November, 1920 
X5lje Slower (Brower 
177 
The American Iris Society. 
miiiiiimiiiiiiiiiMiiimiiiMimtiimiiiiiiiniiiiniiiiiimiiiiiiiMiimiimiii iiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiimiiMiiiiiiiiiiiHiniiiiMMiiiiitiiiHiiiHiiHiHiiHMiiiiiiiHiiH 
W HAT’S IN A NAME? Very lit- 
tle, perhaps, after we become 
acquainted, but a great deal 
when we first read it in a cata- 
logue, and there are an infinite variety 
of Iris names, well over three thousand 
in fact now find a place in our check 
list and some are strange and some are 
duplicated once and yet again. We 
need a Code of Nomenclature to regu- 
late the future additions and it seems 
desirable that not only the committee 
but all our members should have an 
opportunity to express their prefer- 
ences. 
Out of the present three thousand 
names there are some forty Madames, 
half as many Mrs. and entirely too 
many of similar beginnings. There are 
names difficult to pronounce. Who 
would tell his friends about Abd-el- 
Kadir, Hopatcong, Belle yvrinne, or even 
Sindjkhat ? There are long ones like 
Souvenir de Mme. de Gaudichau, or Con- 
queror of Europe, and some are far too 
much alike. How many will distinguish 
between Dorothea or Dorothee, Elinor 
or Eleanor, and Sappho, that may be a 
squalens or a neglecta, a cengialti or a 
plicata ? Do such examples not prove 
that we need a Code of Nomenclature 
and a Registration of names ? 
Certain named varieties have proba- 
bly long since vanished from cultiva- 
tion. If the names were attractive 
they might well be used again. Again 
an introducer may wish to change a 
name. The name of Iris Mrs. Sher- 
win-Wright is a case in point. In both 
cases we need an authoritative modus 
operandi. It will not do, however, to go 
against established custom. We would 
not drop the pallida from pallida Dal- 
matica perhaps, or revert to Iris Konig 
in place of Iris King. The pallida to be 
sure is but a relic of the days when bo- 
tanical species were many and garden 
varieties but few, and the anglicising 
of Iris King reminds us of the similar 
action that has brought almost hope- 
less confusion among the Japanese va- 
rieties, but these are now accepted and 
it is the future with which we must 
deal. Slowly the growers are follow- 
ing the example of R. Wallace & Co. in 
giving the originator’s name in paren- 
theses and this is doing away with 
possessives and tends towards simplic- 
ity. And that brings me to the use of 
the names of friends. There are few 
who have not done this. At first glance 
it seems a pleasing honor, but how few 
Irises stand for many years in the first 
rank, and to become obsolete and for- 
gotten is hardly an honor, and the 
names to strangers carry no bit of asso- 
ciation. Surely a name like Eldorado 
or Fairy is of greater appeal. After- 
glow has proved a taking name, some- 
times I think too taking, and I have 
always liked Juniata even though I did 
call it Juanita for many years. Not 
often do names and the flower seem to 
be in character, but we should try to 
keep them short and easy to pronounce 
or spell, not only within our own lan- 
guage but for others, Fortunately in 
Iris we are rarely afflicted with the 
long personal names that we find at- 
tached to Roses and I hope that we can 
avoid the natural abbreviation that 
nicknames the Peony Lady Alexandra 
Duff, plain Duff; particularly in the 
case of so fine a flower it seems some- 
how lacking in respect. 
With these points well in mind I hope 
that you all (particularly you seedling 
raisers) will consider carefully the fol- 
lowing code that is now under consid- 
eration, a code based largely on that of 
the American Pomological Society. 
SUGGESTED CODE OF NOMENCLATURE 
PRIORITY 
Rule L— No two varieties of Iris shall bear 
the same name. The name first published 
for a variety shall be the accepted and recog- 
nized name except in cases of varieties offi- 
cially declared obsolete. 
A: — Where a variety name through long 
usage has become thoroughly established in 
horticultural literature for two or more vari- 
eties, it should not be displaced or rectified 
except in cases where a well-known synonym 
can be advanced to the position of leading 
name. The several varieties bearing identi- 
cal names should be distinguished by adding 
the name of the originator or any other 
term or definition. 
B:— The paramount right of the originator, 
discoverer, or introducer of a new variety to 
name it, under the limitations of this code, 
is recognized and emphasized. 
FORM OF NAME 
Rule 2.— The name of a variety of Iris 
shall consist of a single word whenever pos- 
sible, or compatible with the most efficient 
service to horticulture. Only under excep- 
tional circumstances should more than two 
words be used. 
A: — No variety should be named unless 
distinctly superior to existing varieties in 
some important characteristic, nor should a 
name be published (other than mere regis- 
tration) until it has been determined to per- 
petuate and distribute the variety. 
B:- In selecting names for varieties the 
following points should be emphasized: dis- 
tinctiveness, simplicity, ease of pronunciation 
and spelling. 
C:— Names should be spelled and pro- 
nounced in accordance with their derivation. 
D: — The name of a person should not be 
applied to a variety during his life without 
his expressed consent, nor in general should 
names of individuals be used without good 
reason. 
E:— The use of a possessive noun, as, or in, 
a name is not admissible. 
F: — The use of a number either singly or 
attached to a word should be considered 
only as a temporary expedient. 
G: — The botanical classification shall not 
be used as a part of the varietal name of a 
garden hybrid. 
Rule 3 -—In the full and formal citation of 
a variety name, the name of the author who 
first published it, and the date of this publi- 
cation, shall also be given. 
PUBLICATION 
Rule 4.— Publication consists of (1) Regis- 
tration by this Society, (2) in the distribu- 
tion of a printed description of the variety 
named giving the distinguishing charac- 
ters of plant, flower, etc., or (3) in the 
publication of a new name for a variety that 
is properly described elsewhere; such publi- 
cation to be made in any book, bulletin, re- 
port, trade catalogue, or periodical, providing 
it bears the date of publication and is gener- 
ally distributed among horticulturists; or (4) 
in certain cases the general recognition of a 
name for a propagated variety shall consti- 
tute publication of the name. 
REVISION 
Rule 5.— -No properly published variety 
name shall be changed for any reason except 
conflict with this code nor shall another va- 
riety be substituted for that originally de- 
scribed thereunder except as herein pro- 
vided. 
NOTES. 
Evidently the autumn is not the sea- 
son to ask questions, for in response to 
my request for lists of favorite varie- 
ties, I received one list, though to be 
sure a list of discards may prove even 
more worthwhile. 
Mrs. Fellows with a collection of 
well over a hundred varieties, takes 
pleasure in Fairy, Odoratissima, Her 
Majesty, Caprice, Tectorum, Archeveque, 
Quaker Lady, Walhalla, Oriflamme and 
Tamerlane. This list does not include 
many of the latest novelties, but, with 
the exception of the last three, I find 
myself fully in accord. For me Wal- 
halla is less rich and blooms too nearly 
at the same time as some of the ger- 
manicas to be of real value. Oriflamme, 
low and large, is not unlike in color to 
Neptune or any among a number of tall 
and equally large varieties, while Tam- 
erlane with its slightly clumsy growth 
is well surpassed by Alcazar. 
I think that no one will disagree with 
Mr. Weed in relegating Pameron, Willie 
Barr, Bleu Parfleur, Cottage Maid, At- 
traction, Miss Maggie or Lady Jane to the 
dump. (I want to add Lord Salisbury, 
Pfauenauge, Shakespeare and Liabaud 
among others), but I think some of us 
will not wholly agree when it comes to 
Wyomissing, Plumeri, Ivorine, or per- 
haps R. C. Rose. The intermediates are 
always bothersome. King Christian, 
Ivorine and Ingeborg among the whites 
are almost equally good, but in general 
effect pretty much alike, and among 
the yellows, Gerda, Halfdan, Helge, 
Etta and Empress flock together. In 
some seasons or on some sites, one 
seems a little clearer in color than an- 
other, but another year there is a dif- 
ference and I know not which to choose. 
At any rate I wish I had but one of 
each tint. Then Mr. Weed includes 
Princess Royal. It is a pallida-cengialti 
I should judge, tall, rather deep laven- 
der, and altogether rather satisfactory, 
but whether it is better than Viola or 
LaBeaute, whether one needs it with 
Albert Victor, Gertrude or Juniata or 
almost any of those lovely lavender 
seifs, is a question. So many of these 
pallidas are fine that when I find new 
things in this color, things lik e Rodney, 
Drake or Benbow, I wonder what the 
final judgment will be. These three 
happen to be very fine, usually well- 
