Iris for ID

[Lvandelft]

Some years ago this plant was brought to me with the question what it is.
When it flowered the first time I was thinking of I. ruthenica.
Now I found out that a Iris ruthenica Nana exists too. This plant has leaves up to 20-25 cm. But the flowers are just about 10 – 15 cm in height.
Is it I. ruthenica Nana or something totally else?

[Lesley Cox]

I'd say it is I. ruthenica nana Luit. The foliage is right for ruthenica, sort of thinnish, grassy and the flower colour is right. In nana the stems are very short or even absent while in the type they just about are as tall as the foliage with the flowers as tall as or just over-topping the leaves. It's a very nice plant.

[Lvandelft]

Lesley, thanks for ID. As you are the only person replying    on this, I take that you are right with it and will put this name to it from now on.

[arillady]

Luit,
Check this link:

http://www.signa.org/index.pl?Species

[Lesley Cox]

The colour of Luit's plant is truer, though judging from the pictures of ruthenica itself, there is variation, so maybe in the nana form as well.

[Luc Gilgemyn]

I grow exactly the same plant as I. ruthenica nana, Luit !

[Lvandelft]

Pat, after studying SIGNA pictures, I am about back where I started.
It is of course possible that there are pictures of I. ruthenica Nana, but called I. ruthenica.
I studied some pictures of grower websites and then the 'nana' form is described between 5 and 10 cm.

In Flora of China is said: Iris ruthenica is very variable and grades into I. uniflora. Iris ruthenica var. nana is said to have flowering stems only 5--5.5 cm, but, according to one of us (Noltie), the type of I. ruthenica is a similarly small plant, so var. nana cannot be maintained as distinct.

To make it more complicated, I found  the same picture as I. ruthenica Nana (by Tod Boland )

http://botu07.bio.uu.nl/temperate/show.php?img=Iris/Iris_ruthenica_Nana_1435.jpg&caption=Iris%20ruthenica%20Nana

but his picture of I. ruthenica on the SIGNA site
http://www.signa.org/index.pl?Display+Iris-ruthenica+9  seems exactly the same picture   

My plant has short stems when it starts and I think that I will keep the name I. ruthenica and the name I. ruthenica Nana in trade will mostly be the same plant.

Of course will selling a “nana” form be much easier than an ordinary I. ruthenica

[David Nicholson]

Luit, the quote below is from Brian Mathew's "The Iris" don't know if it helps or hinders!

"Iris ruthenica"
A tufted Iris with a shortly-creeping rhizome and erect, grassy bright green leaves up to 30cm in length and about 2-5mm wide. Fragrant flowers are carried on short stems 3-15cm tall and are usually solitary, or sometimes two in each set of bracts, and are 3-4cm in diameter with a perianth tube abot 1cm long. Falls are white with a blue-lavender or violet margins and veining and the standards and styles are are wholly violet or bluish-lavender. Usuall the blade of the falls is speckled in the centre and it is held out horizontally. There is no prominent ridge on the falls, or any trace of a yellow signal stripe. The standards and style branches are held well up, nearly to the vertical position, and are rather prominent................... Some forms have nearly stemless flowers among the leaves which are only 5cm long and 1mm wide (e.g. var. nana)

[Lesley Cox]

Wrong time of year for me to see mine but I'm pretty sure my ruthenica nan is to all intents and purpuses, stemless, i.e. the ovary starts right at the rhizome with nothing between. I have ruthenica at present only as seedlings, not flowering yet but as I remember my mother's, it had stems of about 5-6 inches (12-15cms).

There's something in an AGS Bulletin somewhere about the validity of the 'nana' name, written, I think by Chris Grey-Wilson. I seem to recall there was some confusion when a collection was made of it but was released as I. goniocarpa.

Going back to Marthew's description (thanks David), although stemless, my nana form has longer leaves than Mathew describes, probably about 20-22cms at maturity (seeding time) but a bit less at flowering and not much, if any, narrower than a taller form. As he describes, that would be a tiny and very desirable plant (to me, anyway).

[Maggi Young]

There's something in an AGS Bulletin somewhere about the validity of the 'nana' name, written, I think by Chris Grey-Wilson. I seem to recall there was some confusion when a collection was made of it but was released as I. goniocarpa.

I can't find anything!

[Lesley Cox]

I can't find anything!
[/quote]
Probably a figment of my imagination then. Actually, I don't think it was an article, but a smaller piece in one of the intrductory things, "Euphrasia" or one of those. Perhaps 4 or 5 years ago. Or not.

[Lvandelft]

Thank you all for your input.

After studying a bit more I must come to the conclusion that my plant (and Luc’s plant, which comes obviously from the same source) is just a normal
Iris ruthenica.

I also found out  that another author meant that I. uniflora is the eastern counterpart of the European I. ruthenica. And then there is some mention of
I. caespitosa, which can be the short stemmed form as well.
There will be very short stemmed forms in culture maybe, but if there really exists such a special form somebody should give it a cultivar name.
In that case it should be a plant which flowers very much better then my plant, however I am doubtful if there is such a plant at all?

Here a little extract from Dykes  observations a 100 years earlier:

This widely distributed Iris extends from Hungary to Eastern China and Corea, and has not unnaturally produced several local forms, which cannot be satisfactorily separated in herbarium specimens.
Attempts have indeed been made to distinguish some of these forms under the names, either varietal or specific, of ‘brevituba’, ‘nana’, ‘typica’, but when we find that specimens from the same locality may have spathe valves that vary in length from ½ in. to 1¼ in. or stems varying from 1 to 6 in., it seems at least undesirable to attempt any such division until we can get into cultivation a series of forms from known localities.

[Michael J Campbell]

Can someone ID this one for me please.

[Michael J Campbell]

And this one.
Just found a label for this one. Iris versicolor kermesina. would that be correct.?

[Lesley Cox]

I think your second one is correct Michael and the first looks like Iris ruthenica, that we've just been talking about above. Compare the pics and in particular, compare the leaves. The flower markings can vary somewhat.