Click Here To Visit The SRGC Main Site
I rather think "she" might, Robin. I'll make a note to lift one for you .
Paul , from a single bulb I built up a thriving colony of over 200 flowering sized ones in a matter of about 5 years - a beautyful sight - and then the next year not a single surviver , the dreaded ink decease , only empty shells . The first time I saw I. 'Katharine Hodgkin' in flower was in 1961 in E.B. Anderson's garden in Lower Slaughter ,under a Plum Tree. I remember E.B.A. telling me ,that it was the second year to flower , and that he used I danfordiae as one parent , but it has been established in the meantime that it was I winogradowii .
I am afraid I cannot grow them outside but I can buy them in pots in the garden center as if they were pansies.
Quote from: Otto Fauser on April 10, 2009, 08:39:28 AMPaul , from a single bulb I built up a thriving colony of over 200 flowering sized ones in a matter of about 5 years - a beautyful sight - and then the next year not a single surviver , the dreaded ink decease , only empty shells . The first time I saw I. 'Katharine Hodgkin' in flower was in 1961 in E.B. Anderson's garden in Lower Slaughter ,under a Plum Tree. I remember E.B.A. telling me ,that it was the second year to flower , and that he used I danfordiae as one parent , but it has been established in the meantime that it was I winogradowii .I am afraid I cannot grow them outside but I can buy them in pots in the garden center as if they were pansies.The common wisdom is that EBA said that he used danfordie and Otto has it "from the horse's mouth". I wonder: What makes it certain that he used winogradowii?? EBA was no ignoraminus. Is there a DNA-sequensing that supports it? The fact that danfordie has minuscule standards is not necessarily a proof. That could be a recessive gene - considering the rarity of "danfordie-standards" that seems likey.Göte
Jamie - I find the argument compelling. As Mathew & Johnson point out, even if a diploid I. danfordiae (2n =18) had been available in 1955 how would this give rise to a 2n= 16 plant ('KH') when crossed with I histrioides (2n = 16). A similar problem would arise with a triploid I. danfordiae. The authors also claim that there are significant differences in chromosome shape as well as number. They give a somewhat more 'academic' reference: Johnson & Mathew, (1989). Kew Bull., 44(3), 515 -524
Quote from: Gerry Webster on May 18, 2009, 07:25:31 PMJamie - I find the argument compelling. As Mathew & Johnson point out, even if a diploid I. danfordiae (2n =18) had been available in 1955 how would this give rise to a 2n= 16 plant ('KH') when crossed with I histrioides (2n = 16). A similar problem would arise with a triploid I. danfordiae. The authors also claim that there are significant differences in chromosome shape as well as number. They give a somewhat more 'academic' reference: Johnson & Mathew, (1989). Kew Bull., 44(3), 515 -524If the chromosome counts are correct, I agree that the winogradowii theory is by far the most likely. However, I also think that we should not believe that diploid danforide was unavailable at the time - all bulbs do not come from Dutch bulb fields. If Andersson had winogradowii growing why not diploid danfordie??.Göte