Stamp Out Binomial Abuse!

 by Tom Waters

It is said that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. One manifestation of that pervasive truth is slapping botanical names onto plants where they don't belong. Is it perhaps the urge to seem erudite, or the mistaken notion (propagated in school biology classes), that every organism has a species name, or just unthinking propagation of error, dripping down through the years?

'Absolute Treasure'
Please don't call me I. germanica

I present a list of the four types of irises often identified incorrectly with a botanical species name that does not correctly apply to them. Each of these types is a group of hybrids with ancestry from multiple species. There is no need for a botanical species designation for hybrids of complex ancestry. The tall bearded iris 'Absolute Treasure' is best described---as I have just done---with the classification and registered cultivar name. If classification is clear within context, it can be left out. If one feels more botanically inclined (as might be the case if writing for a technical publication), the correct designation is the genus name in italics, followed by the cultivar name: Iris 'Absolute Treasure'.

Identifying a hybrid with a particular species is not just annoying to those of us with a pedantic streak but can lead to real confusion. People who want to acquire actual species out of botanical interest or for hybridizing, for example, can be sent down time-wasting rabbit holes by this practice, and it is even worse when false botanical names end up in published pedigrees and official descriptions.

So, let's look at the major offenders:

1. Referring to all Siberian irises as Iris sibirica or Iris siberica. This error is reinforced, I think, because of the similarity of the classification name to the botanical name. Most Siberian iris cultivars are advanced hybrids involving I. sibirica and I. sanguinea. The 40-chromosome Siberians do not involve I. sibirica at all.

'Katharine Hodgkin'
Please don't call me I. reticulata

2. Referring to all reticulata irises as Iris reticulata. Yes, there is a species, I. reticulata, sold in the bulb trade and grown in gardens. However, the horticultural group known as reticulata irises includes hybrids and cultivars from a range of species, including I. histrio, I. histrioides, and I. bakerana. Many of Alan McMurtrie's colorful recent hybrids involve I. danfordiae and I. sophenensis. Once again, I think the fact that the common name for the whole group ("reticulata irises") is so similar to the species name I. reticulata is largely to blame for the confusion.

3. Referring to all dwarf bearded irises as Iris pumila. Although the species I. pumila is important in the background of modern dwarf bearded irises, most cultivars are advanced-generation hybrids involving I. pumila and tall bearded iris cultivars in various combinations. Modern standard dwarf bearded (SDB) and miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) irises are far removed indeed from the species. I think part of the problem is that pumila is the Latin word for "dwarf," so people who are not botanically knowledgeable believe they can just translate the term "dwarf iris" to Iris pumila.

'Beetlejuice'
Please don't call me I. pumila

4. Referring to all tall bearded irises, or sometimes even all bearded irises of any type, as Iris germanica. Tall bearded irises are advanced-generation hybrids involving many species, most prominently I. pallida, I. variegata, and various tetraploid plants from the Eastern Mediterranean, such as I. mesopotamica. Botanists have differing views about how to apply the name I. germanica, which is unfortunate since it is the type species for the genus Iris. The plant given this name by Linnaeus is a natural hybrid of the intermediate bearded (IB) type. The approach taken by Warburton and Hamblen in The World of Irises is to regard this as a cultivar, not a species (thus 'Germanica'), and to avoid using the term I. germanica entirely. On the other hand, Mathew in The Iris broadens the term to encompass an assortment of similar plants, including many identified as distinct species, such as I. cypriana, I. trojana, and I. mesopotamica. Even taken in this broad sense, however, I. germanica does not include the modern tall bearded hybrids. Given the confusion around using this species name, the best practice is to avoid it in favor of more specific designations for particular plants and populations. Sadly, the use of I. germanica for tall bearded hybrids has become entrenched through generations of misuse, and it is continued unthinkingly by nurseries worldwide.

As a final aside, names that look like species binomials are sometimes used for groups of hybrids. For example, hybrids of I. domestica and I. dichotoma are referred to as Iris ´norrisii, and Iris ´hollandica may be used for Dutch Irises. Note that the "´" is a necessary part of these names. Furthermore, the Latin name for the hybrid group should never be identical to the name of some particular species.

Be wary of these widespread but incorrect uses of botanical names. They not only make it difficult to identify plants correctly but also add to a general confusion concerning the hybrid nature of popular groups of garden irises.

Using Species in MDB Breeding, Part 3: Iris reichenbachii x Iris pumila

by Tom Waters

This is the conclusion of a three-part posting describing projects with miniature dwarf bearded (MDB) and standard dwarf bearded (SDB) irises. The first and second installments were posted in July and October 2023. 

My goal for this hybridizing project is to produce a true-breeding line of MDBs that belong to the same fertile family as the SDBs and MDBs from SDB breeding. In theory, using species and species hybrids that are compatible with SDBs will circumvent the tall bearded ancestry that can lead to larger, out-of-class plants. The earlier installments cover the use of Iris lutescens and of a hybrid of Iris aphylla x I. pumila. 

The current post describes work with seedlings from I. reichenbachii x I. pumila. This third avenue of work is, to me, the most exciting and promising. However, I got started with it a bit later than the first two approaches, so it is less far along.

I. reichenbachii is a species native to the Balkan peninsula. It comes in both diploid and tetraploid forms. (The tetraploid species I. balkana is considered a synonym of I. reichenbachii.) Plants typically have very slender stems topped with two buds, ranging in height from about 6 inches to about 12 inches. Flowers are either yellow in color or some blend of violet, brown, and gray. This species is probably best known as a parent of Paul Cook’s famous ‘Progenitor’ (R. 1951), which introduced the dominant bicolor pattern into tall bearded irises.

The tetraploid forms of the species belong to the same fertile family as TBs and I. aphylla. Hence crossing it with I. pumila ought to produce plants compatible with SDBs, just like the aphylla x pumila cross described in part 2.

tetraploid I. reichenbachii ex Mt. Vikos, Greece

I have raised a number of these (cross S026) from crossing a yellow tetraploid I. reichenbachii from Mt. Vikos, Greece, with I. pumila ‘Royal Wonder’ (Coleman, 2013). About half the seedlings are yellow and half are purple. They are all about 5 inches tall, with one or two dainty flowers per stalk. Because I. reichenbachii is so much smaller and daintier than I. aphylla, I believe these plants have even greater potential to produce consistently small and dainty MDBs. I have made as many crosses with them as possible. So far, they are not cooperating as pod parents, although they produce plenty of fertile pollen.

S026-02
I. reichenbachii X 'Royal Wonder'

 

S026-05
I. reichenbachii X 'Royal Wonder'

    

I am eagerly awaiting bloom in 2024 of seedlings from ‘Miniseries’ (Keppel, 2011) X S026-02. Still in the pipeline are crosses of the S026 seedlings with ‘Arson’ (Keppel, 2016, SDB), ‘Come and Get It’ (Black, 2013, SDB), ‘Dollop of Cream’ (Black, 2006), ‘Oh Grow Up’ (Miller, 2018), ‘Pearly Whites’ (Black, 2014), ‘Self Evident’ (Hager, 1997), ‘Tasty Treat’ (Johnson, 2020, SDB), and ‘Pirate’s Apprentice’ (Hager, 2003). 

Multi-generational breeding projects like this one require patience and a certain amount of faith in the theory behind them. It can be a long slog with little immediate gratification. But it can also be very satisfying to pursue curiosity about paths not taken before and to learn as one goes. For me, this type of undertaking matches well with my limited space and my penchant for careful planning. Perhaps in a few more years, the groundwork described in these three posts will yield something worthy of being grown in gardens or meriting the attention of other hybridizers. Until then, the learning itself is a fine reward.

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.

The Aril Society Checklist

 by Tom Waters

When I'm not writing blog posts, one of my many other iris-related activities is serving as checklist editor for the Aril Society International. I've just completed the 2023 update of the checklist, which is available on the ASI website. It occurred to me that there are probably many people who are not aware that the ASI maintains a checklist of aril and arilbred irises, nor aware of what it offers beyond other references. So I thought I would use this blog post to have a look at the checklist and why it is important.

When the Aril Society International was formed in the 1950s, there were no standardized definitions for the various types of aril and arilbred irises. Irises with oncocyclus or Regelia ancestry were registered with the American Iris Society under a bewildering range of classification codes. One of the first tasks of the new society was to sort through all the various registrations and establish specific categories for them. A persistent problem in the early years was that irises of 1/8, 1/16, or even less aril ancestry were being given awards as arilbreds despite being indistinguishable from TBs. The society addressed this by requiring irises to be 1/4 aril or more to be considered as arilbreds. Subsequently, there were two separate award systems created: one for arilbreds of 1/4 to 1/2 aril content, and another for irises of 1/2 aril content or more.

'Loudmouth' (Rich, 1970) won the
C. G. White Award as an OB (1/2 aril)
but is now an OB- (less than 1/2) 
because of a change in definition.

The checklist was critical for establishing which irises met the various award criteria. The editor would take the registration data, do pedigree research, consider an iris's appearance, breeding behavior, and any chromosome counts that had been done, and then assign it to the appropriate category. In days before the internet, the ASI checklist was the only source of this classification information, because it was impractical to reprint the American Iris Society checklists to give updated classifications for arilbreds. The classifications and definitions used by the Aril Society have changed several times over the years, and the checklist is the only authoritative reference on how definition changes have affected the classification of each arilbred iris. Applying the current definitions, which involve estimating the chromosome makeup of each cultivar, is not a trivial matter in some cases.

Here are some of the things you will find in the ASI checklist that may not be presented accurately (or at all) in other sources:

Classification Information. Each iris listed, even historic irises registered long ago under other definitions, are assigned to the current ASI classification, to the extent possible given the existing information. This is of particular value to show classification committees in regions where arils and arilbreds are likely to be exhibited. It is especially important for irises that were once considered arilbreds, but no longer meet the definitions of that class.

Height Categories. In 2018, the ASI established definitions for two height categories for smaller arilbreds: arilbred dwarf (ABD) and arilbred median (ABM). These are included in the current edition of the AIS Judges' Handbook. The checklist gives the correct height category for each arilbred listed.

Chromosome Configuration. Aril and arilbred irises may include chromosome sets from oncocyclus, Regelia, tall bearded, and dwarf bearded species. Which chromosome sets are present in a given iris is of considerable interest to hybridizers, as it affects fertility and helps the hybridizer properly classify any resulting seedlings. The checklist provides the most likely chromosome configuration for most irises listed, along with an actual chromosome count where one has been reported.

Fertility Observations. When an iris is known to have produced offspring as a seed parent or pollen parent, this is noted in the checklist.

Is this 'Bronze Beauty',
'Hoogiana Bronze Beauty',
Iris hoogiana 'Bronze Beauty',
'Bronze Beauty Van Tubergen',
or 'Antiope'? Answer: yes.

Irises Not Eligible for Awards as Arilbreds. An appendix to the checklist provides a thorough listing
of irises that do not qualify as arilbreds for various reasons: never having been registered, having been registered in a non-arilbred class, or having been disqualified as definitions became more strict.

Nonregistered Aril Hybrids. A substantial number of aril hybrids have been introduced, particularly through the firm of Van Tubergen in the Netherlands, that were never registered with the American Iris Society. Some were registered with the Dutch registration authority for bulb irises, while others were simply not registered at all. The checklist includes these in an appendix, along with photographs and other information.

Even today, where so much information seems just clicks away on the internet, the ASI checklist fills an important role in providing authoritative information that is not reliably available elsewhere. It is an important resource for judges, show officials, and hybridizers. Anyone with an interest in aril and arilbred irises should become familiar with what the checklist has to offer.

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.

A Growing Iris Resource on YouTube: Part III

by Heather Haley

In this post, I'll continue sharing the story of a growing iris resource on YouTube. The American Iris Society (AIS) uses its YouTube Channel to help organize and disseminate knowledge of the genus Iris, while fostering its preservation, enjoyment, and continued development. Many of the videos available are from the AIS Webinar Series, and their upload was planned for the benefit of all persons interested in irises. 

I am very thankful for the AIS Webinar Series, mostly because it has helped me become more involved in this organization. You see, I absolutely love irises and my heart sings whenever I see one. It doesn't matter if the iris is real, digital, or simply decorating an object. This also happens to other members of my family; our love for irises is practically a genetic trait. The only thing I like more than puttering around irises in a garden is spending time with people whose hearts also sing when they see irises. During 2020, few were able to do this in person because coronavirus disrupted many AIS activities for local affiliates, its regions, and the organization as a whole. By July, I was lonely watching iris blooms fade in my garden. 

Within days, a most intriguing message appeared in my inbox: the AIS was launching a webinar series! Immediately, my heart was singing a familiar song. For the remainder of 2020, my family and I gathered around an iPad on the kitchen table to enjoy presentations described in Part I of this blog post. Some we caught live, but we also happily watched webinars we had missed as they became available on YouTube. 

In 2021, the second year of the coronavirus pandemic, AIS faced another year of uncertainty. With a second national convention in peril, all AIS sections and cooperating societies were invited to give presentations in the webinar series. Most of them accepted, and Part II of this blog post described some of them.

Also in 2021, I received a second intriguing message. This one arrived via text message. It read, "We need help at AIS, and I thought of you." I stood in my driveway a little dumbfounded. Up to this point, I hadn't done much for AIS at the national level, and I questioned what on earth made this person think of me. Sure, I helped my mother with a convention booklet a few years back. I volunteered to compose blog posts about irises. I am also (youthfully?) enthusiastic about all things related to irises. Whatever it was, the organization I credit for my family's love of irises needed help. I was willing and eager to assist.

 I learned that the small crew of AIS webinar hosts - Andi Rivarola, Gary White, and Claire Schneider  - were looking for help admitting participants in Zoom and greeting them. I was already familiar with the "pre-game" commentary that hosts engage in 30-minutes prior to each webinar, which always seemed like loads of fun. Before I knew it, I was signing in early to help the webinars run smoothly. It feels great to support the work of AIS, and help hearts sing for irises worldwide.

The following describes the remaining webinars that AIS volunteers prepared, delivered, recorded, and posted to our YouTube Channel during 2021.

Webinar #15 - “Spuria Irises for Every Garden; a Little History, a Lot of Beauty” with Anna Cadd

Anna Cadd was born and raised in Olesnica, Poland and is the current vice president of the Spuria Iris Society. Although she once aspired to become a medical doctor; her inability to kill rats, frogs and rabbits changed her mind. Her interests turned to botany and led to a Masters degree in Biology and a Doctorate in Plant Ecology. In this webinar Anna shares her enthusiasm for spuria irises with a little history and a lot of beauty. 

Webinar #17 - “Preview of the 2022 National Convention at Las Cruces, NM” with Howie Dash & Scarlett Ayres

Convention co-chairmen Howie Dash and Scarlett Ayres previewed the gardens for the 2022 AIS National Convention. They shared a walkthrough of each garden in bloom and interviews with the garden owners. If you are interested in this convention or others, visit the AIS website for more information and hyperlinks.

Webinar #18 - “PINTSIZED BEARDED IRIS: Medians, What are they? Where did they come from? Why grow them?” with Debbie Strauss

Debbie Strauss lives in Midland, Texas with her husband Dale and is a member of iris societies in Midland, Odessa, Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Dallas, and Hico. Her mother and grandmother grew irises and set the stage for her love of everything iris! Debbie has been an AIS Garden Judge since 1990, and was awarded status as an Emeritus Judge by the AIS Board of Directors in 2020. Debbie shared her expertise on the pint-sized bearded irises referred to collectively as "medians."

Webinar #19 - "Dwarf Bearded Irises: The Three Types of MDBs” with Tom Waters

Tom Waters began growing and hybridizing irises in the 1970s. He has served as yearbook editor and president of the Aril Society International, and is currently president of the Dwarf Iris Society. He works as a radiation protection manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory and lives in northern New Mexico with his wife Karen. In this presentation, Tom outlined the origin of the modern miniature dwarfs and discussed differences in flower characteristics and cultural requirements that result from different breeding backgrounds. 

Webinar #20 - “An Introduction to Growing Pacific Coast Irises” with Bob Sussman

Bob Sussman is president of the Society for Pacific Coast Native Irises and began the Matilija Nursery in 1992. The nursery sells California native plants and has emphasized Pacific Coast irises for the last ten years. Bob's hybridizing efforts focus on developing irises that are well adapted to the warm climate in Southern California. 

Webinar #21 - "Beauty from the Past, Saved for the Future” with Wendy Scott

Wendy Scott is the president of the Historic Iris Preservation Society (HIPS) and shared information  about different preservation programs that help preserve the legacy of iris hybridizers. In this webinar, you can learn more about the HIPS Guardian Gardens program, iris rescues, Breeder Collections, Display Gardens, posterity planning, and the purple-based foliage project. 

In my opinion, the only thing better than an iris in bloom is connecting with people who love them just as much as I do.  If you have not done so already, consider joining the American Iris Society, one of its specialized sections and cooperating societies, or a local AIS affiliate. You will receive great information from iris growing experts, invitations to programs like these, and opportunities to share the beauty and thrill of the genus Iris. 

For Comments: 
What iris groups do you participate in?

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.