172 The Pogoniris Section 
Filaments, yellowish-white rather longer than the anthers. 
Anthers, cream. 
Pollen, cream. 
Capsule, 
Seeds, 
Observations. 
This Iris has been the subject of much confusion which was created by Spach when he 
described (l.c.) an I. Redouteana as different from /. lurida. He bases his description on Redout’s 
description and figure and says that it differs from Willdenow’s I. lurida. As, however, both 
Redout^ and Willdenow quote Solander’s original description in the Hortus Kewensis, it is difficult 
to see what ground Spach had for setting up his species. 
The plant described and figured by Solander and Redout^ is still in cultivation and is not 
improbably of hybrid origin. The colour and the shape of the falls seem to point to I. variegata 
as one of the parents and the theory of its hybrid origin is supported by the fact that it appears 
to be sterile. The only difficulty is that it flowers early, about a month before /. variegata. 
Cultivation is easy and the plant is valuable for its flowers of a somewhat unusual colour. It 
has the additional advantage of sometimes flowering a second time in the autumn, which is a further 
argument in support of the theory of its hybrid origin. In cultivating a large collection of Irises, 
it will be found that hybrids are much more apt to flower a second time in the autumn than are 
species. 
Spach’s I. lurida (Hist. V 6 g. Phan. xm. p. 56 (1846)), which he identifies with Bot. Mag. 
t. 669 (1803), has larger, slightly paler reddish-purple flowers than the real I. lurida and also 
a taller and more ample inflorescence. It was probably one of the sambucina or squalens hybrids of 
which there are innumerable forms (see p. 234). 
1 I. NEGLECTA 
Homemann, Hort Hafn. I. 55 (1813). 
•Bot. Mag. t. 2435 (1823). 
Observations. 
This is probably of hybrid origin and is similar to I. amoena except that the standards are blue 
or lilac instead of white and the falls are more closely veined and consequently show less of the light 
groundwork. The spathes are scarious in the upper half and the tube is a little longer than the ovary. 
The leaves are noticeably ribbed, — a feature, which suggests affinity to /. variegata. 
1 1 . SAMBUCINA 
Linn. Spec. Plant ed. II. p. 55 (1762). 
Rchb. Ic. t. CCCXXXV. fig. 762 (1847). 
Hausmann, FI. Tirol, II. p. 859 (1852). 
[N.B. Baker's variety concolor in Gard. Chron. 1876, II. p. 774 is probably only a garden form.] 
t I. SQUALENS 
Linn. Spec. Plant ed. II. p. 56 (1762). 
Rchb. Ic. t. CCCXXXVI. fig. 763 (1847). 
Hausmann, FI. Tirol, II. p. 860 (1852). 
[N.B. In the Botanical Magazine these names appear to be reversed, for t 187 (1793) "I. sambucina" 
probably represents the red-purple form of I. squalens mentioned above, while t. 787 (1805), 
named I. squalens, is presumably the blue-purple I. sambucina from Bozen referred to in the 
Observations, p. 173. Baker followed the same arrangement] 
Observations. 
It seems impossible to give any satisfactory account of these two Irises. Their history is not at 
all clear and we may perhaps be permitted to infer that Linnaeus had some doubt as to their claim 
to specific rank from the fact that he did not include them in his first edition of the Species Plan- 
tarum. 
It is only in the tenth edition of the Systema (1759) that we find described on p. 863 an Iris 
no. 3 a under the name of /. sambucina and no. 3 b under that of I. squalens. They are only distin- 
guished in one point, namely in the character of the falls (sambucina " petalis deflexis planis ; squalens 
petalis deflexis replicatis ”). The meagre descriptions given were presumably felt to be inadequate, for 
in the second edition of the Species Plantarum (1762) on p. 55 they are amplified and made less vague. 
We gather from this account that I. sambucina had violet or bluish flowers with bluish style branches, 
while in I. squalens the yellow-white veins on the bluish ground of the falls were more marked and 
the standards and style branches of a dingy yellow. 
