Gladiolus xgandavensis

Jim McKenney
Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:03:50 PDT
John Grimshaw was right to point out that the nomenclature I used to explain
the origin of Gladiolus x gandavnesis is not current; outmoded, I would say
(and I chose that word deliberately to convey the sense that these matters
of nomenclature have an element of style to them). 

But I think it is important to keep this in mind: although both the
gandavensis line and the primulinus line have an ancestry which includes
forms nominally assigned to Gladiolus dalenii, the gandavensis line of
hybrids and the primulinus line of hybrids gave results which, from a
horticultural point of view, were very different. 

In the context of the current nomenclature, it is correct to say that both x
gandavensis and primulinus hybrids are of Gladiolus dalenii ancestry, that
both are "dalenii hybrids". But to do so obscures an important point: the
gandavensis hybrids and the primulinus hybrids were never considered to be
the same thing. As gladiolus go, they are not at all alike.  

Was it such an important point I missed? I would say in rebuttal that
perhaps the taxonomists missed an important point. When two plants which are
nominally the same species produce such different progeny, that should call
into question the taxonomy. It seems to me that the disparate breeding
results ought to be telling the taxonomists something, perhaps something
they do not want to consider. 

Jim McKenney
Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where my gladiolus may be
small, but to paraphrase Mark Twain, it's not the size of the swordsman in
the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the swordsman which

More information about the pbs mailing list