6 
The Literature of the Iris 
T „ — - ■*-« - .?• .i *.*'- r, t, ^rl.‘za; 
near Coimbra in November, and we have no y t S con fused from the time of 
distinct from the Central European f J “ ^ pieudo p m nla (see also p. , 4 t). 
Linnaeus. It is much more closely allied to, it not iden i • t twin ridges at 
/. angustifolia major is identified with /. sfurm by its capsules with prominent twin ridges 
the Seven "years 'laterf ’ in ' 1^583, Clusius published an account of some plants that he had observed 
in Austria and Pannonia. The first of these is /. susiana, which had been introduced to Vienna 
from Constantinople by an Austrian ambassador in , 57 3- '■ legato ' s a s ° not ‘“ d ' and L “ 
cZrarii is probably one of the forms now known as sambucna or sgual'ns, winch are apparently 
of hybrid origin, with I. variegata as one parent (see also p. 1 73)- 
At p, 4 we find an L caulif'ra purpurea, distinguished by the fact that tts stems nse no 
from the midst of the leaves but apart from them. This ,s probably the earliest account of 
/. aphylla Linn, (see also p. 157)* , . r / ■ 
Among his Chamaeiris Clusius includes both the plants that we now know as I. chamaeiris 
and I. pumila and thus started a confusion, which is still the despair of the gardener (see 
P ' ' Of beardless Irises we find I. spuria, /. siiirica and 7. graminea grouped together as major, 
media and minor forms of an I. angustifolia (see also pp. 5 8 an ^ W 
Some of Clusius' species were illustrated by woodcuts (e.g. I. lusitamca -I. subbifiora Hisp 
p. 282), and in those days, when once a block was made, it seems to have been freely lent and 
borrowed. Thus we find that many of Clusius' figures are identical with those that occur in Lobe] is 
works and vice versa. In Lobel's leones Stirpium. published at Antwerp in i 5 9«. we find in 
addition to Clusius’ species /. (Hcrmodactylus) tuberosa (p. 98), Xyrts et Ins agrta Theophrasli 
( = /. foetidissima, p. 70), A corns nostra palustris ( = /. pscudacoms, p. 58), and, possibly, on p. 59, 
I. germanica and /. florentina. 
In 1601 Clusius published at Antwerp his general history of the Rarer Plants, but the list ot 
Irises given in this work contains no important additions. The same may be said of the series 
of Iris figures contained in the Hortus Eystettensis of 1613. Indeed, most of the figures given 
there bear a curiously close resemblance to those in the earlier works that have been already 
mentioned. In some cases the names have been changed and noticeably that applied to the 
Portuguese bearded Iris which has become I. portugalica, while the name of /. biflora is now 
applied to the Central European /. aphylla. 
The next important book for the history of Iris names is Caspar Bauhin s Pinax Theatri 
Botanici, which was published at B&le in 1623. Its importance does not lie in the information 
that is contained in it, for it is a mere compilation from earlier works, but in the fact that it 
forms the connecting link between Linnaeus and the earlier writers. Linnaeus himself does not 
quote Clusius, but the majority of the Linnaean species of Iris can be traced back to him through 
Bauhin’s Pinax. 
The Linnaean Herbarium. 
The specimens of Iris in Linnaeus' collection, which is now preserved at the Linnaean Society 
in London, represent about twenty-four species. The collection was probably made many years 
after the appearance of the first edition of the Species Plantarum (1753), for those which are dated 
are all posterior to 1770. Moreover, the discrepancies between the plants as named in the collection 
and Linnaeus' published descriptions, lead us to infer that he can hardly have had these specimens 
before him when the descriptions were written. Indeed, apart from Pallas' specimens, which are, 
if not the actual types, at any rate duplicates of them, very nearly half of the Linnaean specimens 
appear to be wrongly named, as the following list shows. 
Sptciu of which /he specimens agree uii/h the 
descriptions in the Species Plantarum 
/. sitsiana 
/. variegata 
I. pscudacorus 
I. foetidissima 
I. virginica 
I. graminea (a ) 1 
I. spuria 
I. sibirica 
I. germanica (?) a 
Specimens wrongly named 
I. pumila (a) = I. flavissima 
{$) = I. chamaeiris 
I . biflora = I. aphylla (see p. 158) 
I. ochroleuca = I. pscudacoms var. 
I. verna = I. prismatica (?) 
/. graminea (/S) = I. ruthaiica 
I. persica = I. alata 
I. alba = I. xiphioides 
Pallas' species 
I. dichotoma 
I. tenuifolia 
I. ventricosa 
I. halophila 
I. flavissima 
I. ruthenica 
1 . sp. an spuria ? (= I. ensata Thb.) 
I. pumilae affinis (= /. tigridia Bge.) 
/. sp. "aestiva" (=/. laevigata Fisch. and 
Meyer) 
1 /. graminea. There are two specimens bearing this name, of which one is correctly determined while the other is /. ruthenica. 
' I- germanica. This specimen hardly represents what we now know in England as the typical germanica but it only differs 
in the comparative shortness of the lower lateral branch and in the somewhat dwarf habit. 
