Robt R Pries
Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:04:46 PST
One of the driving forces behind my work on an illustrated encyclopedia of Iris is to dispell the idea that one plant can be representative of a species. There are often multiple forms some with better garden value than others. The other irritating problem is than the only way of discriminating these forms is to provide them with cultivar names and then the problem is that people think of all cultivars as hybrids or something artifiicially created.

Jane McGary <> wrote:///Rodger/ Whitlock wrote,
I. lazica is a good doer: I have enormous clumps that were planted
>out 15 years ago and have done well even in conditions of not-very-
>good winter drainage. Unfortunately, it is an unkempt plant not
>suitable for the more carefully groomed gardens. Moreover, the
>rather washy flowers appear at a time when much else is flowering; I
>cannot place it in the front rank of iris species.

I must have a different form, or it is responding differently to the colder 
weather here than in the Victoria area. It is a pretty tidy evergreen with 
little dieback, forming a compact clump, and the flowers on mine, which I 
bought many years ago from Avon Bulbs in England, are a fairly bright 
violet. They are, however, well down in the foliage, and show up well only 
when a lot of them are open and not devoured by slugs.

Jane McGary
Northwestern Oregon

pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list