Using Species in MDB Breeding, Part 2: Iris aphylla x Iris pumila

 by Tom Waters

This is the second of three posts on my experimenting with various species in breeding miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) irises. Here’s a quick recap: Most MDBs today are small selections created when breeding standard dwarf bearded (SDB) irises. I think there is value in creating a line of true-breeding MDBs: fertile plants that are MDB-sized and consistently produce MDB-sized offspring. Ideally, such a line would be compatible with SDBs (and MDBs from SDB breeding), so one could use all the wonderfully developed modern MDB and SDB cultivars.

Certain dwarf species and combinations of species are compatible with SDBs in terms of their chromosome configuration. One such species is Iris lutescens, and in part 1 I described my work with this species to date. In this post, I look at hybrids from I. aphylla x I. pumila and their usefulness in MDB breeding.

I. aphylla crossed with I. pumila produces fertile hybrids having a chromosome configuration that is compatible with SDBs. The MDB ‘Velvet Toy’ (Dunbar, 1972) is an early example of such a hybrid. We might also include Ben Hager’s MDBs from his aphylla-derived MTBs crossed with I. pumila as another variation on this basic type, although the MTBs have tall bearded and border bearded ancestry as well as I. aphylla.

S006-01
 I. aphylla x I. pumila

My own aphylla x pumila seedling, S006-01, is an interesting little plant. The flowers are purple and not particularly distinctive, but the plant is quite small, at around five inches in height. It also has a unique branching pattern. It has basal branching inherited from I. aphylla. The branch and the main stem are of equal height, and each is topped with a double-budded socket. The four buds open successively, so there is only one flower open at a time. This seems to me a very desirable trait to introduce into MDBs, but so far none of its seedlings have inherited it.

I have bloomed a number of seedlings from SDB ‘Eye of theTiger’ (Black, 2008) X S006-01. They were a carnival of different colors and patterns, but unfortunately, none had the daintiness I was looking for. This spring, seven years after I made the cross, a straggler bloomed that seems genuinely small and MDB-sized. I will keep an eye on it in coming seasons.

S028-44
Eye of the Tiger X S006-01

Realizing that I probably should be crossing this seedling with small MDBs rather than SDBs, I used ‘Dollop of Cream’ (Black, 2006) and ‘Icon’ (Keppel, 2008) for the next round.

The ‘Dollop of Cream’ seedlings had fairly nice form, some blue, some white. They bloomed near the boundary of the MDB and SDB classes, but I am hoping they may settle out on the smaller side when grown in normal garden conditions. I kept a blue one with small flowers to evaluate further.

Seedlings from 'Dollop of Cream' X S006-01

The ‘Icon’ seedlings are more exciting color-wise, in various shades of orchid with deeply saturated spot patterns and dark blue beards. I describe the color as “juicy”. Sadly, they produced hardly any pollen, and I couldn’t really test them as pod parents because they bloom earlier than anything else except the pure I. pumilas. I did get a scant 8 seeds from sib-crossing two of them, so we shall see. Again, height is rather marginal, near the boundary between MDBs and SDBs. I’m keeping them all in hopes that they may produce more pollen in the future.

Icon X S006-01

I do believe my I. aphylla x I. pumila seedling has the potential to bring me toward my goal of a line of true-breeding MDBs. I have seeds from it crossed with ‘Self Evident’ (Hager, 1997) and ‘Miniseries’ (Keppel, 2011).  And it will also be interesting to take this one more generation further and see what emerges.

Using Species in MDB Breeding, Part 1: Iris lutescens

by Tom Waters

I’m a hobby hybridizer, working on a very small scale (I can only raise about 200 seedlings each year). So from the outset, I planned to focus on niche projects, rather than trying to compete with the large-scale hybridizers and their well-established breeding lines. I identified some projects that I thought might have value, but that few others were working on. One of these is to develop a line of true-breeding miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) irises.

As I’ve written previously, most MDBs produced today are small selections from standard dwarf bearded (SDB) breeding. Because the lines of the top SDB hybridizers are so advanced, this approach indeed produces many fine MDBs that display all the variety of color and refinement of form found in the modern SDBs. With a few exceptions, however, hybridizers do not have dedicated lines aimed specifically at producing MDBs. Rather, they select them from among their SDB seedlings that happen to fall below the height limit separating the two classes. Since these plants are genetically no different from SDBs, they are likely to produce SDB-sized seedlings, and some are prone to growing out of class, showing foliage and stalks out of proportion to their size, or having flowers that are too large and coarse.

In earlier times, most MDBs were produced by crossing SDBs with the species Iris pumila, which indeed produced smaller, daintier plants than those from pure SDB breeding. Unfortunately, these plants are unbalanced tetraploids with limited fertility, making them dead-ends.

If one is seeking a true-breeding line of MDBs, there are several options. One is to start with the SDBs and keep selecting for smaller size. Another option is that promoted by Ben Hager: cross tetraploid MTBs with I. pumila, then cross those seedlings with small SDBs or MDBs from SDB breeding. The idea here is that the MTB X pumila crosses will produce genetically smaller plants, and the genes for small size can be stabilized in the breeding line.

A third approach, which I have been exploring, is to expand the gene pool by using species (or combinations of species) that are small in size but belong to the same fertile family as the SDBs. This not only has the potential of creating a line of true-breeding MDBs, but also increases genetic diversity, which may give more variety of forms and colors. This is the first of a series of posts on this project, focused specifically on my hybridizing with I. lutescens and its close relations.

I. lutescens is a dwarf species found in the Mediterranean lands of southwestern Europe, particularly Spain, France, and Italy. There are many related but different populations in this range, which are sometimes given species status, but more often treated as synonyms of I. lutescens. I. subbiflora in Portugal and I. bicapitata in Italy, are almost always treated as separate species, but are part of the same continuum of types found in I. lutescens. Before the 1950s, most dwarf irises found in gardens in western Europe and North American were forms or hybrids of I. lutescens. After the first SDBs were produced, hybridizers quickly abandoned the older I. lutescens dwarfs in favor of the SDBs, which showed wider color possibilities and improved form.

Given this history, I did not at first think of using I. lutescens in my own hybridizing projects. On reflection, however, it seemed that those hybridizers of the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s were excited about exploring the potential of the new SDBs, and not really concerned with creating true-breeding MDB lines. I. lutescens might indeed still have something to offer toward that goal. In nature, its forms span the MDB and SDB height ranges, and flowers are smaller than those of typical SDBs.

S004-01,
I. subbiflora ex Spain
(SIGNA seed)

 

S019-01,
I. lutescens (SRGC seed)

Early on, I grew a plant of I. subbiflora obtained from the SIGNA seed exchange, collected in Spain. Apparently this raises some doubts about its identification, as there is some question whether there are populations of I. subbiflora in Spain, or only I. lutescens. My plant is not as tall as most descriptions and photographs of I. subbiflora, normally being about nine inches in my garden.

Crossing the subbiflora with SDB ‘Kaching’ (Black, 2009) produced a lot of deep red seedlings, mostly of small SDB size, although height varied from year to year and with location in the garden. Although I enjoyed these seedlings, they were larger than what I was aiming for; so I made an effort to use MDBs, rather than SDBs, in future crosses, and to seek out small plants of I. lutescens to use instead of this I. subbiflora. A cross of I. subbiflora with MDB ‘Circa’ (Johnson, 2015) produced attractive plants near the MDB height limit, but still not as small and delicate as I would like.

S027-07,
'Kaching' X S004-01

 

S044-04,
'Circa' X S004-01

I raised a small purple I. lutescens from seed from the Scottish Rock Garden Club (SRGC) seed exchange. It’s about half the size of the I. subbiflora plant. Crossing this with MDB ‘Miniseries’ (Keppel, 2011) gave me a couple promising seedlings: one with small reddish flowers have rather tall stems; the other has mid-sized purplish flowers on shorter stems. I’d be happier if I’d gotten the small reddish flowers on the small stems! But these are interesting, and I will continue working with them.

S039-02,
S019-01 X 'Miniseries'

 

S039-03,
S019-01 X 'Miniseries'

I also crossed the SRGC I. lutescens with MDB ‘Pearly Whites’ (Black, 2014) and MDB ‘Beetlejuice’ (Black, 2013); and a number of these seedlings bloomed this spring. They were all interesting to look at, mostly nicer in form than expected. It’s too early to be sure what height they will settle out at, but this year most of them looked more like small SDBs than like MDBs.

S055-05,
'Beetlejuice' X S019-01

  

S055-11,
'Beetlejuice' X S019-01

S056-01,
'Pearly Whites' X S019-01

I acquired some other small lutescens plants to work with: one from the Berkeley Botanical Garden, and one from Sean Zera, raised from SIGNA seed. I have not yet bloomed seedlings from these. I keep acquiring more I. lutescens seeds, hoping to expand my collection, particularly in colors other than purple. I. lutescens grows here, but doesn’t seem really happy. My high desert zone 5/6 garden in New Mexico is a long way from the south of France.

I am enjoying working with species in MDB breeding, but it must be emphasized that this is a long-term project. Any use of species in breeding must be followed up with several generations of crossing back to modern hybrids if one wishes to meet current expectations of width, ruffling, and substance. It appears that some persistence will be needed to combine the genes for short stems, small flowers, and narrow foliage in the same line. Still, I’m finding these explorations to be a very satisfying use of my small space and limited resources.

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.

 

Understanding the Historic Dwarf Bearded (DB) Class

By Tom Waters

Before 1958, the now familiar American Iris Society (AIS) horticultural classes for bearded irises did not exist. Certainly there were bearded irises of different sizes, but the precisely defined “dwarf,” “median,” and “tall” bearded classes were still gradually taking shape as a way to describing the diversity of the bearded irises in nature and in the garden. Today, we use “median” to refer to all the bearded irises except miniature dwarfs and tall bearded. 

Consequently, care must be taken in assessing how the earlier bearded irises were categorized. This post will look at just one such category, the dwarf bearded irises, abbreviated DB prior to 1958.

DB 'Artoviolacea' (Todaro, 1856)
probably a natural hybrid
of I. lutescens and I. pumila
Photo: El Hutchison

In the early 1900s, botanists were aware of a number of dwarf bearded species, notably Iris pumila, I. lutescens (then mostly known by the name I. chamaeiris), I. aphylla, I. reichenbachii, and others. Gardeners in western Europe and the United States were also familiar with garden cultivars of dwarf bearded irises. These were almost exclusively forms of I. lutescens or hybrids between I. lutescens and other dwarf species. I. lutescens is native to the Mediterranean regions of France, Italy, and Spain. Other dwarf Iris species are native to Eastern Europe, and thus I. lutescens was more accessible to early commercial nurseries in France, England, Germany, and the Netherlands.

There was little concern about establishing a precise definition for the DB category. Dwarf cultivars being grown were easy to distinguish from tall beardeds (TBs), and that was really all that mattered. Crossing dwarfs with talls produced intermediates,  another widely used term. The intermediate beardeds (IBs) were a pretty obvious group of hybrids and easily distinguished from both dwarfs and talls. Keep in mind that this was long before separate awards were established for different irises. Terms like dwarf, intermediate, and tall were helpful descriptions for irises rather than a specific horticultural class that needed to be assigned unambiguously.

DB 'Bride' (Caparne, 1901)
probably pure I. lutescens,
6 to 8 inches in the author's garden
photo: Tom Waters

The AIS checklists of the 1920s defined dwarf bearded irises by listing some familiar dwarf species, and noting that the term included hybrids between these species. The 1939 checklist added some precision by stating that dwarf irises were up to 17 inches in height. It was not clear whether ancestry from dwarf species or height was to be decisive; it was just taken for granted that hybrids among the dwarf species and cultivars would fall into the expected height range.

What were these early dwarfs like? Like the species I. lutescens that dominated their ancestry, the early dwarfs were mostly between 6 and 12 inches in height, almost never branched, bearing one or two terminal buds. Colors ranged from yellow, cream, and white, to blue, violet, and purple. Most had self or bitone color patterns. The spot pattern from I. pumila, so familiar to us in modern dwarfs, was seen only occasionally. All blooms were tailored, and the plants bloomed before the intermediates and talls. Although I. lutescens in the wild often shows interesting markings, patterns, and blended colors, these were not common among garden varieties. Perhaps this reflects the preference for clear, smooth colors that persisted among iris fanciers until the later decades of the 20th century.

DB 'Path of Gold' (Hodson, 1941),
a child of 'Bride' and
probably pure I. lutescens, is
10-12 inches in the author's garden.
Photo: TomWaters

Hybridizing with dwarf irises took a back seat to TB hybridizing until the 1940s and 1950s. William J. Caparne of England produced many dwarfs around 1900, as did the German firm of Goos and Koenemann. A number of American hybridizers subsequently worked with dwarfs, most notably Hans and Jacob Sass of Nebraska.

As hybridizing progressed, it became clear that complicated hybrids might not always fall into one of the intuitive categories being employed. In 1948, the AIS adopted a new set of classes defined by L. F. Randolph. Randolph rejected height as a decisive factor, and offered instead a rather vague notion that advanced generation hybrids that had "most of the characteristics of typical dwarf bearded irises" (he had in mind things like season of bloom, short foliage and stalk, lack of branching, etc.) would be considered DBs.

This way of thinking about the class was soon pushed to the breaking point. Hybridizers had begun importing and working with different species, outside the familiar I. lutescens and its hybrids. Robert Schreiner had imported seeds of the tiny cold-hardy species I. pumila from eastern Europe, and this exciting new species gradually spread among dwarf hybridizers. Paul Cook introduced the first hybrids between I. pumila and TBs in 1951: 'Baria', 'Fairy Flax', and 'Green Spot'. Although the term had not yet been invented, these were the prototype of what would become the modern classification of standard dwarfs. Did these new irises have "most of the characteristics" of dwarfs? At a mere 10 inches, they were less than 18 inches tall, to be sure, but did having a TB parent make them intermediates? They were sometimes branched, not a characteristic of "typical" DBs of the time.

DB 'Sapphire Night' (Nicholls, 1935),
perhaps a hybrid involving
 I. lutescens and I. aphylla,
12-14 inches in the author's garden.
Photo: Tom Waters

Cook registered his new hybrids as IBs, but to many iris fanciers that just seemed wrong. In 1954, AIS introduced a new height-based classification, where any bearded iris 15 inches tall or less was a DB, regardless of ancestry or other characteristics. This caused a schism with many dwarf enthusiasts.

Eventually the matter was settled by splitting the DB class in two: a miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) class with an upper height limit of 10 inches (reduced to 8 inches in 1976), and a standard dwarf bearded (SDB) class from 10 to 15 inches. The MDBs were the province of the Dwarf Iris Society, whereas the SDBs were regarded as medians and promoted by the Median Iris Society.

The effects of Cook's new hybrids were not limited to the classification system. Excited by the developments, dwarf hybridizers scrambled to use I. pumila and the new SDBs in their breeding. The 1950s was a transition decade: it began with nearly all DBs being cultivars or hybrids of I. lutescens, and ended with nearly all MDBs and SDBs being hybrids of I. pumila and TBs in varied proportions. The influx of TB genes brought plicatas, pinks, and ruffled blooms into the dwarf iris world; I. pumila brought dramatic and varied spot patterns.

What does this all mean for the collector of historic dwarf bearded irises? First, it is essential to understand that the DB class does not correspond to any single modern class. It spans the height range of both MDB and SDB classes, even extending into the IB class in some instances. In principle, every historic DB could be assigned to a modern class on the basis of height. However, height was not recorded in early registration data; so such determinations would require catalog descriptions or garden observations. The Median Iris Society attempted to make such reassignments for the IB, MTB, and BB classes, although I do not know of any similar undertaking having been made for the MDBs and SDBs.

Even if we were able to sort historic DBs into modern classes based on height, that would not capture the essential nature of the old category. It represents irises of different ancestry and genetic characteristics than the modern classes. The 8-inch height boundary is even less meaningful for the old DBs than it is for their modern successors. I. lutescens and its hybrids span this boundary, and there is seldom any meaningful difference between a 7-inch and a 10-inch DB.

I think the best advice for modern growers interested in collecting historic dwarfs is to approach them on their own terms: viewing the DB category in its own right with context that differs from modern hybrids. Starting from that perspective, one can then notice some similarities and comparisons that might be made: A DB that is a I. lutescens/pumila hybrid, for example, might resemble an MDB that is an SDB/I. pumila hybrid.

The historic DBs are harder to come by than modern cuiltivars, but it is worthwhile to acquire and grow a few. Not only will you be helping to preserve a window into iris history, you will also get to enjoy a type of iris that really has no modern counterpart.

Miniature Dwarf Bearded Irises: A Starter Kit

By Tom Waters

This time of year, most gardeners in the northern hemisphere are patiently (or not) waiting for spring to come. If you are a bearded iris enthusiast like me, that probably means you are anticipating the earliest blooming of them all: the delightful miniature dwarfs. 

In the American Iris Society classification system, miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) include bearded irises up to 8 inches (20 cm) in height. Often overshadowed by their larger relations, the standard dwarf bearded (SDB), the MDBs nevertheless offer something special to the iris garden. Many of them bloom before the SDBs, when there is little else in flower. Their daintiness gives them an added charm: some iris enthusiasts are fascinated by tiny flowers and enjoy the surprise of encountering an unexpected bloom in some little corner of the garden. If you try growing an MDB, you'll be glad you did!

But how to get started? Many commercial growers only offer the larger bearded irises, and those that do sell MDBs may have just a few. With SDBs so outnumbering the MDBs, it can take a little extra effort and attention to seek out these tiny gems. In this post, I make a suggestion of a "baker's dozen" MDBs for someone looking to get started. This is not just a list of personal favorites; the irises in the list have been chosen because they represent the full range of the class, in terms of color, form, climate adaptability, genetic type, and historical era. This is important because not all MDBs are alike. Only by sampling a full range of types can you get a good feeling for what the class has to offer and discover your own preferences. All the irises on the list have been available commercially in recent years and are widely grown in gardens where MDBs are found. They should not be too difficult to obtain. 

In addition to the obligatory hybridizer and year, I have also included the ancestry type of each iris in the list. Type I MDBs come from SDB breeding, type II from crosses between SDBs and the species Iris pumila, and type III are pure I. pumila. For a basic introduction to these types, see my earlier blog post Dwarfs for Every Garden. For a more thorough, technical explanation, see my article The Miniature Dwarfs, which first appeared in the 2019 edition of the Dwarf Iris Society Portfolio.

‘Alpine Lake’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Alpine Lake' (A. and D. Willott 1981, type II) is a much-loved classic MDB with crystal white standards and falls with a pastel blue spot. Virus sometimes makes the falls a bit splotchy, depending on weather; but it is still one of the best.

‘Beetlejuice’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Beetlejuice' (P. Black 2013, type I) is a unique plicata with distinctive "whisker" lines on the falls. It sometimes sends up stalks that push the height limit of the class, but the compact shape of the flowers preserves its "dwarf" look.

‘Cinnamon Apples’ photographed by El Hutchison

'Cinnamon Apples' (P. Black 1990, type I), one of Paul Black's earlier creations, is notable for its rich reddish brown color in a class where blue, purple, yellow, and white tend to predominate.

‘Ditto’ photographed by Barbara-Jean Jackson

'Ditto' (B. Hager 1982, type I) is not only a delightful little iris with its cream color and bluish red spot, but it also reblooms in some climates.

‘Dollop of Cream’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Dollop of Cream' (P. Black 2006, type I) is a personal favorite. Earlier than most type I MDBs, it often ushers in the season here. I also appreciate the pastel color and the tasteful ruffling that is not too overdone.

‘Gecko Echo’ photographed by Jeanette Graham

'Gecko Echo' (B. Kasperek 2007, type I) is unmistakable for its deep mustardy fall spot.

‘Gold Canary’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Gold Canary' (A. and D. Willott 1981, type II) really lights up the garden in early spring. 

‘Hobbit’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Hobbit' (L. Miller 2004, type III), a tiny (4.5 inches!) blue pumila from Lynda Miller, is one of the best of this type.

‘Icon’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Icon' (Keppel 2008, type I) is a real zinger with its intense orange color and contrasting spot. Also an early bloomer here.

‘Little Drummer Boy’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Little Drummer Boy' (A. and D. Willott 1997, type III), a striking pumila with deep navy blue spots is an enduring favorite.

‘Royal Wonder photographed by Tom Waters

'Royal Wonder' (C. Coleman 2013, type III) is a robust, floriferous purple pumila - incredible impact for such a little iris.

‘Small Token’ photographed by Tom Waters

'Small Token' (L. Miller 2014, type II) is a rich and subtle red color on a very diminutive plant. Unique!

‘Zipper’ photographed by Jeannette Graham

'Zipper' (D. Sindt 1979, type II) is a standout with its deep yellow petals and electric violet beards. A true classic.

If you haven't tried the miniature dwarfs, I hope this "starter kit" gives you a good taste of what the class has to offer. If you already grow some, maybe this list will inspire you to pick up a few more and diversify your collection. Mine usually start blooming the last week of March here in northern New Mexico. I'm counting the weeks!

Ben Hager’s Master Plan to Save the MDB Class

 by Tom Waters

Forty-some years ago, when I was a precocious iris-obsessed teenager, I convinced my mother that our vacation to California to visit my sister and her family should become a tour of iris hybridizers’ gardens. So it happened that I ended up in Ben Hager’s living room, with a huge bouquet of ‘Beverly Sills’ on the coffee table, talking irises while my mom and sister politely enjoyed the ambience and hospitality.

Hager presented a somewhat intimidating figure, with his bald head, precise beard, and dry wit. He was also something of an iconoclast. At an after-dinner speech at the 1980 American Iris Society convention in Tulsa, he basically dismantled the whole premise of the judges’ training program by asserting that judging irises was an utterly subjective undertaking; and we should give up our pretensions of authority and just let people like what they like, which is what we all do anyway.

As a hybridizer, Hager had few equals, in my estimation. He worked with all classes of irises, and won high awards wherever he turned his attention. He created the tetraploid miniature tall bearded (MTB) irises almost single-handedly, by sheer force of will, it seemed. Furthermore, he had a rare combination of creative, inspired vision coupled with solid knowledge, dogged persistence, and patience. I rank him along with Sir Michael Foster and Paul Cook as one of the true ground-breakers in the history of iris development.

Today, I want to talk about one of Hager’s grand projects, an effort to re-create the miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) class, a work that spanned four decades.

In the 1970s, new MDBs were created by hybridizers combining standard dwarf bearded (SDB) with the species Iris pumila in various combinations. There were basically three possibilities: pure pumila breeding, pure SDB breeding, and SDB x pumila crosses.

Hager rejected pure pumila breeding (although he did introduce one, ‘Ceremony’, in 1986) for two reasons. First, being just a single species, it lacked the genetic variety needed to get the innovative colors, patterns, and forms that hybridizers crave. Second, he found its growth habit (mats covered in bloom, like rock-garden plants) to interfere with the appreciation of the form of the individual iris bloom.

Hager also rejected the SDB x pumila route, although it was very popular with other MDB hybridizers of the time. The issue here was poor fertility. Seedlings from this type of cross show only limited fertility, and are almost impossible to cross amongst themselves, making line breeding an impossibility. Hager felt strongly that a class of iris can only be improved and developed if a fertile family can be established, so that breeding can continue for many generations without fertility barriers arising. He introduced no MDBs from this type of breeding.

That left pure SDB breeding as a recipe for creating MDBs. Hager recognized this as the path of greatest promise, but not without reservations. This is the type of breeding with the greatest variety of colors and patterns, and the most adaptable to mild-winter climates. MDB-sized seedlings do arise from SDB x SDB crosses, but they are the exception (most seedlings will be SDBs like their parents). Hager wanted a more focused program than just waiting for these happy accidents. He wanted a line of MDBs that would produce more MDBs, consistently.

He found his answer in his tetraploid MTB work. The tetraploid MTBs were derived from crossing tall bearded (TB) and border bearded (BB) with the species I. aphylla, a many branched iris genetically compatible with TBs, although much smaller. Crossing his tetraploid MTBs with I. pumila, he reasoned, would produce irises of the same chromosome type as the SDBs, but presumably consistently smaller. Furthermore, they would be completely fertile with MDBs from pure SDB breeding, part of the same fertile family. You may read one of Hager's articles on this plan on the DIS website.

'Libation'

'Gizmo'

'Prodigy'

  

Hager introduced the first MDB of this type, ‘Prodigy’, in 1973. Its pod parent is a seedling of TB ‘Evening Storm’ (Lafrenz, 1953) X I. aphylla ‘Thisbe’ (Dykes, 1923). The pollen parent is the I. pumila cultivar ‘Atomic Blue’ (Welch, 1961). It is thus ¼ TB, ¼ aphylla, and ½ pumila.

Next came ‘Libation’ in 1975. It is a child of ‘Prodigy’ crossed with a seedling of MTB ‘Scale Model’ (Hager, 1966) x I. pumila ‘Brownett’ (Roberts, 1957). Since ‘Scale Model’ is half TB and half aphylla, ‘Libation’ has the same ancestry breakdown as ‘Prodigy’: ¼ TB, ¼ aphylla, and ½ pumila. ‘Libation’ won the Caparne-Welch Award in 1979.

The third and final of these initial progenitors of Hager’s MDB line is ‘Gizmo’ (1977), with the same parentage as ‘Libation’.

Hager then set about crossing these (and similar seedlings) with SDBs and MDBs from pure SDB breeding. As such outcrossing progressed, the amount of aphylla ancestry decreased and the amount of TB ancestry increased. The goal was to retain the small size conferred by I. aphylla, but bring in the diverse colors and patterns of the SDBs. Hager now had a line of seedlings specifically designed to consistently yield fertile MDBs in each generation.

In all, this project produced 34 MDB introductions. Hager died in 1999, but Adamgrove garden continued to introduce his MDB seedlings through 2003. Hager also introduced 19 MDBs from pure SDB breeding, and the above-mentioned pumila ‘Ceremony’.

Here is a list of all 34, grouped by the amount of aphylla ancestry present in each.

25% I. aphylla

Prodigy (1973), Libation (1975) Caparne-Welch Award 1979, Gizmo (1977) Caparne-Welch Medal 1987

Between 12% and 24% I. aphylla

Grey Pearls (1979), Bluetween (1980), Macumba (1988)

Between 6% and 11% I. aphylla

Footlights (1980), Bitsy (1991), Cute Tot (1999)

Between 4% and 5% I. aphylla

Pipit (1993), Jiffy (1995), Self Evident (1997)

3% or less I. aphylla

Three Cherries (1971), although not part of this line, is listed here for completeness, since it has aphylla in its ancestry from the appearance of TB ‘Sable’ (Cook, 1938) in its pedigree.

Petty Cash (1980), Hot Foot (1982), Bugsy (1993) Caparne-Welch Medal 2000, Dainty Morsel (1994), Doozey (1994), Fey (1994), Fragment (1995), Hint (1995), Chaste (1997), Ivory Buttons (1997), Nestling (1997), Trifle (1997), Simple Enough (1998), Small Thing (R. 1998), Sweet Tooth (1999), Wee Me (1999), In Touch (R. 1999), Downsized (2001), Dulcet (2001), Pattycake Baker Man (2001), Behold Titania (2003), Fair Moon (2003), Gallant Youth (2003), Into the Woods (2003), Pirate's Apprentice (2003)

'Grey Pearls'
photo: El Hutchison

As far as I can determine, other hybridizers did not take up this project as Hager had envisioned it, although they did of course use a number of his irises in their own crosses. My own work with similar crosses has had mixed results. I cross tetraploid MTBs with pumila each year, but so far have only bloomed one cross to evaluate, MTB ‘Tic Tac Toe’ (Johnson, 2010) X I. pumila ‘Wild Whispers’ (Coleman, 2012). The seedlings were all too large for the MDB class, looking like elongated SDBs or MTBs with deficient bud count. So the MTB x pumila type of cross is by no means guaranteed to give MDBs in the first generation.

I do have an interesting MDB seedling from I. aphylla X I. pumila. This type of cross produced MDB ‘Velvet Toy’ (Dunbar, 1972). My seedling is 5-6 inches in height, and has a distinctive flowering habit. It is branched at the base like I. aphylla, with both branches bearing 2 terminal buds each. The four blooms open in succession, at the same height, with no crowding. It would be nice to see if this trait could be carried on to plants with a more refined flower. Crossing it with SDB ‘Eye of the Tiger’ (Black, 2008) gave seedlings that were SDB size or taller, though in a fun variety of color and pattern. I continue to make crosses with it, mostly selecting smaller MDBs to pair with it now.

So far, my work with I.reichenbachii X I. pumila seems the most promising in terms of giving me a consistent MDB line to work with.

Kevin Vaughn has reported good results using Hager’s ‘Self Evident’, and I have recently acquired this myself, as well as a few others from Hager’s line.

How should one assess this ambitious program? On some level, it can surely be deemed a success, as it gave Hager many successful and popular MDB introductions. Without detailed records from his seedling patch, however, it is hard to assess how consistent the line was or how much his selection work over the years contributed to the outcome. Perhaps similar results would have obtained just by applying the same selection effort to pure SDB lines.

'Self Evident'
photo: Jeanette Graham

We also have to note that Hager’s tetraploid MTB project is his most lasting legacy among the bearded irises classes. Tetraploid MTBs are here to stay, having been taken up by successive generations of hybridizers. The MDB project did not fare so well, although that may not be any fault of the plants themselves. Almost all new MDBs today are small selections from pure SDB breeding, not produced from MDB-specific lines as Hager envisioned. This may just be a numerical inevitability. There is so much work being done breeding SDBs that MDBs popping up in SDB seedling patches just can’t help but outnumber MDBs from the few dedicated lines that hybridizers have worked with. The situation is reminiscent of that of the BBs, where some good dedicated lines have been established, but they are still swamped by small selections from TB crosses, just because so many more TB crosses are made each year.

'Bugsy'
photo: El Hutchison

If you are interested in hybridizing MDBs, I encourage you to heed Hager’s wisdom and work toward MDB-specific breeding lines, perhaps using I. aphylla, perhaps carefully selected from SDB work, or perhaps using other species.

If you are not a hybridizer, but enjoy growing MDBs in your garden, please seek out and preserve the Hager MDBs discussed in this post. They are a window onto a fascinating thread of iris history.