Iris and some Irids 2010

[PeterT]

congratulations Oleg

[christian pfalz]

oleg, very nice flower....
here my iris, every day more flowers looks very pretty....

cheers
chris

[Pascal B]

I would like to add some remarks to the posting of Diane regarding IPNI and the Kew Database, there is a profound difference between the 2 as the first is basically the online version of the old Index Kewensis in combination with 2 other name references which, as the name suggests, is a listing of literature references of plant names, the International Plant Names Index. Yes, it does list synonymy in some cases but it primarily checks whether the name itself has been done in accordance with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, it says very little in terms of the status of the name itself. It contains the correct spelling of the name and forms the basis of the Kew Checklist Database. If a name was not described in accordance with the Code, IPNI states it as "not accepted" or "not valid".

The Kew database does more but is not necessarily better, it adds an element of interpretation to the name plus additional info. Checklists are basically revisions, sometimes based on phylogenetic research, sometimes still morphological interpretations. Every single revision in taxonomy becomes "true" if the level of acceptance by the scientific or commercial community is high enough. Therefore the Kew database has a tab with "accepted by". It is still a "he says, she says" story so be aware that the Kew database is the latest status of a name according to them. The checklist of Arisaema for instance is largely based on morphological data rather than phylogenetic data and for several species I can "prove" it is incorrect.

So whether forumists believe the Kew database is upto them. The best taxonomists can do is present as much arguments and proof to support their interpretation of a name but it is still upto the individual to decide if they want to believe Kew or any other authority or not. Remember we are still trying to classify products of evolution in boxes with a name on it....;-) And evolution is not a state but a everchanging proces so plants vary. I know for most forumists this is info that does not interest them but don't be surprised if it hard to put a label on a plant, there is a reason for that.

[ashley]

I know for most forumists this is info that does not interest them

On the contrary Pascal, your post is very useful because most of us here struggle with nomenclature and the relative status of synonyms. 
Speaking personally, if the headache gets too bad I just remind myself to enjoy the beauty of the plants - whatever they are, were or will be

[Pascal B]

In short:
- use IPNI as a check for the correct spelling of a latin species name as it was described and to find out if that name was validly published
- use the Kew Checklist database as one of the premier sources of information on the status of a name as it is currently AND most commonly accepted

The more a status is accepted, the more "true" a label can be considered. Any additional info can be found in the publications cited in the "accepted by". If that publication is written in a scientifically sound way it should mention the reason why the status of a plant should be like it is proposed and should go further than "it is" because that would require an unconditional trust in the author of that publication, something I strongly advise not to do unless there is no other option.

The publication should always leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind of whether they consider the proof put forward is convincing. The problem is that most of these publications require some level of scientific knowledge, certainly phylogenetic treatments (assesments of how species within a genus or family relate to each other based on their DNA) of plantgroups are not for the faint hearted and even those articles do not produce the "absolute truth".
It is a subject close to my heart and I can write pages on it but I think it would cause more doubt than anything else. For instance, many people consider DNA research as more convincing evidence than simply interpreting the visible characters of a plant (morphology) because "DNA doesn't lie". What many forget is that the starting material of a "species" for this research is still chosen largely based on the morphological characters thereby assuming that they indeed sample species X. And additionally, the choice of markers used in the DNA research (what part of the DNA is looked at) is very important and influences the outcome of that research. It could very well be that the use of marker X gives different results to the use of marker Y. It could even be that the results are inconclusive or contradictionary.

In summary, a plant name is the most commonly accepted interpretation of data known for that plant. If the data chances, the interpretations change and we end up with another revision and have to buy new labels again....

Or indeed forget about the name and simply enjoy the plant, that is the reason why we grow and collect plants don't we?

[christian pfalz]

hello, some iris from today..,



cheers
chris

[Lesley Cox]

Yes Pascal, very useful posting and I feel I should print it and pin it on my wall somewhere near my work bench.

Iris halophila is as lovely as I. carthaliniae and it's easy enougjh to see their relationship. I have had them both from seed, along with musulmanica, as subsp of I. spuria.

[Diane Clement]

In short:
- use IPNI as a check for the correct spelling of a latin species name as it was described and to find out if that name was validly published
- use the Kew Checklist database as one of the premier sources of information on the status of a name as it is currently AND most commonly accepted

Very well expressed, thanks Pascal for putting it in a neat nutshell

  many people consider DNA research as more convincing evidence than simply interpreting the visible characters of a plant (morphology) because "DNA doesn't lie". What many forget is that the starting material of a "species" for this research is still chosen largely based on the morphological characters thereby assuming that they indeed sample species X. And additionally, the choice of markers used in the DNA research (what part of the DNA is looked at) is very important and influences the outcome of that research. It could very well be that the use of marker X gives different results to the use of marker Y. It could even be that the results are inconclusive or contradictionary.

Yes, two different research projects using DNA of cyclamen give quite different results because they use different markers.  There's not necessarily a clear cut result from DNA, it's too complex, morphology will still play a part.

  Or indeed forget about the name and simply enjoy the plant, that is the reason why we grow and collect plants don't we? 

Absolutely true!  but there are still some of us who keep looking and wondering and comparing and asking .... 

[Pascal B]

 Or indeed forget about the name and simply enjoy the plant, that is the reason why we grow and collect plants don't we?  

Absolutely true!  but there are still some of us who keep looking and wondering and comparing and asking ....  

I know, I started to get interested in taxonomy for that very same reason....sob....  Couldn't understand why the so-called experts disagreed, got fed up with changing names on labels and wanted to know why it was so hard to get consensus. Got to know a taxonomist that was the expert on Amorphophallus, learned a lot from him on aroid taxonomy and the methods & principles used. Wanted to look for the "truth", ended up disappointed it was not as clearcut as I hoped and the more I learned about it, the less I ended up knowing. Even started to disagree with the established experts myself...

I thought I could get a clearer picture by doing fieldtrips and studying herbaria specimen but having seen many Arisaema in the wild during my trips only made me realise how futile and sheer impossible it was to try and name a variable plant. Nowadays I consider taxonomy a "best effort". Not a wise thing to mention in the company of professional taxonomists but in the end it comes down to the rather subjective interpretation of data. And as each individual differs, so do their interpretations which makes "experts" disagree. In taxonomy there are several different "schools", each with their own theories on what a species is, when something is a variety etc.... The lumpers, the splitters etc...which only makes clear it can go many ways while still looking at the same plant. But when I see a species divided into 10 different varieties (Paris polyphylla in the Flora of China) or see "Cyclamen species A subspecies B variety C forma alba" I start laughing because that doesn't make sense anymore.

But I know, people want to have a name for a plant so they are talking about the same thing when they talk about that plant. Sometimes that name is straighforward, sometimes it isn't, I accepted the fact that often it isn't. So my collection seems to have more "Arisaema species aff." than "Arisaema species X....

[PeterT]

Iris halophila, its second year flowering for me, and Iris lusitanica, both from seed

[Lesley Cox]

IS TL Tim Loe? and is this what we would think of as Spanish irises?

[PeterT]

Hello Lesley, yes TL = Tim Loe, Iris luisitanica is a (according to Mathew) a Portugese variant of Iris xiphium - the spanish Iris, I have  I Latifolia forms, seedlings of I fillifolia and posiably serotina, I would love to have some of the others in this group.
Here is an Iris in a friends garden, he has a lot of species and sometimes they mix but we were wondering about this one

[arillady]

Whatever it is Peter it is a lovely photo with the water spots.
The bright yellow Iris lusitanica is good too.
So many irises flowering for you all in the northern parts.
I only have Iris planifolia flowering but the small snails, a few mites and rain are making it impossible to do any pollinating.

[Lesley Cox]

Nothing leaps immediately to mind Peter. I like it very much. Almost like a hybrid between a PC and something else altogether - if that were possible.

[David Nicholson]

Here's one I'm quite pleased about. Iris decora, grown from seed that Lesley kindly sent to me that was sown in May 2007. I got really good germination and have been able to share the results with quite a few Forumists and still have a few plants in the greenhouse. This one flowered in the greenhouse for the first time last year and I planted it out whilst it was still in flower really as a trial to see how it would react to our wet winters. As you can see it has come back quite strongly, if a little shorter than those grown under glass. My greenhouse plants are at least two weeks behind this one!