Book Review: Dwarf and Median Bearded Irises

by Tom Waters

Dwarf and Median Bearded Irises: Jewels of the Iris World

Kevin C. Vaughn

Schiffer Publishing, 2022

ISBN 978-0-7643-6389-4

144 pages

Books about bearded irises don’t come out nearly often enough, in my opinion. It’s been over a decade since Kelly Norris’s beautiful A Guide to Bearded Irises made its appearance, and it is especially exciting for some of us to see a book devoted to the dwarf and median classes. Whereas the heart of Norris’s book was profiles of favorite individual cultivars in all the different classes, Vaughn focuses on the classes themselves: why we grow them, where they come from, and where they are going.

The book has a simple and clear organization: a chapter for each dwarf and median class, a general chapter on culture, and a chapter on hybridizing. The last is quite innovative in books of this type. Most horticultural titles address readers solely as consumers—purchasers and growers of garden plants. But Vaughn is a lifelong hybridizer, and his enthusiasm for this hobby is infectious. It adds a whole other dimension to how we appreciate our irises, and Vaughn assumes that many of his readers will want to share this with him.

The chapters on each class set forth the distinctive qualities and uses of each, selling the reader on what each has to offer. But Vaughn goes further, giving us a historical overview of the development of each class. This dovetails nicely with the corresponding chapters in The World of Irises* (edited by Bee Warburton and Melba Hamblen, 1978), bringing each class up to present day. The work of important hybridizers who contributed to the development of each class is noted and summarized. This is an important contribution. Those who have been deep in the iris world for decades know this history, which is sort of a shared experience, transmitted by word of mouth and personal correspondence; but this book records that history and makes it accessible to newcomers.

The chapter on culture takes a very welcome, fresh approach to the subject. Instead of repeating the familiar instructions that seem to have originated a hundred years ago with gardeners in the UK and New England, Vaughn takes us on a tour of his own gardening experience in Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Oregon, and relates practices of other gardeners he has known. This opens up the subject, putting forth lots of good ideas without pretending there is a one-size-fits-all recipe.

The hybridizing chapter was of special interest to me. It should be noted that an entire book could be devoted to this subject, so this presentation is necessarily condensed. Vaughn refers readers to the chapter by Kenneth Kidd in The World of Irises*, and indeed I think it is best to use these two resources in tandem. Total newcomers will need to work some to connect the dots as they read Vaughn’s chapter. The effort is one that pays off, though, as Vaughn has a lot to share with us about how a backyard gardener can approach a hybridizing program and what the special challenges are for working in each of the dwarf and median classes.

To sum up, this book makes a fine addition to the library of anyone interested in dwarf and median irises, particularly those of us sufficiently immersed in an iris obsession to appreciate this book’s attention to hybridizing and to history.

*EDITOR'S NOTE: The World of Irises book is now out of print, but used copies can be found online. Wayne Messer and Bob Pries have also transcribed select book chapters for Iris Encyclopedia. AIS is always looking for volunteers who can type existing content into this online library. If you are interested and available for transcription projects like this, please reach out to Bob at bobpries3@gmail.com.

Proportion, Proportion, Proportion

 by Tom Waters

There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

                —Francis Bacon

It seems like devotees of the dwarf and median irises, myself included, are always talking about proportion. All the parts of the stalk, we are told, must be in proportion: the height and width of the flowers, the height and thickness of the stalk, even the leaves. Indeed, the American Iris Society’s Handbook for Judges and Show Officials gives measurements and ratios to define proper proportion for each class.

I’d like to raise a philosophical issue about proportion, and how it relates to two iris classes in particular, the border bearded (BB) and miniature dwarf bearded (MDB). These two classes face a similar problem: most BBs are produced by crossing tall beardeds (TBs), and most MDBs are produced by crossing standard dwarf beardeds (SDBs). Since the genetic background of these classes comes mostly from a different, taller class, it is not unusual to find flowers that are large, even when the height of the stem is short. Purists are very bothered by this situation, but short irises with large flowers seem to be popular with iris lovers and even judges. Are the many people who enjoy large-flowered BBs and MDBs just wrong? Should they know better?

The philosophical issue is this: is “good proportion” objective? Is there some numerical ratio of stem, flower, and foliage that is aesthetically optimal? Or is it just in the eye of the beholder? If it is just a personal, subjective preference, then the admonitions in the Judges' Handbook start to seem a bit arrogant and elitist. The classic example of a subjective judgment becoming judging gospel is the case of haft marks. In the mid-20th century, haft markings were the “fault” that everyone seemed obsessed with in TB irises. Yet, what if I think haft marks are interesting or pretty? Is this any different than preferring yellow to blue, or preferring plicatas to selfs? The condemnation of haft marks reflects the struggles of hybridizers. In those early years, it was very difficult to breed a true, clean, self-colored iris. Haft marks seemed to always turn up and distract from the desired purity. So the frustration felt by hybridizers was transformed into an esthetic standard that was promoted as something objective and universal. Once clean selfs were achieved, then people could start to enjoy haft marks for being “something different”!

Many, many “rules” that are enshrined in the Judges' Handbook are relics of the personal goals and frustrations of earlier generations of hybridizers, even though they are presented as objective aesthetic truths. I think proportion is one of those things. I say this despite the fact that I, personally, dislike large-flowered BBs and MDBs. If a BB blooms in my garden with TB-sized blooms and thick, coarse stalks, it does not stay here another year, no matter how pretty the color or form. However, in all honesty, I have to describe this as a personal preference.

Allium karataviense

If there were some objective, universally valid, proportion of bloom to stalk that looks best to everyone, then we would expect it to apply to all kinds of plants. But in fact, we enjoy flowers with all different ratios of bloom size to stem height, without thinking twice about it. Consider two alliums I grow: A. karataviense produces enormous globular flower heads right at ground level. I enjoy it immensely. A. caeruleum produces small, airy blue flower heads on tall slender stalks. I enjoy it also. These two could not be more different. And neither has the proportion of a “good” bearded iris. In fact, I think an iris proportioned like either of the alliums would inspire revulsion in a typical iris judge.

Allium caeruleum

It may seem like I am now arguing for a free-for-all approach to proportion. If it is all subjective, why should we worry about a BB with TB-sized flowers or an MDB whose bloom is twice as wide as the height of the entire stem? Perhaps judges should focus on more objective things, like plant vigor and bud count, and let people enjoy different proportions, just as we enjoy different colors?

No, that is not the approach I favor, although I think the argument should be made from time to time to provoke thought and debate. I believe there is a good reason for harping on proportion in the dwarf and median irises, but I don’t think it has anything to do with some objective, universal standard of beauty.

'Solar Sunrise' (Black, 2019),
a BB whose proportion I like.

What then? If small-flowered BBs and MDBs are not objectively superior to large-flowered ones, why should we care at all? I think the answer lies in something else: class identity. Consider this: although they fall in the same height range, miniature tall bearded (MTBs) are “supposed” to have smaller flowers and more slender stems than BBs. If one proportion is more attractive, shouldn’t all classes aspire to that same proportion?

To most median aficionados, the answer is obvious: each class has its own aesthetic ideal. We like the fact that BBs look different from MTBs. They are like two different styles of music. In our minds, we may have a picture of the ideal, the prototype, as it were, for each class. It is these mental prototypes that give each class its identity, its center of gravity in the great sea of diversity that hybridizers have produced for us.

So I think what we are complaining about when we complain about out-of-proportion BBs or MDBs is the erosion of the identity of the class, the weakening of the mental prototype. The reason I have singled out BBs and MDBs is that the irises in these classes are mostly “spill-overs” from TBs and SDBs, respectively. There is a relentless pull on these classes to merge together with the larger classes that give rise to them. If a BB is just a TB that is short, why not call it a TB?

'Icon' (Keppel, 2008)
an MDB whose proportion I like.

Some have sought to strengthen the identity of these classes through breeding. Lynn Markham’s BBs
were produced intentionally to reinforce the distinct identity of the class. Ben Hager used a similar strategy to reinforce the identity of the MDB class. These were valiant efforts, but they were not sufficient to turn the tide. So many people are crossing TBs that the “accidental” BBs that emerge from TB crosses far outnumber the “intentional” BBs that are produced by the small number of breeders who are interested in the class as an end in itself. Exactly the same is true of the MDB class.

I wish I could end on some profound revelation or recipe for solving the conundrum of these classes, but I don’t think there is one. What it comes down to is simply this: do we (the entire iris-loving public, hybridizers, and judges) care enough about the identity of these classes to insist on maintaining their integrity? Perhaps we don’t. It’s not obvious that we “should”, after all. If we like the irises we’re growing, even when they depart from that mental prototype, maybe that is fine. Collective opinion is not something that can be easily predicted or controlled. It just is what it is.

But if nothing else, perhaps we can shift the language of the conversation a little. Instead of talking about “good” or “bad” proportion, perhaps we can talk instead of class identity. That seems more accurate and to the point.

 

Hybridizing with Iris reichenbachii

by Tom Waters

Four years ago, I wrote a blog post here titled “The Untapped Potential of Iris reichenbachii”. At that time, I could comment on the use of I. reichenbachii in median breeding only as a promising theoretical possibility. Now, however, I have some solid results from my own hybridizing work to share.

As mentioned in the earlier post, I. reichenbachii exists in both diploid and tetraploid forms. The diploid forms can be used with diploid MTBs, while the tetraploid forms are compatible with TBs, BBs, and tetraploid MTBs. It was the tetraploid grouping that I was interested in, so my first priority was to acquire tetraploid forms of I. reichenbachii. Alas, none of the plants or seeds available commercially or through seed exchanges have been identified as either diploid or tetraploid, so I had to make this determination myself. Not being equipped to make chromosome counts, this meant making test crosses and patiently waiting for the results.

Happily, it turns out that the tetraploid forms are not uncommon. The first two reichenbachii forms I started crossing with both turned out to be tetraploid. One is a yellow form, a collection from Mt. Vikos in Greece. The second is actually a group of plants of unknown origin I raised from seed obtained from a collector in Czechia. Most of these are violet.

I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos, Greece

Waters T009-02, purple tetraploid I. reichenbachii

Waters T051-01,
I. aphylla X I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos

I have three fertile tetraploid seedlings now. The yellow Mt. Vikos form gave me seedlings with I. aphylla and with the tetraploid median plicata ‘Saucy’ (Craig, 1998, IB). One of the violet forms gave me a seedling with the tetraploid median ‘Night Mood’ (L. Markham, 2003, SPEC-X). All three of the seedlings fall in the SDB height range and have the slender stems of I. reichenbachii. None are any competition for the modern, ruffled, dramatically colored median hybrids being produced these days; rather, their value is in further breeding. Because these plants are so small and dainty, they can be used to add these qualities to tetraploid MTB or BB breeding programs. So the next step is to cross these seedlings with the best modern BBs and tetraploid MTBs. It would be nice to have all the color patterns, form, and substance the modern BBs have to offer, but in a line of plants that was consistently small and delicate. This project is already well underway, as I have hundreds of seeds from using these seedlings over the past two years.

Waters T059-02,
Saucy X I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos

Waters T060-01,
Night Mood X T009-02

A second project using I. reichenbachii is directed toward producing dainty MDBs. Most modern MDBs are produced by accident - they are just seedlings from SDB crosses that fall below the 8-inch height limit. These MDBs can be very lovely in terms of flower form and color pattern, but they can easily grow out of class, and often lack the daintiness and early bloom that one hopes for in a true miniature dwarf.

SDBs are the result of crossing TBs with the dwarf species I. pumila. What if one used I. reichenbachii instead of TBs? The result should plants fully fertile with SDBs and modern MDBs, but much smaller. I have three seedlings so far (more on the way) from crossing the Mt. Vikos reichenbachii with the I. pumila cultivar ‘Royal Wonder’ (Coleman, 2013, MDB). One is purple, the other two are yellow. All our about 5 inches tall, with one or two terminal buds. They bloom earlier, overlapping the pumilas and the first MDBs. They are indeed fertile with SDBs and with MDBs from SDB breeding. Once again, the value of these seedlings is not in competing with the showiest modern hybrids, but in further breeding, where they can be expected to produce a line of consistently dainty and early-blooming MDBs. Again, this project is on its way forward, with many seeds from using these seedlings with modern MDBs and SDBs.

Waters S026-01,
I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos X Royal Wonder

Waters S026-02,
I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos X Royal Wonder

These projects using I. reichenbachii are not for the impatient; they are multi-generation endeavors. Yet, there is something uniquely satisfying in breaking new ground.

Borderline Cases

by Tom Waters

There are three classes of median irises that span the interval between the standard dwarf bearded (SDB) and tall bearded (TB) classes. The intermediate bearded (IB) are mostly the result of crossing TBs with SDBs, leading to plants intermediate between the two, both in height and in bloom season. The miniature tall bearded (MTB) come from varied backgrounds, but must meet exacting standards of delicacy in height, flower size, and stalk proportions. The final class, the border bearded (BB) are derived almost exclusively from the TBs, but with height less than the 70 cm (27.5 inches) that is the boundary between the BB and TB classes.

The BB class is unusual in that it has no real “center of gravity” of its own; rather it represents the smaller “tail end” of the TB class. Many BBs are registered at a height of 27 inches, just barely below the upper limit of the class, and are hard to distinguish in practice from TBs at the lower end of the TB height range. One might ask if there is really a need to place such irises in a separate class.

Proponents of BBs have long had a vision of the class that sets it apart from the TB class. An ideal BB is not just a TB that is an inch or two shorter; rather, an ideal BB is a reduced TB in all its dimensions and proportions, including foliage, branching, flower size and form. While it is not intended that they be as delicate as MTBs, they ought to be “halfway there”, as it were – they should be esthetically medians, instantly distinguishable as diminutive and elegant irises in their own right. Part of their value comes from being useful in garden design in situations where TBs would be out of scale or overwhelming. They should be more about charm than grandeur.

'Brown Lasso' (Buckles by Niswonger, 1975),
BB (22 inches), American Dykes Medal, 1981

Some of the best median hybridizers have pursued this ideal with great care, selecting plants for introduction that are modestly proportioned, perky, and might more easily be mistaken for IBs or MTBs than for TBs. Early BBs like ‘Frenchi’ (B. Jones, 1959) and ‘Tulare’ (M. Hamblen, 1961) were exemplars of this ideal in their time, as was ‘Brown Lasso’ (Buckles by Niswonger, 1975) which was the only BB to win the American Dykes Medal. ‘Cranapple’ (Aitken, 1995) is a worthy example of more recent vintage.

 This is difficult work, and not always appreciated; many people buy BBs just as they do TBs, by looking at the catalog “glamor photos” of single blooms and choosing exciting colors and patterns, with little attention to plant proportions or esthetics. A large, blousy iris with the latest TB color pattern that does not meet the BB ideal may sell more than a carefully selected, lightly ruffled, charming BB in an unexceptional yellow, violet, or white.

One might argue that this doesn’t matter in the big picture of things. People like what they like, and if they enjoy an iris, who cares about its failure to meet some elitist ideal?  On a case-by-case basis, I think that is a valid perspective. Where it becomes problematic is when the notion of the class becomes so blurred that it ceases to convey anything clear to gardeners, and those seeking smaller, well-proportioned medians can’t trust the BB designation as meaningful.

'Oops' (Jim and Vicki Craig, 2003),
a BB from tetraploid MTB breeding

We all have a role to play in maintaining the distinctiveness of the BB class. Hybridizers can work more with lines that are intentionally devised to produce BBs, rather than taking most of their BB introductions from crosses intended to produce TBs. Tetraploid MTBs and smaller bearded species can be used to “tame” the TB genes and keep plants in scale.

Judges must strive to be more scrupulous in maintaining the standards of the BB class. Alas, color novelty and hybridizer reputation often bias judges away from a more sober consideration of shape and proportion.

Finally, buyers can reward hybridizers who keep the BB ideal in mind. Best of all is to buy BBs you have seen growing in a garden, and which you know to be consistently diminutive and in proportion. If you do buy “sight unseen” (as I often do), give preference to BBs registered in the 20-24 inch range, rather than 26 or 27 inches, as so many are. I also check pedigrees, looking for a preponderance of BBs, MTBs, or SPX irises in the background of a new BB. Finally, even a single-bloom photo can convey information about the scale of the plant, if you know what to look for. A bloom that is perky, flared, and not too ruffled is more likely to be in scale than one that is more flamboyant but not so flaring.

I have chosen not to use this blog post to give examples of modern BBs that I think are particularly fine or particularly poor examples of the class ideals; that is for each person to decide for themselves.

The BB class need not be just a spillover for short TB seedlings; it has much to offer the discerning gardener. Wonderful irises come in all sizes!

If you found this post interesting, please check back in January, when noted hybridizer Kevin Vaughn offers his reflections on the history of the BB class and promising avenues for its future development.

The Untapped Potential of Iris reichenbachii

by Tom Waters

Today's post is all about an underappreciated bearded iris species, Iris reichenbachii. The name, it seems, is bigger than the iris itself. I. reichenbachii is a dwarf, ranging in height from 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 inches), with one or sometimes two buds at the top of the stalk. (Very rarely, a third bud may appear further down the stalk.) The flowers are yellow (often with brownish markings or blending), smoky violet, or occasionally clear deep violet.

Iris reichenbachii

The species is native to the Balkan peninsula, from Rumania and Bulgaria through Serbia and into Greece. A related species, I. suaveolens, is similar but smaller. Two other species names, I. balkana and I. bosniaca, are now regarded as synonyms of I. reichenbachii.

As a garden subject, I. reichenbachii is pleasant enough, if somewhat unremarkable. It has found a home with rock gardeners and plant collectors. For those who fancy modern hybrid dwarf and median irises, this little species can seem drab by comparison. The petals are rather narrow, substance is lacking, and the colors can seem a bit murky.

To the hybridizer, however, I. reichenbachii has something unique to offer. Its chromosomes are very similar to those of tall bearded irises, and it is quite compatible with them. Furthermore, I. reichenbachii exists in both diploid (two sets of chromosomes) and tetraploid (four sets) forms. Since modern TBs and BBs are tetraploid, they can cross with tetraploid I. reichenbachii and produce fertile offspring. (For an explanation of diploids and tetraploids, see my earlier blog post Tetraploid Arils, Anyone?)

'Progenitor' (Cook, 1951)
 from I. reichenbachii X TB 'Shining Waters'

In the 1940s, the talented hybridizer Paul Cook did precisely that. A seedling from the cross, aptly named 'Progenitor', was registered in 1951. It was an unimpressive iris of intermediate size, but Cook could see its potential. 'Progenitor' was a bicolor, with violet falls and pure white standards. At the time, this was a new color pattern. (Earlier bicolors were actually variations on a "spot pattern" from I. variegata, and seldom showed the completely solid falls and pristine standards of 'Progenitor'. It is interesting to note that I. reichenbachii itself is not a bicolor. The bicolor pattern resulted from combining its genes with those of the TB parent. By crossing 'Progenitor' back to high-quality TBs, Cook was eventually able to transfer the bicolor pattern onto irises that otherwise showed no resemblance to the modest little dwarf that had given rise to the new pattern. 'Whole Cloth' (Cook, 1958), four generations on from 'Progenitor', won the Dykes Medal in 1962.

Virtually all TB and BB bicolors today (standards white, yellow, or pink; falls blue, violet, purple, reddish, or brown) are descendants of 'Progenitor', and hence of I. reichenbachii.

But there is still more to be done with this interesting little species. When Cook was making his crosses, there was very little interest in dwarf or median irises. In fact, medians as we know them today hardly existed at that time. So Cook simply worked to transfer the new color pattern into TBs. Today, however, there is considerable interest in breeding medians, especially BBs and MTBs that are consistently small and dainty. Surely the little dwarf I. reichenbachii has something to offer in these endeavors. The tetraploid forms are compatible with BBs and tetraploid MTBs, while the diploid I. reichenbachii could be crossed with diploid MTBs. Since these sorts of crosses should produce fertile seedlings, a hybridizer could continue the breeding line to achieve any desired goal.

Iris reichenbachii

I. reichenbachii is a little difficult to find in commerce, but not impossible. Some specialty nurseries list it, and if one is willing to grow from seed, it shows up rather often in seed exchanges that include iris species.

If you see this odd little species available somewhere, why not give it a try? Perhaps even make a cross or two to see what happens...