- _ wwwwwm,‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station. Texas BULLETIN NO. 615 AUGUST 1942 ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS S. H. YAR-NELL Division of Horticulture AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL “COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. \VALTON, President r I ;§QAQy Afirifimzam \ B15-742-7BLL180 Figure 1. ‘Well adapted iris fit in Well in front of the shrub border. __ _~.._|.. r4“: -4. ._ .1421.“ m we“, _¢_- 4.. moisture, was found to be the best time to transplant iris, while A15 May and June is the worst time under conditions at College S ' Fall-set plants not only have a better chance to survive than t-hos in the spring but they are more apt to bloom and have more flow rs ‘a the following spring and later. When moisture conditions on w before and five weeks after setting were good, the plants were un to do much better than when the soil was dry. x“ Of the 582 varieties under test, one was rated 10 (excellent) in adapta- bility, 15 were rated 9 (very good), 44 had a rating of 8 (good) and 89 a rating of 7 (moderately good). This gives a total of 149 varieties out of 582 which are considered to be well adapted. The newer varieties are about as well adapted to the conditions of‘ the test as the older ones, and provide a wider range of color. Varieties receiving award-s from the horticultural societies are no better adapted than the average. On the other hand, varieties recommended for discard by the American Iris Society have a. lower rating on the average than the entire group as a whole. Varieties considered to be generally good elsewhere have a better than average chance of being well adapted here. 3 CONTENTS Page Introduction _ 5 Materials and methods __ 6 Source of varieties 6 Growing methods" 6 Diseases and insects 7 Time of transplanting 7 Adaptability of varieties 11 Method of rating 11 The individual ratings _____ _- 12 Time of introduction 15 Varieties from individual introducersn-“ 16 Comparison of parents and progeny 16 Chromosome numbers 20 Varieties receiving awards 20 Superseded varieties‘ 21 Comparisons with other regions 21 Acknowledgment 22 Summary 22 References -- 24 ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS by ' S. H. Yarnell, Chief Division of Horticulture The “White flag” was evidently one of the choice flowers brought to Texas by the early settlers. Even today it can be seen growing vigor- ously and blooming in competition with Bermuda grass around houses and in old graveyards. Further evidence for its excellent adaptability can be found in the legend, still current, that the new, more colorful varieties “revert” to the white form after a few years when sharing a bed with it. What actually happens is that the older, well adapted variety crowds the others out. ' Some of these varieties yield to the older White form more readily than others and the need for a car-eful adaptability study of varieites was early apparent. This led to the establishment of an iris variety test by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the American Iris Soci-ety. This arrangement was effected by Mrs. Ethyl Anson Peckham who was in charge of iris test gardens for the Society and Dr. Hamilton P. Traub, at the time Chief of the Division of Horti- culture of the Texas Station. _The American Iris Society continued this work until about 1935. Most of the varieties in the test were secured through the efforts of Mrs. Peckham. The ratings reported here are different from those usually accorded varieties of iris. While the vigor that any variety displays under a particular set of growing conditions is bound to enter into any judg- ment of its merits, many characteristics of the plants and inflorescence, such as the form, texture, size and color of the blossom are also im- portant. The very rapid progress of th-e past quarter of a century in breeding and introducing new varieties, made largely under conditions distinctly different from those obtaining throughout the Southwest, has led, quite naturally, to the gradual elimination of many of the older sorts. This brings up some questions of particular interest to growers of iris in Texas. Are the older varieties that are being saved as best els-ewhere also best for our conditions, and do the varieties that are being used as parent material contain the heriditary factors that allow their selected offspring to flourish in Texas? Fortunately, the varieties included in the test cover a sufficient range in time of introduction to get an indication of the trends along these lines. Since the study has been aimed at establishing the adaptability of a representative collec- tion of varieties rather than to get a quick estimate of the behavior of the newest introductions, it has been possible to grow the material over a sufficient length of time to secure fairly dependable results. 6 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Materials and Methods Source of varieties: Shipments for testing have been received from public institutions, notably Cornell University and the New York Botanic Garden, from individual gardeners and from commercial growers. Pri- vate doners include Mrs. Wm. H. Benners, Dallas, Mrs. Willard C. Brin- ton, New York, Mrs. Ireland Hampton, Ft. Worth, Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Peckham, New Rochelle, N. Y., and Mr. and Mrs. Homer Skeels, Tacoma Park, D. C. The following commercial growers have also supplied iris gratis: Kenwood Iris Gardens‘, Cincinnati, 0., Longfield Iris Farm, Blufi- ton, Ind., OtWell Iris Fields, Carlinville, Ill., Karl Salbach, Berkeley, Calif., Schreiner’s Iris Gardens, St. Paul, Minn., Carl Starker, Jennings Lodge, Ore., Treholme Gardens, Washington, D. C. and Upton Gardens, Colorado Springs, Col. Growing methods: The soil available for this test, known as Lufkin fine sandy loam, consists of a comparatively shallow layer of fine sand underlaid by a very stiff gray clay. The line between surface and sub- soil is distinct and undulating. While the surface drainage is good, there is little or no underdrainage. The soil is slightly acid in reac- tion. It is naturally low in plant good and organic matter, but iris and other plants respond to applications of commercial fertilizer. Iris has been found to grow well on both sandier and on heavier soils at sub- stations in other parts 0f the State. It has been observed that heavy soils containing particles of limestone and sufficiently alkaline to cause lime-induced chlorosis in the common ornamental plants (indicated by a partial loss of the green color of th-e leaves) is not as satisfactory for most varieties of iris as soils that are more nearly neutral in reac- tion or slightly acid. _ Because of the lack of natural soil fertility the plantings were fer- tilized at the rate of 300 pounds per acre with a complete commercial fertilizer having 6 percent nitrogen, 1_2 per cent phosphoric acid and 6 percent potash. The most desirable formula for any particular locati.on depends upon the soil available. Soils of our coastal plain, which are in general Well supplied with potash, do not immediately require this fertilizing element. Where iris is grown on garden soil of good fertility the application of phosphorus alone in the form of bone meal has‘ been found by gardeners to be entirely satisfactory. The successful fertili- zation of garden plants is a skill that results from experience and ob- servation. Fraps and Ogier (6) give suggestions for the use of fertilizers on different kinds of soils and with various kinds of plants. It should not be assumed that since the old white flag flourishes under neglect other varieties do not respond to good treatment. Barnyard manure has been used successfully in preparing a raised bed of sandy soil by applying a layer of manure over the entire area and covering with soil to a depth of about 8 inches. This permits the roots to utilize the nu- trients without endangering the rhizomes. A variation of this would be to place the manure in holes at a similar depth. Manure is" recom- . The entire area was cultivated. ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 7 1 mended only for soils obviously lacking in nitrogen and in organic mat- ‘ ter. Plants needing nitrogen grow rather slowly and lack the normal dark green color seen in the leaves of vigoruusly growing plants. The Plants were first set in the field 30 inches apart in‘3-foot rows. Later they were grown in slightly raised beds 6 rows wide, 3 plants to a variety, with approximately the same spacing. The transplanting tests were made in field plantings set 3% feet each way, and were handled like the variety plantings. In setting, a hole of sufficient size was dug to allow spreading the roots at a rather narrow angl-e. The soil was then packed carefully I around the roots and the rhizome was covered with a thin layer of soil. v This protected the rhizome at times" from drying winds and from sun- - scald. Diseases and insects: Southern blight, caused by Sclerottum rolfsiz‘, was the most troublesome disease encountered. It is also sometimes called mustard seed disease because of the fungous restingbodies which look very much like mustard seed. These are formed next to the rotting plant. The base of the leaf is attacked causing the leaves to fall over. The rhizome later rots. These resting bodies r-emain in the soil and attack many types of plants, both ornamentals and vegetables. Putting a bed in lawn for 2 or 3 years is perhaps the least unsatisfactory method of handling the situation. It is also possible to sterilize small areas of soil. This and other diseases are discussed by Dunlap (4) who sug- gests methods of control. The more Widely spread soft rot caused some damage at different times, especially during Warm moist periods.‘ This was not observed to cause the complete loss of a well adapted variety. Large rhizomes were sometimes entirely decayed, but the younger attached rhizomes were able to reestablish the clump. Affected rhizomes can and should in most gardens be removed as soon as discovered. This disease is aggra- vated by poor drainagetand by decaying organic matter in contact with the rhizomes. There was little damage from insect attack. White grubs, the larvae of the June beetle, occasionally fed on the rhizomes. Where the drain- age was excellent the damage did not prove serious. In a few low spots soft rot was observed to follow. " - ~ Time of Transplanting Since shipments of plants were received at various times during the growing season and differences were noted in the subsequent develop- ment of different lots it was decided to make monthly plantings of 100 rhizomes of successful varieties to observe the effect of time of plant- ing on later development. The lack of sufficient material of a single variety made it necessary to us-e a composite sample of 5 rhizomes of each of 20 varieties. While the results were no doubt affected to some extent by differences in varietal response it is felt that the selection BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 7 . 7 . 8;. 7 >3 Qwv 7 mm MK 7 wéw . 3am + 3d mm v 7 .............................. {$3 Jm 3Q Q27 7 8N i: 7 a _ :7 79mm a...» + 8.» £2 mmfinn ................... 5E: “a ..>¢z x2: 7 ma TQ 8 5 mam BA l $5 $4 ....................... 1&2 7% $0 wmd 7 3m wém 7 mm mm 9mm $6 ‘I Ed wma .............................. Iwwmw 5.25m 3.3 Eu. 9mm 7 an 7mm Qmm $4. \| 5w 3.4. .............................. Iwmmfi {m 3mg» $6 7 m3 mdm 7 3 mm 7 N63 3d l E23 Cam .............................. lwmafi .3 BE. 8.3 7 m“. Ywm 7 m .3 bdaa mwNTl 3.2 $6 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14mg fix 3E. mwd mm 9mm w 7 3 mam EAT| wméfi mfio .............................. lvmmfi {N ENE 09w 7 Z mdfi 7 m 7 3 méw 3.» .l w; Rae 7 ............................. ilvmmfi dm .54 Omd Em “Ywm vm 7o» 9w» mTN + Nod boé 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| lawmmfi gm 32w; mwdfi 7 3m qxmm 7 mm m6 mdw mm.m + 7 54. mwd . .............................. lvmmfi Am 5.5 3S 7 ms gm 7 8 E w? Es + 7 ma.” 8.3 7 ............................. 1%.“: 5m .53. M92 77 ma» Wwm 7 mv E. flAK. mwé. + 7 $7“ Q.» ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| llmmmfi .2 doQ mm.» QH 5mm 7 wfi o» 7 5N» wmfim + 7 mmzm Mad 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| llmmafi Q .25 3d o 7 0.0 77 o 8 7 #8 wma l 7 Ea $4 ............................. idmfi .3 .80 Ed 7 3 7 oé 7 m m» 7 Www 5d || 7 2.6 2am 7 ............................. {Imwmfi .7...N.p%7@ o7m.m 3 7 mdfl 7 w om wém mmé + 7 mmw omd .............................. iwmmmfi g: .wD< Qmé 7 w“. 7 Qmw 7 cfi 7 w“. wamm wmé 1| 8w .3.» 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11mm“? .5“ 55h cod w. 7 fia 7 H 7 S 7 I5 3d 1. 5.2 8A 7 .............................. Imgfi .3 23h. 7E4 7 mfi 7 in 7 q 7 7mm 7 73$ 51w I. mmd £6 7 .............................. immfi 6H Q2 mud 7 3 5w“ 7 w 7 i.“ fi$ $4. I 78.» 3 m ............................. 1-7mm? .5 x54 QmQ. 7 a 7 70.6w N om 7 v.5 wmd |l 7on6 7 3d 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ximmmn 5H s32 72$ 7 m. 7 N22 7 E 7 Nm 7 WE Mme + 7%; 7 84 7 ............................. 1-32 .3 59m 2w 7 2: 8% 2 7 2 77 QQ m: + 3a N: .............................. l1wm3.m~.=ww 93m 77 SH 7 Q78 7 mH 7 ow. 7 wéw m?“ + 8.7m $5 .............................. 1&2 9N 62H 35 3. 7 has 7 m 7 mm 7 fimw w7m.7o + omé 9:. .............................. immmfi £3 5oz 3w 7 5H ha... 7 .2 7 Q 7 m6» E4. I 8.... $5 ............................. 1&3 6H .30 3w 7 8 7 ZN 2 7 a. 7 2w as I .2 a... wnmmfl ................... --~§ aflna; 5mm 7 mm 7 mQH 7 w 77 Qm 77 mqwm wwé. I. wwfi mfim 1 | | . | I | . I | | . | . . , | . | | ||-m.m_mfi inn Q54 7 7 7 7 7 lkllln I |l 1 Iliitfl}- Iliii. Ill 28E Em 130B 7 aqwfiwm 7 gwnfisz _ 7 wfiminfiwm7 9:5 - E5 awfisv . 7 . @832“ we “@2552 EooE E wuflarm 7 BQEQ 7 épwnfiwa -3932» nom- 2.525 5w SEQ 7 nanwuhrm dQw-WE .>< $2 Ham w-fiHQQG>mm 2.85am .83 802m Ahfiaovmofioflonno @9932.» 5E5 Jmwflafiafi 8H u. munflnflm 55:3: A 2.13.. ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED- IR-IS IN TEXAS 9 only of well adapted varieties and the rather large number of varieties used each month reduced this source of error to a negligible amount. This test was continued for 29 consecutive months. On the twenty- eighth month 177 instead of 100 rhizomes were set and on the twenty- ninth month 125 rhizomes. The results of the monthly planting test are presented chronologically in ‘Table 1. In order to consider differences in degree of success, with respect to climatic factors, as expressed by the perecentage of plants established, data on rainfall, evaporation from a free water surface and average maximum temperatures" are included for a period of one week prior to setting the plants and 5 weeks after planting, In order to get a single set of figures that would bear some likely relation to the soil moisture available to the newly set plants the evaporation in inches was subtracted from the number of inches of precipitation during the period of 6 weeks. Evaporation from a free water surface exceeded the rainfall for 17 of the 29 months of the experiment. 1t will be noted from Table 1 that plantings, made from March or April through June of each year were much less successful than the others. Column 4 shows relatively high negative values for rainfall less exaporation for this period each year. _It is interesting that plantings made from July through September under climatic conditions somewhat similar gave defi- nitely better results. This would indicate that the plants were more ma.- ture and in better condition for transplanting than they were earlier in the season. , Bloom data for plantings made through October 1933 were taken dur- ing the 1934 season. Data for the remainder of the plantings were taken during the 1936 season. Comparisons are difficult as some of the plantings had gone through one or two summer seasons, while others had not. On the whole, those set during the fall or winter bloomed somewhat better than those set in th-e spring or summer. Part of the data presented in Table 1 have been rearranged in Table 2 according to data on rainfall minus evaporation. This helps to bring out the relationship between these two sets‘ of figures. At the top of column 1 the evaporation exceeded the rainfall by 12.6 inches for a 6 weeks’ period. The planting made at this time was only 14 percent successful. At the bottom of column 1 the rainfall exceeded the evap- oration by 7.7 inches and the planting was 71 percent successful. The average of the first 14 figures for rainfall less avaporation is -—6.14. The corresponding average percentage established for the first 14 is 38.1. The average of the last 15 entries for inches of rainfall above evaporation is +2.15, with an average of 62.7 percent established. There are, of course, exceptions to this relation between available moisture as indicated by the rainfall-evaporation data and the proportion of plants successfully established. This is due in part to the increased success of late summer plantings under unfavorable conditions of moisture as compared to earlier plantings. The running averages" of the last two columns give a little smoother picture of the relationship between the '10 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION two. The extent of the correlation can be expressed as a percentage (r : +547). In testing the statistical significance of the figure we find that t is 3.51 which makes it highly significant (t at the 1% point is 2.77). The data support the conclusion that available soil moisture is an important factor in the success of iris plantings. Table 2. Monthly planting records arranged according to rainfall less evaporation (inches) Running average of 5 Rain less evaporation Per cent established 1 l R-— E ‘ Percent established . 7 _ —12,$% 14 ‘i ________________________ __\i ________________________ -- —11. 16 ________________________ -4 ........................ -- 9.40 11 -10.13 22.0 — 0.00 53 . - 8.65 35.6 - 7.01 16 7.26 l 39.2 - 5.23 s2 - 6.35 7 45.2 - 4.26 34 l - 5.41 = 43.4 — 4.74 41 l — 4.63 59.6 - 4.33 69 a - 4.26 . 55.2 - 3.97 2 7. ‘ _ . a 1 50.4 - 3.39 g 6g l — 3.952 1 46.6 - 3.36 . 10 ; - 3.2a j 39.6 - 2.77 22 - 2.70 1 40.8 - 2.66 34 l - 223- g 46.2 - 1.25 7s l - 1.74 l 54.0 - 1.07 87 l - 1.12 ; 60.0 - 0.90 49 - 0.47 = 60.2 + 8.33 52 - 0.10 1 52.4 + .56 . 35 + 0.05 '1 46.2 + 0.58 1 3 + 0.35 . 51.0 + 1.81 56 7 + 0.77 54.6 + 2.40 ‘ 73 l + 1.16 x 60.6 + 2.45 70 l + 1.55 a 66.3 + 2.52 65 1 + 1.72 1 65.6 + 2.54 l 70 l + 2.13 L 65.3 + 2.65 50- + 3.15 = 66.0 + 4.42 74 + 4.20 67.2 + 7.56 ‘ 71 \ i Two comparable plantings were made, one in the spring and one in‘ the fall of 1936. A total of 1272 rhizomes of 43 varieties were set one June 2, and 768 rhizomes of 40 varieties were set on November 2. Rhizomes of 39 varieties were planted each time. The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 permit a direct comparison between the two seasons.‘ It will be noted from Table -3 that moisture conditions were very much more favorable in the spring than in the fall (R-E was +4.26 inches compared with -—5.24 in the fall). In spite of this, a much larger proportion of plants of the fall planting survived both by May 1937 and‘ May 1938. Further, by May 1938 there were many more large plants and fewer small plants, on a percentage basis in the fall plantings. Turn- ing to the bloom data presented in Table 4 we find that 24.2 percent. of the living plants of the fall planting bloomed the following spring compared to 10.2 percent for the spring planting. The fall set plants. still had a slight advantage in proportion of plants blooming in 1938 and also had more flowers per plant (11 on the average compared to 9).; ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 11 The evidence from the comparison is" obviously in favor of fall planting. These conclusions are in line with those expressed earlier by Willa Grif- fin Largent (7) and by Eddie Fanick (5) in bulletins of the American Iris Society. Table 3. Spring and Pall P1antings—Plant Data. - F Spring Fall - l Date set- _________________________________________ June 2, 1936 Nov. 2, 1936 Number rhizomes set ___________________________ __ 1272 768 Rainfalll (inches) _________________________________ _. 13.03 3.61 Evaporationl (inches)- ___________ ___ ____________ __.i 8.77 8.85 Rainfall-Evaporation ____________________________ h‘ +4.26 -5.24 Aver. max. temp. F ____________________________ __| 91.9 65.8 No. ‘i Percent i No. Percent l Alive May 3, 1937 __________________ ............ -- e51 I 74.8 732 l 95.3 Alive May 1, 1938 ________________________________ __ I ‘ large ______________________________________ _- 343 27.0 349 l 46.72 medium ____________________________________ _; 443 34.8 24s l s2.5= small ______________________________________ __r 115 ; 9.0 42 a 5.6= total- l e01 70.8 e54 p 84.81 1One week before setting and 5 weeks afterward. -'-'Based on a total oi 747, as 21 were accidently destroyed. Table 4. Spring and Fall P1antings—I‘1ower Data i Spring g Fall Date set ..... u, June 2, 1936 I Nov. 2, 1936 Number rhizomes set--- ___________ __1 1272 i 768 No. blooming by May 3, 1967 ___________________________________ -_ _0\# 177 % of those set blooming 7.6 23.5 % of those alive blooming__ ___ 10.2 ' 24.2 No. blooming by May 1, 1938 - 401 J 320 % of those set blooming- _____ -_ 31.5 a 42.81 , % of those alive blooming _______________________________________ _-; 44.5 l 50.5 Total no flowers produced _______________________________________ __, 3680 3559 Ave. no. blooms per flowering nlant ___- 9.2 11.1 lBased on a total o1 747, as 21 were accidently destroyed. Adaptability of Varieties Method of rating. Theadaptability rating given to the varieties in Table 5 should not be confused with the usual variety rating. This rating is based entirely on ability to survive, on plant vigor and on ca- pacity to bloom. The following values were assigned to maximum plant size shown in column 6: Fmall—--1, medium—-2, large—3, very large-—4. Varieties with plants" rated large by the second season or very large by the third season were given one additional point. Points given for maximum number of flowers per plant (column 7) were: 1 through 1O individual blo0ms—1, 11 through 50—2, 51 through 100—3, and over 100 blooms per plant——4. An additional point was given to varieties 12 BULLETIN l\'(). (515, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT SJL-YIION that had remained thrifty for a period of 10 years or the full length of time they were in the test. Several varieties failed t0 survive the first 0r second seasons. These have not been included in the report as‘ it is felt that they may not have had a fair trial because of the limited num- ber of rhizomes involved. The total points gave a scale of adaptability that ranged from 1 to 10, which could be interpreted as from very poor to excellent. Figure 2. Jubilee with a. rating of 5 is satisfactory with proper care. The individual ratings. In recording flower color the system described by Peckham (8) has been followed. As there is no reason to believe that flower color is a function of adaptability, column 3 of Table 5 is included for the convenience of the reader. In cases where the variety ADAPTlABIL1'l‘Y STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 13 failed to bloom both the color formula and the season have been taken from the Alphabetical Iris Check Liist (8) with the permission of the American Iris Society. This invaluable reference has been frequently consulted during the course of the test. It should be noted that plant size as given in column 6 is the maximum attained by the variety during the entire test. The same is true of number of blooms per plant. Figure 3. Athene‘ was the most floriferous. It is inevitable, Where rapid progress in breeding" provides striking improvement in quality, as it has in iris, that the older varieties have difficulty in maintaining popular interest, in particular among those who specialize in this royal flower. Aside from a few, such as Wister (11) and Bentley (1), the interest of most iris growers inthe older varieties is from the historical and from the breeding standpoints. Several appear frequently in the pedigrees of the newer varieties (3). Where they are still obtainable, varieties with a rating of 7 or more should prove useful to those just starting with iris, to those chiefly interested in other flower-s, 14 BULLETIN NO. 6'15, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and to those needing large numbers for landscaping. One hundred florty- nine varieties out ofa total of 582 have been rated 7 or better. Whereg conditions for iris are good those with a rating of 5 or 6 might be in- f eluded. (See Fig. 2.) Only a. single variety, Azure Glow, was given the top rating of 10. It a was exceeded in number of blooms per plant by one variety, Athene with‘ a rating of 9 (Fig. 3) and was exceeded in size of plant only by Lohengrin c Other varieties rating 9 are Evadne (Fig. 4), Juliai (also rated 9). Marlow, Mme. Chobaut (Fig. 5), Mme. de Sevigne, Monsignor, Powhatan, Quaker Lady, Queen Caterina, Queen of May, Red Riding Hood, Rodney, . Rosedale and Titus. Figure 4. Evadne. Adaptability rating 9. aw. )nb.|l 11'. ma; .|.>.._.a. L... To those primarily interested in gardening it should be pointed out that size of flower, even in those varieties that are best adapted, seems to be highly responsive to growing conditions. Where conditions are ri.ght, with plenty of room and sunlight, and where the plant has been able to store a surplus of food the preceeding season, large blooms may occur, while the same variety under crowded or otherwise unfavorable conditions may have small flowers or none, ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED- IRIS 1K rlltfyi? ‘ 16 Figure 5. Mme. Ghobaut. Adaptability rating‘ 9. Time of Introduction. The varieties have been classified into four groups (Table 6) according to the time of their introduction. On the average, the adaptibility to Texas conditions of varieties in the test introduced since 1920 is the same as those introduced the first half of the last cen- tury and earlier. Certainly no improvement was to be expected as there was no opportunity for selection under our conditions. As a matter of fact it is perhaps surprising that the average adaptability rating has remained as high, since refinements to give high quality are sometimes associated with a less robust plant. The significance, if any,flf the lower average for the 80 varieties introduced from 1851 through 1900 is not clear. It will be noted that no variety introduced up to 1901 has been a rating of 1. If a variety is good enough to retain sufficient general popularity to survive 50 to 100 years it obviously must contain some of the factors required for general adaptability under widely diverse con- ditions of soil and climate. 16 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 6. Varietal Ratings Grouped According to '.I.'ime of Introduction 1N0. oil Avcr- p a l\‘o. varieties with adaptability rating of Time of varie-i age Standard introductiom ‘ ties [rating error 1 j p 1 1 1 ; 2 3 4 1 5» _ 6 l 7 8 ‘ 9 10 ii i ‘i; iii iii‘ iiijlil i'—_ ‘ii iii‘ iii} iih‘ i-i i?‘ . T l l i 1 * l ; Up to 1851 ________ _. 37 l 5.0 i 0.41 l 0 . 4 4 11 4 . 3 7 1 0 0 1331 to lgi ______ _-l 280.‘ 4.81 i 0.16‘; 01 10; s 211 14* 1o 12 $1 11 0 1 1 to 1 1 ______ __‘ 55 ‘ 5.0 i 0.12 1 4 1 26 1 22 481 58 34 37 1 9 ' 0 Since 1920 ......... -1 210 5.0 i 0.14 1 11 l 17 l 22 40 2s } 33 37 1e- ‘ 5 l 1 l 5.0 i 0.11 ‘ 1.31 ‘ 57 56 1'20 L 104 ‘ 81 89 44 i 15 I l 1 1 , Total _____________ -_3 582 tAs given in the Alphabetical Iris Check List. An examination of the frequency distributions presented in Table 6 discloses a tendency for two modes in the group of varieties introduced since 1920. Forty varieties were rated 4 and almost as many, 37, were rated 7, while only 28 were rated 5 and 33 had a rating of 6. This would ordinarily suggest that these varieties represent two distinct but over- lapping populations, one of which is poorly adapted, the other well adapted to the growing conditions of the test. The increase in proportion of varieties with a rating of 1 tends to substantiate the assumption. On a percentage basis varieties rated 1 are: up to 1901 0.0%, between 1900 and 1921 1.6% and after 1920 5.5%. In other words the ratings for two populations would be expected to spread out more than the ratings for a single population. Method of rating might account for such a frequency but if this is the case all 3 groups should be bimodal with respect to the same ratings. This does not seem to be the case, although there is a slight tendency for the other groups to be bimodal. The point will be considered further in the discussion of variety relationships. t‘ Varieties from individual introducers. In Table 7 the frequencies of the different adaptability ratings of varieties from outstanding introducers included in the test are ‘arranged more or less chronologically. These necessarily involve relatively small numbers, and for this reason aver- ages are not as dependable as for a large number of varieties. The origi- nations of Lémon are definitely below the average as far as adaptability to Texas conditions are concerned. It is of interest that those of Foster and Bliss are outstanding, since the summer growing conditions in Eng- land under which the seedlings were selected are so different from ours. The more recent introductions from France average low, as do those from the northern part of this country. While the Morrison varieties are rated high their number is small. The average of all varieties listed in Table U is about the same as for all varieties in the test. Comparison of parents and progeny. Table 8 summarizes the compari- son of parents and progeny for which ratings are available. Column 5 gives the average ratings of the parents and column 4 the average of their progeny. It will be noted that the average for the progeny exceeds that for the parents in all but two entries, one of which involves only a single cross. Here again numbers are small. The instances are unselected and ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS H. H H.H , H.H HH .. Ha mH HH HH H HH.H. H. H. H. H H H . H H H. H. H. EH. + H. H. H . H. m H H H H H H H.H.H. m H. H H H. H. H H.H H. H. H HHH. + H. H. H. . H. H , H. H H H. . H HHH. H H. H. H H. H. H. H. H H . H. HHH. m H. .H H m H H H. H H. H H. H.H.H. H H. H H H H H H H H. H. H _ H. HHH. H H. H. H . H H _ H H H H H .36 H H. H H H m H H. H H . H H H HHH. H H. H H. W H H H. H H H H H H. H.H.H. + H. H H. HH HH HHHHH. I .H T. H.H.H.m H. H. H m H H H. ,. H H H H. HHH. H H. H H. H H H H. H H H H H. HHHH. H H. H. H H H H. H _ H H. _H. HHH. H H. H. H. . H H H H H H H. H.H.H. + H. H. H , H . H H HH . H. H H H. HHH. H l1 11 illrlli: |i i» ‘Ti 1!} H.H H. H. H. H. m H H . H H H ., . HOHHW 1 3x955 HH. wmHHSHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHEH HHHHHH Hausa; dz m6 m HHH mwb. H. H55. HH EH HH HHH HH EH H.H 3m EH Hg ZHH H.H..H HH HHE HH HHH HH HZ Ha 3m HH 3H HH HHHHH HHH HHH HH mm... HH ................. lmvmnnwsm. ................... - lounabm ................. - - HEHHEHHH ................. - - EHSMHHH ||||||||||||||||||| | 1 ounuam .............................. iHwHwH 3H5. HHHH ..... -H------I-----I1------iillAHowHHHoHHH .................................. IHHQHEHHHHHHB .................................. iHHHHHRFHHHHw ................................ 1E5 a. HEHHHS ........................................ {HQPHM ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| innwrw ......................................... lwwHHm .......................... iEHHOQA HH. NDwhm-Q ........................................ imHHom ||||||||||||||||||||||||| iflfldamiwnvum Q mmow ............................... lfiHwmTowwH. HHHH i ................................... JQEHHQHHO ......................... lHHHHHPHwHHHTHHHHoEHHHH |||||||||||| 1.83am ................................ 13cm. a. HHHHm ....................... ---HH.H.H.H 8 H5. H885 EH53. m2.- omw Ti?» .33.. mo .OZ H QOSGUOJH hwvfifiO-flwflm aooucoapnn 3 mfiuaoood conflonU mmaHH-cfi Hsuoflab fl 396B l8 IBULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION Table 3. Ratings of Parents and Progeny Compared. Average rating Adaptability ratings = No. of of parents varieties ' 1 progeny parents _______._ i _ _,__________ 3 3 2 5.5 3.0 5 l 3.7 3.5 3 f» J. 6.0 4 0 3 6 1 7.0 4 5 ' (w .2 6.0 5 5 4 p o 1 5.0 6 0 5 8 3 7 7 6 5 t. l s1 5 9; 6 4:7 7 0 7 8 1 8.0 7 5 seem to indicate the possibility of the accumulation of factors for general adaptability to give a constitution better than that of either parents. As might be expected, the maintenance or improvement of adaptability where one parent has a rating of 8 is more difficult. The varieties themselves are, of course, selections of relatively large populations and such figures given little or no information in regard to the number of factors involved or the prevalence of dominance among them. Presumably a good many factors influence general adaptability. The average (or single) ratings of progeny of individual varieties are presented in Table 9. The rating of the named variety, when known, is given in column 2; that for the other parent involved in the cross (some- times seed, sometimes pollen parent) may be found in column 3. It gives some idea of what can be expected from selections of each with respect to adaptability to growing conditions in Texas. The high rating of Mme. Chereau is pretty well maintained in its three offspring listed. The high standing in the 4 seedlings of Orifiamme suggests that its adaptability may have been underestimated. It should be borne in mind that during the course of breeding none of these varieties were selected with refer- ence to Texas conditions and whatever adaptability they may have rep- resents a general vigor plus any factors of especial value to them here that they may carry by chance. A comparison of seedlings of I. pallida and of I. trojana may have a bear- - ing on the possibility of two general populations with respect to adaptability among varieties introduced since 1920. The 12 selected seedlings of I. pallida average 4.75 while the 9 seedlings of I. trojana average 5. 68. It may be that inherent factors for adaptability to conditions such as ours are more - prevalent in one species than in another. While several s-pecies are in- volved in the pedigrees of later varieties these data suggest that such dif- ferences among the wild forms may account for the bimodal tendencey of ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDEI) IRIS IN TEXAS 19 Table 9. Behavior of Progeny of Selected Varieties I Adaptability rating Progeny Variety 1 ‘ I named P1 other P1 no. vars. i av. rating ' ‘ I l i Alcazar ___________________________________________ -- 6 i ? 1 . 2.0 " , __________________________________________ -_ 6 ‘N 5 1 i 6.0 ” _ ___________________________________________ __ 6 8 2 i 3.0 1 i Amas- _____________________________________________ -_ 8 ‘? 1 5 ‘ 5-0 ” _____________________________________________ __ 8 4 1 3.0 Caterina _____________ __: __________________________ -_ a ? l 5 3.6 ” __________________________________________ __ 5 9 g 2 5-5 Dalmatica ________________________________________ _- g Z <15 3-3 ” _ _______________________________________ __ l . " _ _______________________________________ __ Y 8 ‘ 1 9.0 " ________________________________________ __ ? 9 1 6.0 Dream_ ____________________________________________ -- 8 7 1 8.0 Iris King .......................................... -_ g ; g l 7 n __________________________________________ __ I v _ 1' " __________________________________________ __ 5 s 1 1 6.0 ” ” ___________________________________________ __ 5 = 6 l 1 6.0 Juniata ___________________________________________ __ 8 K ‘P 3 g 6.7 " ___________________________________________ __ 8 l 5 i 1 i 7-0 l l Lent A. “YIUHIIISOD ______________________________ __ 4 i i’ ‘ 5 6-4 \ . Maori King _______________________________________ .__ ? ‘f 3 3.7 ” ” ________________________________________ __ ‘.7 I. 4 1 4.0 " " _______________________________________ __ ? 9 1 5.0 Mme. Ohereau ________________________________ -_'__- 8 i 2 7.5 II 77 _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _- 8 5 g 1 fi 8-0 Nancy Orne ______________________________________ __ 6 ? i 1 6.0 Oriflame ___________________________________________ __ 3 ‘t’ l 8.0 " __________________________________________ -- 3 3 i1 5.5 " __________________________________________ __4 3 \ c 1 7.0 I. pallida ........................................ _- v I v 12 4.7 ‘Princess Beatrice _________________________________ -1 5 ? 3 5.0 ” " __________________________________ _. 5 8 1 8.0 Queen of May ___________________________________ __l 9 9 8 6.0 1’ 7| I7 _ _ _ fl _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ‘ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 9 5 I 5-5 I. trojana _______________________________________ __‘ ? 2 ? ' 6 i 6.0 ” ________________________________________ __= Y l 4 3 5.0 l . I the frequency of these adaptability ratings. This necessitates the assump- tion of a similar groupifig among the ancestral species that have been most widely used rather than a normal distribution among them of factors re- suling in wide adaptability under garden conditions. The limited infor- mation available for similar species supports this assumption. For example, five crosses with I. cypriana, which might be classed with I. trojana, average 5.60. Seven crosses with Dalmatica, collected before 1600, average 5.71.. On the other hand 6 crosses with Amas, another collected variety, averaged only 4.67—slightly less than seedlings of I. pallida. Since each parent, where chromosome numbers are the same, contributes equally to the offspring, the 20 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT’ STATION average of progeny gives only partial information unless enough is known about one parent to use it as a tester for the other. Chromosome numbers. According to Randolph's compilation (9) of the chromosome numbers of commercial varieties from lists published by him and by others, they may be placed in five groups, having 24, 36, 40, 44 and 47 to 50 chromosomes. The averaged adaptability ratings of varieties in each 0f these groups are presented in Table 10. The 23 varieties in the first four groups average 6.00, while the 13 varieties in the 47 to 50 chromosome groups average 4.85. All groups having 44 chromosomes or less have consistently higher adaptability ratings than the group having the highest number. Of the 13 varieties comprising this group I. mesopotamica is found in the parentage of 4 and I. gaalllida of one. Amas is one of the parents of Lent A. Williamson and Kashmir White is one of the parents of Santa Barbara, all being in the same high chromo- some group. These relationships suggest that a combination of less favor- able factors rather than chromosome numbers per se may account for the poorer adaptability of the 47 to 50 chromosome group. '.l'a.b1e. 10. Adaptability of Varieties with Diiferent Chromosome Numbers Chromosome number Number of varieites Average rating Standard error 24 11 6.00 i 1.18 36 5 6.09 i 0.64 40 1 5.00 — 44 6 7.00 i 0.37 24-44 23 6.00 i 0.50 47-50 l3 4.85 i 0.48 Varieties receiving awards. An important use of the varietal ratings made by the American Iris Society and other organizations is in the selec- tion for purchase by gardeners of varieties unfamiliar to them. Since satisfactory growth and flowering are prerequisite to the enjoyment of a particular variety, any relationship between high ratings and good adap- tability to Texas conditions is important to the individual gardener. The average ratings of yarieties receiving awards, as representing the best of the ratings made by the societies, can be found in Table 11. Taken as a whole the 158 varieties receiving awards average just the same adaptability rating under Texas conditions as the average for all of the varieties under test. With the exception of the Silver Medal, the American awards average somewhat less in terms of our adaptability ratings than those given by the English and by the French societies. There is probably little real difference among them. This negative result is to be expected inasmuch as the score card used by the American Iris So- ciety allots 15 points (formerly 20 points) out of 100 for what is here considered under adaptability and a great majority of the judgments are made under dissimilar growing conditions. This is not to be taken as a criticism of this method of scoring. It is an estimate of the value of such readily available ratings as a source of information on the adapta- bility of any particular variety to conditions similar to those of this test. ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 21 It is concluded that such awards" to varieties considered here have no value for this purpose. - Table 11. Average Adaptability Ratings of Varieties Receiving Awards or Otherwise Classified Classification Society i No. of Average Standard i varieties rating error i Award of Merit ............. _- Amer. Iris Society ............... s 4.15 i v.30 Honorable Mention _________ -_ Amer. Iris Society ________________ _1 12 4-67 i 0-00 Silver MedaL _______________ __ Amer. Iris Society _______________ n} 3 6-33 — First Class Certificate ______ _- Mass. Hort. Society ______________ -l 8 4-00 i 0-93 Award of Merit ............. _- Royal Hort. Soclcty ............. --l 57 5.19 i 0.28 Commended _________________ -- Royal Hort. Society _____________ --; 14 5.00 i 0.46 Highly Commended ________ __ Royal Hort. Society ............. __‘~ 37 5.14 i 0-32 Certificate of Merit ________ __ Soc. Nat. Hort. France _________ u‘ 19 5-16 i 0-48 All honors- _______________________ __ ; 158 5-03 i 0-17 Unavailable ________________ __ Classification from ______________ --l 147 4.67 i 0-15 s“"§d£¢-.---- a ----- ~ = is 22-1; iscar 1s ________________ __ ec lS o ...... -_ -_ i - __ - Not on Discard List ________ __ Amer. Iris Society _______________ __1 380 i 5.07 i i 0-10 All varieties_____ --- 582 t 4.99 1 i 0-11 Superseded varieties. As our varietal resources have improved and increased, the older varieties have gradually been dropped by the com- mercial growers and from the larger collections. In order to assemble information in regard to this natural development, varieties have been marked unavailable, superseded (by better varieties) or placed on a dis- card list as recommended by the American Iris Society. It may be of some interest to Texas growers to compare the average ratings of these groups with the average for all varieties. These figures are also in Table 11. All 3 groups average below the general average for all varieties. Those varieties no longer available are considerably below the other groups. While the average for varieties placed on the discard list is low it does contain some well adapted varieties as follows: 24 varieties with a rating of 7, 13 with a rati.ng of 8 and 2 varieties rated 9.‘ Information as to whether varieties intended to replace these would be equally well adapted to conditions in Texas is lacking. Comparisons with other regions. Strict comparisons with results se- cured elsewhere are impossible because of lack of comparable data. The best that can be done is to see how the average rating of varieties rec- ommended as generally good in other areas compares with the general average of all varieties here. Pridham (9) lists a number of varieties “acknowledged to be good” under conditions in the Northeast. Sixty of these varieties have an average adaptability rating of 5.20 i 0.19, slightly above the general average. Twenty-one of these varieties have also been indicated as good varieties by the American Iris Society. These have an average rating of 5.48 It: 0.41. Wister’s (11) selections contain 66 of the varieties included in our test. These average 5.39 i- 0.25. Cook (2) reports the results ofa questionnaire sent to members of the American Iris Society located in the middle west (region 9). The 25 varieties receiving a majority of 22 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL ‘EXPERIMENT STATION votes (from 2 to 27 for each variety) as good varieties have an average adaptability rating in this test of 5.60 i 0.58, while the 9 varieties re- ceiving a majority vote of poor averaged 5.11 i 0.81. A list of 17 varie- ties rated by Rogers (10) as well adapted to conditions in Oklahoma averaged 4.82 i 0.77 in this test. The 149 best adapted varieties in this test (rating 7 or better) had an average of 7.52. On the whole, varieties rated generally good elsewhere have been considered better than average under the conditions of this test. {I ' Acknowledgment The writer is indebted‘ to Ethyl Anson Peckham and Dr. Hamilton P. Traub for initiating the trial, to Mrs. Peckham for arranging for dona- tions of rhizomes, to the donors listed in the section on source of material, and the Mr. U. A. Randolph and Mr. Ralph Michael for their faithful assistance while undergraduates at the Agricultural and Mechanical Col- lege of Texas. Summary 1. Some 582 vaireties of bearded iris were grown in field culture and in beds to secure an estimate of their adaptability when grown on Lufkin fine sandy loam in Texas. 2. In a monthly transplanting test extending through a period of 29 months, April through June was found to be the least satisfactory time , to plant iris. The better results secured from July through September are attributed to an improved condition of the rhizomes as compared to the earlier period. November and December are ordinarily the best months to transplant. 3. Available soil moisture as measured by inches of pfGClDlIZRtlOH less number of inches of evaporation from a free water surface during a period one week prior to setting and 5 weeks afterward was found to be cor- related with the successful establishment of plants. This correlation is +54.7 percent. 4. Of 1272 rhizomes set June 2 under favorable conditions of moisture 71 percent became established as compared to 85 percent for 747 rhi- zomes set under unfavorable moisture conditions on November 2. Further, there were nearly twice as many large plants in the fall planting. The spring following the planting only 10 percent of the spring-set plants still alive bloomed, as compared to 24 percent of the fall-set plants. A year later-these figures were 44.5 and 50.5. The spring planting then averaged 9.2 blooms per flowering plant while the fall planting averaged 11.1 blooms. 5. Adaptability ratings were made with reference to size of plant, rapidity of growth an amount of bloom, based on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent). The frequency for all varieties for each of these ratin~s ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 23 is as follows: (1) 15, (2) 51(3) 56, (4) 120, (5) 104, (6) s1, (7) s9, (8) 44, (9) 15 and (10) 1. The general average for all 582 varieties is 4.99 i 0.11. There were 149 varieties with a rating of 7 0r better, which is considered well adapted. A single variety, Azure Glow received the top rating of 10. The following varities received a rating of 9: Athene, Evadne, Julia Marlow, Lohengrin, Mme. Chobaut, Mme. de Sevig- ne, Monsignor, Powhatan, Quaker Lady, Queen Caterina, Queen of May, Red Riding Hood, Rodney, Rosedale and Titus. 6. Varieties introduced since 1920 are as well adapted to conditions of the test, on the average, as those introduced prior to 1851. The data for the varieties introduced later suggest the possibility of two distinct but overlapping populations considered from the standpoint of adapta- bility, which presumable would go back to the factors for general adap- ability inherent in the species from which the modern varieties have been developed. 7. Of varieties from individual introducers, those from Foster and Bliss in England have better adaptability than the earlier introductions of Lemon in France. Seven of the Morrison varieties average better than varieties from breeders presumably working farther north in this country. The numbers involved are small. 8. In 14 crosses where adaptability ratings were available for both parents and for their offspring, the latter averaged better than the par- ents. In the case of 6 crosses where one parent rated 8 or 9 the progeny averaged less than the average of the parents. Twelve crosses involving I. pallida average 4.75 and 6 crosses with Amas, a collected variety aver- age 4.67, while 9 crosses with I. trojana average 5.68, 5 with I. cypriana average 5.60 and 5 crosses with Dalmatica, another collected variety average 5.71. This suggests that the range of factors for general adaptability may ~be discontinuous among the species and this may account for the tendency toward the bimodal distribution of adaptability ratings of varieties intro- duced since 1920. 9. Varieties with somatic chromosome numbers of 24, 36, 40 and 44 average better adaptability ratings in each case than .varieties with numbers from 47 to 50. This is considered to be due to a lack of factors for general adaptability in this group rather than to the high number of chromosomes. 10. Varieties" in the test receiving awards from the iris and other horticultural societies have been no better adapted to the conditions of the test, on the whole, than unselected varieties. 11. Varieties that have been dropped by commercial growers, those that are considered to be superseded by better varieties and those in- eluded in the discard list of the American Iris Society have average adaptability ratings below the general average for all varieties. However some well adapted varieties are included on the discard list as follows: 24 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 24 with a rating of 7, 13 with a rating of 8 and 2 varieties with a rating of 9. Five varieties with an adaptability rating of 9 are considered by the American Iris Society as having been superseded by better sorts. 12. While it is difficult to secure comparable estimates of adaptability of varieties for other regions, such lists of “generally good” varieties as are available are above the average in adaptability here. 10. 11. REFERENCES Bentley, Bonnie. 1941. New thrills from old iris. Amer. Iris Soc. Bul. No. 83. Cook, Franklin. 1938. Iris SOC- Bul. No. 70:3-18. Douglas, Deddes. 1942. [Pedigrees of Praire Sunset, Ruth Pollock and Elsa Sass] Amer. Iris Soc. Bul. N0. 85-42-44. Dunlap, A. A. 1941. Plant diseases in Texas and their control. Exp. Sta. Cir. No. 91. Fanick, Eddie. 1938. The methods adopted for growing iris in the South- west. Amer. Iris Soc. Bul. No. 68. Fraps, G. S. and T. L. Ogier. 1939. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 85. Region nine speaks its mind. Amer. Tex. Agr. Uses of commercial fertilizers. Tex. Largent Willa Griffin. 1929 Planting iris in the South. Amer. Iris Soc. Bul. No. 32:23-26. Peckham, Ethel Anson. 1939. Alphabetical Iris Check List. Amer. Iris Soc. Baltimore. Pridham, A. M., C. E. F. Gutherman, Grace H. Griswold and L. F. Randolph. 1935. The bearded iris. Cornell Ext. Bul. No. 324. Rogers, J. Lee. 1939. Growing and hybridizing iris in the southwest. Amer. Iris Soc. Bul. No. 74:22-23. Wister. John C. 1936. Bul. No. 62:29-34. Concerning olden iris varieties. Amer. Iris. Soc. ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 25 Table s. Adaptability mating of Varieties l l Maxi- l Maxi- Variety Type Color Season Years mum mum l Adap in test size lno. bl.ltability plant l per pl. l ' l l l l Aareshorst (G. & K.) ................. -- TB S9L M j 4 s l e 2 Abdul Aziz (Barr) ..................... -- IB B3M — 10 l L l 0 l 4 Abu Hassan (Sal.) .................... __ TB Y9M M 6 M 0 l 2 Acheron (Sturt.) _______________________ __ TB B9-D M , 7 l M 2 3 3 Acquackanonk (B. & A.) ............. __ TB 86L M l 12 l L .23. 7 Ada (Barr) TB Y9M E 10 L l 5 l 6 Admiral Togo (Ghilds) _______________ -- TB W8 MLa 12 L l 20' l 7 A. E. Kunerd (Fryer) ________________ -- TB 86M MLa 10l L l 6 l 6 Afterglow (Sturt.) ................. __ TB s4L MLa e L l 5 ‘ 4 Alabama (Given)--- ............. -_ TB B1L EM 8 L 10 4 Alabaster (And.) ....................... -_ TB WW 7 S 1 2 Albatross (Barr) ....................... _- TB W3 M 5 M 0 2 Albert Victor (Barr) __________________ -- TB B1M M 9 VL 38 7 Alcazar (Vilm.) ........................ -_ TB 83D EM 1e L 8 6 Aliheim (G. & K.) .................... __ TB S3L M 7 L 5 4 Alfred Fiddler (Ware) _________________ _- TB B1L M 5 M 0 2 Alicia (Mag.) ........................... _- TB B3M M 12 L 25 6 Aliquippa (Hall) ....................... __ TB Y4Ll M 1o L 25 7 Allure (Mun) ___________________________ __ TB 84L M 4 L 3 5 Alpine Dwart (Upton) ................. _- DB B EM 6 L 4 4 Amabilis (Lemon) ...................... -- IB W3 M l; 10 M l 0 3 Amas (Fos.) ........................... -_ TB B3M EM 12 l VL l 45 s Ambassadeur (Vilm.) .................. -_ TB 89D MLa l 11 ‘ L l 40= 6 Amber (Dykes) ......................... __ TB" Y4L M 9 s l 0 2 Ambigu (Vilm.) ________________________ -_ TB R7D MLa 10 L 6 5 A. M. Brand (Fry.) __________________ __ TB $61M MLa. 10 L 5 5 Amerphol (Weller) _____________________ _- TB B3M EM 12 l VL 50 7 Amneris (MiL) _________________________ __ TB B11) La l 4 l s l 0 1 Anna Archer (Sass.—-H.P.) __________ -_ TB B1D M I 5 j S l 4 2 Anna Farr (Farr) _____________________ __ TB W2 M l 12 l L l 1o 5 Anne Leslie (Sturt.)_ ................. __ TB W9 M l 4 L l (1 4 Apache (Farr) .......................... -- IB ' 89D M 12 L l 45 7 Aphrodite (Dykes)- .................... -- TB R7M EM l 7 M l 0 2 Appollon (Lemon) ..................... -_ DB S61) E l 10 L l 10 4 Arabesque (Sturt) ..................... -- TB we - l 10 L l <1 4 Arac (Yeld) ............................ -- TB B3M M s M l 0 2 Argus (Hend.) _________________________ -_ TB W4 MLa l 11 L : 12 7 Argynnis (Wmsn) --------------------- -_ TB Y9M M l 10 L l 10 5 Arlington (Sims.) ______________________ __ TB 89L M l 7 M 0 2 Arsace (Mil.) ___________________________ __ TB B7L EM l 7 L l 5 l 5 Asia (Yeld) _____________________________ __ TB S3];- M ll 8 L l 16 i 6 Asiatica (Fos.) ____________________ __ ___ TB R7D EM l 12 VL 341 7 Assyrian (Bliss) ___________________ _- ___ TB B1M EM 12 L 15 7 Assyrie (Gan)- ________________________ _- TB ~ W2 — 5 L 4 5 Athene (Sturt.) ________________________ __ TB W4 EM 12 V], 150 9 Atlas (Mil.)- ___________________________ __ TB BaM M a M 6 3 Atropurpurea granditlora (Berger)____ TB B3'M* EM 12 VL 50 7 *Observed. l l Attraction (Blackhouse) _______________ __ IB B1L M 10 L l 13 l 6 Aurea Maculata (Barr) _______________ __ DB 84L . E 10 L 0 3 Aurora (Fos.) __________________________ __l TB B7L l - 10 M 15 l 4 Australis (Todaro) _____________________ __‘ Tl: B1L ‘ MLa 12 VL l 30 l 1 Azure Glow (Weed)_ __________________ __l Tl: B31) l EM 12 VL l 110 l 10 Bacchus (Hort) _______________________ __ TB ' YQM l ._ 4 M l 0 2 Ballerine (Y1lm.) ________________________ _l TB l B3M _ 10 V1, 30 7 Bandollero (Mohr—Mit.)_ ______________ TB B1L l _ 4 1, l 16 5 Bastien Lepage (Gay.) ________________ __l TB l Y4M l M 4 s (1 1 Beau Sabruer (Wmsn.) _______________ __l TB l YQD l M 4 M g 2 Beethoven (Barr)- _____________________ __l TB l B7M j EM 10 L 11 7 Belladonna (Koch) ____________________ __l TB l W2 l M 12 V11 m] g Belvidero (Mag.) _______________________ __l TB l 39L l M 12 VL 5U 7 Bercage (Alex.) ________________________ __ TB l B3M M 5 M 0 g Bernard Galloway (Perx) _____________ __ TB ' 129M l M 1Q L 3;, 7 Bismark (Dutch)- ____ ___ _______________ __ TB $6M l _- 10 L l; 4 Blue Jay (Farr) _______________________ _, TB B31) M 10 L 11 ll Bluestone (Pen)- ______________________ __ IB B9M E 5 M 11 2 Bluet (Sturt.) _________________________ __ 1B B1L _- 1(1- ; M 1;, 4 26 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Adaptability Rating‘ of Varieties—Continued i i Maxi- Maxi- Variety Type Color iSeason _Years mnm mum Adan 1n test size ino. bl. tabllity i plant per pl. Boccage (Lemon) ______________________ _- TB W9 i M 7 L 0 i 4 Bonita (Mohr-Mit.) ____________________ __ TB Y4M ‘ M 10 L 55 i 7 Bosniamae (Will.) ____________________ _- IB W3 E 5 L 0 4 Bosset (Verd.) _________________________ __ IB Y9L MLa 10 L 0 4 Brenthis (Wmsn.)_ ____________________ __ TB 83M M 11 VL 15 i 7 Bride (Cap.)_ __________________________ __ DB W4 M 7 L 7 i 5 Bridesmaid (SaL) ______________________ _- TB W2 M 10 L 1 i 5 Britannicus (Van H.) _________________ .._ TB SSM M l0 L 0 i 4 Bronze Beauty (Barr) _________________ __ TB 86M M 5 L 0 i 4 Burgos (Mill.) ............ _- DB B7D EM i 4 S 1 i 2 Butterfly (Kelway)____--__- ‘ DB Y5L EM i‘ 10 L 10 I 5 B. Y. Morrison (Sturt.) ______________ __, TB W9D M i 5 M 1 i 3 Cadenza (Wmsn.) ______________________ __i TB SQL M 7‘ L 30 6 Calypso (Lemon) ______________________ __‘ TB B3L M 4 L 0 4 Camelot (Bliss)- _______________________ _-i TB W2 M 5 L 1s 5 Cameo (Sturt.) ________________________ -_i TB S7L M 7 L 10 4 Camilla Dubar (Lap.) ________________ _-i TB R7L M i 8 M 17 4 Canary (Cap.) __________ -1. ____________ -_;‘ DB Y4L EM i 10 L 6 5 Canary Bird (P612) ______ __ ____i DB Y4D E “ 4 M i 0 2 Candlelight (And.) ________ -_ _-__i TB 34L M 4 S i 0 1 C. A. Pfeifier (Fry.) _________________ __ TB BSD M 7 L 0 4 Carcanet (Strum) ______________________ __ TB Y4M M 4 L i 0 4 Caroline E. Stringer (Sass-J.) ______ -_ TB W7 MLa 4 L 0 4 Cassandra (Per.)_ _____________________ __ TB 89L M 3 S i 0 1 Caterina (Fos.) ________________________ __' TB B1M E 4 L i 8 5 C. D. Hayes (Fry.) ___________________ __ TB S6M M 10 L i 5 5 Cecil Minturn (Farr) __________________ _- TB R7L EM 12 L I 20 i 7 Celeste (Lemon) _______________________ _- TB B1L EM 8 M 5 i 3 Celia (Yeld)- __________________________ __ IB B1L M 5 M i 0 i 2 Ceres (Cap.) ____________ _- --_- IB W3L E 5 L i 0 i 4 Chalcedony (Wmsn.)__-__ --_- ‘TB S7L M 12 VL i 15 i 7 Charles Darwin (Fos.) ________________ __' TB 89L MLa 5 VL i 11 i 7 Ohartier (Hall) ......................... -- IB WW M 1o L i 1o i s Cherubin (Vilm.) ______________________ __ IB R7L EM 10 L i 5 i 5 Cinnabar (Wmsn.) _____________________ __ TB B9D M 12 L i 10 i 6 Citronella (Bliss) ...................... __ TB Y9D M 9 L i 15 i 6 Clarence Wedge (Fry.) ................ -_ TB $6M EM 12 VL _ 60 1 8 Clarissa (Van H.) ____________________ __ IB B3L - 5 M 0 2 Classic (Grinter)_ ______________________ __ TB S3L M 3 S 0 1 Clematis (Bliss) ________________________ __ TB B3M M 1O L 10 i 6 Cleopatra (Lemon) _____________________ __ TB YL -— 5 M 0 i 2 Cluny (Vilm.) __________________________ __ TB BTM M 10 L 21 i 6 Colias (Wmsn.) ________________________ __ TB Y4L MLa 7 L 0 i 3 Comtesse de Courcy (Verd-E.) _______ _- IB W2 M i 12 VL 25 i 7 Contrast (G. 8a K.) ___________________ __ TB W3 M i 10 L i 4 i 5 Cora. (Mil.) TB I RIM M 7 L 6 5 Coronation (Moore)- __________________ __ TB i Y4D — 4 L 4 i 5 Crusader (Fos.) ________________ __-_ ____ __ TB B1L M i 12 VL 35 i 8 Cyanea (G. & K.) _____________________ __ DB B1D EM ‘ 10 L 4 i 5 Cygnet (Sturt.) ________________________ __ TB W4 M 9 L 25 8 i Dalila (Den.) ___________________________ __ IB Y3M M i 4 L 0 i 4 Dalmarius (Den.)--- TB s41. EM i 1o L 9 i 6 Damozel (Mor.) ________________________ _- TB W2 M i 10 L 22 i 7 Daniel Lesueur (Den.) _________________ __ TB W18 M i 10 L 0 i 4 Darkness (Mag.) _______________________ __ TB S31) MLa 12 L 1s i 7 Delicata (Park.)_ ...................... __ TB B3L _ i 1o M 0 i 2 Delicatlssima (Mil.) ____________________ __ TB R,3L M i 12 L 12 i 6 Delight (Shirt) ________________________ -_ TB W7 M 8 M 0 i 3 Desert Gold (Kirk) _____________________ __ TB Y4L E i 4 M 0 i 3 Diamond (Can)- ______________________ _- IB W3M EM i 12 L 15 i 7 Diane (Vilm.)__, _______________________ __ TB B3M M i 10 L 4 i 5 Dimity (Bliss) __________________________ __ TB W2 M 10 L 30 i 7 Do'1y Dladison (Wmsn.)_ _____________ __ TB S31. M 12 VL 50 i S Dolphin (0111).) ......................... -_ IB B3M EM i 1o L 15 6 Don Quixote (Mohr—Mit.)- ____________ _- TB S7L - i 4 L 10 5 Dora Longdon (Bliss) ................. -- TB $6M M 10 1. s 6 Dorothea (Can) ....................... -_ IB 1121. EM 4 ’ 1. a a mlugiiflm - ‘~_. M. ,~,,--,-ww_.-..,-_._-..,...._..w~¢-.,, ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 27 Table 5. Adaptability Rating of Varieties-Continued Maxi- Maxi- I Variety Type Color Season Years mum mum Adep- in test size no. bl. tability ‘ plant per pl. i i 1 Doxa. (Sass~H.P.) ..................... -- ‘IB | S6L E i 7 s 1 0 l 1 Drake (Bliss) ___________________________ __ TB B1M \ EM 12 VL 1 30 i 5 D1‘. Bales (Mag.)_ _____________________ __ TB B7M l MLa 7 L 1 3 | 5 Dr. Bernice (Hooper) .................. -- TB sen MLa I s M 6 i 8 Dream (Sturt.) _________________________ __ TB \ B7M M 12 VL 20 1 8 Dreamlight (Sturt) .................... __ TB i R7L M i 12 VL i 1s l 8 Dr. Hildershide (PheiL) _____ _- TB 5 B1D M 10 L . 38 7 Dr. Linnaeus Emerson (Stuhn. TB i B1L EM i 51 L 1 27 i 6 Dr. Malntor (Fry.) _______________ -- ___- TB i $6M M \ 10 L » 6 5 Dr. Sanford (Fry.) ____________________ __ TB 1 BSM MLa 7 L 8 l 5 Duc Decazes (Lemon) __________________ __ TB ‘ B3M M * 6 M 0 2 Duke of York (Per.) ___________________ -- TB B3L M 1 5 L 40 i 5 Eclipse (o»ep.) __________________________ __ DB 139D E F 1o L 2 l a Edina (Lemon) _________________________ __ TB W3 _- I 1o M 0 2 E. H. Jenkins (Bliss) __________________ __ TB B3M M , 4 M o» 1 2 Eleanor (Yeld) _________________________ __ TB $9M MLa. i 10 M 4 3 Ellen (Mag.) ___________________________ __ TB W2 M l 4 L 3 l 5 Ember (Sturt.) _________________________ _- TB R7D M g 12 VL 4o l 1 Empire (Sturt.) ________________________ __ IB Y4D MLa 1 4_ M 5 Q 3 Empress (Oap.) ________________________ __ IB W4 l EM 1o L 16 1 7 Enchantress (Park.)___.- ______________ __ TB YQM M 10 L 5 ~ 5 Erich (Farr) ____________________________ __ TB R7M - 8 L 0 ~ 4 Esperance (Farq.) _____________ __ ____ TB W8 i EM g 12 VL 50 l 5 Esplendido (Mohr.) ____________________ __ TB RED EM a 4 M 4 Q 4 Etolle du Matin (Vllm.) _______________ __ IB W1 M 1 12 VL 15- 7 Etta (Cap) ____________________________ __ IB Y4L ~ EM ‘; 12 VL 18 8 Eugene Verdler (Verd.) ________________ __ TB B1M 1 EM 1 10 I L 5 5 Euphemia (Lap.)_ _____________________ _- TB B91) M i u 5 L . 15 6 Evadne (Bliss)- ________________________ __ TB 12.71) 1 M 1 9 i v1. 1 75- e E. W. Roenig (PIeiL) _________________ __ TB SQL ; M 5 1o 1 L 1 o i 4 Exquisite (Park) ______________________ __ TB $6M MLa. ‘ 12 1 L i 7 . 5 l Fairy (Kenn.) __________________________ __ TB W1 MLa Z 4 L 1 5- 1 I Fairy Queen (SaL) _____________________ __ IB B3L 1 — i 10 L i 12 i 6 Feldspar (Mor.) _______________________ __ IB Y4L l EM 1 10 L i 10 i 5 Feronia (Per.) _________________________ __ TB R9M I M i 9 L 45 g 6 Fieberi (Rchb.) _________________________ __ 1)B B71) 1 M 1 12 VL 1 45 1 s fireball (Essig.)_ ______________________ __ TB s11) 1 _ 1 4 M > s 4 Flrmament (Gros.)___ ____ __ IB BSM 1 EM 12 L 16 = 5 Flamingo (Wmsn.)___-_- - - TB 89M i M . 4 L 1 0 1 4 Flammenschwert (G. & K.)__ __ ___ TB Y9D ‘ M l‘ 1O M y 0 2 Flavalba (Fos.) ________________________ -_ TB WW MLa 1 5 L 4 l 5 Flavescens (DO.) _______________________ __ TB Y4L E i 4 L l 0 4 Florence Wells (Barn) ____________ _i______ TB 3.1M M i 10 M 1 6 4 Florentina TB W1 i EM l 12 . L E 15 7 Floribunda (G. & K.) _________________ __ DB Y E 10 L l 0 , 4 Florida (G. & K.) ____________________ __ DB Y4L EM 10 M g 4 3 Fontarabie (Back.) ___________________ __ TB. I B3M EM 12 1 VL l 11 7 Formosa (G. 8a K.) ___________________ __ DB B3D EM 10 L 1 5 Forsete (B. & K.) ____________________ __ TB B1M M i 9' 1 L 25 6 Fortima (Mohr-Mlt.) __________________ __ TB RlM EM i 12 VL 25 8 F0ster’s Yellow (Fos.) ________________ __ IB Y4M MLa i 10 L i 5 5 Fra Angelico (Vilm.) __________________ __ IB 84L M ‘ 9 L 85 6 Frank M. Thomas ('Thom.) __________ __ TB W2 M 5 M 5 0 2 Freya (Oap.) ........................... __ IB B3M E 10 M 0 2 Friar Tuck (WmsnJ __________________ __ TB S91) M ‘l 4 S 0 1 Frieda Mohr (Mohr-Mit.) ____________ -- TB B7M M l 9 VL 15 s li‘ritjot (G. & K.) _____________________ -- IB BSM EM 12 VL 20 8 Fro (G. & K.) _________________________ __ IB Y9D M 10 L 1 18 7 Fulda (Bon.) __________________________ _- IB W3L EM 10 L ‘ 12 7 Gains (G. & K.) ______________________ __ T'B YQM M 3 L 5 5 Garden White (Sturt.) ________________ __ TB WW M 4 S ‘ 4 2 Garrick (Cap) ________________________ __ DB B9D E 10 L * 7 6 Gaviota (Mohr.) ...................... _- TB W3 M 8 L * 15 5 General Grant (Dutch) ________________ -_ TB $3M MLa 3 L 5 5 General McPherson (Per.) ____________ __ TB W9 -- 3 S 0 l Genghis Khan (Sturt.) ................ -- TB $9M M s I. 47 7 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRIUULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Adaptability Rating of Variet1es—Oontinued _ Maxi- E Maxi- Variety Type 1 Color Season Years 1 mum i mum 1 Adap- in test g size ;no. blQtability ‘~ plant fper p1.f Geo. J. Tribolet (Wmsn.) ............ __ TB $9M M 91 1 L 111 6 George Yeld (Per.) .................... __ TB S9M M 10 1 L 33 0 Gerda (G. & K.)_ _____________________ __ IB Y4M EM 12 VL 19 s Germaine Perthuis (Mil.) _____________ __ TB B7D M 4 L 0 4 Germanica (Linn.) _____________________ __ TB B1M EM 12 VL 29 8 Gertrude (Pet.) ........... -__ .......... __ TB B1M EM 7 L 4 5 Gise1e( Lemon)“ ....................... __ TB W8 M 5 M 0 2 Gladstone (Ware) ______________________ __ TB W3 M 5 L 25 7 Glitter (B1iss)----_.----_-_-_ TB 119M M 10 L o 4 Gloire de Hillegom (KreL)- ' TB B1M E 10 M 0 2 Gloriette (Lemon) ...................... -_ 1B W91) MLa, 10 M 1 1 3 Gold Crest (Dykes) ____________________ __ TBI B1M B 10 M 0 i 2 Gorgeous (Per.) ________________________ __ 1B B91) M 12 L s 1 6 Gov. Hughes (Fry.) __________________ __ TB RlM M 12 i VL 15 1 s Graechus (Ware) _______________________ __ TB Y9L MLa 4 ‘ M 5 s Gracieuse (Lemon) _____________________ __ TB B3M MLa 10 i VL s 4 7 Grapta (Wmsn.) ...................... __ IB $61M M 7 M 0 2 Gray Morn (Sturn)- _________________ __ TB B9D M 4 L 0 4 Greater May Queen (Weed) ____ __ TB R7M MLa 101 L 3 2 Grisette (Wmsn.) ............... __ TB S9M M 4 L s 5 G. _W. Peake (Fry.) ________________ __ TB s61) M 7 M 9 3 Gypsy Queen (SaL) ___________________ __ 1B $6M MLa. 10 ~ L 12 7 Halfdan (o. 80K.) ____________________ -_= 1B W4 EM 1 - VL 1 7 7 Hannibal (F. & P.) ___________________ __1 TB B3L 1 — 7 M 1 0 1 2 Harmony (Dykes) ______________________ __1 IB B1M ‘ M f 7 M 3 = 4- Harriet (Fry.) _________________________ __1 TB W2 1 M ~ 5 M 10 j 3 Harriet Presby (Presby) _______________ __‘ TB R7M MLa 1 7 L 0 1 4 Haydee (Van 151.)- .................... 'I‘B 1 B3L M 7 L 0 1 4 gelbe (fimoIv-z-lg-Tf-i ---------------- --, $3 ' Egg“ 3M 1g XL 3g 1 i e en ances ei . ________________ -_ 1 Helge (G. & K.) ....................... __1 IB 1141. EM 1o L 21 1 7 Henkler (Per.) _________________________ __1 TB \V9D M 12 L 25 1 7 Henri Biviere (Mil.) ___________________ __1 TB 89L MLa 4 L e 1 4 58161114“? (Gag-L; -------------------- e 1g g3; 111M 1g 1111 g 1 j er aJes y er. ____________________ -1 1 , i 1 Hesperis (Wmsn.) ______________ .._- ______ -_ TB $6M M 1 10 L 5 1 6 Hiawatha (Farr) _______________________ _1 IB B9D M ‘ 12 L 4 1 5 Honorabile (Lemon) ___________________ __1 IB YQM M 10 M 0 I 2 Hopatcong (B. 8a A.) _________ __ _-__ TB Y9M MLa 101 L 7 4 Horizon (M0r.).. ....................... __1 TB B1M ; s L 1o 5 Idion (Lemon) _________________________ __1 TB Y9M —- 1 10 L 0 4 Iduna (G. & K.) ...................... IB Y3M M 1 4 L 0 4 Igouf (Mi1.) ____________________________ __“ TB $3M MLa ‘ 10 L 6 5 Imperator (Oay.) ______________________ __" TB R9M H ; 10 L 6 5 Improved Chereau (Bratt) ____________ __1 TB W3 M I 10 L 4 1 6 Inca (Farr) 1 TB Y9M M 1 4 M 1 1 3 Incognita (F0s.) _______________________ __1 TB 89M MLa 5 L 4 1 5 Ingeborg (G. & K.) ___________________ __1 IB WW EM 1 12 VL -3 § 8 Ingomar (MIagJ _______________________ __1 TB B3L EM 10 M 0 1 3 Innocenza emon) _____________________ __; TB WW 1 M l0 L 0 1 4 Iris King (G. 8a K.) ___________________ __1 IB YQM 1 M 1 8 L 2 5 Iroquois (Farr)- ....................... TB s91) 1 MLa 1 l0 M 1 0 s Isoline (Vi1m.)- ________________________ __1 TB SQL 3 M l 5 M 0 1 2 Ivanhoe (M11)- ________________________ __1 TB B3M 1 M _ 4 L 0 i 4 Ivorine (Oap.)_ ......................... _: IB W4L 1 EM 1 10 L 7 1 6 Jacinto (Berry)- _______________________ __‘\ TB R1M —- 4 L 5 1 5 Jacqueline Guillot (Oay.) _____________ __1 TB B1L 1 M ‘ 9 L 18 ‘ 6 Jacquesiana (Lemon) __________________ __1 TB 1 S9M f M t 11 L 5 ’ 6 James Boyd (Farr)__-___- ‘ TB ,1 B3M M 10 L 11 7 Jane Williamson (Wmsn.) j TB f 87L ‘ M 1 7 S 0 1 .1. B. Dumas (Den.) .................. __1 TB 1 R3M 1 _ 4 M 4 Jean Chevreau (Gay) ................ __1 TB 1 Y5L 1 M 4 M 0 3 Jeanne d’Arc (Verd.) __________________ __1 TB W2 M 12 L 25 1 7 Jessie Campbell (Mag.) ................ _; TB S9L 1 MLa 1 10 L so i John Bull (Ware) _____________________ TB M R7L _- 4 s 0 1 1 Jubilee (Sass-J.) _______________________ _. 1B ‘ S51. M ‘ 8 M 30 5 ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 29 Table 5. Adaptability Rating‘ of Varieties—(2ontinued Maxi- Maxi- Variety Type Color Season! Years i mum mum Adap- i i in test i size no. bhitability i ’ plant ’per p1.‘ Judith (Van H.) ...................... _- IB i YGD E 10 L 0 4 Julia Marlow (Shull)-_ - TB ‘ R9M M‘ 12 VL 75 e June Bride (Grinter) ..... __ -__ TB i WW M 4 M 0 3 Jungfrau (Phipps) _____________________ __ TB i W3 - 7 M o 2 Juniata (Farr) _________________________ __ TB i B1M MLa i 12 VL 50- 8 Justinian (SaL) ________________________ __ TB i s91) M _‘ 10 M 5 4 Kansas (Tim.)_ ________________ _"_ ______ __ TE i’ 133M MLa i 10 L 0 4 Kashmir White (Fos.) ________________ __ TE i W4 i M i 1o L 5 5 Katharine McFarland (Spitzer) ....... __ TB i BTD M 11 M 0 3 Kathryn FryerKFry.) ................. _- TB i Y9M M i 5 L 4 5 Kedron (Wa1.)_ ........................ -_ TB i B9B M i 11 L - e e Khedive (Barr) ________________________ __ TB i B1L M i 1o M 0 3 King Christian (Oap.) ................ __ IB W4 M I 1o L 3 5 King George (Per.) ___________________ __ TB B7M EM 10 M 4 3 King Karl (Sass-J.) ____ -__. ___________ __ IB $5M M 10 L 0 4 King Midas (Mead) ____________________ __ IB i 86D EM 4 M 0 3 Kublai Khan (Wmsn.) ................ -_ TB i R3D M 5 s 3 2 LaBeaute (Clark-Dom)- ______________ __ 1B B1M M i 1o L 1:; 6 Labor (Gay.) __________________________ __ TB B7M M 7' M 0 3 Lady Byng (Bliss) ____________________ _- TB R7M M 12 L 10 5 Lady Foster (Fost.) __________________ -- TB B3M M i a VL 15 s Lady Jellicoe (Pen) ___________________ __ TB W9 -- a 1o L o i 4 Lady Liltord (Fos.) .................. -- IMB i s31) i MLa| 10 M i 0 i 3 Lady Seymour (Van H.) _____________ -- IB B3L MLa i 1o M i 0 i 3 LaMierka (Mil.) ......................... _- TB B2L M i 4 M 5 9 3 LaNeige (Verd.) ........................ _- IB W4 MLa i 1o L e 5 LaPerle (Gap) ......................... __ IB Y4L EM i 10 L 10 5 Lavandulaceae (Van H.)- ............ __ TB S1L MLa i 10 M 4 4 Le Oorrege (Vilm.) .................... -- TB s91) EM i 4 s 5 2 Leda (Farr) ........................... _- IB W8 M i 12 VL i 20 8 Lent A. Williamson (Wmsn.) ________ _- TB 83D EM 5 L i 0 4 ) $133 £111 - 10 {L i 2o 7 1M M 1o ' 5 5 Leopold (Gap)- _______________________ -- DB B7M E 5 M 4 3 Le Pactole (Lemon) ___________________ -_ TB B3=M M i 10 L ; 0 4 Lerema (Wmsn.) ...... --. ............... -- TB 89M M 12 L g 5 5 Leseble (Lemon) ________________________ __ TB B3D~ MLa 10 L- = 9 5 Lohengrin (G. & K.) .................. __ TB RlL M 12 VL i 61 9 Lois (Pteit) ........................... __ TB B1L M 5 M i 4 3 Lord Grey (Lemon) _____________________ -- TB s4M M 10 L i s 4 Lord of June (Yeld) .................. _- TB B3M M 10 VL ‘ 24 7 Loreley (G. & K.) _____________________ _- TB Y3D M 12 L i 101 0 Louise Arbuckle (Mag.) ............... __ TB S8L MLa 4 L i 5 4 Louis Van Houtte (Lemon) ___________ __ TB ssL _- 4 L i o 4 Lugarda (Sturt.) ...................... _- TB R7D M 10 M i 7 3 Lygia (Van W.) _______________________ ._ TB R7L - 5 M i- 0 2 Mady Carriere (Mil.) __________________ __ TB B1L - s L i 4 6 Maid Marian (031).) _____________ __ TB 89L MLa 7 L i e 4 Majestic (Bliss) ....................... _- TB BaM M 9 L , 5 i 5 MaMia (Cay.) .......................... __ IB Ws M 7 L i 17 ‘ 7 Manndelay (Sturh) .................... -_ TB B1M M i 5 M l o i 2 M. A. Porter (Lap.) __________________ __ TB S91:- M ‘ 7 L 1 0 ~ 4 Mareschal (Siturt) ..................... __ TB S31, MLa 1o L 3 5 Mareschal Ney (Wmsn.) .............. __ TB 84D M 7 M 10 4 Margaret Moor (Bliss) ................ -_ TB RL7L M 12 L 5 6 Margaret Sheridan (Fry) ............ -_ TB 86D M 5 M 4 3 Marie Corelli (Barr) ___________________ __ TB Y3M - 4 L 4 5 Marie Louise Caillai: (Hudson) _______ __ TB B3M E 7 L 0 4 Mariposa (Mohr) ....................... __ TMB B3L MLa 5 L 1o ' 5 Maritana (Ware) ....................... -- TB W8 EM s L 2 5 Marjolin (Lemon) ______________________ _- TB YQM - 1o L 0 4 Marocain (Mil.) ________________________ _- DB 139D M 7 s 2 3 Mars (Calm) IB B7M i E i 10 L 0 i 4 Mary Barnett (Cumin) ............... __ TB B1L i EM i 10 L 12 i 7 Mary Gibson (Per.)_--__ TB 89L i M i 8i M 10 4 Mary Gray (Farr) _____________________ -- TB B1M i M 5 L 0 4 3U BULLETIN N0. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Adaptability Rating‘ of ‘Varieties-Continued “L11 mmarmai-IH Maxi- Maxi- Variety i Type i Color iSeason Years mum 1 mum i Adap- i i in test i size ‘no. bl. tability i i i 1 plant per pl. 1 i i 3 Mary Minanelle (Van H.) _____________ _-i TB i W1 i - 5 M 0 2 s. Massasoit (Farr) ................... -_ i TB i BIM i M 5 L 3 5 Matador (Sturt.) .................. __ 1 TB i s91) i EM 10 L 7 5 4 Matilda (Sass—J.) _______________________ -3 TB 1 W2 i - 12 M 4 4 Maureen (Waterer) ______________________ _i TB R9M ‘ M 10 L 30 7 Maurelie (Dessert) _____________________ __i TB $6M ‘ MLa 10 L 5 6 Mauvine (Dean) ________________________ __i TB R3M i M s L 10 6 May Morn (McK.) ..................... -_~ TB S6L i M 5 M 0 2 May Rose (Clem)- ____________________ -_‘ IB ‘ R7M ‘ M 5 L 0 4 May Sadler (Per.) _____________________ __i TB Bg-M M 7 M 0 t 3 _ Medallion (Sturt.)_ ____________________ __i TB i Y9M M 3 L 0 l 4 Medrano (Vilm.) _______________________ __i IB i s61) i M s M 0 1 a Mephistopheles (Dutch) ________________ __i TB 83M i - 4 M 0 i 2 Merlin (Sturt.)_____--_- TB B31) i M 4 s o i 2 Messaline (Mil.) ........................ __* TB Y9L i - 4 1 L i 4 a 6 Mestor (Per.) ________________________ __ TB RQM M 9 ; VL i 25 8 Midgard (Sass.—H.P.) _________________ __‘ TB s41, i M 4 a M i 2 4 Midwest (Sass-LLB)- _______________ __ TB W8 ' M 8 1 M i 11 ; 5 Mikado (Den.) _________________________ __j TB BQM i M 10 ; L ' 10 5 Mildred Presby (Farr) ________________ __ TB i W9 i EM 12 VL 50 i 8 Mirage (Fos.) _______________ __-_ ________ __ TB ‘ $6M i MLa 10 i L 6 5 Miss Eardley (Per.) ___________________ __ TB i Y3D M 10 i L 0 4 Miss Georginana (Pfeii) ______________ -= TB i B9M - 1o L o 4 Miss Maggie (Fos.) ___________________ __i TB i BSL EM 10- L 20 6 Miss Rowe (Per.) ______________________ -1 TB RQM M 12 VL 10 7 Mithras (G. &. K.) _____________________ __ IB Y9D i La 1o M. 0 a Mlle. Schwartz (Den.) _________________ __i TB B7L i EM 10 i VL 25 7 Mme. Blanche Pion (Cay.) ____________ -; TB Y9L i M 4 i L 0 4 Mme. Chereau (Lemon) _______________ __‘ TB W2 i M 13 ‘ VL 30 8 Mme. Cheri (Start) __________________ _-; TB 87M E 4 M 0 3 Mme. Chobaut (Den.) ________________ __1 TB ’ 88M M 12 i VL 100 9 Mme. Denis (Den.) .................... -_i TB j s21) M i e i M s 4 Mme. De Sevigne (Den.) _______________ __i TB i W8 EM 12 i VL 60 9 Mme. Guerville (Verd-E.) _____________ __i TB W2 M 10 t L 0 4 Mme. Henri Cayeux (Cay.) __________ __= TB 89D MLa 8 i S 0 ‘ 2 Mme. Modesto (Verd.) ................. __ TB W2 M 10 i L 26 i 6 Mms. Thibault (Verd-E.) _____________ __ TB W8 MLa. 10 i M 3 i 4 Modesto Guerin (Verd.) ________________ __ TB $6M = M 12 VL 15 1 8 Monhasson (Dessert) ................... __ DB Y9M M 10 L 0 4 Monsignor (Vilm.) _____________________ __ IB B9D M 12 i VL 100 9 Montezuma (Farr) _____________________ __i TB Y5M MLa? 5 , L 0 4 Moonlight (Dykes) _____________________ __ TB W4 M 6 i L 11 6 Moor (Cap) ____________________________ -_ TB B1M EM 10 i L 9 5 Morning Splendor (Shull) _____________ _- TB R7D M 1O i L 16 6 Mother of Pearl (Sturt.) _____________ _- TB B7L E 10 i- VL i 19 i 7 Mozart (Van H.)_ ____________________ __ TB $19M MLa 10 L * 10 i 5 1 Mrs. Allan Gray (Fos.) .............. __ TB RlL ELa 10 i L i 5 i 6 ~ Mrs. A. M. Brand (Fry.) ____________ __ TB W2 M 10 i L i 0 i 4 i Mrs. B. F. Hoffman (Meyer—F.B._--_ TB R9D* M i 12 VL 25 i 7 ; *O'bserved. ' ‘ 9 Mrs. Blakely (Fry.) ___________________ __ TB W3 M 10 M 0 2 Mrs. Bossart (Fry) ___________________ _- TB Y3M M 10 L 0 4 Mrs. Cowley (Bliss) ..................... -- TB SGM M 11 L 10 i 5 g Mrs. E. B. Large (Perry) ___________ __ TB 89L EM 9 VL 30 i 7 .1 Mrs. Edward Harding (Per.) ........ _- TB 84M EM 9 L 3 i 6 g Mr. Shaw (Barr) ...................... _- TB 89L EM 10 L 43 i 6 i Mrs. Hayes (Fry.) ____________________ __ TB Y9D MLa 10 L i 10 i 5 Mrs. Hettie Matson (Per.) ........... -- TB $9M M 4 L i 12 i 7 1 Mrs. Horace Darwin (Fos.) __________ __ IB W1 M 6 i L i 0 i 4 g Mrs. Kimball (Fry.) ___________________ _- TB 89M M 5 i L i 4 i 5 g Mrs. Neubronner (Reuthe) ____________ __ TB Y4D M 10 i M 0 ' 2 3 Mrs. Reuthe (Ware) ................... -_ 1B W2 M 12 i VL i 27 . 8 4 Mrs. Smith (Fry.) _____________________ _- TB Y4D - 1o L i 0 i 4 i Mrs. W. Cuthbertson (Per.) ......... -- TB SQM M ‘ 7 VL i 22 i 7 i Munico (Lemon) _______________________ _- IB Y9D E ‘ 10 M 0 3 Munite (F. a P.) ..................... _- TB Y3]. - m L i 0 i 4 Nancy Orne (Sturt) .................. _. 'I‘B 89M i M 1o L 1 1e i o Naomi (SturtJ _________________________ -_ TB R9M M 7 L I 25 i 6 ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS 1N TEXAS 31 Table 5. Adaptability Rating of varieties—(lontinued r I v Maxi- | Maxi i i i l Variety i Type i Color ‘Season Years mum ' mum i Adan i in test size no. blfitability ‘ plant per pl. f i i ; Nathalis (Wmsn) ______________________ __i TB i R7M M 12 L 25 , 7 Nationale (Lemon) _____________________ __i 1n l B3D MLa 10 L 7 i e Naushon (Sturt.)_ _____________________ __i TB ; 83D M 12 L 8 i 6 Navajo (Farr) _________________________ --l IB i SGM MLa 12 L 25 i 7 Nebulae (Bratt) ________________________ __ TB i WSL — 5 L . 0 j 4 Neglecta (Horne)- _____________________ __ TB i B3L MLa 10 M 7 i 4 Negus (MiL) ........................... -- DB ~ B1D EM 10 L 7 i 6 Nellie Quinn (Fry.) ___________________ __ TB W3 — 10 L 0 i 4 Neptune (Yeld) _________________________ _- TB B3M i MLa 12 VL 20 i 8 Nibelungen (G. 8a K.) ................. __ TB i S6M M 10 L 13 6 Nimbus (Shull) ......................... _- TB l B31) — 4 L 4 6 Nine Wells (FosJ _____________________ __ TB i B3LD M 10 L 27 7 Nothung (G. & K.) ___________________ __ TB i S4L MLa 12 L 2 i 5 Nova Aurea (H. ‘a s.) _______________ _- DB § m) E 1o VL 4 i s NOWaDa (MCK.) ________________________ __ TB i W8 EM 10» L 6 i 6 Nudicaulis (Hook) _____________________ __i DB i BQM EM 11 VL 50 i 8 Nuee d’0rage (Vt-rd.) _________________ __‘ TB $3M MLa 10 L 7 i 5 Ochracea Caerulea (Den.) _____________ __f TB 84L MLa 4 S 0 i 1 Odoraloc (And.)_ ______________________ __* TB RTL M 10 VL 25 I 7 Odoratissima (J acquin) ________________ __ TB B7L M 12 VL 45 8 ODEIB (ViIIIL) __________________________ __; IB 89D M 12 L 14 7 Orange Queen (Barr) _________________ __=‘ DB Y4D E 7 S 1 2 Oread (Mor.) ___________________________ __i TB 89D M i 10 L < s 6 Oriflamme (Vim.) ______________________ __i TB 133M M s M i o 3 Orizaba (Berry) _________________________ __i TB B3D EM 9 VL ‘ 10 7 Orleans (Lemon) _______________________ __f TB R71) EM 12 L ‘ 25 i 7 Othello (Lemon) ________________________ __ TB BaD MLa 1o i L i 9 i 5 Pancrace (Van H.) ..................... TB 89L M 12 L 2o i 7 Pare de Nevilly (Verd.) _______________ -_ IB B7D ; M i 12 L 20‘ 7 Parkmani (cm) _______________________ __ TB Y4M j - i 12 L i 0 i 4 Paulina (Hort.) ________________________ _- TB R7M M f 12 VL 30 Y 8 Paxatawny (Farr) _____________________ __ TB S3L M i 12 L 0 4 Pearl (Van S.) ________________________ __ TB S1L EM i 12 L 20 6 Persia (Ayers) ______________________ _-.__- TB $3M M 4 M 0 3 Pete Detrick (Mag) __________________ __ TB Y9M M 6 L 0 4 Petite Amie (Mil.) _____________________ __ DB W3 - 10 L 0 i 4 Petrel (Mor.) ___________________________ __ IB B3L - M i 9 M . 6 4 Petruchio (Mor.) _______________________ __ TB 86M M 9 L g 6 6 Pfauenauge (F. 8a K.) ................. __ DB 86L MLa 10 L ; 1 5 Phidias (Lemon) ___________________ -___-_ IB $6M M 7 M 3 3 Pink Pearl (Olev.) ____________________ -- TB R9L M 10 L 16 6 Pioneer (Bliss) _________________________ __ TB B9D EM i 9 VL 1 15 8 Plicata Sappho (Farr) ................ __ TB Y5 — 9 L i 0 4 Pluie d’Or (Gay.) _____________________ _- TB Y4M M 7 M i 5 4 Plumeri (Ware)- _______________________ -- TB 89D EM 10 L 10 6 Powhatan (Farr) ______________________ -- TB R7M M 12 VL 55 9 President Thiers (Dutch)__ _- TB SSD M 10 L 13 6 Prestige (Sturt.) ...... __ __- IB Y9L E 7 L 0 4 Primrose Sturt.) ....................... _- TB Y4L M 5 S 3 2 Princess Beatrice (Barr) ............... ._ TB B1L EM 9 L 5 5 Princess Osra (Bliss) ................... __ TB W2 M 8 M 15 4 Princess Royal (Smith) ............... __ TB B1M EE 10 L 0 4 Prince Victor (Can) __________________ _- IB B3D EM 5 M 2 3 Prinzess Victoria Luise (G. & K.)_____ IB Y9L ELa 10 M 5 4 Priscilla (Hall) _________________________ -_ TB B9L MLa 1O L 4 5 Proserpine (Lemon) ____________________ -- TB $4M —- 10 L 0 4 Prosper Laugier (Verd.) .............. __ [B 89D M 12 L 20 7 Prospero (Yeld) ________________________ -_ TB B9M MLa 8 M 0 3 Purissima (Mohr-Mit.) ................ __ TB WW EM 9 VL 10 7 Purple King (Wallich)_ ............... __ IB RID EM 12 VL 40 8 Quaker Lady (Farr) __________________ -- TB 83L M 12 VL 70 9 Queen Caterina (Sturt.) ______________ __ TB B7L M 12 VL 80 9 Queen Elinor (Hort.)_--- -_ T]? i BQM EM 9 VL 5 7 Queen liflavia (Gap.)---_ -_ IB i Y4L M 12 L 15 7 Queen Mary (Pen) .................... __ TB i B1M EM 10 L 4 6 Queen of May (SaL) ................... __ TB i B7L EM 12 VL 80 9 BULLETIN NO. 615, AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 5. Adaptability Rating‘ of Variet L Season [ Years ies—Gontinued 1 \ Maki- i Maxi- Variety TYDe Color mum mum l Adap- 7 in test , size no. blfltability ‘ “ plant ‘per pl. l \ 1 ‘ i Queen Victoria (SaL)- ................ -_ TB B7L — I 10 L ; 0 4 Quinnipiac (Nam.) _____________________ __ IB $6M MLa 3 5 M 5 3 Rajput (Sturt.) ........................ -- TB B7M EM , 9 VL i 10 7 Rakan (Sturt.) _________________________ __ TB Y9D EM 5 L 1 2 5 Ramapo (B. & A.) ____________________ __ TB RQM MLa 10 L 9 5 Ramona (Mohr-Sturt.) ________________ __ 1B S4L EM 9 VL 40 7 Rangoon (SturtJ ______________________ __ IB BQM EM 10 L 13 7 Rasakura (Wmsn.)_ ___________________ _- TB RQM M 7 L 19 7 R. C. Rose (Fry.) ____________________ -_ TB S9'D MLa 10 L 7 5 Red Cloud (Farr) _____________________ __ TB $9M M 12 L 15 7 Red Glory (Fry.) ______________________ __ TB 39D M 7 L 0 4 Red Riding Hood (Koeh.)_ ___________ __ TB RQM M 12 VL 70 9 Rembrandt (Oap.) _____________________ __ IB B1L EM 7 L 13 6 Reticulata Alba_ ______________ -_ _ TB W3L - 10 M 5 3 Reverie (Sturt.)--_ ___ TB S6M 1 MLa 7 M 0 2 Rhea (Wmsn.) _________________________ __ TB $9M 1 M 12 VL 10 7 Rhein Nixe (G. 8a K.) _________________ __ TB W9 M 10 L 0 4 Rhoda (Yeld) ___________________________ __ TB 87L 1 EM 10 L 9 6 Reis von Connern (Muller) ___________ __ TB B1M 1 M 6 M ‘ 0 2 Ringdove (Fos.) _______________________ __ TB B3M i M l 12 L 6 5 Rodney (Bliss)- ........................ __ TB B1M E M 12 VL l 90 9 R-olandiana (Lemon) ___________________ _. TB B1M l MLa 5 L 4 5 Romance (M1112)- ______________________ -_ TB S7M EM 7 L 3 5 Rose Ash (M012) ______________________ -_ TB 87L M 11 VL 30 8 Rosedale (Koeh.) _______________________ __ IB B1M M 12 VL 95 9 Rose Madder (Sturt.) _________________ __ TB RQD M 9 L 6 5 Rose Magill (Meyer-F.B.) _____________ __ TB RsL EM 10 L 7 6 Rose-Marie (Oay.) _____________________ __ TB $9M M » 9 VL 15 8 Rose Unique (Farr)_ _______________ _.‘___ IB RQM - 4 M 4 3 Royal (0211).) ___________________________ -_ IB B1D EM 10 VL 7 25 7 R. R. Smith (Fry.) ______ __ TB B7L EM 12 VL f 23 8 Ruby (0111).)- _____________ _- TB s31) EM 1o L * 12 7 Rubyd (Dykes) _________________________ __ IB R7D ; M 9 VL 40 7 Rugajo (Weed) _________________________ -_ TB RQM i EM 11 1 L 3 6 Ruth Pfeifier (Pteit) _________________ _- TB W3L l M 1O 5 L 10 5 Sambucina (Linn.) _____________________ __ TB $9M M 7 = L 8 4 Sans Souci (Van H.) __________________ __ TB Y9M MLa 1O L 10 5 K Santa Barbara (Mohr-Mit.) __________ __ TB B1L E 4 L 0 4 Sapho (Lemon) ________________________ _. TB 86L EM 7 i L 7 5 Sarabande (Sturt.)_ ___________________ _- TB S6L M 10 5 M \ 0 2 Saturne (Krel.) _________________________ __ TB s61, -- 1o ; L = o 4 Schiller (WaL)- ________________________ __ TB Y9M -- 10 ; L l 7 4 Segovia (Wmsn.)_ _____________________ __ TB B71) M 10 } VL g 25- s Sequoiah (Shul1)_ ______________________ __ TB 86D M 12 L g 15 7 Serenade (Hall) ________________________ __ TB R1L EM 4 VL Y 25 7 - Shakespeare (Van W.) ________________ __ TB 129M I M 4 L 1 6 5 Shelford Yellow (F04) _______________ __ TB Y4L \ M 1o VL » 54 7 s Sherwin-Wright (Koh.) ________________ __ IB Y4D ‘ MLa Y 4 L 4 i 5 Shrewsbury (Farr) _____________________ IB RQ-M EM l 1o , L 10 1 5 Silvia (Hort.) __________________________ __ TB B7L M 10 M 0 3 Sindjkha (Sturt.) ______________________ __ TB 83M M 3 12 VL 29 8 Sir Galahad (Shull)_ .................. -- TB R9M -— i 10 l L 5 5 Socrates- DB R9D E 5 12 ‘ VL 35 8 Soledad (Mohr)_ _______________________ __ IB Y4L E 1 10 L 15 6 Sound Money (Sass-J.) _______________ __ DB Y4M E 1 3 M 0 3 Souv. de Loetitia Michaud (Mil.) .... _- TB B1L M § 8 M 8 3 Souv. de Mme. Gaudichau (Mil.) ____ -- TB B3D EM g 11 L 6 6 Standard (Per.) ________________________ __ DB B9D EE l 9 M O 2 Standard Bearer (Ware) ______________ -- TB R7D — Q 12 L l8 7 Statellae (T0d.) ........................ __ DB W4 E § 7 L 17 5 St. Clair (Lemon) _____________________ _- TB \ W2 M , 12 L 15 6 Steepway (Scott)--__ __ TB 1 S7M M 12 L 10 \ 6 Stipple (Essig)____ _____ IB ‘ W2 r M ‘ 4 S 0 1 l - Striate (Bratt) ......................... __ IB \ W2 - 4 L 0 1 4 Susan Bliss (Bliss) ____________________ __ TB | R7L M 10 VL 25 i 8 Suzanne Autissier (Den.) ______________ _- TB i B91) EM 11 VI. 5O 8 Swatara (Farr)- _______________________ -_ TB $3M M 7 L 9 5 ADAPTABILITY STUDIES WITH BEARDED IRIS IN TEXAS 33 '1‘a.b1e 5. Adaptability Rating of Va.1=£eties—Continued _ i i i i _ Maxi- Maxi- Variety Type Color Season Years mum mum Adan . in test size no. bl. tablllty i i plant per pl. i ii.fi. i i i‘ Sweet Lavender (Bliss)- .............. _- TB R3L M 9 L» 20 i 6 Sweet Sixteen (Lap.) __________________ -- TB 3 B7M i MLa 10 L 1 ‘ 4 Swerti ................................... __ TB i W8 i M 12 VL 26 8 Sylphide (Lemon) _________________________ __i TB i W8 i M i 10 L 6 6 Sympathy (Ware) ______________________ __i TB i BBL i M i 12 L 15 7 i i - Taj Mahal (Sturt.)~_ __________________ -_ TB i W4 i M i 7 M 3 3 Tecumseh (Farr) _______________________ -- TB i $6M ; MLMi 10' L 0 3 Tendresse (Van H.) ___________________ -- TB i B3L ' EM 10' VL 14 7 Tenebrae (Bliss) ________________________ __i TB i RQD i M 9 L 0' 4 Terias (Wmsn.) ________________________ __i TB i Si7L i M 8 VL 35 7 Theseus (Hort.) ........................ IB i W4 i M l2 vL 12 1 Thorbecke (Veitch)____ ____________ -- TB i‘ W3 i MLa 10 M 3 3 Tineae (T0d.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ __ TB i B1M i EM 10 L 6 5 Titan (Bliss) ___________________________ __i TB i B3Mi M 10 VL 7 ‘I Titus (P612) ____________________________ __i TB i R7Mi EM 12 i VL 63 i 9 Tom Tit (Bliss) _______________________ _- TB i BID M 7 i L 4 i 5 - Tristesse (Van H.) ................... __ TB SBM M 10 L 0 4 Tropic Seas (Shull) ____________________ __ TB i B3M EM 10' i L 15 5 Trostinger (Sass-H.P.) _______________ _- TB i B1L EM 9 i VL 35 i 3 Troyon (Cay.) _________________________ -_ TB i S6 MLa i 5 i S i ii i 1 True Charm (Sturt.) .................. _- TB i W2 M 9 i vL 25 7 True Delight (Sturt.) _________________ __i TB i Ws i MLa 4 i L 0 4 U‘ndine(Koeh.) _________________________ __i TB B1D i M 4 i M 0 2 Urbana (Black)- ........................ __i TB i B1L M 11 L 20 6 Valery Mayet (Den.) ................... __i TB i 89D M i 11 i VL 20 7 .Van Cleve (Nam.) _____________________ __ TB i B3D MLa ‘ 12 i L 0 4 Violet Queen (Hubert) _________________ _i IB i B1M — 10 M 0' i 2 Virginia Moore (Shull) ________________ __ TB ~ Y9L i M 10 i L 0 4 Virginie (Lemon) _______________________ __i TB i 133M . M 10 i L i) i 4 Vondel (Barr) __________________________ __i TB Y3M —- 4 i L i) 4 Waconda(Sass—H.P.) .................. _I TB B1M M 4 i L i 0 3 iValhalla (G. & K.)'_ __________________ IB BeM EM 10 VL i 25 i 7 Walter Scott (Lemon) ................... __i TB i Y9M i -— 5 i L i 0 i 4 , Wanda (Mag) ......................... __i TB i R3M i — 7 M i 0 i 2 Wawayanda (B. & A.) _______________ __i TB i 89D i M 10 i L i 14 i 5 Wedgewood (Dykes) ___________________ __i TB B1M i E 7 i L 0 i 3 Weequahic (B. 8a A.) _________________ __i TB B3M i M 10 i M 0‘ 2 Whifienpooi (Sturt.) .................. __i TB $6M MLa s L i a s White Nymph (McK.) ................. __i TB we i MLa a i 3 i» Wild Rose (Sturh) ____________________ __i TB R7L i M 5 i i William Marshall (Pelt) ______________ __i TB RIM i M 11 i VL i 3 6 Willie Barr (Barr) _____________________ __; IB SSL i MLa 10 i L i 3 5 Willoughby (Hort.) .................... __ TB B1Mi MLa s i L i 9 s Windham (Farr) _______________________ __ 1B R9L M 1O L U 4 Wyomissing (Farr)- ___________________ __ IB i RQL i M i 11 L i 16 6 i i i i i i " Yataghan(Wmsn.) ____________________ TB i Y9L M i ' 7 i L 12 i (i . Yellowstone (Hall) ..................... TB Y9D M 4 i L i 0 4 a Yvonne Pelletier (Mil.) ________________ __ TB i B1L M 5 S , 0 l Zada (Emig.)_ ......................... __‘ TB W1 i M 11 VL 25 i 7 Zua (Craw.) ................ __i __________ _i 1B i W1 i E i 8 L ‘ 0 4 Zwanenburg (Den.) ____________________ __j IMB S6L i E i 5 M 0 2 i i i i Type and color formulas, and season of bloom where plants did not bloom are as listed in the Alphabetical Iris Check List for 1939. Type: DB——dwarf bearded; IB-intermediate bearded; TB-tall bearded, IMB—Ta1l mixed bearded. Color: B—-blue; R—'I'EddlSh; Y—Yellow; W-white; S-squalens or blend; 1 to 3—blue toned; 1—self; 2—feathered; 3—bicolor; 4 to 6—~yeillow toned; 4—self; 5—feathered; G-bicolor; 7 to 9- pink toned; 7-—self; 8—feathered; Qe-bicolor; L-light; M-medium; D—dark. Season: EE-very early; E——early; EM-early midseason; M-mid-season; MLa—late mid- season; La-late. Size plant: S-srnall; M-medium; L-—-large. Adaptability rating: 1 to 10—verv poor to excellent.