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.

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.

 

 

The Classic MDBs

 by  Tom Waters

The world of dwarf and median irises was revolutionized in the 1950s when Paul Cook and Geddes Douglas crossed the dwarf species Iris pumila with tall bearded irises (TBs) to create what became known as standard dwarf bearded irises (SDBs). The new SDBs were not only lovely, varied, and useful garden plants in their own right; but they were fertile parents, leading to all sorts of new avenues for hybridizers.

Hybridizers soon tried crossing the SDBs back to both of the parent types, TBs and I. pumila. Crossing SDBs with TBs produced a whole new style of intermediate bearded irises (IBs), whereas crossing SDBs with I. pumila produced a new style of miniature dwarf bearded irises (MDBs).

'Bee Wings'
photo: El Hutchison

By ancestry, these new MDBs were 1/4 TB and 3/4 I. pumila. From I. pumila, they inherit daintiness, earliness of bloom, and floriferousness. The TB ancestry lends them a greater variety of color and pattern, and a bit more width and polish in flower form. Dwarf breeders and growers were delighted with these creations; and they became quickly popular, all but replacing the earlier dwarfs from I. lutescens breeding in just a decade or so.

'Alpine Lake'
photo: Tom Waters

The first MDB from SDB x I. pumila breeding to win the Caparne-Welch award was Alta Brown's 'Bee Wings' (Brown, 1959), which won the award in 1963.  By 1990, six others from this type of cross won the award. Especially notable among them were 'Zipper' (Sindt, 1978), a deep yellow with a stunning blue-violet beard, and 'Alpine Lake' (Willott, 1980), a soft near-white with a diffuse blue spot. I refer to these as "classic" MDBs, because they set the standard for the class during this time of great progress and interest.

'Zipper'
photo: Jeanette Graham

Another popular type of MDB was produced by crossing SDBs with each other and selecting irises that were small enough to fall under the height limit of the MDB class (currently 8 inches). These had the advantage of showing all the color patterns of TBs, including plicata and tangerine pink. Although both types were popular, hybridizers breeding specifically for MDBs preferred the SDB x I. pumila cross, which produced a much greater proportion of early-blooming, MDB-sized seedlings.

After 1990, the SDB x I. pumila cross gradually fell out of fashion, with most of the new MDBs coming from SDB x SDB breeding. The reason for this is two-fold. First, the SDBs had been steadily progressing in color, pattern, and form; and the classic MDBs from SDB x I. pumila could not really keep up. Second, fewer breeders were breeding specifically for MDBs and growing I. pumila for that purpose. Most breeders were instead working with their established SDB lines, which sometimes produce MDB-sized plants "by accident," as it were. So the SDB x SDB cross would do double duty, producing both SDBs and MDBs.

'Wee Dragons'
photo: Jeanette Graham

Classic MDBs are still being produced, however. My favorite recent one is Lynda Miller's 'Wee Dragons' (Miller, 2017). The recent Caparne-Welch winner 'Kayla's Song' (D. Spoon, 2008) is of complicated ancestry, but its overall appearance makes it likely that it too is 3/4 I. pumila and belongs in this category.

Although it is clear that the MDBs from SDB x SDB breeding will continue to dominate the class with their modern form and exciting color patterns, the classics should not be completely forgotten. The advantages of early bloom and guaranteed dainty size in all gardens should not be set aside too quickly. And since this type of cross is not often made these days, we don't have a very full picture of its potential when modern SDBs are involved.

'Kayla's Song'
photo: Ginny Spoon

Although my own hybridizing interests are focused elsewhere, I make some SDB x I. pumila crosses each year and donate the seeds to the Dwarf Iris Society seed sale, in the hopes of encouraging interest in the classic MDB cross.

If you grow MDBs, keep your eye out for classic MDBs that have I. pumila or one of its cultivars as a parent. They will delight you with their early bloom and daintier looks. 

What is a Dwarf Bearded Iris?

…and why are dwarf lovers so persistent?

 Tom Waters

'Icon' (Keppel, 2008)

In the beginning, there were no class definitions. The meaning of the term “dwarf bearded iris” was taken for granted, as all the ones being grown in gardens were similar in appearance and distinct from their taller relatives.  If you were botanically inclined, you could turn to a reference like W. R. Dykes’s The Genus Iris to get a list of dwarf bearded species, and safely assume that your garden dwarfs were hybrids or forms of those species.

The 1939 AIS Checklist attempted to be somewhat more helpful by giving a height range in addition to the list of species, setting the boundary between dwarfs and intermediates (which were stated to be hybrids between dwarf and tall bearded irises) at 17 inches. This doesn’t make sense, though, if it is taken as a definition, rather than just helpful descriptive information. What if two of those dwarfs species were crossed and produced a hybrid over the limit? Or what if a dwarf and tall were crossed and produced a hybrid under the limit? Giving both a definition in terms of ancestral species and a definition in terms of height is inviting contradiction unless it is clear whether ancestry trumps height or vice versa.

Perhaps in recognition of this, the AIS adopted a new classification in 1947, based decisively on ancestry. A hybrid involving only dwarf species would always be a dwarf; a hybrid involving only tall species would always be a tall. A hybrid involving both dwarfs and talls would usually be intermediate, but might be deemed either dwarf or tall if that was the group it most resembled. Although this last provision was strangely vague, the definition at least allowed hybridizers to cross dwarfs amongst themselves and register the progeny as dwarfs, without worry about a height limit or other factors.

This classification system was introduced at the same time as Walter Welch was organizing the Dwarf Iris Society (then called the Dwarf Iris Club) and stirring up interest in dwarf hybridizing, so there may have been some impetus to clarify definitions for this reason. Although dwarfs had been widely grown in both Europe and North America for as long as tall beardeds, they had not historically received a great deal of attention. Gardeners took them for granted, and although new hybrids were introduced from time to time, there were no hybridizers who focused on them exclusively or had planned breeding programs solely to produce new dwarfs. Welch turned that around, first by organizing a program of round robins, whereby enthusiasts (many of them recruited from gardening clubs and publications, not just iris societies) could discuss dwarf irises by mail, and then by creating the Dwarf Iris Club in 1950. I believe this was the first specialist iris society devoted to a particular type of iris. With the blessing of the AIS, the Dwarf Iris Club even trained and appointed its own judges, just for judging dwarfs!

In 1951, something happened that put the class definition under unprecedented strain. Paul Cook (a friend and correspondent of Walter Welch) introduced the first three irises of the type we now know as standard dwarf bearded (SDBs), from crossing the tiny dwarf species Iris pumila with tall beardeds. As a dwarf x tall cross, a strong case could be made that these new irises were intermediates, and indeed that is how they were registered at the time. But they were no taller than many of the dwarfs being grown at the time, so this might seem a little inconsistent. Welch and the DIS focused attention on the presence of a small branch in most SDBs, asserting that a branch was disqualifying for being considered a dwarf. Oddly, the list of dwarf species that AIS had been printing and reprinting for many years included amongst the dwarfs Iris aphylla, which is copiously branched.

The 1954 classification made
the dwarf people grumpy

Recognizing that the future might hold even more examples of such “problem children” from newfangled hybridizing experiments, the AIS suddenly reversed itself in 1954, offering a classification based entirely on height, with ancestry deemed irrelevant. This makes sense in a world where parentages have become complex or uncertain. Height is something that can be established with a ruler. Now the boundary between dwarfs and intermediates was set at a rigid 15 inches, regardless of what species the plants had come from or what characteristics they had. Welch and the DIS refused to accept this definition, appalled at the thought of 15-inch branched “intermediates” masquerading as dwarfs! Welch could be an opinionated and difficult person under the best of circumstances, and now he and his supporters had a righteous cause for contention. This caused a rift between the AIS and the DIS whose repercussions are still playing out today. From 1955 until 1973, the DIS had its own awards system, issuing the Welch Award in competition with AIS’s Caparne Award, despite the fact that it tended to be the same irises winning both awards.

Other classification issues were percolating at this time as well. There were movements afoot to recognize the so-called “table irises” and “border irises” as separate from both TBs and IBs. A committee was put together to study all these issues and propose a solution. In 1958, the AIS adopted a classification that has remained in place (with minor modifications) to this day. The dwarfs were separated by height into miniature dwarfs and standard dwarfs, with the dividing line being 10 inches. The border bearded class was created for short TBs, and the miniature tall bearded class was created for the table irises. The DIS had no interest in any of these new classes, not even the SDBs, and so the Median Iris Society was formed with the mission of promoting the five new classes between MDB and TB. A peculiar quirk of this development is that standard dwarfs are considered medians, not dwarfs, in apparent contradiction with their name.

'Alpine Lake' (Willott, 1980)
a classic MDB from SDB x pumila breeding

The 1960s and 1970s were perhaps the most exciting time in the history of dwarf iris development. Although the SDBs themselves were deemed too large to be considered true dwarfs, they had an enormous impact on breeding. Dwarf enthusiasts crossed the SDBs back to I. pumila, producing many charming hybrids, earlier blooming than the SDBs and quite distinctive in appearance, with ¾ of their genes coming from the dainty I. pumila. This became the standard cross to produce MDBs. The class was rounded out by selections of pure pumila ancestry, as well as hybrids from pure SDB breeding that happened to be small enough to fit the definition of the MDB class. These “runt SDBs” did not always meet with the approval of the dwarf purists, although there are a number of fine irises in this category. Indeed, in recent decades these MDBs from pure SDB breeding have come to quite dominate the class, in terms of sheer numbers as well as awards.

'Little Drummer Boy' (Willott, 1997),
an MDB from pure pumila breeding

In light of this history, one can understand why the DIS has remained rather protective of the little irises under its charge, and reluctant to muddle the boundary between the dwarf MDBs and the median SDBs; the dividing line between the classes was reduced to 8 inches in 1976, in part to protect the MDB class from SDB interlopers. It also explains the misgivings of many DIS members about merging with MIS, which has been suggested on a number of occasions. Any of the median classes might seem to have more cause to have its own society, given that they all have more new irises introduced each year than does the MDB class. Yet our history has set us apart, and perhaps it is the very fragility of the class in the face of the much larger (in numbers as well as stature!) median classes that inspires a certain connoisseur’s devotion amongst us.

'Pearly Whites' (Black, 2014),
an MDB from pure SDB breeding

In 2018, the DIS seemed on the brink of demise, with the president and vice president resigning, and the officers voting to merge with MIS. Rather miraculously, this was reversed in 2019, with a grass-roots rallying of the troops under the enthusiastic leadership of Charlie Carver, historic iris conservation advocate and devotee of MDBs. We now once again have a functioning society with a full slate of officers and a content-rich newsletter in final preparation for publication early this year. If you love dwarf irises and would like to be part of this renaissance, the DIS would love to hear from you!

Iris lutescens: The Dwarfs that Time Forgot

by Tom Waters

Dwarf bearded irises may be found growing wild throughout much of southwestern Europe, from Spain and Portugal, through southern France, and into northern and central Italy. Through the centuries, different botanists have encountered them in different localities and assigned different names to them: Iris chamaeiris, I. italica, I. olbiensis, I. lutescens, I. virescens, I. subbiflora, I. bicapitata.

Iris lutescens, raised from seed

By the twentieth century, it was clear that most, if not all, of these were really irises of the same species. Gardeners were most familiar with those from southern France, going by the name of I. chamaeiris, so began referring to the whole species as the “chamaeiris complex”. But the rules of botanical nomenclature require that synonyms be resolved by using the earliest published name for the species. In this case, that honor goes to I. lutescens, the name used by Lamarck in 1789. This is now the correct name for all these irises, with the exception of two irises at the extremities of the species’ range,  I. subbiflora in Portugal and I. bicapitata in the Gargano peninsula of eastern Italy, which are regarded by many (though not all) botanists as distinct species in their own right. Even if these are not regarded as belonging to I. lutescens, they are indisputably very close relatives.

I. lutescens is a delightfully varied species. The flowers are most often yellow, cream, or violet, but there are near-white forms, purples, blends, and bitones. In height, they range from about 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 cm). The stem is unbranched, with one or two terminal flowers.

Iris lutescens 'Bride' (Caparne, 1901)

Until the second half of the twentieth century, I. lutescens  and a handful of its accidental hybrids with other species were the only dwarf bearded irises known to gardeners in western Europe and North America. Named cultivars were produced by the firm of Goos and Koenemann in Germany, by W. J. Caparne in England, and later by Hans and Jacob Sass, among others, in the US. At this time, the modern dwarf and median classes did not exist, so there was no distinction between miniature dwarfs and standard dwarfs; they were all simply “dwarf bearded”, and spanned the whole natural height range of the species, which straddles both of the modern categories.

Iris lutescens 'Path of Gold' (Hodson, 1941)

Although many people grew a few dwarfs, appreciating their charm and early bloom, almost all the attention of iris enthusiasts in the first half of the twentieth century was focused on the tall bearded. The dwarfs were rather taken for granted, by both gardeners and hybridizers. That began to change with the formation of the Dwarf Iris Society under the leadership of Walter Welch in the 1940s. Welch and his friends were determined to learn all they could to advance dwarf hybridizing, and their interest went beyond the I. lutescens cultivars to investigate other dwarf species, such as I. pumila from eastern Europe.

I. pumila is a diminutive species, about half the height of I. lutescens, single-flowered and almost stemless. Robert Schreiner had imported some seeds in the 1930s, and the species gradually became available to the new dwarf hybridizing enthusiasts. The turning point came in 1951, when Paul Cook in Indiana, who had exchanged his pumila pollen for TB pollen from his friend Geddes Douglas in Tennessee, introduced the first pumila/TB hybrids: ‘Baria’, ‘Green Spot’, and ‘Fairy Flax’. Although technically “intermediates” (as the word was used then, it meant a hybrid between dwarf and tall bearded irises), these new irises were no larger than many I. lutescens dwarfs, even though they often had a branch and a total of three buds! This launched a vigorous debate about classification, which led ultimately to the formation of the Median Iris Society and the four median classes we have today. The SDB class was created to accommodate the new pumila/TB hybrids and the taller I. lutescens cultivars, with the MDB class left for the “true dwarfs”, with a maximum height limit of 10 inches, later adjusted to 8 inches.

From the 1960s on, the SDBs from pumila/TB breeding totally dominated the world of dwarf irises. These SDBs carry an extraordinary genetic legacy (dramatic spot patterns from I. pumila, pinks and plicatas from TBs, not to mention more modern form). There was no interest any more in producing more of the overly familiar yellow or violet I. lutescens cultivars. Even the MDB class was taken over by the new SDBs. Most MDBs from the 1960s onward were produced by crossing the new SDBs back to I. pumila, or (especially in recent decades), just selecting irises from SDB breeding that happen to be under the height limit.

I. lutescens, once the very archetype of the dwarf bearded irises in gardens, is now a curiosity known only to species enthusiasts.

Is there any hope for a lutescens renaissance? At first blush, it would seem unlikely. The modern SDBs have been so developed by decades of dedicated hybridizing that they would seem to have nothing to gain (and much to lose, in terms of present-day expectations of the class) by the injection of I. lutescens into hybridizing lines.

If I. lutescens is to be heard from again in dwarf hybridizing, the opportunity may be in the MDB class. Some MDB enthusiasts have been grumbling of late that the class has been taken over by short SDBs, and is losing something of its distinctive charm. There may be some niche here for MDBs with more of a “wildflower” look, breaking away from the stiffness, width, and ruffling that comes from pure SDB breeding. Just as the MTB class has given a home to the simpler, more modest look of the diploids, perhaps there is an opening for more “retro” MDBs. I. lutescens is fully fertile with SDBs and their MDB progeny, and might add a breath of fresh air to a class that is starting to feel overworked.

Everything old is new again?

Iris lutescens campbelli

The World of Irises is the official blog of The American Iris Society. Now in its 99^th year, The American Iris Society exists to promote all types of irises. If you wish to comment on a post, you can do so at the end of the page and the author or the editors will reply. If you wish to learn more about The American Iris Society, follow the link.

THE 2017 COOK-DOUGLAS MEDAL "Bright Blue Eyes" SDB

Susanne Holland Spicker

Please join with us in congratulating Michael Sutton as the winner of the 2017 Cook-Douglas Medal for his beautiful "Bright Blue Eyes" standard dwarf bearded iris (SDB).

'BRIGHT BLUE EYES' (Michael Sutton '08) Photo courtesy of Sutton Iris

This exceptional Standard Dwarf Bearded iris (SDB) is described on the AIS Wiki as follows:

'Bright Blue Eyes' (Michael Sutton, '08) SDB 11" Early bloom and re-bloom, standards cream veined pale yellow; style arms cream; falls white, chartreuse green thumbprint; beards blue; pronounced sweet fragrance. Sutton 2009. HM 2011, AM 2013, Cook-Douglas Medal 2017.

Thank you, Mike, for a stunning standard dwarf bearded beauty!

For a complete list of the American Iris Society's 2017 award winners, please visit http://wiki.irises.org/.