- 
brown  (deep  vinaceous). 

Hybrids  of  Iris  Giganticaeurulea  x  I.  “Thomasix” 

Iris  “ thomasii ”  is  a  vigorous  growing  plant  with  an  erect,  stiff 
flower  stalk.  The  flowers,  4 y2  inches,  are  medium  in  size  and  red- 
violet  (Mathew's  purple)  in  color;  falls  and  standards:  spreading 
or  slightly  drooping;  falls:  3^4  x  l1/^  inches,  veined,  darker  around 
the  basal  zone,  the  crest  bright  orange-yellow  with  several  yellowish 
laterals;  standards:  2*4  x  %  inch,  about  the  same  color  as  the  falls, 
faintly  veined ;  style  branches :  rather  large,  dull  red-purple  with 
large  fringed  tips,  paler  in  tone. 

Two  first  generation  plants  were  grown.  In  one  the  flower  was 
large,  5  inches  or  more,  the  falls  and  standards  spreading  or  slightly 
recurved,  lavender-violet  (lavender-violet  to  mauve)  in  color;  falls: 
3 1/2  x  1%  inches,  lightly  veined,  darker  around  the  basal  zone,  the 
crest  bright  orange-yellow  with  greenish  yellow  on  each  side;  stand¬ 
ards  :  234  x  %  inch,  faintly  veined,  paler  than  falls;  style  branches : 
pale  red-purple,  tips  light  violet. 

In  the  second  plant  the  flowers  were  smaller,  4  y2  inches,  falls 
and  standards  spreading;  falls:  3%  x  1%  inches,  deeply  veined, 
darker  around  central  zone,  dark  red-purple  (Manganese  violet) ; 
standards :  2%  x  %  inch,  faintly  veined,  a  paler  hue  ( Petunia 


74 


violet);  style  branches:  broad,  dull  red-purple  with  greenish  over- 
east. 

Two  second  generation  plants  of  this  cross  were  grown.  In  one 
the  flowers  were  small,  about  4  inches,  with  incurved  falls  and 
standards;  falls:  3*4  x  iy2  inches,  pale  bluish  violet  (light  mauve), 
veins  faint,  crest  bright  yellow;  standards:  21/?  x  %  inch,  nearly 
erect,  pale  lavender  (pale  mauve) ;  style  branches:  greenish  yellow, 
tips  pale  bluish  violet. 

The  flowers  of  the  second  plant  were  larger  and  the  falls  and 
standards  a  pale  pink  color  (pale  Amaranth  pink);  falls:  3y2  x 
iy2  inches,  spreading,  veined,  bright  orange  crest;  standards:  2 % 
x  %  inch,  erect,  tips  arching  inwards;  style  branches:  very  pale 
pink. 

Hybrids  of  Iris  Fulva  and  I.  ‘  ‘  Chrysophoenicia  ’  ’ 

Iris  “chrysophoenicia”  was  described  by  Small  (1929)  and  illu¬ 
strated  in  color  plate  452.  The  flower  stalk  is  erect,  2l/2  to  3  feet 
tall.  The  sepals  or  falls  are  3  inches  or  more  long,  oval  in  shape, 
spreading  or  arching,  and  violet-purple  or  plum  color.  The  crest 
is  yellow  and  there  is  a  broad  yellow  and  white  area  at  the  base 
of  the  blade.  Darker  veins  are  evident.  The  petals  or  standards 
are  more  or  less  erect  and  similar  in  color  to  the  falls  but  some 
paler.  The  style  branches  are  large,  red-purple  with  greenish 
margins. 

Reciprocal  crosses  were  made  between  the  two  irises.  In  one  first 
generation  plant,  in  which  I.  f  ulva  was  the  male  parent,  the  flowers 
were  small,  the  falls  and  standards  drooping  and  medium  red- 
purple  in  color.  The  falls,  2%  x  li/2  inches,  were  deeply  veined, 
dark  adjacent  to  the  short  yellow  crest,  the  color  a  medium  dark 
red-purple,  Sehoenfield \s  purple);  standards:  2*4  x  %  inch,  paler 
(light  Rosolane  purple),  and  the  veins  less  distinct;  style  branches: 
light  red-purple  with  a  yellow  undertone.  A  second  plant  had  larger 
flowers  with  dull  brick-red  falls  (deep  Hellebore  red)  and  dull 
red-brown  standards  (dark  vinaceous). 

In  the  reciprocal  cross,  in  which  I.  fulva  was  the  female  parent, 
one  plant  had  red-brown  falls  (Hyacinth  violet)  and  dark  red- 
violet  purple  standards  (Pansy  violet).  A  second  plant  had  dull 
red-brown  falls  (Corinthian  red)  and  very  dark  dull  pink-purple 
standards  (deep  vinaceous). 


75 


Hybrids  of  Iris  “  Chrysophoenicia”  and  I.  Gaganticaerulea 

Three  first  generation  plants  of  this  cross  were  grown.  In  one 
with  Iris  giganticaerulea  as  the  male  parent  the  plant  had  dull  red- 
purple  falls  (Petunia  violet)  and  very  dull  red- violet  purple 
(Aconite  violet)  standards.  Two  plants  in  which  I.  giganticaerulea 
was  the  female  parent  were  grown.  One  had  dark  red-violet  falls 
(Raisin  purple)  and  standards  (Mulberry  purple).  In  the  other 
plant  the  color  was  much  duller,  medium  dark  red-violet  purple 
falls  (Manganese  violet)  and  standards  dull  lavender  (Saccardo’s 
violet) . 

Iris  Giganticaerulea  x  I.  “  Albispiritus  ” — F2 

Iris  “albispiritus”  was  described  by  Small  (1929)  and  recorded 
as  a  native  of  southern  peninsular  Florida.  The  flower  stalk  varies 
from  iy2  to  4  feet  in  height.  The  flowers  are  large  with  drooping 
falls  and  erect  standards.  The  falls  are  nearly  white,  somewhat 
tinged  with  green,  and  a  bright  yellow  crest.  The  standards  are 
long  and  narrow,  also  nearly  white.  The  style  branches  are  greenish 

white  with  large  white  fringed  tips. 

1 

One  of  the  F2  plants  of  the  cross  had  dull  lavender  (light  Hyssop 
violet)  falls  and  bluish  violet  standards  (light  bluish  violet).  The 
other  plant  had  yellow  flowers,  the  falls  (Barium  yellow),  droop¬ 
ing,  a  bright  long  yellow  crest,  and  the  standards  (pale  Chalcedony 
yellow),  erect,  with  greenish  veins  toward  the  base.  The  style 
branches  were  a  dull  red-purple  with  yellow-green  margins,  the 
tips  more  deeply  colored. 

Iris  “Cacique”  x  I.  Fulva 

Cacique  was  an  iris  introduced  by  Dr.  S.  S.  Berry,  in  1925,  and 
was  derived  from  a  cross  between  I.  fulva  and  I.  savannarum. 

Two  seedlings  of  the  Cacique-/.  fulva  cross  were  grown.  In  one 
the  color  was  a  dark  red-violet  (Pansy  violet).  In  the  other  the 
color  was  diluted  with  gray,  a  dull  pink  tone  (Tourmaline  pink). 

Discussion 

Ecological  distribution  and  taxonomic  studies. — Small  and  Alex¬ 
ander’s  (1933)  criterion  for  species  was  stated  as  follows:  “Our 
usual  criterion  for  assigning  the  status  of  species  is  an  isolated 
colony  or  colonies,  the  plants  persisting  through  propagation  by 
root-stalks  and  by  an  annual  accretion  of  seedlings  without  showing 
variation  in  the  characters  of  the  perianth.  ’  ’  However,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  many  species  recorded  were  grown  from  seed, 


76 


thus  establishing  their  constancy.  It  is  true,  however,  that  Iris 
fulva  comes  true  from  seed  as  I  have  shown.  Probably  this  is  true 
also  of  I.  foliosa  and  I.  hexagona . 

Viosca  (1935)  attacked  the  problem  of  the  southern  iris  from 
the  standpoint  of  ecology  and  taxonomy.  His  criterion  of  an  iris 
species  is  “a  large  aggregation  of  plants  with  reasonably  definable 
similarities  of  structure,  freely  inter-breeding  whenever  in  suffh 
cently  close  proximity,  the  separate  colonies  of  which  have  similar 
ecological  requirements,  and  the  aggregation  as  a  whole  having  a 
geographic  range  which  can  be  defined  in  terms  of  physiographic 
features  and  throughout  which  colonies  are  found  in  all  suitable 
localities.  ’  ’  On  this  basis,  Viosca  recognizes  only  four  species  in 
the  region  in  Louisiana  where  he  made  his  studies  and  considers 
the  large  majority  of  the  plants  described  from  the  same  area  by 
Small  and  Alexander  (1933),  -as  well  as  others  yet  undescribed^ 
in  part  as  variants,  and  in  part  as  natural  hybrids. 

Of  the  species  recognized  by  Viosca  three  have  been  known  for 
more  than  a  century.  One  of  these,  Iris  virginica,  belongs  to  a  very 
different  iris  group — the  Laevigata  group  of  Dykes  (1913),  .  the 
Virginica  sub-section  of  Waller  (1931),  or  the  V ersicolores  of  Smhll 
and  Alexander.  The  other  three  species  belong  to  the  Hexagona 
section — 7.  brevicaulis  Rafinesque  (1817)  (7,  foliosa  Mackenzie  and 
Bush  (1902)),  7.  fulva  Ker-Gawler  (1812),  and  7.  giganticaerulea 
Small  (1924).  Some  of  the  other  so-called  species  are  regarded  as 
variants  of  7.  brevicaulis  or  7.  giganticaerulea,  but  most  of  then!  as 
natural  hybrids  between  7.  fulva  and  7.  giganticaerulea. 

Viosca  provides  keys  for  identification  of  these  species,  one  in  the 
absence  of  the  flowers,  based  on  leaf  and  rhizome  characters,  and 
another  when  flowers  are  available.  On  the  basis  of  flower  color  his 
description  of  7.  fulva  is  interesting,  the  flowers  being  described  as 
“varying  from  dark  cardinal  through  various  shades  of  brick  or 
coppery  red,  Indian  red,  henna,  chinook,  terra-cotta,  and  apricot 
to  golden  and  chrome  yellows/’  His  natural  hybrids  between  7. 
fulva  and  7.  giganticaerulea  have  some  shade  of  purple  or  red- 
purple  as  the  flower  color.  Where  do  the  species  end  and  the 
hybrids  begin?  In  my  various  hybrids  the  flower  color  range  is 
very  great,  consisting  of  many  shades  and  tints  of  various  hues 
from  blue-violet,  violet-purple,  red-purple,  to  orange-red  and  true 
yellows.  Brown  (1946)  has  also  raised  the  question  as  to  the  pos¬ 
sible  limits  of  Iris  fulva  as  a  species. 


77 


Iii  the  older  accounts  Iris  fulva  has  been  a  definite  type.  I 
obtained  several  clones  from  various  sources,  some  from  the  vicinity 
of  New  Orleans,  the  others  doubtless  originally  from  the  same 
locality.  I  have  selfed  some  of  these  and  the  seedlings  obtained 
showed  a  remarkable  correspondence  to  the  type.  The  plant  char¬ 
acters  and  tone  of  flower  color,  orange-red,  varied  within  narrow 
limits. 

Ilyb  ridization — In  addition  to  the  various  hybrids  recorded  above 
scores  of  others  have  been  grown  but  no  extensive  notes  were  made. 
Prom  these  results  of  hybridization  it  is  evident  that  a  wide  diver¬ 
sity  of  plants  may  be  obtained.  These  differ  in  the  plant  characters 
in  many  ways  but  the  variations  are  most  evident  in  the  size,  shape, 
and  color  of  the  flowers.  The  diversity  is  comparable  to  that  found 
in  the  bearded  iris  in  the  origin  of  which  several  species  are 
involved. 

Another  point  is  the  ease  with  which  fertile  crosses  may  be 
secured.  Practically  all  attempts  succeeded  in  giving  fertile  off¬ 
spring,  although  Riley  (1939)  mentions  some  evidence  of  sterility. 

Within  the  Iris  genus  many  species  are  capable  of  crossing  with 
others  closely  related.  Extensive  hybridization  occurs  within  the 
bearded  iris  group  making  possible  the  development  of  the  large 
array  of  garden  varieties.  Crossing  between  these  and  some  of  the 
Oncocyclus  group  also  occurs.  The  Regeliocylus  group  of  many 
varieties  has  arisen  from  crosses  between  members  of  the  Regelia 
and  Oncocyclus  sections. 

The  Siberian  iris  varieties  have  been  developed  from  the  hybridi¬ 
zation  of  the  European  Iris  sibirica  with  the  eastern  Asiatic  I.  orien- 
talis  and  fertile  offspring  is  the  usual  result.  Within  the  Siberian 
group  I.  forrestii  x  /.  chrysographes  produce  fertile  hybrids;  I.  for- 

restii  also  crosses  with  I.  sibirica  but  the  hybrids  are  sterile.  Manv 

«.■  *- 

of  our  West  Coast  irises  readily  cross  with  each  other. 

We  have  succeeded  (Reed  1936)  in  crossing  Iris  laevigata  with 
I.  versicolor  and  /.  virginica  and  the  hybrids  of  the  latter  cross  have 
been  partially  fertile. 

The  Japanese  iris  have  been  supposed  to  have  arisen  from  the 
hybridization  of  Iris  laevigata  and  I.  ensata  (/.  kaempferi) .  There 
is  no  good  evidence,  however,  that  this  has  occurred.  Probably 
they  have  been  developed  by  the  Japanese  horticulturists  from  col¬ 
lected  wild  plants  of  I.  ensata  which  show  minor  variations  in 
plant  structure  and  flower  color. 


78 


At  the  Botanic  Garden  we  have  made  many  attempts  to  cross 
Iris  laevigata  and  I.  ensata,  I.  laevigata  and  /.  pseudacorus,  and 
I.  ensata  with  I.  pseudacorus  but  without  success.  Frequently  the 
ovaries  start  development,  but  fail  to  reach  maturity  and  to  pro¬ 
duce  ripe  seed. 

By  means  of  the  embryo  culture  method  we  have  obtained  seed- 
lings  of  crosses  between  I.  ensata  and  I.  pseudacorus  but  in  the 
course  of  a  few  months  they  have  perished.  These  two  species  have 
many  characteristics  in  common.  They  are  adapted  to  the  same 
growing  conditions  and  there  is  a  close  resemblance  in  their  rhi¬ 
zomes  and  leaves.  In  fact  they  may  be  growing  together  and  only 
careful  observers  will  note  the  presence  of  both  until  flowering 
time.  Iris  pseudacorus  is  more  robust  and  vigorous  in  its  growth 
but  many  Japanese  iris  varieties  approach  it.  If  this  cross  would 
succeed  it  might  be  possible  to  introduce  the  yellow  color  into  the 
Japanese  group  and  develop  a  series  of  varieties  with  yellow  tones. 
A  few  years  ago  a  Japanese  nursery  advertised  seed  of  a  yellow 
variety  of  Japanese  iris.  Some  of  the  seed  was  obtained  and  it 
looked  like  that  of  the  yellow  flag  of  Europe.  The  plants  grown 
from  them  turned  out  to  be  typical  I.  pseudacorus. 

Abbey ville’s  Giant  Irises — Nelson  (1946)  records  that  about 
1940  Mr.  W.  L.  Macmillan  found  especially  fine  native  Irises  of 
a  giant  fid va  type  in  a  relatively  small  swamp  in  Louisiana.  These 
have  not  been  found  elsewhere  and  no  other  irises  are  found 
closely  associated  with  them.  They  are  very  striking  in  appear¬ 
ance,  3  to  5  feet  tall,  with  the  parts  of  the  flower  exceptionally 
broad,  suggesting  the  Japanese  iris  type.  The  color  range  varies 
from  yellow  to  crimson.  Among  the  Abbeyville  “Reds”  the  cop¬ 
per-red  of  Iris  fulva  is  predominant,  the  tones,  however,  varying 
from  cardinal  to  light  peach.  The  Abbeyville  “Yellows”  are  not 
pure  color  tones  but  show  dilution  with  gray. 

The  rhizome  is  large  and  may  grow  a  foot  or  more  in  length 
in  a  single  season.  The  flower  stalks  are  taller  than  the  leaves, 
branched  and  bearing  several  flowers.  The  leaves  are  large  and 
have  a  tendency  to  droop  a  little  near  the  tip.  The  color  of  the 
foliage  is  similar  to  that  of  Iris  fulva. 

Viosca  (1946)  has  approached  the  problem  of  the  origin  of 
these  irises  from  the  standpoint  of  ecological  distribution.  He 
believes  that  they  have  originated  by  hybridization  between  the 
red  swamp  iris,  Iris  fulva  and  the  blue  I.  foliosa  and  I.  giganti- 


79 


caerulea.  Locally  isolated  colonies  of  I.  fulva  have  been  encroached 
upon  by  the  other  two  species  and  the  super-fulvas  have  originated 
by  hybridization  with  them. 

Southern  Iris  Gardens  and  Societies. 

The  iris  enthusiasts  of  Louisiana  have  brought  together  many 
fine  varieties  of  southern  iris,  some  collected  wild  plants  and 
others  obtained  by  crossing.  The  Mary  Swords  Debaillon  Louisiana 
Iris  Society  (Cornay  1946)  has  established  a  collection  at  the 
Southwestern  Louisiana  Institute  where  annual  shows  are  held.  In 
gardens  at  Shreveport,  La.  (Colquitt  1946)  many  varieties  of  great 
garden  value  are  grown. 

Thus  whether  species  of  ancient  origin  or  hybrids  of  yesterday 
and  today  these  irises  are  finding  their  place  in  the  iris  world — 
a  recognition  long  overdue.  Not  only  do  they  have  great  value  as 
garden  plants  but  they  are  also  of  special  interest  to  the  ecologist, 
plant  breeder,  geneticist  and  cytologist,  furnishing  fine  material 
for  the  production  of  new  horticultural  creations  and  for  the  in¬ 
vestigation  of  scientific  problems. 


Acknowledgments 

Dr.  John  K.  Small  generously  supplied  me  with  material  of 
many  of  his  southern  iris  plants.  Clones  of  Iris  fulva  and  I. 
giganticaerulea  have  been  sent  to  me  by  Mr.  Percy  Viosca,  Jr. 
Prof.  Prank  M.  McFarland  also  supplied  a  clone  of  I .  fulva.  The 
many  crosses  and  records  of  the  plants  grown  have  been  possible 
by  the  competent  assistance  of  Miss  Marjorie  Udell,  curatorial 
assistant,  Miss  Elizabeth  D.  Marcy  and  Miss  Jeanne  Walther,  re¬ 
search  assistants,  at  the  Brooklyn  Botanic  Garden. 


References 

Anderson,  Edgar  (1936).  The  Species  Problem  in  Iris.  Annals  Mo.  Bot.  Garden 
23:  457-509. 

Brown,  Clair  A.  (1946).  What  is  Iris  fulva ?  Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull.  102:  17,  18. 
Colquitt,  Minnie  (1946).  Iris  in  Shreveport.  Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull  102:  23-27. 

Cornay,  Katherine  (1946).  The  Mary  Swords  Debaillon  Louisiana  Iris  Society.  Am. 
Iris  Soc.  Bull.  102:  6-11. 

Daniels,  F.  P.  (1907).  The  Flora  of  Columbia  Missouri  and  Vicinity,  p.  117. 

Dykes,  W.  R.  (1913).  The  Genus  Iris. 

Foster,  Robert  C.  (1937).  A  Cyto-taxonomic  Survey  of  the  North  American  Species  of 
Iris.  Contr.  119.  Gray  Herbarium  of  Harvard  University. 

Gerard.  J.  N.  (1895).  Garden  and  Forest,  p.  329. 

Ker-Gawler,  J.  B.  (1812).  Iris  fulva.  Botanical  Magazine,  plate  1496. 

Mackenzie.  K.  K.  and  Bush,  (1902).  Iris  foliosa.  Trans.  Acad.  Sci.  St.  Louis  12:  81. 
Nelson,  Ira  S.  (1946).  Abbeyville’s  Giant  Irises.  Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull.  102:  11-16. 
Pursh,  F.  (1814).  Flora  of  North  America.  1:  30. 

Radius,  J.  (1822).  Iris  Carolina.  Schriften  der  Naturforschenden  Gesellscliaft.  Leipzig 
1:  158. 

Rafinesque,  C.  S.  (1817).  Florula  Ludoviciana;  or,  A  Flora  of  the  State  of  Louisiana. 
178  pp.,  p.  10. 

Reed,  George  M.  (1931).  Hybrids  of  Iris  fulva  and  Iris  foliosa.  Brooklyn  Botanic 
Garden  Record  20:  243-253. 


80 


-  (1936).  Hybrids  of  Iris  laevigata  with  I.  versicolor  and  I.  virginica. 

Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull.  62:  10-17. 

Ridgway,  Robert  (1912).  Color  Standards  and  Color  Nomenclature. 

Riley,  H.  P.  (1938).  A  Character  Analysis  of  Colonies  of  Iris  fulva,  I.  hexagona  var. 

giganticaerulea  and  Natural  hybrids.  Am.  Jour.  Bot.  25:  727-738. 

-  (1939).  The  Problem  of  Species  in  the  Louisiana  Irises.  Am.  Iris 

Soc.  Bull.  74:  3-7. 

Robin,  C.  C.  (1807).  Voyages  dans  l’interieur  de  la  Louisane,  de  la  Floride  Occidentale, 
dans  les  Isles  de  la  Martinique  et  de  Saint  Domingue.  Flore  Louisianaise  3:  347-349. 
Sawyer,  M.  L.  (1925).  Crossing  Iris  pseudacorus  and  7.  versicolor.  Bot.  Gaz.  79:  60-72. 
Small,  John  K.  (1924).  Iris  savannarum  and  7.  Kimballiae.  Addisonia  9:  57-60.  Plates 
317,  318. 

- — -  (1927).  Iris  flexicaulis ,  Iris  fulva,  Iris  rivularis,  Iris  shrevei, 

Iris  vimco7or.  Addisonia  12:  1-16.  Plates  385,  388,  389,  390,  391. 

Small,  John  K.  (1929).  Iris  albispiritus.  Iris  atrocyanea,  Iris  chrysaeola,  Iris  chryso- 

phoenicia,  Iris  giganticaerulea,  Iris  miraculosa.  Iris  violipurpurea.  Addisonia  14: 
1-16.  Plates  449-455. 

-  and  E.  J.  Alexander  (1931).  Botanical  Interpretation  of  the 

Iridiaceous  Plants  of  the  Gulf  States — A  preprint  from  Manual  of  the  Southeastern 
Flora.  1933. 

Sturtevant,  Grace  (1933).  The  Washington  Hybrids.  Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull.  49. 

Viosca,  Jr.  Percy  (1935).  The  Irises  of  Southeastern  Louisiana  Am.  Iris  Soc.  Bull.  55, 

— - (1946).  The  Irises  of  the  Abbeville,  La.  Region.  Am.  Iris  Soc. 

Bull.  102:  18-23. 

Waller,  A.  E.  (1931).  The  Native  Iris  of  Ohio  and  Bordering  Territory.  Ohio  Journ. 
Sc.  31:  29-43. 

Walter,  Th.  (1788).  Flora  Caroliniana. 


COLOR  PLATES 

Drawings  by  Miss  Louise  B.  Mansfield 

Plate  I — Parental  Species  and  First  Generation  Llybrids. 
Fig.  1 — Iris  giganticaerulea.  Fig.  2 — Iris  fulva. 
Fig.  3 — First  generation  hybrid. 


Plate  II — Falls  and  Standards  of  Second  Generation  Hybrids, 
of  Iris  fulva  and  I.  giganticaerulea. 


Fig.  1 

Plant  No.  7 

Fig.  6 

Plant  No.  10 

Fig.  2 

Plant  No.  8 

Fig.  7 

Plant  No.  6 

Fig.  3 

Plant  No.  9 

Fig.  8 

Plant  No.  4 

Fig.  4 

Plant  No.  2 

Fig.  9 

Plant  No.  5 

Fig.  5 

Plant  No.  3 

Plates  III  and  IV — Second  Generation  Plants  of  Iris  foliosa  and 
I.  fulva. 


p1  j  o* 

1 

Plant 

No. 

23 

page 

65 

trio* 

x  1o1 

2 

Plant 

No. 

24 

page 

65 

Fjo* 

3 

Plant 

No. 

25 

page 

65 

jo* 

4 

Plant 

No. 

26 

page 

65 

Fig.  5  Plant  No.  27  page  66 

Fig.  6  Plant  No.  28  page  66 

Fig.  7  Plant  No.  29  page  66 

Fig.  8  Plant  No.  30  page  66 


81 


Iris  atrofusca  Baker. 


82 


SPECIES— IRIS  ATROFUSCA  BAKER* 

By  Tuviah  Kushnir 

|  Iris  atrofusca  was  first  described  by  Baker  (Gard.  Chron, 
1:384,  1893)  as  a  new  species  of  the  Oncoeyclus  section.  This 
species  was  first  found  in  the  vicinity  of  Tekoah  about  15  km  south 
of  Jerusalem  and  is  endemic  in  Palestine. 

Simonet  (1934)  after  examining  the  karyotype  included  this 
plant  amongst  the  Regelia  species. 

The  characteristic  features  of  the  cytology  of  Oncoeyclus  Irises 
are  the  following :  The  diploid  set  consists  of  20  chromosomes,  four 
of  which  bear  satellites;  the  remainder  are  acrocentric  (rod¬ 
shaped),  8  being  pronouncedly  longer  than  the  rest. 

The  species  of  the  Regelia  section  have  44  chromosomes,  includ¬ 
ing  four  metacentric  chromosomes  (V  shaped),  four  satellite-chro¬ 
mosomes  and  four  long  acrocentric  chromosomes.  (Editor’s  Note: 
Regelia  species  also  have  22  and  33  chromosomes.) 

In  both  form  and  number  the  chromosomes  of  Iris  atrofusca 
were  found  to  conform  to  the  Regelia  type,  and  not  to  that  of 
Oncoeyclus. 

Darlington  and  Janaki  (1945)  accepted  Simonet ’s  point  of  view, 
and  included  it  amongst  the  Regelia  species. 

Since  Iris  atrofusca  belongs  to  the  Oncoeyclus  type  in  all  its 
morphological  traits,  it  seems  surprising  that  its  idiogram  should 
be  of  the  Regelia  pattern. 

The  taxonomical  position.  Iris  atrofusca  is  related  to  Iris  nigri¬ 
cans  on  one  hand  and  to  Iris  atropurpurea  on  the  other.  It  differs 
from  7.  atropurpurea  in  its  colour  being  chocolate  rather  than 
purple,  and  in  its  signal  patch  which  is  white  instead  of  yellow.  It 
differs  from  Iris  nigricans  mainly  in  the  fact  that  it  is  lighter  in 
colour  and  its  standards  from  the  base  upwards  bear  broad  brown 
stripes.  The  leaves  of  Iris  atrofusca  are  similar  to  those  of  Iris 
atropurpurea — swordlike  but  somewhat  broader  (12-14  mm  in 
7.  atrofusca,  8-10  mm  in  7.  atropurpurea) .  They  differ  markedly 
from  the  leaves  of  7.  nigricans  which  are  narrower  and  bent  out¬ 
wards. 

Its  rhizome  is  altogether  different  from  those  of  both  7.  atropur- 

*This  work  was  carried  out  partly  at  the  Botanical  Department  and  partly  at  the 
Zoological  Department  of  the  Hebx-ew  University.  I  should  like  to  express  my  sincerest 
thanks  to  Dr.  E.  Goldschmidt  for  her  interest  in  the  work,  her  help  and  instruction. 
I  also  wish  to  thank  Miss  Rachel  Shlubsky  who  prepared  some  of  the  slides  for  this 
work.  I  am  greatly  obliged  to  Dr.  Ashner  for  taking  the  microphotograph. 


83 


purea  and  I.  nigricans ,  the  nodes  being  more  densely  spaced.  It 
resembles  the  rhizome  of  I.  Haynei  bnt  differs  also  from  this  in 
its  colour  and  size.* 

Ecological  position.  Owing  to  its  geographical  situation,  Pales¬ 
tine  constitutes  a  meeting  place  for  three  large  phytogeographical 
regions:  The  Mediterranean,  the  Irano-Turanian  and  the  Saharo- 
Sindian  (Eig  1931,  1938).  According  to  this  system  Palestine  may 
be  divided  into  the  following  territories  each  possessing  a  charac¬ 
teristic  flora  of  its  own:  A)  The  Mediterranean  territory  in  the 
west,  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea  eastward  to  about  10  km  east  of 
the  watershed.  B)  The  Irano-Turanian  territory  spreading  on  the 
eastern  slopes  of  the  mountains.  C)  The  Saharo-Sindian  territory 
ranging  further  east  and  south  of  the  above  area;  it  includes  the 
Negeb  and  the  Judean-Desert.  In  Trans- Jordan  we  find  the  Irano- 
Turanian  Territory  in  two  areas  i.e.  on  the  eastern  and  western 
slopes  bordering  the  Mediterranean  upland. 

The  most  outstanding  feature  in  the  distribution  of  Oncocyclus 
Irises  is  their  limitation  to  the  Mediterranean-Irano-Turanian 
border  land. 

Owing  to  this  most  peculiar  distribution  Oncocyclus  Irises  are 
to  be  found  only  in  three  narrowly  delimited  areas:  one  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  and  two  in  Trans- Jordan.  These  species  are  highly  endemic, 
and  confined  to  areas  of  not  more  than  20  km  in  length  on  the 
average.  Thus  they  occupy  a  series  of  narrow  zones  all  arranged 
on  the  phytogeographical  frontier  line.  Iris  atrofusca  complies 
with  this  rule  as  well  as  all  other  species  of  Oncocyclus.  We  find 
it  at  the  southern  end  of  the  series  in  Palestine.  Iris  atrofusca  is 
found  from  Tekoah  in  the  south,  to  Ramun  (north  east  of  Ramal- 
lah)  in  the  north,  i.e.  an  area  of  distribution  which  does  not  exceed 
30  km  in  extent;  even  here  it  has  been  found  in  four  localities  only 
(Fig.  1).  None  of  these  four  biotopes  extends  over  more  than  50 
meters  in  breadth  and  more  than  300  meters  in  length.  The  biotope 
of  I.  atrofusca  is  further  characterized  by  the  following  flora: 

Echinops  Blancheana,  Carlina  corymbosa,  Ononis  Natrix,  Scro- 

\ 

phularia  xanthoglossa,  Asphodelus  microcarpus  and  Poterium 
spinosum.  The  first  five  of  these  species  are  characteristic  of  the 
Mediterranean-Irano-Turanian  border  land,  whilst  Poterium  spino¬ 
sum  is  a  typical  Mediterranean  plant  but  is  also  a  component  of 


*In  the  Alphabetical  Iris  Check  list  Iris  Haynei  is  classed  togethei*  with  Iris  atrofusca, 
a  classification  which  is  not  justified,  as  the  species  are  distinctly  different. 


84 


some  of  the  border  land  associations.  At  Ramun  the  Irises  are 
very  sparse,  and  grow  in  areas  not  exceeding  20  meters  in  breadth. 
50  meters  eastward  we  observe  the  beginning  of  Phlomis  brachidon 
associations — a  typical  Irano-Turanian  association. 

Since  in  its  morphology  as  well  as  in  its  ecology  /.  atrofusca  is  a 
typical  member  of  the  Oncocyclus  group  it  was  decided  to  re¬ 
examine  its  cytological  characteristics. 

The  karyotype  of  Iris  atrofusca 
Material  and  methods . 

The  cytological  examination  was  carried  out  on  root  tips  cut 
from  rooted  plants  a  month  before  the  onset  of  the  flowering 
season.  The  root  tips  were  fixed  in  Navashin’s  solution.  The  sec¬ 
tions  were  cut  transversely  or  longitudinally,  12-16  thick,  and  were 
stained  with  Heidenhain’s  iron  hematoxyline  or  with  Newton’s 
Crystal  Violet.  The  number  of  the  chromosomes  as  well  as  their 
shape  were  studied  in  metaphase  plates. 

The  number  of  the  chromosomes  is  20  (Fig.  2,  3  and  4).  Four 
of  these  bear  satellites,  the  other  16  being  acrocentric  (rod-shaped). 
The  two  satellited  pairs  may  easily  be  distinguished.  In  one  pair 
the  constriction  is  short,  and  the  satellite  is  large  and  as  thick  as 
the  chromosome  itself.  In  the  second  pair  the  constriction  is  long, 
and  the  satellite  is  small. 

The  other  8  pairs  of  chromosomes  can  be  divided  into  three 
groups  according  to  their  lengths:  a)  three  long  pairs,  one  of 
which  is  slightly  longer  than  the  others,  b)  three  medium  sized 
pairs,  one  of  which  is  slightly  longer  than  the  others,  c)  two  pairs 
of  short  chromosomes.  In  most  cases  a  minute  second  arm  can  be 
observed.  As  regards  the  satellite-chromosomes,  the  centromeres 
are  apparently  situated  at  the  end  of  the  constriction  adjoining 
the  bigger  arm.  This  may  be  deduced  from  the  fact  that  in  the 
anaphase  the  larger  part  of  the  constriction  together  with  the 
satellite  and  the  long  arm  are  turned  away  from  the  poles  of  the 
achromatic  figure  (Fig.  5). 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  constrictions  of  these  two  pairs  of 
chromosomes  function  as  nucleolar  organizers.  In  some  figures  of 
late  prophase  the  connection  between  the  constriction  of  the  chro¬ 
mosome  bearing  the  small  satellites  and  the  nucleolus  could  be 
observed.  (This  could  be  determined  in  preparations  stained  with 


85 


The  Mediterranean 
terretory. 


The  Saharo- 
S Indian  terretory 


The  Mediterranean- 
Ir  an  o-Turan  ian 
border  land. 


The  Sudan o- 
Becanian  Enclaves 


The  Irano-Turan- 
ian  terretory. 


Locality  of  Iris 
atrofusca 


Figure  1 


86 


Figure  2 


Newton’s  Crystal  Violet.  This  stain  leaves  the  nucleoli  transpar¬ 
ent,  and  thus  the  connection  can  be  recognized). 

Although  there  are  four  satellites  the  number  of  the  nucleoli  is 
not  constant.  In  most  cases  there  are  two  nucleoli.  Sometimes, 
however,  one,  three  and  even  four  nucleoli  can  be  found. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  nucleoli  counted  in  100 
cells  chosen  at  random.  Complete  cells  were  picked  out  as  far  as 


this  is  possible  in  sectioned  material. 

Number  of  nucleoli  Number  of  cells 

One  nucleolus .  21 

Two  nucleoli  partly  fused .  25 

Two  nucleoli . 47 

Three  nuceoli .  7 

Four  nucleoli .  — 


This  rough  table  gives  sufficient  indication  that  the  number  of 
nucleoli  is  not  fixed  and  does  not  correspond  as  a  rule  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  satellites  which  is  four.  Cells  containing  four  nucleoli  are 
very  rare,  the  majority  having  only  two.  The  variation  in  the 
number  of  nucleoli  may  be  explained  by  the  following  assumption : 
the  constriction  of  the  large  satellites  may  occasionally  function 
as  an  additional  nucleolus  organizer,  but  its  potency  is  less  than 
that  of  the  constriction  of  the  small  satellites.  If  there  is  competi¬ 
tion  amongst  the  four  chromosomes  for  the  nucleolar  material,  this 
would  explain  why  we  can  find  from  one  to  four  nucleoli  of  various 


87 


Figure  3 

sizes.  It  is  probable  that  in  many  cases  a  single  nucleolus  is  formed 
by  the  fusion  of  the  nucleoli  organized  by  two  different  chromo¬ 
somes  which  happen  to  be  near  each  other.  It  may  be  that  the  25 
cells  listed  in  the  second  row  of  the  above  table  belong  to  this 
category. 

Discussion 

The  above  results  are  so  different  from  those  obtained  by 
Simonet  in  his  material  of  Iris  atrofusca  that  the  discrepancy  can 
only  be  explained  by  the  assumption  that  his  stock  did  not  belong 
to  the  same  species. 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  noted  that  Simonet  himself  was 
puzzled  by  the  idiogram  of  the  I.  atrofusca  material  he  had  ordered 
from  Van-Tubergen  de  Haarlem  (Holland)  and  decided  to  repeat 
his  examinations  on  a  new  lot  of  material  ordered  in  the  subsequent 
season.  It  appears  that  he  was  once  again  supplied  from  the  same 
stock. 

Summary 

1.  The  ecological  and  morphological  characteristics  of  Iris  atro¬ 
fusca  are  described,  and  shown  to  conform  to  the  Oncocyclus 
type. 

2.  The  idiogram  of  Iris  atrofusca  consists  of  4  satellite  chromo- 


88 


Figure  4 


Figure  5 


89 


somes  and  16  acrocentric  elements.  Thus,  the  cylogical  features 
of  this  species  are  likewise  in  agreement  with  the  Oncocyclus 
pattern. 

Explanation  of  Figures 

Fig.  1.  Diagram  of  the  distribution  of  Iris  atrofusca  in  Palestine 
on  the  boundary  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Irano- 
Turanian  territories. 

The  Mediterranean  territory 

The  Mediterranean-Irano-Turanian  border  land 

The  Irano-Turanian  territory 

The  Saharo-Sindian  territory 

The  Sudano-Dccanian  Enclaves 

Locality  of  Iris  atrofusca 

Fig.  2.  Camera  lucida  drawing  of  metaphase  plate  of  Iris  atro¬ 
fusca.  Section  16  y,  Heidenhain’s  hematoxyline.  x  3600. 

Fig.  3.  Microphotograph  of  metaphase  plate  represented  in  Fig.  2. 

Fig.  4.  Camera  lucida  drawing  of  metaphase  plate  of  Iris  atro¬ 
fusca.  Section  16  [x,  Heidenhain’s  hematoxyline.  x  4200. 

Fig.  5.  Camera  lucida  drawing  of  metaphase  plate  of  Iris  atro¬ 
fusca.  Section  12  y,  Newton’s  Crystal  Violet,  x  4200. 
Note  satellite  chromosomes  at  the  upper  left. 


We  welcome  to  our  list  of  contributors  Mr.  Tuviali  Kushnir 
whose  article  on  I.  atrofusca  appears  above.  Concerning  him¬ 
self  Mr.  Kushnir  writes,  “I  was  born  in  Palestine  in  1923,  and 
grew  up  in  Kfar-Jechezkiel,  a  settlement  in  the  Valley  of  Jezrael. 
I  have  been  collecting  Irises  in  many  parts  of  Palestine  for  the 
last  8  years,  and  I  am  especially  interested  in  the  Oncocyclus 
group.  I  am  now  taking  a  biology  course  at  the  Hebrew  Univer- 
sity  in  Palestine  and  this  is  my  third  vear  as  a  student.” 


90 


Iris  Blue  Rose 


Iris  gracilipes — ‘ 4 BLUE  ROSE’7!  One  of  the  most  beautiful  of 
iris  species  producing  an  abundance  of  soft  lilac-blue  blossoms. 
One  would  hardly  dare  to  claim  an  improvement,  but  we  do  feel 
that  when  you  have  seen  the  double  form  you  will  agree  with  us 
that  it  is  even  more  lovely.  The  color  is  the  same  soft  lilac-blue, 
the  size  of  the  flower  the  same,  but  the  doubling  up  of  both  stand¬ 
ards  and  falls  give  this  iris  the  appearance  of  a  tiny  blue  rose  in 
full  bloom.  And  Blue  Rose  is  its  registered  name. 

Blue  Rose  originated  in  our  garden,  not  that  we  wanted  a  double 
iris.  The  original  plant  was  single,  and  had  been  planted  in  full 
sun,  wedged  among  rocks,  in  a  very  dry  position.  And  when  estab¬ 
lished  left  to  its  own  devices.  The  hardship  was  very  apparent 
in  as  much  as  the  fans  barely  reached  four  inches,  but  to  our 
surprise  the  flowers  turned  out  double.  Since  then  the  plants 
have  been  propagated  and  the  flowers  are  still  double  even  under 
the  best  conditions  after  six  years.  The  better  conditions  have 
produced  the  same  abundance  of  soft  green  foliage  and  many 
dowers,  which  get  more  double  as  the  season  advances.  It  was 
a  happy  accident  which  produced  this  unique  and  beautiful  Iris. 

K.  Christiansen,  Victoria,  Canada. 
(Obtainable  from  Carl  Starker,  Jennings  Lodge,  Ore.) 


91 


I.  verna,  a  native  of  wooded  hillsides  from  Pennsylvania  and 
Kentucky  southwards  has  long  had  a  reputation  of  being  one  of 
the  most  difficult  of  rock-garden  plants.  Years  back,  from  a  batch 
ordered  from  a  collector,  one  did  grow,  perched  on  a  gravelly  hill¬ 
side  close,  as  it  happened,  to  the  equally  difficult  /.  korolkowi  from 
Palestine.  It  is  dwarf  and  early  and  normally  presents  the  most 
brilliant  contrast  of  blue  and  orange  crest  of  all  the  irises,  unfor- 
getable  as  a  dream  for  a  bearded  variety. 

Anyone  familiar  with  the  pages  of  the  National  Horticultural 
Magazine  (which  now  shares  our  office)  will  be  familiar  with  the 
delightful  articles  by  Mrs.  J.  Norman  Henry,  an  indefatigable 
hunter  of  rare  plants  in  distant  hatbitats.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  she  has  bred  or  selected  a  group  of  color  variations  in  this 
species  (obtainable  from  Fairmount  Gardens).  Vernal  Snow  and 
Dawn  were  introduced  in  1941,  Vernal  Evening,  Fairy  and  Sim¬ 
plicity  came  out  in  1945  and  my  presumption  would  be,  immedi¬ 
ately,  that  they  would  be  far  from  difficult  to  establish  in  proper 
settings.  In  New  England  it  woulcl  be  with  a  carpet  of  the  dwarf 
sedums,  dasyphyllum,  acre ,  etc.  or  perhaps  Mazus  or  Mitchella. 
In  Tennessee,  only  the  native  sedums  thrive  and  the  evergreen 
tufts  rise  barely  from  the  earth  as  do  mats  of  the  Bird ’s  foot  violet, 
an  equally  difficult  problem.  Frankly  I  would  try  the  species  as 
inexpensive  collected  roots  first,  then  blow  myself  to  these  delight¬ 
ful  variations.  The  difficulty  is  not  with  transplanting  as  with  so 
many  of  the  California  species,  it  is  with  the  soil  and  location, 
perhaps  with  a  complete  lack  of  coddling  and  cultivation.  Mrs. 
Henry  is  also  responsible  for  at  least  one,  bicolor,  form  of  the  far 
more  easily  grown  I.  cristata  and  has  selected  an  equally  beguiling 
name  Crested  Fairy. 

U.  S.  Sturtevant. 

* 

MEMBER  GROUPS 

■  Although  the  Regional  Vice-Presidents  may  call  local  meet¬ 
ings,  the  Society  is  actually  interested  in  any  constructive  work 
on  irises  by  either  members  or  non-members,  individually  or  as  a 
group.  The  funds  of  the  Society  are  not  sufficient  to  give  much 
help,  except  in  a  limited  way  to  the  Regional  Vice-Presidents  and 
at  times  Bulletin  space  is  at  a  premium  so  that  your  editors  must 
select  only  points  of  common  interest  from  your  publications.  We 


92 


hope,  however,  that  we  may  be  put  on  your  mailing  list  and  you 
can  rest  assured  that  any  group  opinion  requesting  action  by  the 
A.I.S.  will  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Board  of  Directors. 

Originally  there  were  only  six  Regions  and  Regional  Vice- 
Presidents,  ex-officio  non-voting  members  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
and  specifically  empowered  to  appoint  assistant  secretaries,  treas¬ 
urers,  chairmen,  etc.  as  the  need  arose.  By  1928  when  the  Society 
was  incorporated  under  a  new  set  of  by-laws  the  number  of  Re¬ 
gions  had  increased  to  fifteen  (now  eighteen)  and  it  was  not  con¬ 
sidered  practical  to  specify  as  wide  powers  either  of  representation 
or  financial  support  without  specific  action,  on  request,  by  the 
Board  of  Directors.  For  many  years  the  Regional  Vice-Presidents 
were  invited  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  Directors  for  special 
discussion  when  circumstances  permitted.  Reports  in  person  or 
for  publication  are  still  expected  but  the  activities — and  the  co¬ 
operation  of  the  Society- — in  any  one  case,  have  varied  greatly. 

At  present  a  committee  is  studying  the  possibility  of  re-organ¬ 
izing  the  Regions  to  reflect  growth  habits  of  irises  rather  than 
being  based  on  state  groupings  and  arbitrary  lines.  Just  what  the 
current  practice  in  other  similar  societies  is,  I  do  not  know.  It 
would  seem  unwise  to  carry  too  heavy  a  burden  of  titles  when  the 
same  results  might  be  obtained  by  each  member  group  appointing 
a  reporter  to  send  in  general  news  to  the  Bulletin. 

The  fact  that  any  member  can  apply  for  assistance  in  their  local 
annual  show  should  give  a  local  group  opportunity  to  publicize 
their  cooperation  with  the  national  Society  and  in  accordance  with 
its  rules.  One  or  more  medals,  exhibition  supplies  at  cost,  etc.  be¬ 
come  available.  Naturally  more  space  is  given  to  a  show  report 
than  to  that  of  the  most  pleasant  of  meetings. 

Lantern  slides,  if  not  otherwise  in  use,  are  also  available  at  a 
rather  nominal  cost. 

Furthermore  the  member  groups  can  help  specifically  this  year 
in  at  least  two  respects.  1.  Regional  ratings  and/or  symposiums 
are  under  serious  discussion. 

2.  Before  another  spring  we  hope  to  list  “  Gardens  Open  to 
Members.”  Even  if  your  member  with  a  garden  were  not  an  A.I.S. 
member,  our  listing  of  your  ‘  ‘  Garden  Secretary  ’  7  with  approximate 
dates  might  lead  to  many  an  entertaining  visitor  from  afar. 

3.  And  this  may  or  may  not  prove  practical  owing  to  delays 


93 


in  printing.  Dates  of  both  Shows  and  Meetings  could  be  announced 
for  the  benefit  of  out-of-town  members. 

Although  our  members,  for  the  most  part,  have  few  opportunities 
for  getting  together  except  through  the  pages  of  the  Bulletin, 
many  opportunities  may  be  developed  for  local  visits  and  dis¬ 
cussions  and  any  help  that  can  be  given  from  headquarters  will 
find  a  ready  hearing. 

THE  KENT  GROUP  (England),  Hon.  Sec.  Anthony  W.  Drewett, 
Homesdale  Rd.,  Orpington,  Kent,  a  town  known  to  every  grower 
of  iris  so  that  to  find  Mrs.  Murrell  an  active  member  is  no  surprise. 
There  are  both  Iris  Society  Members,  and  associates,  and  meetings 
were  held  Nov.  14,  Dec.  14,  and  Jan.  18  with  spring  meetings 
out-of-doors  in  prospect  and  even  a  show  considered  for  1948.  We 
hope  for  a  report  on  their  Symposium. 

Of  especial  interest  to  us  perhaps  (and  especially  in  view  of  our 
Amoena  and  other  Breeding  Programs)  was  the  initiation  of  a 
hunt  for  old  varieties  and  their  preservation.  The  original  Plicata 
(Lamarck,  1785),  Buriensis,  1820  (also  a  plicata  and  reputedly 
the  oldest  recorded  TB  hybrid)  and  a  probable  Dominion  were 
available.  If  true  it  will  be  unmistakable  and  still  handsome  even 
by  modern  standards. 

Buriensis  is  definitely  not  attractive,  its  falls  rather  twisted  and 
incurved  its  etching  on  the  pink-lavender  side,  height  inconsider¬ 
able.  I  wonder  how  true  a  thirty  year  memory  proves. 

Another  point  worthy  of  emulation  is  that  each  member  brings 
in  any  iris  species  in  bloom,  a  custom  established  by  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society  and  of  great  value  through  the  years.  There 
is  also  a  chance  for  both  plant  and  pollen  exchange. 

SEATTLE  IRIS  SOCIETY  (Mrs.  F.  B.  Eylar,  Renton,  Washing¬ 
ton,  Pres.)  meets  the  first  Monday  in  every  month — often  a  lunch¬ 
eon  meeting— and  puts  out  also  a  monthly  news  sheet.  It  begins 
its  second  year  and  is  not  only  doing  a  grand  job  of  publicizing 
our  work  but  is  furthering  breeding  projects  and  a  wider  knowl¬ 
edge  of  species  as  well  as  of  the  constructive  work  of  the  A.I.S. 
As  Mrs.  Eylar  writes,  Seattle  has  a  climate  of  its  own,  ideal  appar¬ 
ently  for  the  Japanese  which  she  numbers  among  her  1200  varie¬ 
ties.  Such  a  report  emphasizes  the  need  of  Regional  selections  on 
a  far  smaller  scale  than  our  official  regions  would  permit. 
REGION  18,  Mrs.  Agnes  Whiting,  newly  appointed  but  has  she 
jumped  into  an  active  campaign  of  “ gardens  open  to  visitors/’ 


94 


thus  getting*  a  head  start  on  the  Society  as  a  whole?  '‘I  have  had 
dozens  of  grand  letters,  seven  new  members,  several  offers  of 
slides,  two  offers  of  group  meetings  this  fall,  reports  of  three 
meetings  already  held,  and  such  a  wonderful  spirit  of  cooperation 
— it  warms  the  heart.  And  all  this  within  a  week.  Of  course  a  lot 
of  them  think  that  this  is  a  service  out  from  headquarters  (as  it 
should  be.  R.S.S.)  but  that-  is  all  right  with  me.  Even  this  be¬ 
ginning  is  well  worth  the  time  and  money.”  We  look  forward  to 
her  annual  report  and  also  to  glean  from  her  correspondence  bits 
of  news  for  everybody. 

REGION  6.  Mrs.  Silas  B.  Waters  is  again  on  the  move  with  a 
questionnaire  on  Dwarf  Bearded  Irises  with  Mr.  Walter  Welch, 
Middlebury,  Ind.  as  Chairman.  Again  the  Bulletin  is  looking  for¬ 
ward  to  publishing  the  results. 

'‘The  Dwarf  section  of  Bearded  Iris  has  remained  in  an  obscure 
position  for  so  long  that  we  have  decided  to  find  out  why  this  is 
so,  and  after  proper  diagnosis,  to  try  to  apply  remedial  measures. 
It  is  a  question  as  to  whether  this  neglect  is  due  to  lack  of  interest, 
knowledge,  or  quality  or  whether  the  membership  is  less  articulate 
on  the  subject.  Hence  this  questionnaire  and  a  symposium  if  the 
returns  justify  it.” 

REGION  7.  John  E.  Pierce,  though  it  was  an  enthusiastic  guest, 
Mrs.  E.  B.  Blalock,  Como,  Miss,  that  reports  of  an  informal  meet¬ 
ing  with  talk  of  a  municipal  planting  in  Memphis,  Tenn.  and  a 
show  at  the  Pink  Palace. 

For  vears,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  a  varied  number  of 
annual  reports  from  the  Regional  Vice-Presidents  but  the  last 
issue  was  the  first  to  start  what  appears  to  be  becoming  a  regular 
department.  May  space  keep  pace  with  such  activities! 

R.  8.  Sturtevcmt. 


OUR  MEMBERS  WRITE 

|  Both  last  year  and  this  a  certain  opening  the  gates  of  publica¬ 
tion  in  the  Bulletin  has  been  the  subject  of  criticism.  As  editor 
this  was  one  of  my  early  policies,  and  Mr.  Douglas  the  present 
editor,  has  rarely  censored  my  copy.  I  stepped  on  someone’s  toes 
in  merely  wondering  why  so  few  catalogs  recommended  the  A.  I.  S. 
One  dealer,  and  not  the  one  I  had  in  mind  at  all,  as  fully  40%  of 
the  catalogs  at  hand  were  in  default,  has  since  sent  in  more  than 
100  new  members.  Then  I  published  a  raft  of  "plik”  comments 


and  other  members  were  rampant,  but  we  hope  you  will  like  the 
articles  in  this  issue,  which  is  dedicated  to  plicatas,  and  will  find 
the  results  of  acrimony  helpfully  constructive. 

Again  both  classifications  on  Intermediates  and  on  color  have 
been  opened  to  discussion.  Such  a  classification  in  its  relation  to 
fields  wider  than  that  of  iris  alone,  and  the  possible  effect  of 
changes  on  past  publications  which  have  found  recognition  in  the 
whole  world  of  horticulture,  is  not  a  matter  of  careless  preference. 
There  will  be  more  open  discussion,  but  already  the  dropping  of 
height  as  a  dividing  mark  between  Dwarf,  Intermediate  and  Tall 
Bearded  is  under  serious  consideration.  At  present  there  seems 
to  be  no  valid  objection  to  this  idea.  By  the  time  the  1949  Check 
List  is  ready  for  publication,  important  but  thoroughly  justifiable 
changes  may  find  recognition. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  a  fee  be  charged  for  registration  and 
it  is  argued  that  anyone  who  wishes  to  register  an  iris  would  be 
willing  to  pay  some  sort  of  fee,  since  theoretically  an  iris  registered 
is  a  potential  introduction.  If  a  fee  is  charged  won’t  this  be  a 
bit  hard  on  the  less  moneyed  member?  Again  the  Bulletin  is  open- 
minded  on  this  question  and  welcomes  your  opinion. 

In  our  request  to  commercial  growers  to  advertise  and  offer  for 
sale  (or  as  premiums)  the  book  on  irises  we  expect  to  have  ready 
in  the  late  fall,  we  ran  into  that  perennial  question,  “does  the 
A.I.S.  help  commercial  members?”  I  have  no  letters  to  quote  on 
this  subject  but  there  is  as  much  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
growers  as  there  was  about  “pliks.  ”  Again  it  is  a  matter  of 
opinion,  and  hence  of  general  interest,  and  again  it  should  not  be 
taken  as  a  matter  of  personal  pique.  Surely  we  can  disagree — and 
especially  at  a  distance — one  from  another  by  correspondence  or 
in  print — without  prejudice. 

Breeders  with  small  lists  offering  only  their  own  introductions 
tend  to  make  no  recommendation  of  the  Society  EXCEPT  when 
they  have  an  award  to  publicize.  “My  mailing  list  is  small — hence 
unimportant  ’  ’  is  one  quote ;  “  I  merely  use  it  with  garden  visitors  ’  ’ 
is  another,  BUT  there  must  be  many  cases  when  the  membership 
list  is  their  one  and  only  mailing  list  to  other  than  old  customers. 
A  careless  inexperience  seems  to  be  a  more  justifiable  excuse.  With 
the  big  specialty  growers  it  may  be  mere  thoughtlessness  but  it 
also  may  be  due  to  1,  a  fear  of  competition  if  other  growers  should 
use  the  A.  I.  S.  membership  list,  2,  mere  lack  of  thinking,  and  3, 


96 


an  analysis  of  the  customer  list  that  reveals  a  very  small  number 
of  A.  I.  S.  members. 

In  the  early  days  Glen  Road  Iris  Gardens  had  a  mailing  list  of 
between  5-7,000,  the  A.I.S.  a  membership  list  of  perhaps  5-700. 
The  sales  of  high  priced  novelties  was  divided  between  those  who 
saw  them  in  the  garden,  those  Who  believed  the  catalogue  and  the 
relatively  few  that  read  about  them  in  the  bulletins.  The  A.  I.  S. 
gave  very  few  awards  before  1928,  and  though  there  were  sympo¬ 
siums  beginning  in  1924,  ratings  and  a  few  awards,  there  was  no 
publicity  compared  to  the  multiplicity  of  awards  in  recent  years. 
That  some  recent  dealers  with  mailing  lists  running  over  25-30,000 
might  consider  the  percentage  of  A.  I.  S.  customers  too  small  for 
consideration  is  not  surprising.  What  the  A.  I.  S.  has  done  in 
promoting  the  development  and  popularity  of  irises  in  over  twenty- 
five  years  can  not  be  measured  statistically  and  certainly  not  in 
the  analysis  of  the  sales  of  any  one  dealer.  It  certainly  compares 
favorably  with  the  other  floral  societies  in  the  establishment  of 
nomenclature,  classification,  standards  of  excellence,  and  scientific 
investigation.  Perhaps  the  amazing  number  of  breeders  is  a  better 
estimate,  and  the  enhanced  quality  of  individual  varieties  a  better 
basis  for  judgment  of  the  contribution  the  Society  has  made  to 
horticulture  and  gardens.  At  any  rate,  no  specialty  grower  would 
hesitate  to  be  a  member  as  a  matter  of  keeping  in  touch  with  cur¬ 
rent  developments  and,  logically  no  grower  should  hesitate  to  give 
at  least  an  inch  of  space  (as  compared  to  perhaps  a  page  to  a 
new  introduction)  to  inviting  a  customer  to  become  a  member  of 
the  A.  I.  S.  That  seems  the  least  we  might  expect  of  any  member 
— a  recommendation — and  in  complete  disregard  of  whether  the 
Bulletin  has  given  them  as  breeders  or  introducers  what  they  con¬ 
sider  sufficient  publicity. 

After  all,  we  seek  to  publish  any  comment  which  does  not  seem 
like  a  catalogue  blah  from  an  interested  party,  and  it  is  no  fault 
of  the  Society  that  certain  gardens,  certain  varieties  get  undue 
publicity  purely  and  simply  because  more  reporters  send  in  the 
information.  Few  members  realize  how  dependent  an  editor  is 
upon  voluntary  contributions.  With  experience  an  editor  realizes 
that  praise  of  a  certain  variety  can  be  due  to  an  organized  cam¬ 
paign,  that  votes  can  be  evolved  to  win  an  award,  (it  has  occurred, 
I  am  sure,  for  at  least  fifteen  years)  but  that  it  is  no  reason  for 
the  Bulletin  to  omit  such  a  report.  “ Freedom  of  the  press”  is  a 


97 


frequent  rallying  cry  but  in  our  case  it  is  more  a  matter  of  which 
member  will  contribute  items  of  general  interest.  Any  contribu¬ 
tion  that  is  considered  free  of  personalities  presumably  will  be  of 
interest  to  other  members  of  the  Society. 

And  please  do  not  forget  that  these  points  have  the  general  ap¬ 
proval,  perhaps,  of  your  editor  but  are  actually  the  opinions  of 
yours  trul}^.  R.  S.  Sturtevant. 

With  this  all  too  long  introduction  I  group  the  varied  comments 
from  members  and  do  not  refrain  from  adding  personal  comments 
or  bits  of  information. 

On  Time  and  Color.  “I  would  certainly  like  to  have  a  listing  of 
irises  with  the  same  color  value,  together  with  their  time  of  bloom¬ 
ing.  For  instance,  last  summer  I  wanted  to  plant  Wabash  among 
clumps  of  white  and  clumps  of  blue  the  color  of  its  falls.  I  read 
catalogues  and  asked  everyone  who  might  know  when  the  whites 
bloomed  or  what  I  could  plant  for  blue.  The  result — nil. 

"Wouldn’t  it  be  fine  if  we  could  have  a  page  in  the  Bulletin 
and  have  members  note  pleasing  combinations  with  blooming  times 
alike.  For  instance,  I’ll  send  you  this  note  if  my  plans  work  out, 
"Wabash  planted  contiguously  with — white  and — blue,  all  bloom¬ 
ing  at  the  same  time  gave  an  excellent  effect.”  Mrs.  Lee  Reynolds, 
T  ennessee. 

Sweet  Neglect.  "I  am  a  fanatic  on  cultivation  in  my  thin  soil  and 
drought  and  I  think  I  lose  varieties  by  over-coddling  them.  The 
one  bed  which  has  never  had  a  case  of  soft  rot  is  the  one  with 
protection  from  both  heat  and  cold.  It  has  a  tall  hedge  to  the 
north  and  oak  trees  to  the  west,  the  leaves  of  which  drift  in  as  a 
winter  mulch  and  it  gets  only  four  to  five  hours  of  sun  a  day.  ’  ’ 
Mrs.  West,  Mississippi. 


A  Vote  for  the  Tried  and  True.  "Flowers  should  be  judged  as 
Garden  Clumps,  or  at  least  both  for  garden  and  show  value,  be¬ 
cause  most  iris  or  any  flower  is  enjoyed  from  morning  to  dusk. 
There  are  too  many  of  us  who  can  not  afford  the  novelties  and 
find  enduring  pleasure  in  the  older  varieties  which  have  proved 
their  value  through  the  years.  Mrs.  Lee  Brown,  Kansas. 
RATINGS.  Our  good  president  suggests  a  "Medley  of  Rating 
Comments  for  the  October  Bulletin  (closing  date  Aug.  1).  It  may 
prove  illuminating.  What  we  want  specifically  is  to  give  the 
ratings  a  greater  spread,  instead  of  having  them  all  hover  around 
85-89.”  From  Michigan  Mr.  Cronin  writes,  "Of  what  value  are 


98 


they?’7  while  Mrs.  Nesmith  who  has  used  them  in  her  catalogs  to 
help  purchasers  (and  it  is  excellent  publicity  for  the  A.  I.  S.  also) 
reports  that  New  England  was  not  in  favor  of  dropping  them. 
She  considers  ratings  of  far  greater  value  than  the  symposium, 
whereas  Mr.  Cronin  wants  symposiums  for  every  botanical  group 
and  Bearded  classification,  and,  we  hope  he  will  volunteer  to  do 
one  of  the  lot.  In  all  seriousness  many  members  (and  the  mem¬ 
bership  would  have  to  be  canvassed)  would  appreciate  any  grouped 
report  on  the  Siberians,  etc.,  at  least  every  third  year.  It  would 
develop  an  added  enthusiasm  and  bring  forth  articles  of  interest 
for  the  Bulletins. 

As  to  ratings,  a  numerical  spread  will  never  appear  until  the 
judges  become  thoroughly  accustomed  to  the  use  of  a  score  card, 
where  the  individual  qualities  are  separately  evaluated.  Too  many 
judges  are  in  the  habit  of  giving  an  iris  a  rating  without  actually 
analyzing  its  good  or  bad  points.  In  the  early  records  a  divergence 
in  votes  from  different  localities  might  often  exceed  25%,  and 
ratings  were  made  largely  on  varieties  of  known  performance. 
REGISTRATION.  The  question  of  a  fee  of  from  $1.00  to  $10.00 
is  still  discussed.  Mr.  Linse  (Yakima,  Wash.)  thinks  that  “many 
breeders  have  been  using  the  Check  List  as  a  stud  book”  and  sug¬ 
gests  that  they  keep  their  own  records  and  help  keep  our  published 
lists  within  reasonable  size,  cost  and  labor.  He  goes  on  to  list  one 
case  of  60  registrations  from  which  one  introduction,  five  years 
later,  and  practically  no  distribution  was  made.  Mr.  Gersdorff 
could  better  outline  the  work  involved  in  any  one  name  sent  in, 
for  first  comes  the  making  of  a  file  card  (often  preceded  by  cor¬ 
respondence  to  get  full  and  accurate  date)  then  the  sorting  of 
cards  and  copying  them  for  the  printer,  and  at  least  three  proof 
readings  to  be  followed  by  corrections  on  both  cards  and  records. 
The  registrations  are  published  annually  and  finally  added  to  a 
Check  List  with  its  due  need  of  proofing,  and  both  reader  and 
printer  needs  experience  to  handle  the  various  types  and  symbols. 
Personally  I  consider  it  a  necessary  evil  but  one  that  should  be  a 
free  service  to  any  grower.  Many  breed  irises  and  offer  them  for 
sale  as  non-members  and  their  work  must  be  recorded.  Hence, 
why  penalize  our  members?  If  their  conscience  pricks,  let  them 
make  an  outright  gift  from  time  to  time  to  a  fund  for  research 
or  any  other  acknowledged  objective. 

To  be  complete  our  Check  List  must  include  hundreds  of  un- 


99 


registered  varieties,  many  of  foreign  origin,  and  registration  is 
merely  an  attempt  to  cover  the  time  lag  between  the  major  task 
of  publishing  a  Check  List. 

Incidentally  few  breeders,  as  yet,  have  made  any  attempt  to 
help  as  requested  in  the  October,  1946  Bulletin. 

Many  members  seem  to  begrudge  good  names  to  originators  and 
would  prefer  to  re-use  them  after  a  longer  or  shorter  period.  The 
1931  DISCARD  LIST  carried  both  extinct  and  superceded  varie¬ 
ties,  as  well  as  recommending  others,  individually  considered  by 
the  Directors  as  worthy  of  discard.  The  1939  Check  List  indicates 
names  and  varieties  considered  1 — obsolete,  2 — nearly  obsolete  and 
3 — suyercedecl,  which  covers  the  same  ground  and  uses  the  1931 
information  plus  further  knowledge.  Assuming  that  Check  Lists 
continue  to  be  published  at  ten  year  intervals,  it  would  seem  to 
me  unwise  to  clutter  up  the  annual  lists  with  even  more  names 
and  changes  therein  purely  to  make  it  easier  for  a  breeder  to  find 
a  name.  There  was  an  Afterglow  (Cap.  1901)  but  no  record  of 
its  distribution,  and  Afterglow  (Sturt.  1917)  that  received  con¬ 
siderable  mention  in  articles  as  well  as  in  catalogs,  and  an  out¬ 
standing  variety  in  1948  with  the  same  name  will  merely  confuse 
the  historian.  An  error  in  chromosome  count  (I.  atrofusca)  of 
fifteen  years  standing  is  reported  in  this  issue.  It  was  due  to  in¬ 
correct  nomenclature.  With  our  increased  interest  in  genetics  it 
seems  still  more  unwise  to  consider  a  name  obsolete  without  careful 
limitations.  The  Amoena  program  could  use  a  number  of  the  1931 
discards  to  advantage. 

From  “Bill”  Cahoon  in  Birmingham  comes  another  tirade.  He 
thinks,  perhaps,  a  plant  might  go  to  a  test  garden  in  lieu  of  a  fee. 
“I  should  like  to  give  the  coming  new  members  a  chance  at  the 
thousands  of  names  of  non-existent  varieties  so  they  would  not 
have  to  rack  their  brains  for  a  name  that  is  not  appropriate  now 
or  a  credit  to  the  English  (or  American)  language.” 

The  Editor  has  received  many  bouquets  that  we  delete,  not  be¬ 
cause  they  are  not  heartening  to  us,  but  because  they  are  of  little 
constructive  value  to  our  members.  However,  they  do  help  enor¬ 
mously  in  formulating  policy. 

Our  member  groups  have  been  so  active  and  the  discussion  of 
various  points  of  classification  so  voluminous  that  we  relegate 
them  to  separate  titles,  and  even  at  that  must  apologize  for  omit¬ 
ting  much,  we  hope  intelligently.  B.  S.  Sturt evant. 


100 


CLASSIFICATION 


■  Though  Mr.  Douglas  was  among  the  first  to  explode  in  print 
on  Intermediates  and  Mr.  Allen  the  one  to  seek  “Strange  Bed¬ 
fellows,”  I  am  opening  the  show  with  a  brief  excerpt  from  Dr. 
Randolph. 

“I  have  no  preconceived  notions  or  fixed  ideas  at  the  present 
time,  except  perhaps  that  we  had  better  go  slow  until  we  are  sure 
where  we  are  going.”  After  all,  the  Directors  of  the  Society 
fifteen  years  ago  did  offer  a  practical  but  very  unscientific  solu¬ 
tion  of  these  problems.  Now,  however,  we  should  be  realistic  and 
try  to  anticipate  complications  that  are  sure  to  arise.  The  only 
difficulty  (in  all  classification)  is  the  problem  of  disposing  of  the 
border  line  cases,  a  problem  that  is  always  present  when  one 
attempts  to  distinguish  gray  from  black  and  white.” 

The  following  is  a  goodly  part  of  a  talk  given  by  Mr.  Allen 
before  the  New  England  Members : 

INTERMEDIATES  and  Border  Irises. 

In  its  27th  year  the  A.I.S.  has  reason  for  feeling  reasonably 
mature  and  of  some  wisdom.  However,  an  academic  friend  who 
has  followed  my  iris  adventures  for  the  past  ten  years  recently 
took  me  to  task  for  a  chance  remark  that  I  had  made  about,  the 
science  of  iris  growing.  He  admitted  that  we  had  made  a  little 
headway  in  disease  control  (I  didn’t  tell  him  how  little)  but  went 
on  to  say — “You  iris  lovers,  like  all  flower  lovers,  are  just  a  lot 
of  artists  and  esthetes  who  go  wild  in  pursuit  of  your  hobby  first 
in  one  direction  and  then  in  another.” 

AYhen  I  showed  him  the  Check  List  and  the  various  articles  on 
genetics  and  other  technical  subjects,  he  was  willing  to  concede 
that  we  were  developing  that  sense  of  order  which  is  preliminary 
and  necessary  to  scientific  progress.  The  human  mind  is,  of  course, 
an  essentially  orderly  thing.  The  great  majority  of  us  think  in 
terms  of  association,  design,  plan,  consequence  and  the  like.  Our 
many  forms  of  expression  derive  principally  from  organized 
thought  and  that  leads  naturally  to  orderly  action  and  finally  we 
have  patterns  for  describing  and  classifying  irises.  Each  pattern 
has  a  name  and  the  name  is  a  convenient  and  useful  word  or  words 
that  take  the  place  of,  and  avoid  the  repetition  of,  long  descrip¬ 
tions  that  would  otherwise  be  necessary  every  time  we  wished  to 
refer  to  an  amoena,  a  spuria,  or  any  of  the  others. 


101 


The  founders  of  the  Society  were  orderly  minded  right  from 
the  start.  Only  a  few  months  had  elapsed  before  work  was  started 
on  a  catalog  of  known  varieties  and  a  symposium  was  initiated  to 
determine  the  relative  quality  or  popularity  of  varieties.  (Jan. 
1921,  No.  2.)  Since  that  time  there  has  been  steady  progress  in 
the  development  of  iris  nomenclature,  description,  classification, 
and  evaluation,  a  more  rapid  progress  because  the  Society  could 
observe  and  profit  by  the  trials  and  errors  of  the  older  horticultural 
societies  and  botanical  groups. 

We  do  not  seek  to  invade  the  strictly  botanical  province,  nor  do 
we  concern  ourselves  as  much  as  we  should  with  the  many  rare  and 
difficult  species  from  the  far  places  of  the  world.  We  pay  all  too 
scant  attention  to  many  a  group  that  our  members  enjoy — in  fact 
we  are  sometimes  called  the  Tall  Bearded  Iris  Society,  a  soubriquet 
that  we  will  have  to  avoid  unless  we  wish  to  become  the  specialists 
that  we  certainly  are  not  at  present. 

A  NEW  PATTERN  IS  NEEDED.  Although  we  are  in  the 
habit  of  conforming  to  custom  until  we  outgrow  it  or  development 
outstrips  it,  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  clamoring  for  an  improvement 
when  that  seems  needed.  Recently  we  are  becoming  aware  of  an 
expressed  need  for  several  improvements. 

Perhaps  the  most  urgent  is  for  some  reasonably  good  and  accu¬ 
rate  way  of  describing — by  symbol — the  many  polychrome  blends 
and  some  better  descriptive  term  is  needed  for  the  new  plicatas  to 
which  Dr.  Mitchell  has  applied  the  seemingly  appropriate  term 
‘  ‘  Fancy.  ’  ’ 

My  immediate  interest,  however,  is  the  emphasis  on  height  as 
the  group  determinant  between  DB,  IB,  and  TB.  (For  definitions 
see  1939  Check  List.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  while  many  of  the  dwarfs  are  40  chomo- 
some  tetraploids  and  most  of  the  tails  are  diploids  and  tetraploids 
of  approximately  24  and  48  chromozones  respectively  (with  a  few 
triploids,  36,  and  pentaploids  60)  the  Intermediate  section  as 
described  includes  many  44  chromosome  hybrids  but  may  include 
some  medium  height  varieties  of  the  other  two  sections  (by  chromo¬ 
some  count). 

Fortunately  relatively  few  varieties  have  been  described  as  IB 
but  there  is  a  recent  trend  toward  including  more  tetraploids 
which  will  lead  to  further  confusion. 

A  re-examination  of  the  situation  naturally  goes  back  to  the 


102 


early  days  of  the  intermediates.  It  must  be  remembered  that  prior 
to  1933  the  word  Intermediate  meant  intermediate  in  time  of 
bloom  between  the  average  dwarf  and  the  average  tall  bearded. 
Naturally  it  became  a  catch-all.  In  1933  came  the  sincere  effort 
to  solve  temporarily  at  least,  a  problem  of  increasing  preplexitv. 
If  our  breeders  had  not  extended  the  range  of  all  types  of  bearded 
irises,  both  as  to  season  and  as  to  height,  and  if  we  had  not  become 
so  chromosome  conscious  the  rule  would  probably  still  be  effective. 

NOAV  WHERE  ARE  AYE.  AVe  had  some  ten  varieties  registered 
or  re-registered  in  1946  and  only  one  is  likely  to  be  a  TB  x  DB 
hybrid  from  the  given  parentages. 

Granted  that  the  TB  x  DB  or  vice  versa  hybrids  are  the  true 
intermediate  shall  we  call  the  others  “ false  intermediate”  an  ab¬ 
surdity,  or  “Intermediates  perhaps”  as  Mr.  Gersdorff  suggests? 
Or  can  we  make  a  clean-cutting  definition,  eliminating  height  as 
I  suggested  on  page  74,  No.  104. 

This  would  immediately  establish  a  list  of  perhaps  fifty  fair  to 
excellent  “intermediates”  and  the  very  smallness  of  the  list  would 
tend  to  provoke  interest  among  the  growers  and  breeders.  (Many 
of  whom  already  offer  them  in  a  separate  list.) 

TA'PES  OF  TALL  BEARDED.  If  this  Intermediate  problem 
can  be  solved  on  a  genetic  or  botanical  basis  we  still  have  the 
problem  of  the  increasing  confusion  among  the  tall  bearded,  which 
now  includes  the  following  categories: 

Genetic :  Diploid,  Tetraploid,  Pentaploid,  Heteroploid. 

Plant  Growth :  Short,  medium,  tall,  very  tall. 

Blooming  Season :  Very  early  and  combinations  to  very  late. 

It  includes  the  very  early  tall  triploid  San  Gabriel  and  the 
short, mid-season  heteroploid  Black  Valor  and  only  the  chromosome 
numbers  are  uneffected  by  soil,  location,  climate,  or  weather. 

Of  course,  we  may  become  accustomed  to  saying  “Tetra  Irises” 
just  as  Tetra  Phlox  or  Snapdragons  have  been  publicized,  but,  as 
a  Society,  I  hardly  think  we  are  ready  for  that. 

For  the  present  it  seems  appropriate  to  omit  the  chromosome 
count  of  the  big  (tetraploid)  varieties.  Description  of  the  bloom¬ 
ing  season  is  satisfactory  but  what  about  heights  of  12  to  72 
inches?  AVe  might  get  a  classification  of  1 — less  than  18  inches; 
2 — 18-30,  3 — 30-42,  and  4 — More  than  42  inches  with  almost  90% 
of  the  novelties  in  the  30-42  group. 

AVe  might  use  Mr.  Douglas’s  term  “Border  Iris”  for  the  18-30 


1 03 


group.  Human  nature  being  what  it  is  there  is  relatively  little 
prospect  of  any  other  than  a  Tall  Bearded  Tetraploid  receiving 
top  honors.  It  is  unfortunate  that  there  is  no  provision  for  a  high 
award  for  lower  varieties.  Perhaps  time  and  member  interest  will 
bring  such  interest.  Robert  E.  Allen. 

Mr.  Douglas  confesses  that  his  suggestion  of  the  term  "Border’’ 
was  just  "fishing"  to  get  people  talking  but  "when  I  got  to  think¬ 
ing  about  it,  it  seems  to  complicate  matters,  and  require  a  ‘  ‘  Table  ’  ’ 
group,  perhaps  more,  so  that  now  I  wish  it  used  purely  as  a  catalog 
descriptive  term. 

"Why  not  avoid  height  except  as  relative — SHORT,  MEDIUM, 
TALL  and  the  border  line  cases — throwbacks  genetically — would 
land  in  either  DB  or  TB,  the  chromosome  count  being  a  guide 
and  not  a  determinant. 

"WHY  NOT  LET  THE  BREEDER  BE  THE  JUDGE  when 
he  registers  a  variety?"  To  quote  Dr.  Randolph: 

"IT  should  be  the  originator’s  responsibility  throughout." 

"The  placing  of  Oncobreds  and  Wm.  Mohr  derivatives  with  the 
Intermediates  would  be  most  unfortunate  as  it  would  tend  to  ob¬ 
scure  their  distinctive  origins.  After  one  or  two  generations  seed¬ 
lings  of  Elmohr  by  TB  tetraploids  will  be  essentially  TB  in  chromo¬ 
some  number  and  breeding  behaviour. 

(Miscellaneous  Bearded,  Dwarf  or  Tall  would  permit  subdivi¬ 
sion  into  Oncobred,  Pogocyclus,  or  Regliopogon,  etc.  where  origins 
were  of  genetic  value.  R.S.S.) 

"Here  are  some  of  the  complications  we  have  to  face  (among 
the  Intermediates)  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  all  sorts  of 
intergrading  forms,  genetically,  cytologically,  morpthologically, 
and  physiologically. 

1.  What  are  we  going  to  do  with  advanced  generation  hybrids 
of  true  intermediates  backcrossed  either  to  the  dwarf  or  tall  par¬ 
ents?  e.g.  Florentania  (Titania  x  Florentina)  (G.  Douglas)  a 
source  of  real  progress. 

2.  What  to  do  with  48  chromosome  balkana f  I  have  rather  nice 
selfed  seedlings  that  are  highly  fertile  and  look  like  intermediates 
in  all  respects. 

3.  What  about  the  genetic  dwarfs  we  are  going  to  find  among 
the  TB  tetraploids  and  diploids — like  Mendel’s  dwarf  peas? 

4.  We  usually  think  of  the  true  intermediates  as  having  44 
Ch.  but  I  have  some  interesting  32s  from  Trinket  x  Pluie  d’Or. 


104 


5.  Not  all  dwarfs  have  40  chromosomes.  There  is  attica  with  16, 
true  pumilas  with  32,  and  probably  others  with  36.  It  looks  as 
though  the  40s  are  pentaploids;  certainly  they  cannot  be  tetra- 
ploids  from  a  base  number  10,  for  that  number  is  known  only 
from  the  Oncocyclus  section.  ”  Dr.  L.  F.  Randolph. 

Mr.  Miles  is  a  bit  ahead  of  time  in  thinking  his  “pet,  peeve  (the 
height  specification)  is  to  be  scotched”  though,  as  through  a  glass 
dimly,  I  am  beginning  to  sense  certain  agreements,  satisfaction 
with  TB  and  DB,  perhaps  with  a  true  IB,  satisfaction  with  E.  M. 
and  L.  seasons  for  each,  and  perhaps  short,  medium,  and  tall  for 
each.  Will  I  start  something  if  I  call  Tom-Tit  a  very  late  DB  or 
Peewee  a  mid-season  what? 

Mr.  Welch  drifts  into  added  groups  of  “Bedding”  for  oversize 
dwarfs,  and  “Border”  for  short  or  early  TBs  (nice  intervening 
catch-alls)  and  Table  Iris;  in  conjunction  with  DB,  IB,  and  TB; 
each  with  its  specified  range  of  height  in  inches. 

The  great  value  of  relatively  small,  recognizable  groups  for 
catalog  purposes  is  unmistakable — any  grouping  as  to  season, 
height,  or  color,  adds  enormously  to  the  ease  of  selecting  varieties 
for  garden  use  but,  in  a  catalog,  there  is  a  chance  to  bring  out 
the  attractions  of  a  variety  whereas  in  a  Check  List  we  are  already 
faced  with  a  host  of  symbols  that  are  none  too  easy  to  remember. 
Again  the  grower  knows  his  varieties  and  can  group  them  as  he 
wishes  whereas  the  compiler  depends  on  records  many  of  them 
made  by  others  and  cannot  make  close  distinctions.  Are  we  trying 
to  reach  an  impossible  perfection  in  our  abbreviated  classifications? 

COLOR  is  next  on  the  agenda  and  Mr.  Allen  again  is  a  protago¬ 
nist.  His  “Strange  Bedfellows”  brought  many  letters  and  I  quote 
from  the  following  from  Mr.  Lloyd  Austin  of  Placerville,  Calif. 

“Personally  I  dislike  the  double  approach  now  required.  The 
entire  lack  of  named  classes  as  pink,  lavender,  purple,  orange, 
brown,  and  copper  is  annoying  and  also  the  need  of  finding  these 
by  trying  to  combine  “Predominant”  and  “Subordinate.”  Pink  is 
an  iris  color  of  such  importance  that  it  would  not  be  “created” 
by  the  combining  of  white  and  red  but  would  be  a  color  in  its  own 
right  and  subject  to  modification  as  are  the  other  main  colors. 

“I  think  the  errors  now  are  not  on  the  part  of  the  originators 
but  in  the  system.  If  there  were  more  main  colors,  the  average 
person  would  come  closer  to  proper  placement. 

“I  would  also  eliminate  the  heading  “Blend”  as  a  predominant 


105 


and  place  it  on  a  par  with  “Plicata”  which  I  prefer  to 
“  Feathered.  ”  In  my  first  catalog  which  included  only  170  va¬ 
rieties,  I  grouped  them  into  28  color  classes  whereas  my  full  color 
classification  of  500  varieties  would  make  82  more  refined  classes — 
a  basis  for  my  Rainbow  Garden  with  each  class  following  the 
sequence  in  the  spectrum.” 

AS  usual  I  comment,  I  preferred  the  original  classification  (No. 
13)  into  Yellow,  Lavender,  Blend,  and  White  as  major  divisions 
with  its  hint  of  genetic  origins  and  I  always  considered  that  the 
attempt  to  divide  red  and  blue  (as  at  present)  became  almost  an 
impossibility  in  all  too  many  border  line  cases.  Naturally  Mr. 
Austin’s  suggestion  of  28  such  major  subdivisions  seems  beyond 
belief.  That  first  attempt  made  further  subdivisions  on  typical 
varieties  which  is  actually  what  Mr.  Austin  has  done,  it  is  what 
I  do  still  in  my  notes.  Take  the  “new  pinks”  I  have  the  faintness 
of  Buffawn,  the  shape  of  Melitza,  the  attractive  veining  of  Spindrift 
perhaps  as  “types”  and  many  notes  group  themselves  about  these 
three  or  more  older  or  more  easily  remembered  varieties. 

A  similar  grouping  in  any  Varietal  report  is  most  helpful  BUT 
it  complicates  rather  than  simplifies  a  classification  which,  in  ab¬ 
breviated  form,  is  adapted  to  a  Check  List  description.  I  find  the 
present  set-up  of  classes  and  botanical  groups,  of  season,  color, 
fragrance,  references  and  awards,  of  actually  many  more  symbols, 
almost  beyond  comprehension.  I  am  continually  embarked  on  a 
“refresher”  course  that  never  reaches  that  last  bitter-sweet  hint 
of  asafoetida  and  I  certainly  pray  that  further  changes  will  not 
seek  to  enlarge  an  already  cumbersome  amount  of  information.  I 
appreciate  the  difficulty  in  classifying  blends,  a  fact  that  is  in¬ 
tensified  when  so  many  fade  from  an  exciting  richness  to  a  com¬ 
mon  drab.  That  is  the  underlying  division  at  present  and  in  the  eye 
of  anv  one  observer  at  any  one  time  it  will  work  with  mightv  few 
exceptions.  R.  S.  Sturtevant. 

®  The  Bulletin  takes  this  opportunity  of  congratulating  Mrs.  Mil- 
ton  Trichel  on  being  elected  the  new  President  of  the  Marv 
Swords  DeBaillon  Louisiana  Iris  Society,  and  Mr.  E.  P.  Arceneaux 
as  the  new  Vice  President.  Miss  Marie  Caillet  serves  again  as  Sec¬ 
retary-Treasurer.  Those  interested  in  the  affairs  of  the  M.S.D.L.I.S. 
may  contact  Mrs.  Trichel  at  811  Kirby  Place,  Shreveport,  La. 


i 


ON  JUDGES  AND  JUDGING 
By  J.  Marion  Shull 

B  Judging  is  quite  a  tricky  business.  However,  to  judge  a  small 
show  such  as  most  of  us  are  called  on  to  judge,  is  not  very  difficult 
for  here  one  need  only  determine  which  is  the  better  of  two  or 
the  best  among  several  without  too  much  regard  as  to  whether 
either  or  any  is  really  good.  All  the  judge  needs  in  that  case  is 
a  decent  sense  of  fairness.  But  judging  an  Iris,  or  any  other  sub¬ 
ject,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  rating  is  quite  another  mat¬ 
ter.  That  calls  for  the  judicial  mind  and  unfortunately  not  all  of 
us,  not  even  all  of  the  appointed  judges,  had  the  good  fortune 
to  be  born  with  the  makings  of  a  judicial  mind,  and  even  that 
grows  and  benefits  by  maturity  and  increasing  experience.  I  am 
sure  I  could  write  a  volume  on  judges  I  have  known,  but  it  would 
be  a  little  too  personal  for  safe  publication  so  I  shall  confine 
myself  to  somewhat  more  amiable  generalities. 

The  best  judicial  mind  is  one  that  is  never  thrown  off  balance 
by  sudden  enthusiasms  or  dislikes,  nor  quickly  or  deeply  influ¬ 
enced  by  the  opinion  of  others.  It  must  go  its  own  way,  exercising 
its  own  skill  in  applying  all  tests,  weigh  all  opposing  values  with 
the  completest  impartiality  at  its  command.  But  you  should  be 
warned  that  the  possessor  of  such  a  mind  is  by  no  means  the 
happiest  of  Iris  fans.  Happier  are  those  who  make  no  effort  to 
restrain  their  enthusiasms  or  curb  the  constant  tendency  to  let 
enthusiasm  outrun  their  better  judgment.  Like  the  late  Sam 
Burchfield  they  light  heartedly  find  the  ‘ 4 Best  Iris  in  the  world” 
every  hundred  feet  along  the  way.  One  envies  them  the  sheer 
joy  of  living  as  they  go  unfettered,  possibly  quite  unaware  that 
they  possess  such  a  thing  as  “ better  judgment,”  or  that  it  is  being 
outrun.  They  too  have  to  be  born  that  way  and  can  not  help  it — 
but  they  seldom  make  good  leaders  of  others. 

Having  thus  taken  a  quick  look  at  the  desirable  qualities  in  a 
judge  let  us  now  turn  to  a  few  good  or  bad  qualities  that  may  be 
encountered  among  the  Iris  both  old  and  new.  Oldness  and  newness 
are  neither  commendable  in  themselves.  A  new  thing  may  be  of 
interest  because  of  its  newness  at  the  same  time  that  it  contravenes 
all  the  canons  of  good  taste  or  beauty  but  when  its  novelty  is  out¬ 
grown  as  all  novelty  is  bound  to  be  sooner  or  later,  there  is 


107 


nothing  left  to  sustain  further  interest.  But  the  intrinsically  good 
remains  good  everlastingly.  As  judges  it  behooves  us  to  become 
familiar  with  these  lasting  qualities  that  never  grow  stale. 

Items  of  greatest  and  most  permanent  concern  are  associated 
with  color,  with  form,  and  with  proportion.  There  are  other 
factors  to  be  considered,  such  as  vigor,  dependability,  sturdiness, 
but  these  things  may  fluctuate  regionally  and  have  to  be  allowed 
for  on  that  basis,  but  color,  form  and  proportion  are  everlasting 
abstracts,  that  do  not  vary  the  world  over,  so  the  aspiring  judge 
should  consider  these  things  before  and  above  all  else.  They  are 
all  rather  subtle,  things  that  can  not  be  reduced  to  rigid  formulas. 

As  regards  color,  it  is  true  there  are  now  elaborate  scientific 
means  of  measuring  exact  color,  but  these  are  not  available  as 
a  practical  means  of  assessing  the  esthetic  value  of  an  Iris.  We  say 
in  practical  terminology  that  a  color  is  pure,  clear,  sparkling, 
harmonious,  contrasting,  even  “singing,”  if  we  are  inclined  to  be 
poetical;  or  we  apply  such  adjectives  as  delicate,  glowing,  pastel, 
and  so  on,  each  having  a  fixed  and  fairly  acceptable  popular  sig¬ 
nificance.  The  color  may  be  velvety,  or  have  a  sheen.  All  these 
attributes  are  generally  conceded  as  favorable  to  the  recipient.  On 
the  other  hand  colors  may  be  characterized  as  dull,  muddy,  mixed, 
inharmonious,  impure,  lack-luster,  in  fact  almost  as  many  oppro¬ 
brious  or  disapproving  expressions  as  there  were  in  commendation. 
These  are  the  descriptive  tools  of  the  judge  in  dealing  with  color, 
and  merely  to  list  them  indicates  pretty  well  what  the  judge  should 
train  his  eye  to  discern  in  the  color  of  his  subjects. 

I  have  chosen  to  list  form  and  proportion  separately  though 
proportion  is  of  the  very  essence  of  form.  However,  the  word 
proportion  is  a  far  more  widely  useful  entity  since  it  may  be 
applied  to  other  matters  than  just  the  individual  flower. 

Of  the  flower  itself  the  judge  should  avoid  acceptance  of  any 
one  form  as  “ideal.”  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  best  form.  That 
is  a  matter  of  purely  personal  preference  and  does  not  belong  in 
the  bag  of  tricks  a  judge  carries  about  with  him.  There  are  many 
good  forms  all  equally  desirable,  but  whatever  the  form,  whether 
spreading,  globular,  vertical,  flaring,  or  what  have  you,  the  flower 
parts  within  that  form  must  bear  a  pleasing  proportional  relation¬ 
ship  to  each  other  resulting  in  a  unity  not  easily  defined  but 
clearly  and  keenly  sensed  by  the  discerning  judge.  Unless  you 
are  conscious  of  this  esthetic  sense  of  proportion  you  are  hardly 


J  08 


qualified  to  join  in  rating  or  reporting  on  Iris  values. 

Generali v  we  assume  that  one  who  knows  and  lives  intimately 
«/  «/ 

with  many  varieties  is  thereby  qualified  to  serve  as  an  Iris  judge 
but  this  is  by  no  means  necessarily  true.  He  may  be  an  enthu¬ 
siastic  collector  of  varieties  and  yet  be  totally  indiscriminating  in 
his  taste. 

Having  decided  with  regard  to  a  given  variety  that  color,  form 
and  proportion  are  beyond  cavil  the  judge  will  then  give  con¬ 
sideration  to  lesser  but  still  important  items.  Are  the  flowers  well 
carried  on  the  stem?  Are  they  too  crowded  so  that  each  flower 
encroaches  on  its  fellows  obliterating  the  more  important  desidera¬ 
tum  of  fine  form?  After  the  first  flower,  does  it  become  merely  a 
shapeless  blob  of  color?  Or  do  the  buds  toe  in  and  jam  delicate 
flower  parts  out  of  place  against  the  rigid  stem  so  that  an  other¬ 
wise  beautiful  form  is  forced  into  unpleasant  distortion?  The 
breeder  keeps,  and  sometimes  names,  such  misfits  because  they 
happen  to  be  something  new  and  unusual  in  color,  but  from  the 
start  they  are  candidates  for  immediate  replacement  with  some¬ 
thing  better. 

And  how  many  flowers  are  there  per  stem?  Nobody  wants  a 
five-flowered  stem  if  he  can  have  nine  of  like  quality. 

Again  I  say,  judging  for  rating  purposes  is  a  tricky  business  and 
not  everyone  is  qualified  for  the  task. 

FERTILIZING  IRISES 

By  Guy  Rogers 

This  is  intended  as  an  unvarnished  statement  of  fact — though 
from  Texas.  We  have  here  in  Wichita  Falls,  an  altitude  of  900 
feet,  an  annual  rainfall  of  29  inches,  considerable  sunshine,  some 
wind,  and  a  mean  annual  temperature  of  65  degrees,  ranging  from 
111  degrees  in  some  summers  to  minus  12  degrees  last  January. 
Soils  vary  from  garden  to  garden,  and  generally  there  is  hard 
pan  under  the  surface  that  is  all  but  impervious  to  water.  So  a 
careful  gardener  here  will  haul  in  sandy  loam  to  mix  with  his 
own  dirt  to  obtain  an  average  garden  soil. 

As  moisture,  heat  and  air  are  essential  to  the  germination  of  a 
seed,  so  such  elements  plus  food,  sunshine  and  drainage  are  re¬ 
quired  for  the  growth  of  an  iris.  Some  years  ago  I  began  to  supply 
food  to  the  soil,  timorously  at  first  because  most  written  advice 


109 


was  against  the  use  of  any  fertilizer,  depicting  dire  results  of  rot, 
burning  and  general  disaster  to  follow  its  use.  The  irises  con¬ 
tinued  to  grow.  The  more  I  fed  them,  the  better  was  their  growth. 
Moisture  additional  to  rainfall  was  supplied  as  needed  by  soaking. 
So  over  the  years  I  determined  that  fertilizer  was  essential  to 
vigorous  growth. 

Then  in  June,  1945,  I  made  two  substantial  beds  and  heavily 
fertilized  them,  planting  therein  new  irises  obtained  in  July  or 
later,  feeling  that  since  they  were  not  mortgaged  I  could  do  as 
1  pleased  about  them,  but  still  fearful  somewhat  that  the  written 
advice  which  I  had  disdained  would  prove  sound.  However,  per¬ 
haps  to  my  surprise  but  still  to  my  gratification,  those  irises 
bloomed  wonderfully  well  in  1946  and  again  in  1947.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  a  single  rhizome  of  HELEN  MacGREGOR  was  planted  in 
1945.  It  bloomed  in  1946.  This  year  it  bloomed  beautifully  on  8 
stalks.  Its  foliage  now  stands  at  32  inches,  with  17  fans  to  increase 
and  bloom  another  vear.  LAKE  SHANNON  did  even  better. 
LADY  MOHR  bloomed  at  48  inches,  etc. 

Exact  information  concerning  the  building  of  such  beds  is  not 
available,  but  it  is  available  on  a  bed  built  in  May,  1946,  using- 
general  ly  the  same  substances.  This  bed  was  built  in  full  sunlight 
on  level  ground  that  was  in  bermuda.  Its  dimensions  are  9  feet 
by  66  feet.  Written  instructions  to  the  vardman  were  earefullv 
written  as  to  each  successive  step  in  the  building  of  the  bed,  and 
I  saw  to  it  that  he  carried  out  such  instructions  implicitly.  They 
were : 

(1)  Stake  out  and  run  a  straight  edge  through  the  bermuda 
around  such  area  to  insure  straight  lines. 

(2)  Lift  out  and  lay  aside  5  inches  of  sod,  getting  below  the 
bermuda  roots. 

(3)  Spade  the  bed  good  and  deep,  removing  all  grass  roots. 
Then  level. 

(4)  Evenly  spread  4  yards  of  propagating  sand,  forking  it  in 
thoroughly,  for  drainage.  Level  off. 

(5)  Spread  3  yards  of  very  rich  compost  over  this,  forking 
it  in.  Level  off. 

(6)  Screen  8  yards  of  barnyard  fertilizer,  with  the  unscreened 
portion  being  next  spread  and  forked  in.  Level  off. 

(7)  Screen  one-half  the  removed  sod  into  the  bed,  smoothing- 
out  evenly  and  forking.  Level  off. 


no 


Judge  and  Mrs.  Guy  Rogers 

(8)  Spread  2  yards  barnyard  fertilizer  over  this,  forking  it  in 
thoroughly.  Level  off. 

(9)  Spread  4  yards  sandy  loam  over  this,  with  300  pounds  of 
commercial  fertilizer,  100  pounds  of  superphosphate,  100 
pounds  of  Vigoro,  100  pounds  of  bone  meal,  and  with  two 
tubs  of  wood  ashes,  forking  and  leveling. 

(10)  Then  put  in  the  screened  portion  of  the  fertilizer,  forking 
and  leveling  off. 

(11)  Soak  thoroughly  by  laying  the  hose  in  the  side  ditch  and 
letting  the  water  run  slowly  for  a  day  or  so  until  by  capil¬ 
lary  attraction  moisture  has  come  to  the  top  of  the  bed. 

The  bed  was  completed  May  18,  1946,  and  was  approximately 
7  inches  above  the  surrounding  ground,  with  a  ditch  around  the 
outer  edges  approximately  4  inches  deep  and  graduating  up  to 
the  level  of  the  bed.  In  30  days  there  was  the  finest  crop  of  care¬ 
less  weeds,  cockle  burrs,  Johnson  grass  and  other  forms  of  plant 
life  that  you  ever  saw,  but  this  was  removed  and  irises  planted 
crosswise  of  the  bed  at  intervals  of  12  inches  the  latter  part  of 
June,  1946.  The  bed  was  soaked  during  the  summer  as  needed. 
The  rhizomes  grew,  multiplied  and  bloomed  well,  and  today  it 

ill 


i 


represents  the  most  vigorous  growth  in  the  garden.  There  has 
been  no  disease  at  all  in  this  bed  since  its  planting.  A  careful  in¬ 
spection  this  morning  discloses  not  the  slightest  trace  of  rot,  leaf 
spot,  bacteria  or  other  disease.  Other  members  in  this  area  have 
observed  my  method  and  have  used  it  effectively  in  their  own 
gardens  without  ill  effects. 

Is  there  ever  any  rot?  Of  course.  Does  leaf  spot  sometimes 
appear?  Certainly.  Is  any  plant  ever  affected  by  blight?  Some¬ 
times.  Has  scorch  ever  affected  a  plant?  Rarely.  It  is,  however, 
my  observation  that  these  things  are  caused  by  conditions  other 
than  the  fertility  of  the  soil  and  that  the  vigorous  plants  grown 
in  fertile  soil  are  in  a  better  position  to  withstand  the  attacks  of 
such  diseases  than  a  poorly  nourished  plant.  In  this  conclusion 
I  have  the  concurrence  of  competent  judges  from  other  areas  who 
have  observed  my  garden  and  theirs  for  the  past  several  years. 

This  method  may  not  work  in  other  areas,  in  different  climates, 
under  different  situations,  with  different  soils  and  other  conditions, 
but  so  satisfactory  has  it  been  locally  that  I  have  pursued  the 
above  method  of  preparing  new  beds  for  the  planting  of  many 
1947  introductions. 


THE  GREEN  LIGHT 
By  Mary  F.  Tharp 

B  Not  that  it  makes  any  difference,  but  in  a  G.  I.  Poll  (Green 
Iris  Poll),  conducted  recently  in  District  11,  the  members  have 
given  the  hybridizers  the  green  light,  or  in  other  words,  the  GO 
AHEAD  signal. 

Receiving  many  comments  concerning  the  origination  of  a  green 
iris,  I  wondered  how  the  members  in  this  district  felt  about  the 
idea,  and  what  place,  if  any,  it  would  have  in  the  iris  kingdom. 

On  reviewing  the  possibilities  of  a  green  toned  iris  while  tossing 
a  green  salad  for  lunch,  I  got  all  dewy  eyed  over  visualizing  an 
iris,  ruffled  and  crisp,  the  color  of  a  lettuce  leaf  with  style  arms 
the  color  of  a  cool  green  pepper;  while  the  dewy  eyed  business 
may  have  been  due  to  a  certain  amount  of  onion  in  the  salad,  I 
still  think  it  a  good  idea  and  truly  believe  that  soon  the  iris  judges 
are  going  to  have  to  dust  off  all  their  superlatives  or  coin  new 
ones  to  describe  the  beautv  and  wonder  of  THE  coming  green 
iris,  and  by  that  I  do  mean  green  and  not  one  with  just  a  hint  of 


olive — a  thing  which  leaves  some  iris  with  about  as  much  ex¬ 
pression  as  a  fish. 

Reading  the  comments  of  our  members  one  can  easily  see  that 
they  (or  most  of  them)  have  '‘got  green  iris  in  their  soul!’7 

My  first  response  to  my  questionnaire  was  from  Mrs.  Sidney  I). 
Smith,  Shoshone,  Idaho;  listen  to  this — “much  interested  in  a 
hardy  green  iris  of  a  real  chartreuse  green  color  and  had  been  so 
hopeful,  that  in  1943,  I  got  Appointee,  which  had  one  bloom  the 
next  year,  then  folded  up.  Again  in  1945,  I  got  Palos  Verde  which 
promptly  folded  up  without  even  blooming.  I  think  it  would  be  a 
wonderful  idea,  especially  for  arrangements.” 

Our  next  comment  comes  from  W.  L.  Bosworth,  Treasureton, 
Idaho.  “I  have  nothing  to  quote,  but  a  green  iris  would  be  okay 
as  a  novelty!  Personally  I  like  green  foliage  and  pink  flowers.” 

Switching  to  Wyoming,  we  get  an  interesting  angle  on  green 
iris  from  Kenneth  S.  Moore,  Sheridan:  “I  really  believe  that  a 
green  or  a  green  toned  iris  would  have  great  garden  value  and 
that  in  breeding  for  it,  the  results  of  such  an  attempt  might  be  of 
more  value  than  the  original  idea.  However  a  green  iris  would 
most  certainly  be  unique  as  so  very  few  flowers  carry  much  green 
in  the  bloom.” 

“Any  color,  just  so  its  green"  might  be  the  keynote  of  the  reply 
received  from  Mrs.  L.  D.  Harris,  Nampa,  Idaho,  who  writes — 
“the  olive  green  of  Lady  Mohr  I  thought  very  interesting  but  not 
what  one  could  call  pretty.  I  saw  a  clump  of  it  among  others  in 
a  large  bed  set  among  grass  and  trees  at  one  of  the  shows  I  saw 
in  Southern  California  last  spring,  the  exhibit  being  that  of  Miss 
Miess.  Perhaps  you  had  in  mind  a  brighter  green  like  the  touch 
of  green  in  the  Fantasy  tulip.  Wouldn’t  that  combination  of  pink, 
white  and  green  be  beautiful  in  an  iris?  Many  of  those  off  whites 
or  creams  look  dirty  in  the  garden,  but  I  find  if  they  are  picked 
before  they  are  fairly  open  and  brought  inside,  they  really  make 
the  nicest  cut  flowers  of  all  for  the  delicate  blends  show  up  best 
of  all.  Green  shades  would  be  ideal  for  arrangements,  though  they 
might  be  better  picked  and  opened  inside.  In  other  words,  I  am 
for  anything  you  are. 

Our  florist  member  Winston  Roberts,  Boise,  Idaho,  says- — “Per¬ 
sonally  I  do  not  care  for  green  flowers,  so  a  green  iris  would  not 
appeal  to  me,  but  I  imagine  it  would  be  liked  by  those  who  like 
the  novel  and  unusual”;  and  here  we  think  Mr.  Roberts  reneged, 


113 


for  he  continues,  “just  the  right  shade  might  be  all  right;  I  have  a 
vellow-green  gladiolus  that  I  call  'Green  Gold’  and  it  isn’t  a  bad 
shade.  ’  ’ 

Mrs.  Arthur  N.  Walker,  of  Kimberly,  Idaho,  would  like  to  see 
a  green  iris,  but  only  as  a  novelty  and  adds — “Nature  has  been 
more  than  generous  with  green  and  I  would  think  that  as  the 
hybridizers  spend  so  much  time  and  work  creating  a  new  iris,  that 
a  color  would  be  more  pleasing  to  them.’’  To  Mrs.  Walker,  we 
would  say  that  the  hybridizer  is  much  like  Rubinstein;  I  under¬ 
stand  that  when  he  listened  to  a  sermon,  he  liked  to  hear  a  man 
who  tempted  him  to  do  the  impossible.  The  impossible  (?)  tempts 
the  hybridizer. 

Miss  A.  M.  Blakeslee,  of  Nampa,  Idaho,  has  yet  to  see  a  green 
iris,  although  she  adds,  “Green  Shadows,  Green  Pastures  and 
Green  Gold  all  sound  enticing,  and  I  hope  to  see  them  some  day. 
If  some  one  could  produce  a  clear  green  iris  with  a  tangerine 
beard,  I  could  fall  for  that,  as  nothing  seems  impossible  in  the 
iris  world,  one  might  as  well  let  our  imagination  run  riot.  At  least 
it  is  something  to  work  for  and  what  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the 
pink  strain!” 

Mrs.  Arthur  D.  Johnson,  Nampa,  Idaho,  adds  these  words  of 
wisdom  regarding  green  iris — “I  really  do  not  think  I  would  care 
much  about  a  green  iris,  as  there  would  not  be  enough  contrast 
with  the  foliage  to  show  it  off;  however  from  a  scientific  stand¬ 
point,  I  would  say  YES  by  all  means,  just  to  show  it  could  be 
done.  I  once  bought  a  'green  rose,’  enough  said.” 

0.  N.  Summers,  Laramie,  Wyoming,  is  definitely  “agin”  it! 
But  admits  he  could  be  shown.  (He  doesn't  like  the  peony  Solange; 
neither  do  I.) 

Mrs.  J.  C.  ITickenlooper,  Preston,  Idaho,  feels  that  a  green  or 
green  toned  iris  would  be  adding  a  new  dimension  to  Irisdom  for 
she  says — “The  green  iris  would  undoubtedly  be  a  new  world  to 
conquer  as  all  other  fields  from  dark  to  light  have  been  covered; 
however  this  green  iris  should  be  tremendously  outstanding  in 
every  way,  but  I  am  wondering  if  it  should  be  on  the  warm  side 
or  a  cool  green  to  be  most  effective.”  (We  would  say  a  cool  green, 
with  a  white  beard.)  “I  understand  Lady  Mohr  is  on  the  warm 
green  side,  but  falls  only.” 

Mrs.  Sidney  AY.  Smith,  Twin  Falls,  Idaho,  states  that  she  had 
not  thought  much  about  a  green  iris  until  I  raised  the  question, 


and  since  then  had  come  to  the  following  conclusion;  that  a  green 
iris  would  be  extremely  useful  in  arrangements  of  certain  color 
harmonies  or  classes.  Then  comes  this  delightful  description  of  an 
imaginary  garden;  “At  first  I  thought  a  green  iris  would  have  no 
garden  value,  but  certain  fine  effects  might  be  achieved  if  the 
green  iris  were  grouped  with  purples,  dark  blends  of  purple,  wine 
or  rose;  or  if  placed  with  very  light  yellows  of  the  Elsa  Sass  order, 
creams  and  with  whites  that  have  a  suggestion  of  cool  green  in 
their  depths.  No  blue  whites.  A  background  of  evergreens  would 
help  to  set  them  off,  that  is  the  greens  and  yellows.  A  green  iris 
would  give  one  a  chance  to  try  a  color  scheme  in  varying  shades 
of  green.  The  background  would  be  very  dark  evergreens,  say 
Arbor  Vitae,  against  which  the  shape  of  the  lighter  green  iris 
would  stand  outlined.  Then  the  iris  leaves  might  provide  a  differ¬ 
ent  shade  of  green  as  would  the  foliage  of  the  accompanying  plants 
which  bloom  after  the  iris.  More  study  on  the  possibilities  of  the 
green  iris  could  bring  about  many  charming  pictures. 

And  again  from  Nampa,  Mrs.  W.  C.  Fox  writes — “How  do  I 
feel  about  a  green  iris?  Many  a  time  when  I  have  been  admiring 
my  Henry i  lillies,  mostly  because  of  their  fascinating  green  cen¬ 
ters,  I  have  tried  to  visualize  an  iris  of  like  combination  of  colors, 
or  for  that  matter,  any  color  in  combination  with  green,  if  the 
latter  were  a  good  clear  color.  A  good  white  with  green  at  the 
center  would  be  lovely.  There  are  green  orchids  that  are  very 
much  admired,  so  why  not  a  green  iris?” 

Mr.  Art  Schroeder,  Couer  d’Alene,  Idaho,  tells  us  that  he  and 
wife  both  are  in  favor  of  a  green  iris — “A  green  toned  or  a  yellow 
with  a  lot  of  green  in  it  would  be  fine.  I  had  thought  there  was  a 
green  iris  in  Green  Shadows,  until  I  read  the  description  of  it  in 
the  Bulletin  of  October  1946.” 

And  again  from  Couer  d’Alene,  Mrs.  Ralph  Nelson  sends  us 
this  interesting  message — “I  have  pondered  over  the  subject  of  a 
green  iris  ever  since  receiving  your  letter  and  the  answer  that 
always  comes  to  me  is  ‘why  not.’  Even  if  they  were  leaf  green 
they  would  be  acceptable.  On  the  yellow  side  one  could  have  lime 
or  chartreuse  shades.  An  expert  on  flower  arrangement  said  in 
one  of  her  lectures  that  she  used  chartreuse  vases  a  great  deal  of 
the  time  as  they  were  lovely  with  anything  in  them;  if  that  is  true 
why  wouldn’t  an  iris  of  that  shade  harmonize  with  anything?  I 
have  heard  Lady  Mohr  described  as  being  of  chartreuse  color,  or 


115 


partly  so,  but  it  just  'ain’t.'  Then  on  the  blue  side  of  green,  we 
have  the  lovely  aqua  green.  I  can  imagine  nothing  more  lovely 
than  an  aqua  colored  iris  next  to  Melanie  or  Flora  Zenor.  Still 
greener  would  be  robin’s  egg  blue  and  peacock  blue.  It  seems  to 
me  you  have  an  unlimited  field  in  these  shades  and  all  would  be 
lovely.”  (How  about  a  teal  green  iris?)  Yes,  Mrs.  Nelson  would 
like  a  green  iris,  but  soon. 

While  all  members  were  not  heard  from,  we  would  still  have  a 
majority  in  favor,  were  all  others  against  the  idea.  They  probably 
think  "squirrels  to  the  nuts,”  but  refrain  from  saying  so.  To 
them  let  me  quote  lines  taken  from  a  Burgess  Bedtime  story: 

"The  wonders  that  today  you  face 
Tomorrow  will  be  commonplace.” 

IN  THE  GARDEN 
By  Mrs.  Leo  F.  Reynolds,  Tennessee 

■  There  seems  to  be  quite  a  variation  in  people’s  ideas  of  iris— 
and  the  use  of  iris.  Personally,  I  think  the  primary  value  of  an 
iris  is  its  use  in  beautifying  a  landscape.  I  think  it  has  a  landscape 
value  higher  than  that  of  almost  any  other  flower.  Even  the  com¬ 
mon  "blue  flag”  can  make  a  lovely  Spring  picture.  One  of  the 
most  satisfying  of  my  childhood  memories  is  of  a  neighbor’s  white 
stone  house  set  on  a  green  hill  and  bordered  by  a  wide  ribbon  of 
blue  against  a  contour-following  stone  wall. 

It  doesn’t  take  "fine”  iris  to  paint  a  beautiful  picture — just 
good  taste.  However,  that  doesn’t  mean  that  the  newer,  finer 
irises  can’t  paint  even  lovelier  pictures. 

To  do  this  successfully  one  needs  good  firm,  stocky  plants  to 
work  with.  We  have  a  border  about  three  feet  wide  that  wanders 
in  and  out  for  about  five  hundred  feet  in  our  yard.  Perhaps  one 
day  it  will  be  almost  too  beautiful  to  be  borne  and  the  next  day, 
after  a  wind  or  driving  rain,  Sierra  Blue  and  Shining  Waters 
(and  many  others)  will  be  sprawled  here  and  there  and  yonder 
and  the  whole  picture  smudged  disgustingly.  I  mention  these  two 
blues  because  they  are  so  beautiful  for  landscape  work. 

Personally  I  can’t  grasp  why  tall  irises  are  so  extolled.  They 
are  almost  impossible  to  keep  erect  without  staking.  My  cry  is 
for  more  irises  with  the  sized  flower,  perfection  and  general  sta¬ 
bility  of  Gudrun.  I  have  Winter  Carnival,  Snow  Carnival,  Snow 


116 


Flurry,  Jake,  Purissima  (my  husband’s  favorite),  Matterhorn, 
Crystal  Beauty,  Easter  Morn  (how  beautiful  this  is)  Venus  deMilo, 
Birchbark,  Alba  Surperba,  etc.,  etc.,  but  the  uninitiate  visitor 
gravitates  straight  to  Gudrun.  That’s  because  it  “gives”  all  it  has. 

Arctic  and  Azure  Skies  are  two  others  that  are  well  up  on  my 
list;  so  is  Blue  Shimmer.  Treasure  Island,  though  an  older  iris, 
has  a  lot  of  garden  value,  and  so  does  little  old  Golden  Lights. 
And  if  a  pink  is  wanted  that  carries  and  makes  a  definite  accent 
try  Pink  Ruffles.  I  never  saw  a  finer  landscape  accent  than  it  made 
on  Geddes  Douglas’  hillside.  He  had  a  seedling  near  the  top  of 
the  steps  leading  down  to  the  asparagus  bed  that  was  extraordinary 
in  that  respect  it  was  deeper  and  livelier  than  Pink  Ruffles.  I 
was  too  tired,  though,  to  go  back  and  inquire  about  it. 

Mr.  Wills  has  used  his  iris  plantings  as  well  as  any  I  have  seen 
from  a  landscape  point  of  view,  and  he  hasn’t  relegated  his  older 


iris  to  the  trash  heap,  either.  Apparently  he  has  kept  those  with 
definite  garden  value.  Here  are  some  that  I  noted  that  had  the 
characteristics  I  prize — Patrice,  Summer  Cloud,  Shannopin  (this 
is  inclined  to  be  a  little  sprawly  but  has  so  much  carrying  power). 
Lake  Huron  divided  my  attention  with  Lake  Shannon,  its  much 
more  expensive  neighbor.  Then  there  were  Dainty  Bess,  Russet 
Wings,  Hit  Parade,  Rocket,  Mount  Vernon,  Peach  Glow,  Fantasy, 
Dream  Girl,  Chamois,  Garden  Flame,  Brown  Thrasher,  Francellia, 
Golden  Hind,  Gold  Beater,  Copper  Pink  planted  near  California 
Peach,  Minnie  Colquit,  Glen  Ellen,  Down  East,  Sunset  Tan,  Black 
Wings  and  Chicory. 

Mr.  John  Pierce  of  Memphis  has  succeeded  under  trying  cir¬ 
cumstances.  We  all  know  how  much  better  results  we  could  achieve 
with  fewer  irises  of  certain  colors — and  how  hard  it  is  not  to 
want  “all”  the  new  ones  regardless  of  color  harmonies.  John  is 
a  genuine  “fan”  (no  pun  intended)  and  so  is  impelled  to  acquire 
all  of  the  finer  new  varieties  though  his  space  is  quite  limited.  This 
because  he  has  a  young  family  and  a  charming  wife  and  prefers 
to  spend  his  recreation  hours  in  their  midst  rather  than  out  on  his 
small  farm.  But  down  one  side  of  his  yard  he  has  a  natural  ter¬ 
race.  He  has  planted  this  with  various  and  sundry  irises  of  striking 
beauty  and  color.  For  a  background  he  has  climbing  hybrid-tea 
roses.  The  total  effect  is  beautiful  beyond  expression.  A  lovely 
strip  of  brocaded  tapestry!  He  has  the  proverbial  “green”  thumb 
— because  his  irises  are  as  well  grown  and  as  fine  as  any  we  saw 


anywhere  last  spring.  And  he  is  a  real  ambassador  for  iris  cul¬ 
ture  he  is  so  kind  and  gracious,  happy  to  share  beauty,  time  and 
knowledge. 

In  direct  contrast  was  Mr.  Rubers  garden  in  Corinth,  Missis¬ 
sippi.  He  was  out  at  the  farm  when  we  arrived  but  we  were  hos¬ 
pitably  received  by  his  gracious  wife  and  lovely  little  daughter. 
For  quantity  his  plantings  would  be  hard  to  surpass — never  before 
nor  since  have  I  beheld  such  profligacy  in  planting.  He  got  home 
in  time  to  assure  us  we  would  save  time  and  money  to  stay  in 
Corinth  rather  than  drive  to  Nashville  as  he  had  more  and  better 
iris  than  we'd  find  in  Nashville.  I  am  sure  he  had  more  but  we 
didn't  regret  the  trip.  I  would  say  his  Japanese  peonies  were  much 
finer  than  his  iris  but  no  attempt  toward  landscaping  had  been 
made  in  any  of  his  far-flung  acreage. 

Mrs.  West  at  Sardis,  Miss,  had  a  restful,  well  designed  small 
garden.  Her  excellent  taste  was  well -reflected  in  the  grouping  and 
selection  of  her  varieties. 

A  garden  radiating  love,  peace  and  beauty  is  Mrs.  Blalock’s 
garden  in  Como,  Mississippi.  This  past  fall  she  tried  an  experi¬ 
ment  that  should,  it  seems  to  me,  open  up  a  new  field  for  iris 
growers.  She  potted  up  a  good  sized  clump  of  China  Maid  in  a 
suitable  jardiniere  and  brought  it  into  blossom  in  the  new  little 
green  house  her  daughters  gave  her  for  Christmas.  Never  have  I 
seen  a  lovelier  indoor  plant  of  any  kind.  It  was  full  of  blossoms 
and  the  colors  were  more  beautiful  and  more  intense  than  I’ve 
ever  seen  it  in  its  natural  habitat. 

May  I  end  with  an  appeal  to  hybridizers  to  please  stress  color 
and  stamina  in  their  new  introductions. 

VARIETAL  COMMENTS 

■  A  late  season  in  Nashville  found  Rocket,  Blue  Delight,  Dream 
Castle  and  Fantasy  just  coming  into  bloom  on  May  3rd  in  Mr. 
Wills’  garden.  By  the  5th  there  were  a  dozen  more  with  the 
clumps  of  Blue  Delight  and  At  Dawning  especially  lovely  and 
no  competition  whatsoever  for  the  brilliant  Rocket.  Today,  May 
13th,  Lady  Mohr,  all  a  sparkle  after  a  terrific  downpour  was  as 
untouched  a  clump  as  there  was  in  the  garden,  a  memorable  pic¬ 
ture.  Under  normal  sun  or  cloud  I  find  it  intriguing — only  a  bit 
too  odd  perhaps  for  real  beauty — but  as  the  sun  broke  thru  the 


clouds  today  I  hardly  saw  even  Rocket  across  the  path  and  a  bit 
bedraggled. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BEARDED  —  with  especial  reference  to 
the  Wm.  Mohr  hybrids. 

From  W.  P.  Aylett,  Mangoplah,  N.S.W.  Australia.  “Re  my 
seedling  Mohrdyke,  it  is  a  real  mother  of  pearl,  an  easy  9  inches 
across.  A  chap  was  here  from  Singapore  the  first  year  it  bloomed 
and  said  “Well — it’s  a  true  orchid.”  I  have  had  one  pod,  13  seeds 
when  crossed  with  Lady  Mohr  and  all  the  pollen  has  been  used  on 
my  huge  bronze  yellow  (Grace  Mohr  x  Naranja)  called  Golden 
Nugget.  It’s  a  perfect — the  whole  flower  a  golden  bronze  with  a 
copper  sheen.  A  cross  with  Lady  Mohr  should  give  a  bit  better 
height.  It  was  the  only  one  that  bloomed  out  of  twenty  this  spring 
(October) . 

“There  is  great  promise  in  the  Grace  Mohr  x  Ormohr  back- 
crossed  to  my  first  Wm.  Mohr  seedling  Try  Again.  I  think  it  the 
best  so  far  out  of  William — a  truly  lavender  magenta  lined  a  silver 
white.  The  foliage  is  purple  tinged  at  the  base.  Some  nice  hy¬ 
brids  of  Land  Mark  x  Grace  Mohr — one  a  pure  coffee  brown  with 
the  center  lit  up.  I  hope  to  see  that  white  one  of  Milliken’s.  My 
Victory  V  (Grace  Mohr  x  Snowking)  is  huge,  snow  white  with 
crinkled  standards.  ’  ’ 

We  thank  Mr.  J.  G.  Linse,  Yakima,  Wash,  for  the  above  letter. 

LATES.  By  May  24th  here  in  Nashville  this  year  only  a  rela¬ 
tively  few  varieties  in  the  Douglas  garden  were  just  approaching 
their  height.  Three  Oaks  was  showing  its  first  blooms,  a  lovely 
stalk,  tall  and  well  branched,  its  blended  tones  with  a  touch  of  the 
Red  Amber  plum  in  marked  contrast  to  the  warmth  of  nearby 
Nancy  Hardison.  This  is  a  smaller  bloom  perhaps  but  an  equally 
compact  flower  with  smoothly  rounded  falls. 

The  English  High  Command,  its  standards  a  pale  citrine,  its 
velvety  falls  with  lemon  border  and  veined  haft  was  excellent 
and  I  can  hardly  wait  to  see  more  than  two  stalks  of  Blue  Ensign, 
a  lovely  medium  to  dark  blue  with  dark  haft  blue  beard,  and  flar¬ 
ing,  slightly  waved  falls.  It  seems  vigorous  and  has  a  better 
balanced  flower  than  Lake  George  which  may  be  a  hair  lighter  but 
has  a  less  rich  haft. 

Starshine  (Wills)  has  claimed  my  attention  as  7-44-341  in  pre¬ 
vious  years  for  its  flair  and  crispness,  a  character  I  like  immensely 
in  Lady  Mohr.  Incidentally  its  falls  seem  close  to  the  color  of  the 


119 


ladies’  standards.  It  has  continued  to  make  an  outstanding  clump 
in  all  weathers  and  will  remain  in  memory. 

Permanent  Wave  is  just  coming  into  bloom  and  has  a  similar 
charm  with  an  exaggerated  stiffness. 

This  year  Mimosa  Gold  held  well  into  the  Dividend  season  and 
received  unnumbered  plaudits.  Curiously  both  St.  Regis  and  Helen 
McGregor  were  so  pale  as  to  be  almost  classed  as  whites.  The 
ruffled  Pale  Primrose  and  Amandine  carried  on  for  Elsa  Sass  in 
cool  yellow. 

Silver  tone  was  good,  a  real  blue  tho  pale  but,  this  year,  entirely 
too  big  for  its  short  stalks.  I  much  prefer  the  deeper  little  Billet 
Doux  at  that  height. 

Blue  Crown  was  again  noteworthy.  We  are  accustomed  to  re¬ 
versed  yellow  with  darker  standards  than  falls  in  things  like 
Raejean  or  Treasure  Chest  but  this  is  the  only  one  I  know  with 
tinted  blue  above  its  smooth  white  falls.  Mr.  Douglas  has  an  even 
paler  sample  that  one  has  to  look  twice  at  but  neither  are  at  all 
comparable  to  the  blue-whites  like  Mt.  Hermon  or  Mt.  Cloud  nor 
the  AVhite  City-Wedgewood  group.  That  Blue  Crown  has  much  of 
the  form  and  glisten  of  Gloriole  is  an  added  attraction. 

Lothario  was  in  great  shape,  an  excellent  companion  to  Amigo, 
equally  velvety  but  in  two  tones  of  blue.  It  may  be  just  a  bitone 
but  it  will  hold  its  own  in  any  garden. 

PINK  BUDS.  Literally  dozens  in  the  seed  beds  but  few  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  last  years  report.  “Apricotta  and  Tangerina”  (Wil¬ 
liams)  proved  to  be  good  breeders  only  and  will  probably  not  be 
introduced — perhaps  our  standards  have  risen.  Pink  Cameo  I  saw 
for  the  first  time,  a  lovely  self  of  most  tender  pink,  not  large  but 
a  charmingly  full  flower.  I  fear  it  will  put  a  number  of  lovely 
seedlings  out  of  consideration  if  it  performs  well. 

There  is  clearly  a  place  for  some  dark  tones  with  tangerine 
beard  and  I  expect  Mr.  Douglas  will  make  a  beginning  with  at 
least  one  from  his  patch — a  bicolor  of  striking  effect,  the  standards 
a  bit  warmed  in  contrast  to  the  clear  cool  violet  of  the  falls.  It  is 
curious  how  this  beard  color  alone  among  irises  seems  to  pervade 
the  flower  and  give  completely  new  effects.  For  its  group  the 
flower  has  size,  spread  and  a  reasonable  compactness  of  form. 
Fortunately  a  number  of  the  pink  buds  give  good  poise  and 
branching  and  height. 

Chantilly  was  even  lovelier  than  last  year  and  I  saw  seedlings 


120 


from  both  Hall  (a  soft  amber  blend)  and  Cook  (still  paler)  with 
the  characteristic  crimped  edges — more  apparent  in  the  standards 
than  in  the  falls.  It  may  increase  the  substance  (on  the  principle 
of  a  corrugation) ;  it  has  a  bit  of  the  corruscation  of  the  old  Zua 
but  the  latter  did  not  live  despite  its  unique  quality  and  I  doubt 
if  these  do  either.  I  do  think  they  will  compete  most  successfully 
with  the  appeal  of  the  pale  plicatas  of  Tiffany-Susette  ilk. 

On  checking  old  plicatas  I  ran  across  three  names  Clematis 
(Bliss),  Rosette  (Sturtevant)  and  Japanesque  (Farr)  which  like 
the  double  Celeste,  May  Alison,  had  the  shape  of  a  Japanese  iris 
rather  than  of  a  bearded.  The  first  was  so  well-named  as  to  need 
no  description  in  its  bitone  lavender,  the  second  was  a  pale  blue 
self,  the  last  a  bit  blotched  and  all  have  passed  on  presumably 
without  leaving  a  trace.  Actually  this  shape  we  consider  abnormal 
had  inherent  distinction,  at  least  the  flower  was  not  open  and 
spidery  at  the  center  nor  did  the  out-size  petals  flop,  flute  or  twirk 
and  there  was  no  lack  of  substance  or  balance  as  we  find  in  all  too 
many  a  current  novelty. 

Anthony  (Randall).  Late  blooming  gold,  buff  and  lilac  bicolor. 

Fine  Stalk.  Excellent  substance.  (Tenn.) 

Blue  Ensign  (Meyer).  Very  blue,  flaring,  good  substance,  large 
flowers,  clean  haft,  blue  beard.  Superlative  branching.  36 
inches.  One  of  the  top  ten  iris  on  my  list  and  easily  the  best  in 
its  color  class.  (Tenn.) 

Goldbeater  (Kleinsorge) .  Medium  sized  flower  of  fine  finish.  Poor 
grower  in  this  area.  (Tenn.) 

Good  News  (Kleinsorge).  Somewhat  reminiscent  of  Fortune  this 
iris  is  startingly  bright.  Good  branching.  (Tenn.) 

Golden  Echo.  (Ketchum).  Mrs.  Morgan  Ketchum  of  Memphis  has 
a  fine  yellow  in  this  iris.  The  color  is  very  bright  and  the  falls 
have  a  softer  shading  in  the  center.  (Tenn.) 

Lavender  and  Gold  Lace  (Whiting).  A  medley  of  lilac  pink  and 
bright  gold.  A  brighter  Duet,  with  good  branching  and  growing 
qualities.  (Tenn.) 

Mistletoe  (Ketchum).,  The  stands  are  caramel-tan.  The  oyster- 
white  falls  are  bordered  with  the  same  color  while  the  haft  is 
overlaid  olive-buff.  Stiff,  crisp  flowers  on  tall  well  balanced 
stalks.  (Tenn.) 

Misty  Gold  (Schreiner).  In  the  manner  of  Golden  Fleece  this  iris 
is  a  worthwhile  addition.  Very  bright  and  fine  in  every  respect. 
(Tenn.) 


Typical  example  of  "Pineappling.” 

"PINEAPPLING” 

Iris  growers  in  the  south-west  are  experiencing  an  epidemic 
new  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  diseases  of  iris.  Evidence  of 
this  disease  was  seen  in  Memphis,  Tenn.,  Shreveport,  La.,  Dallas, 
Ft.  Worth  and  Wichita  Falls,  Texas.  The  physical  manifestations 
are  as  follows:  the  plant  has  no  foliage;  every  fan  and  every  poten¬ 
tial  eye  on  the  side  of  the  root  stalk  sends  out  a  stunted  bloom 
stalk.  In  some  instances  these  bloom  stalks  develop  to  the  point 
where  a  distorted  flower  appears  on  a  short  stem.  In  most  in¬ 
stances  the  bloom  stalk  does  not  develop,  but  the  scape  sheath 
grows  in  a  curious  twisted  fashion  simulating  a  pineapple,  hence 
the  name.  When  the  rhizome  is  lifted  there  is  no  evidence  of 
ordinary  rot  and  no  odor.  All  root  growth  has  ceased.  A  sample 
rhizome  so  affected  was  sent  to  Dr.  Philip  Brierley,  Senior  Path¬ 
ologist,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C.  We 
quote  Dr.  Brierley ’s  report: 

“This  is  the  first  time  the  problem  has  been  brought  to  my 
attention.  The  samples  had  no  living  fibrous  roots,  all  of  these 
being  killed  back  to  their  points  of  origin  in  the  rhizome,  but  there 


is  no  extension  of  rot  into  the  storage  organ.  There  seems  to  be 
no  authenticated  disease  of  fibrous  roots  of  iris,  but  this  looks  like 
a  possible  primary  cause  of  the  trouble. 

“The  multiple  shoots  without  chlorosis  do  not  match  the  symp¬ 
toms  of  any  known  virus  in  this  plant,  and  I  am  pretty  sure  that 
is  not  an  effect  of  the  common  iris  mosaic.  I  have  tested  the  mate¬ 
rial  on  Belamcanda,  and  will  report  further  if  anything  unusual 
develops. 

“The  possibility  of  a  virus  cannot  be  ruled  out.  In  Southern 
California  and  Texas  these  plants  may  be  exposed  to  some  virus 
not  found  in  the  East.” 


IN  MEMORIAM 

Mrs.  Ruth  Marsailis  Dormon 

The  beauty  of  her  life  was  not  expressed  in  flowers  only,  but  in 
patience  and  fortitude  under  almost  insuperable  difficulties,  and 
in  indomitable  cheerfulness. 

She  was  interested  in  discovering,  developing,  and  introducing 
native  American  and  other  species  of  plants  as  well  as  rescuing 
from  oblivion  and  loss  many  old  fashioned  garden  flowers  whose 
worth  had  been  forgotten  for  a  time.  She  was  a  member  of  both 
the  American  Iris  Society  and  of  The  Mary  Swords  Debaillon 
Louisiana  Iris  Society  and  had  developed  and  introduced  several 
very  interesting  hybrids.  There  are  hundreds  yet  to  bloom. 

We  have  lost  much  in  losing  her  but  we  gained  much  by  know¬ 
ing  her. 

Lillian  Hall  Trichel,  Shreveport,  La. 


ERRATA.  No.  105,  p.  105.  Pearly  Gates  and  Jack  0 ’Lantern, 
(Groof  Est.) 

No.  105.  p.  103,  ATHALA  (not  Athaia). 

p.  104.  The  following  names  are  unap¬ 
proved,  Florentine,  Hermione,  Helios,  and  Harmonie; 
also  Rapiere  on  p.  105.  They  are  not  synonyms.  Chas. 
E.  F.  Gersdorff. 


123 


■  HEMEROCALLIS.  The  First  Yearbook  of  the  Midwest  Hem- 
erocallis  Society  is  dedicated  to  Hans  Peter  Sass  and  among’  the  con¬ 
tributors  are  many  iris  names.  The  Editor  Mrs.  Ilarshbarger  has 
done  a  splendid  job  both  in  format  and  in  the  grouping  of  much 
information  gathered  from  hither  and  yon  and,  I  gather,  has  done 
it  in  record  time.  Check  List,  registration,  data  card,  definitions 
all  have  a  familiar  sound.  There  are  excellent  articles  on  propaga¬ 
tion,  hybridizing,  and  on  use,  but  above  all  what  amounts  to  an 
informal  symposium  in  the  number  and  quality  of  individual  re¬ 
ports  from  many  areas.  That  a  number  of  the  articles  have  been 
reprinted  merely  enhances  the  value  for  reference  use.  I  found 
the  color  classification,  self,  bi-color,  and  polychrome  and  it  was 
interesting  to  note  that,  there  Avere  3  color  classes  among  the  earlies, 
an  added  “ green  yellow’ 7  in  the  intermediates,  11  in  the  summer, 
and  only  2  in  the  late  group,  a  contrast  of  variety  from  season  to 
season  that  suggests  what  careful  breeding  will  accomplish. 

The  “ Round  Robin  Roundup”  sounds  both  educational  and  en¬ 
tertaining.  I  hope  one  of  our  members  can  report  for  the  Bulletin 
how  it  works.  It  clearly  provides  a  far  quicker  exchange  of  special 
news  than  a  bulletin  and  if  based  on  some  specific  subject  of  com¬ 
mon  interest  would  gather  together  a  symposium  of  experience  of 
real  value. 

Such  a  report  based  on  ratings  must  give  an  excellent  cross  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  quality  of  some  fifty  day  lilies. 

Membership  (and  the  annual)  is  $3.00.  Send  to  Frederick 
Fischer,  Treas.,  Box  5,  Shenandoah,  Iowa. 

*  NASHVILLE  1948  TRIALS.  The  briefest  of  reports  have  gone 
to  each  entrant  and  there  have  been  few  losses  tho,  in  a  number 
of  cases,  the  one  fan  may  not  give  bloom  in  1948. 

The  better  than  50%  of  bloom  is  as  with  newly  planted  novelties 
in  adjoining  beds  tho  few  show  characteristic  stalk  development. 
It  was  most  fortunate  that  none  of  the  plantings  were  caught  by 
the  late  frost  which  almost  ruined  the  seed  beds  of  Wills  and 
Caldwell.  In  general  the  quality  of  the  seedlings  is  not  good — one 
suspects  that  in  many  cases  they  have  proved  themselves  excellent 
as  garden  clumps  and  hence  not  up  to  the  current  standards. 
Nashville  had  relatively  few  out  of  town  visitors  but  they  can 
vouch  for  the  good  treatment  accorded  our  guests.  My  reports  to 
the  individuals  are  sent  more  as  a  matter  of  identification  than  of 
judgment. — B.  S.  Sturtevant. 


124 


DYKES  MEDAL  1947 


CHIVALRY  _ Originator  J.  E.  Wills 


Runner-up 

OLA  KALA  _  J.  k: 


AWARD  OF  MERIT— TALL  BEARDED 

BRYCE  CANYON  _ Kleinsorge 

BLUE  RHYTHM  _ Whiting 

KATHERINE  FAY _ Fav 


SOLID  MAHOGANY _ J.  Sass 

CASCADE  SPLENDOR  _ Kleinsorge 

ROCKET  _ Whiting 

EXTRAVAGANZA _ Douglas 

CHANTILLY  _ Hall 

GARDEN  GLORY  _ Whiting 


Note:  Chantilly  and  Garden  Glory  tied  for  eighth  place. 


AWARD  OF  MERIT— OTHER  THAN  TALL  BEARDED 


PRISCILLA  (Intermediate)  _ Whiting 

LOUISE  BLAKE  (Intermediate)  _ Smith 


125 


HONORABLE  MENTION— TALL  BEARDED 


Name  of  Iris  Originator 

ADMIRATION  _ K.  Smith 

ALDLTRA  _ Larson 

AMBER  GEM  _ Salbach 

AMITY  _ Corey 

BARBARA  BUDDY  _ Lapham 

BLACK  BANNER  _ Nicholls 

BLUE  VALLEY  _ Smith 

BRILLIANT  AMBER  ... _ Salbach 

CALIFORNIA  ROSE  _ Salbach 

CAMPFIRE  GLOW  _ Whiting 

CHERIE  _ Hall 

CLOTH  OF  GOLD  _ , _ Whiting 

CORDOVAN  _ ... _ Kleinsorge 

COUNTRY  LASS  _ Walker 

EBONY  QUEEN  _ J.  Sass 

ESQUIRE  _ Lothrop 

FALL  DAYS  _ Iv.  Smith 

FANTASY  _ D.  Hall 

FIRE  DANCE  _ Fay 

GENERAL  PATTON  _ Kleinsorge 

GENTLE  FLORENCE  _ Taylor 

GOLDEN  RUSSET  _  D.  Hall 

GOOD  NEWS  _ Kleinsorge 

GREEN  PASTURES  _ Heller 

INNOVATION  _ D.  Hall 

JULIET  - ... _ Kleinsorge 

LADY  LOUISE  - ... Graves 


126 


MARY  ELLEN  _ McKee 

MELODIST  _ Deforest 

MEXICAN  MAGIC  _ Whiting- 

MIOGEM  _ McKee 

NEW  HORIZON  _ Fav 

ORANGEMAN  _ ‘ _ Don  Waters 

PALE  DAWN  _ Fay 

QUAKER  MISCHIEF  _ White 

RAINBOW  ROOM  _ Sass 

RED  TORCH  _ H.  P.  Sass 

SALMONS TTE  _ Sass 

SEA  LARK  _ Mnhlstein 

SNOW  CRYSTAL  _ Wills 

SORREL  TOP  _ Mitchell 

SOUTHERN  PACIFIC  _ Taylor 

SPRING  SUNSHINE  _ Milliken 

SYRINGA  _ Lowry 

TEMPLAR  _ White 

VENTURA  _ Walker 

VICE  REGAL _ Miles 

VIGIL  _ Wills 

AVHITE  RUFFLES  _ Taylor 

YOUR  WORSHIP  _ 1 _ White 

ZANTHA  _ Fay 

t/ 

HONORABLE  MENTION— OTHER  THAN  TALL  BEARDED 

BUTTERFLY  WINGS  _ White 

CAPITOLA  _ Reinelt 

ILLUSION  _ _ _ Kleinsorge 

ORMACO  _ , _ Kleinsorge 

PRESENT  _ White 

HONORABLE  MENTION— FALL  BLOOMING 

KANSAS  INGLESIDE  _ Hill 

PRIORITY  _ Lapham 


HIGHLY  COMMENDED* 


ANOCISCO  _ 

_ Tobie 

CAHOIvIA  _ 

_ Taught 

44-7  _ 

_ Carr  uth 

43-9  _ 

_ Car  ruth 

46-46  _ 

_ Cook 

7-45  _ 

_ Cook 

85-11  _ 

_ Corey 

7-142  _ 

_ Craig 

7-143  _ 

_ Craig 

7-144  _ 

_ Craig 

Deep  Buttercup 

_ Muhlsteiu 

Gay  Orchid  _ 

Muhlstein 

Glisten  Glow _ 

_ Muhlstein 

46-14  _ 

_ Hall 

46-16  _ 

_ Hall 

46-20  _ 

_ Hall 

46-30  _ 

_ Hall 

46-42  _ 

_ Hall 

47-21  _ 

_ Hall 

R-7  _ 

_ H.  Hall 

Helen  Fitzgerald 

_ Thorup 

Helen  McKenzie 

_ Graves 

Jane  Phillips  _ 

_ Graves 

285A  _ 

_ Johnson 

12-d-39  _ 

_ Larson 

SQ-72  _ 

_ Loomis 

L-5-9  _ 

_ Lowry 

Mary  Newport _ 

_ Barker 

4-78  _ 

_ Mitchell 

46-00  _ 

_ McKee 

47-11  _ 

_ McKee 

47-17  _ 

_ McKee 

47-20Y  _ 

_ McKee 

47-S-7  (Spuria)  __ 

_ Nies 

Pink  Formal 

Muhlstein 

Radiation  _ 

_ D.  Hall 

Red  Satin  _ 

_ Palmer 

10-42B  _ 

_ Salbach 

Sea  Gull  _ 

.___ILse  Smith 

Sylvan  Radiance  _ 

_ Palmer 

356  _ 

_ Taylor 

The  Spartan  _ 

_ Graves 

22-46  _ 

_ Walker 

D-l-47  (Dutch) 

_ Walker 

S-l-47  (Spuria) 

_ Walker 

1-47-19  (Onco)  ... 

_ White 

^Incomplete 


CERTIFICATE  OF  COMMENDATION* 


Nobska  Light  _ 

32-6  _ 

19-2  _ 

23-11  _ 

7-240  _ 

_ Corey  27-46  (Spuria)  ___ 

_ Childs  45-19 A  _ 

_ Childs  45-19B  _ 

_ Childs  46-55  _ 

_ Craig  Pink  Tower 

_ Walker 

_ Fielding 

_ Fielding 

_ McKee 

Muhlstein 

7-210  _ 

_ Craig  46-70C  _ 

_  Muhlstein 

Mitch ie  _ 

_ Craig  46-1 7 W 

Muhlstein 

Pt.  Mugu  _ 

_ Walker  47-43  _ 

_ Wallace 

44- A  (Spuria)  _ 

_ Fielding  B102  (Spuria)  ____ 

_ Wallace 

^Incomplete 


128 


COMMERCIAL  DIRECTORY 

All  of  the  dealers  listed  below  are  members  of  The  American 
Iris  Society.  If  you  are  buying  iris  for  your  garden,  it  should 
be  your  particular  pleasure  to  make  your  purchases  from  the 
dealers  who  have  worked  with  and  supported  your  Society. 
Your  officers  and  directors  invite  your  special  attention  to 
this  list.  They  also  ask  a  favor.  When  you  order,  tell  the  dealer 
you  saw  his  name  in  the  Bulletin  and  do  him  a  favor  by  not 
asking  for  a  catalog  unless  you  mean  business. 


GEISER’S 

FAIR  CHANCE  FARM 


LYON  IRIS  CARDENS 

New  and  Choice  Iris 


Iris ,  Peonies  and  Poppies 

BELOIT,  KANSAS 


7041  WOODMAN  AVENUE 
VAN  NUYS  CALIFORNIA 


I RISDALE  GARDENS 

Mrs.  Frances  R.  Horton,  Prop. 

Dwarf  Bearded  Iris  a  Specialty 

List  on  Request. 

Elkhart,  Ind. 


MILLIKEN  GARDENS 

385  W.  Colorado  Street 

Arcadia  California 


IRIS— HEMEROCALLIS 

Catalog  in  Color  on  Request 


WARNER  IRIS  CARDENS 

GROWERS  OF  FINE  IRISES 

GRANDVIEW,  WASHINGTON 


JORDAN’S 

IRIS  GARDEN 


MORGAN’S  CARDENS 

LATEST  and  BEST  in  IRIS 


66th  and  Blue  Ridge  Blvd.  Route  3 
Kansas  City,  Missouri 

TELL  MUHLESTEIN 

Hybridizer  and  Introducer 

Growing  the  Latest  Novelties 
and  the  Standard  Varieties 


Iris  of  Quality 

MRS.  W.  H.  JORDAN 
3225  Hardeman  St.,  Ft.  Worth,  Tex. 


129 


691  East  8th  North 


Provo,  Utah 


FAIRMOUNT  CARDENS 

Introducer  of  many  of  the  best  IRIS , 

HEMEROCALIS  and  ORIENTAL 
POPPIES 

MRS.  THOMAS  NESMITH 
Lowell,  Mass. 

Maple  Valley  Iris  Gardens 

Mrs.  C.  G.  Whiting 

Hybridizer  and  Grower  of  Fine  Iris 

MAPLETON  IOWA 

LONCFIELD  IRIS  FARM 

Williamson  8C  Cook  Originations 
IRIS  AND  PEONIES 
BLUFFTON  INDIANA 

KENWOOD 
IRIS  CARDENS 

Iris,  Hemerocallis ,  Peonies,  Poppies 

MRS.  J.  F.  EMIGHOLZ 

R.R.  10,  Sta.  M  Cincinnati  27,  Ohio 

I  R  I  S  N  O  L  L 

FRED  DE  FOREST 

Hybridizer  and  Grower 

Route  1  Monroe,  Oregon 

Descriptive  List  Sent  on  Request 

Hearthstone  Iris  Gardens 

M.  Berry  Doub 

Irises  Grown  in  the  fertile  Limestone  Soil 
of  the  Cumberland  Valley 

HAGERSTOWN  MARYLAND 


I  IRISES  AND  DAFFODILS 

Specializing  in  the  Kenyon  Reynolds 
Daffodils  and  Pacific  Coast  Irises 


LENA  LOTHROP 

211  East  18th  St.,  San  Bernardino,  Calif. 


IRIS  -  PEONIES 

HemerocallU,  Poppiea 
Large  collection-— 1600  Tara. 

C.  F.  WASSENBERG 
Yan  Wert,  Ohio 


Wl  N  N  E’S  CARDEN 

Most  of  the  Best  Iris 
of  Recent  Introduction 

422  Court  St.  Beatrice,  Neb. 


FLEUR  DE  LIS  GARDENS 

IRIS  &  HEMEROCALLIS 

C.  W.  TOMPKINS 
Hybridizer  and  Grower 
3110  Lakeport  Rd.  Sioux  City  20,  la. 


WHEN  YOU  THINK  OF  IRIS 

THINK  OF 

LABUNDY’S  IRIS  CARDENS 

2577  Oxford  Street,  Memphis  12,  Tenn. 

Catalogue  on  request 


130 


SYLLMAR  GARDENS 

ELMA  MIESS 


NATIONAL  IRIS  CARDENS 


Newest  and  Best  in  Iris! 


GROWER  OF  FINE  IRIS 


Route  I,  12982  San  Fernando,  California 

Catalogue  on  Request 


A  VILLAGE  GARDEN 

Iris,  Peonies,  Day  Lilies  and 
Chrysanthemums 

WARRENSBURG,  ILL. 


EDNA  C.  WEED,  Proprietor 
BEAVERTON,  OREGON 


Hearthstone  Iris  Gardens 

M.  Berry  Doub 
Selling  Irises  Since  1920 

"Perhaps  not  the  NEWEST; 

But  always  the  BEST" 

HAGERSTOWN  MARYLAND 


THE 

MARY  SWORDS  DEBAILLON 
LOUISIANA  IRIS  SOCIETY 

invites  all  those  who  are  interested  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  beardless  iris  as  better  garden  subjects  and 
the  preservation  of  our  southern  species  to  become 
members  of  the  Society. 

Quarterly  bulletins  are  issued  and  the  dues  are  $2.00 
per  year.  Send  check  to  Miss  Marie  Caillet,  Secre¬ 
tary-Treasurer,  S.L.I.  Station,  Lafayette,  La. 


131 


THE  IRIS  SOCIETY 

( of  England ) 

Application  for  membership  in  The  Iris  Society  may  be 
sent  direct  to  the  American  Iris  Society  office.  Make  check 
for  dues  (#2.85)  payable  to  the  American  Iris  Society.  Send 
it  to  Howard  R.  Watkins,  Secretary,  821  Washington  Loan  8C 
Trust  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C.  Mark  it  plainly  "For  dues  for 
The  Iris  Society  (of  England)”  and  print  your  name  and 
address. 


JOIN  THE  AMERICAN  PEONY  SOCIETY 

Four  informative  Bulletins  are  issued  yearly  and  are  sent  to 
all  members.  If  interested  write  for  copy.  Dues  $3.00  per  year. 
Make  all  remittances  to  the  AMERICAN  PEONY  SOCIETY  and 
mail  to 

W.  F.  CHRISTMAN,  Secretary 

AMERICAN  PEONY  SOCIETY 
NORTHBROOK,  ILL. 


132 


REGIONS  AND  REGIONAL  VICE-PRESIDENTS 


Region 

1. 

Region 

2. 

Region 

3. 

Region 

4. 

Region 

5. 

Region 

6. 

Region 

7. 

Region 

8. 

Region 

9. 

Region 

10. 

Region 

11. 

Region 

12. 

Region 

13. 

Region  14. 

# 

Region  15. 

Region 

16 

Region 

17. 

Region 

18. 

Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Con¬ 
necticut  and  Rhode  Island.  Harold  A.  Knowlton, 

32  Hancock  St.,  Auburndale,  Mass. 

New  York.  M.  F.  Stuntz,  Williamsville,  N.  Y. 
Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey  and  Delaware. 

John  Dolman,  304  Vassar  Ave.,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 
Maryland,  District  of  Columbia,  Virginia  and  West 
Virginia.  J.  W.  Palmer, 

210  North  Irving  St.,  Arlington,  Va. 

North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia  and  Florida. 
Harvey  Hobson,  Belton,  S.  C. 

Michigan,  Ohio  and  Indiana.  Mrs.  Silas  B.  Waters, 
2005  Edgecliff  Point,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama  and  Mississippi. 

John  E.  Pierce,  2583  Jackson  Ave.,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  North  Dakota  and  South  Da¬ 
kota.  Robert  Schreiner, 

Route  1,  Riverview  Station,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Illinois.  Ralph  Schroeder,  Warrensburg,  Ill. 
Arkansas  and  Louisiana.  Ira  S.  Nelson,  Lafayette,  La. 
Montana,  Idaho,  Wyoming.  Mrs.  Mary  F.  Tharp, 
445  No.  7th  St.,  Payette,  Idaho. 

Utah,  Colorado,  Arizona  and  New  Mexico. 

Tell  Muhlestein,  691  East  8th  North,  Provo,  Utah. 
Washington  and  Oregon.  Matthew  C.  Riddle, 

2557  Vista  Ave.,  S.  W.  Portland,  Oregon. 

Northern  California  and  Nevada.  Mrs.  G.  C.  Pollock, 
1341  45th  St.,  Sacramento,  Calif. 

Southern  California.  Mrs.  Otto  Stuetzel, 

8239  Topango  Canyon  Blvd.,  Canago  Park,  Calif. 
Canada.  W.  J.  Moffat, 

170  Delaware  Ave.,  Hamilton,  Ontario,  Canada. 
Oklahoma  and  Texas.  Guy  Rogers, 

First  National  Bank  Bldg.,  Wichita  Falls,  Texas. 
Iowa,  Missouri,  Nebraska  and  Kansas. 

Mrs.  Charles  G.  Whiting,  Mapleton,  Iowa. 


ANNOUNCING  THE  PUBLICATION  AND 
FALL  DELIVERY  OF 


IRIS 


The  Ideal  Hardy  Perennial 


Written  and  Published  by  Members  of 
THE  AMERICIN  IRIS  SOCIETY 

Containing  a  wealth  of  information  on  SPECIES,  HYBRIDS, 
CULTURE,  FERTILIZATION,  DISEASE  CONTROL, 
HYBRIDIZATION,  ELEMENTARY  GENETICS,  COM- 
PANION  PLANTINGS,  COLOR  HARMONY,  BORDER 
PLANNING,  PHOTOGRAPHY  OF  IRIS  and  RELATED 
SUBJECTS. 

9 


PRICE 

Permanent  binding  _ 1 _  $2.50 

Paper  binding _ _ _  $1.50 


Send  Payment  to 

HOWARD  R.  WATKINS 
821  Washington  Loan  &  Trust  Bldg. 
Washington,  D.  C. 


^♦>Y  !*-i  .  <<A»/ 

•*  ft ,-  <WH‘r  *  '  ■•?%**+¥■ 

t  *  !*«•  '-*■•>  >*  fci-V-vYy** 


.>AvS  'tn 

-<>W* 


,  f-r  f  v  „■  .*iy  * 


■..•■lAW’}  •-.  *** 

•*  .  «V- 

*W*'  •»  >•  W.»«NrV'-A..  -*fv 
.tj  i4"i .r,f.w*4/ 

_  .  .. 

yt 4*,/  ,*)*+*■.. i *,■?,)*- r*s»-i>  itJf!* *•! 

■*  •'  • 11  ■*  */’*•  f*  M-*?<  /•*  •  ■•  *V  t  M  • 

■  i  ■  .  .4  rtii  >  ...  l  I  _  i .  .  i 


rt  *fi 


.  ,  M4i  •  .-. 

•  .*  '->*».>>  •  Yi-y 

Aav»n«Mf' 

/'.  .  -V  /*** 

I  W4^  .•*-  ^  -u*M-4-  — i>«  ‘-wtU 

••«.  *  ^  ..s.^ *-*  -  v-, 

■  v ■•-»•  r--i  -  -'■■'*l-tK  ^»r.+ 

•‘  -••'•  *■*  r-~*;  {- -* 
.  K-  «.'  V«  \j  4- .  . .  -v*  */**  V  *******  4W«4:. 

,>■»'  1  :  fWJ-h  r(yr>t**»  4-ftWWW  ;  /X.*1., 

»  •fr.'A.'!  W  J«»V*.U*v.p'J>» ’4^ 
•  **  •  -  ** *  ’.■*• 


VJ 


•  4  S  .  \‘tS  '■''  *M  ”  '  r  rr  ,'  '  ■*■’*  •»••'’••*•*  '  |V'W  r.‘’  vH’/  I  <fW  '•*  .•  /••  ftUihJv*  ,  w*  *-«»»*  -  .*.'  r  .M  ‘  >7V*i  **V\  ■  ./  .  h  •  "•! i  ,l>  4  Jy ; 

•>'■  ^‘ii  '/'W'l  ,  *1,  '\*‘lf*M"*rr  V’ ' -a/.-  *  -air  •<>/•'  v  t  ft#* 

/  '••\»i ■■•*..•.  i  .•*.;%•!  ••.>  ./»./)>'  \h*\r-  .i>,  ',  •  •  >.f  ».'•,*  wl-tr--- K'  >4A-i.-,-,  x  .*  <tv"'.h/W  '  rWs-*  ^tfV'l.y  AfV^1<*,,*‘,'1'r'- 

.  ><••■«  -■/ ‘'vw  f'i  7x.‘vR.>vi-,  « .v^iy,.V  Hf-  .•-{  V .»  .M.&*  r  JvA-;  /  w/r-4  Kft.tf  f'V.H  M  *  fj 

»•♦'./;  •  .  -«4,  *  V/  .If  *•,  r%/  *  •  •  •  '-fy  i /;■":  ^vv«:.  '.,j  - ■‘i^.’^r  t*Jr>  •••»,.•./,  ##,.  A  *  ..Hfjih  -  *V*  >fn-?V  fcMf  ‘ ' 

fcS^^'r  v4f^(j'>y'  f-*  ’  hSift'V*  ’  }^h.fr  \  ft'««  t  fvi*  twv*  *'•  J  *H>: 

; :U;  o :•■•.:  ^ if ;^;;r  ‘,n ; ‘i :.;; ^W^.-juajsSwm {j%i 


ilwlw 


■ffi  •?>*•,  jjjj 1  f.  • 


*t,.>  . 

ky,t/  M1** ' 


ivi  .n  m  \  /•  >w. «  r. - » .  Jxi'.'i?' .*  < -f  *  -'t.^.n i  ••  i|»v  '/I *Vw»- •  •  hr**  W|.*  ‘ 

» »>>/•,  -  ••  •,.•  i/i  fj:  “•'vv/vhim  i * ^ V Wm?’* 


Tf '  w  ** 

■■ij  M:  V.H.y.VA^  t-K'fWp 
.•  «J»y *'»K1  '•/ . /V‘ .,«/ wf 
•  ►i-ifakkrt* 

,iw  ww«“4wfe^ 

X iUyV<  A;^-<  w  ix  .«•»<■• ' 
'  .  '■•if '  ••  -•  AH'- 
■, «,  •*  >\ />■.-.  ,4a  f  •  • 

*'{  '!}  - 


’  ;r.  •!  |i>.-  *,•  *< »; «  ;<  »•-*  ilk 

•*  '  k>&%**+.  •»•  *ifv,v-.»  1 

■4  t’trt  *  <  'i ?  Ai>.* v.-j 


•/■-jWxiMAr, 


I  .  •  •  '•  **  /*  >,*♦  »V>Ur-i#j  M^4  .-', 

►  ri»  .-w/'M/*;'  -r\r w>< 

'  **  •  1111 

1 -•-•**  >•*+*'< 

1.4 


'■  .‘it  "- 


*JY+£  . 


.••.  a .  .*  w  w- 
i  •*•  *4 ■&■■', 


4. r.i^>  v-.* <* *>U&i W V#. 

.-  M  .  .  .  w.  ,  ,.^,.4  ,  ..jy^W>...iLU  ...  ^  >,  ; 


wa-,,vm.‘x  rrf'.VfybfWs ^v*Afc,>#fr;  y4.,k