I. bismarckiana

Annalee pasogal@ameritech.net
Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:03:18 PDT


 Hello Luc.  The picture you posted is the Israeli form of I. Bismarckiana.
And the Israelis are the only ones who have done any "official" work on
distinguishing the various forms of the oncocycli. By  and large I find it
easy to accept most of their findings, including the division into baiscally
4 "tribes" of the species, an idea, that I think was first proposed either
in the BISY and/or in correspondence to me and Clay Osborne  by Ken Bastow
(hobbyist, ) of the British Iris Society.  Back in the 60s. His ideas were
based on phenotype, and an analysis of livie plants in geographical
locations and gardens together with what was available in the literature.


I do not know if he actually saw the materials in the old Post Herbarium in
Palestine.  As you note the plants still exist along the Israel Lebanon


The taxonomy of the oncocyli  has been the usual mess, with the Russians
being "splitters" and the Brits being "lumpers" over the last 120 years or
so, and nobody getting out into the field or reexamining the old herbarium
specimens collected by Dinsmore or Mouterde because of  border disputes and
other warring matters.  At this point, to my knowledge ( the Israelis have
done the only respectable work on systematizing this group. 


For me the type specimens (live) of I. bismarckiana  are those from the
Crak des Chevaliers provenance and are distinct enough to be, if not  the
holotype for the species, a variant distinct anough to merit a  forma  or
ssp. Designation.;  


Now as to the challenge of  "put up or shut up " (which is in order) mI have
to refer to a slide. 


More information about the pbs mailing list