Bearded Historic Iris GYPSY QUEEN

I was given this iris from the owner of a large Estate which has magnificent gardens in the year 2006 as an 'Iris of Antiquity' and was first recorded as growing in these gardens in 1896.
The 1904 H C Gibbons Bulb Catalogue, Hutt Valley Nurseries, Upper Hutt, is the earliest cataloguing I could find in a New Zealand plant nursery and the iris was listed as HAMLET which is a synonym for Gypsy Queen. (See 1939 Checklist description below) Adding to this the first time 'Gypsy Queen' bloomed at home in 2007, identification was complicated as  'The Historic Iris Society' had a completely different variety of an iris displayed on their web site as 'Gypsy Queen', the 1929 AIS Checklist listed Gypsy Queen as a Tall Bearded, then the 1939 AIS Checklist changed its classification to a Intermediate Bearded Iris. Now for an Iris that flower height is 76-91 cm (30"-36") and its bloom period is toward the end of the Tall Bearded Iris season and these two facts took 'Gypsy Queen' well outside the Intermediate Iris classification. Today it would most likely be classified as a Miniature Tall Bearded Iris or 'Table Iris' as I still like to call them. Then to really throw a spanner in the works a New Zealander in 2005 recklessly renamed 'Gypsy Queen' (At the time a iris with lost label) and registered it as 'Braemar Station'. One of the great evils of antique irising is the application of entirely new names to existing cultivars.
 All of the above led to confusion with many people, making 'Gypsy Queen' one of the most complicated conformation of an Iris ID I have ever been involved in. 

Gypsy Queen standards are open and coloured old gold that has been airbrushed with a smoky rose tone, inside the bottom of the standards colours are lemon lime with purple maroon veining. Style arms yellow with greyed centres.  Falls are white tinged yellow at haft and edges, heavily veined deep red-purple confluent to solid black; beards white deepening to old gold, mild citrus fragrance. Nice clean foliage with a nice level of Purple bottom foliage. This iris was one of the parents Fryer used in his hybridising, and its imprint is seen in W. J. Fryer and Kathryn Fryer.

 H. C. Gibbons & Co.,Hutt Valley Nurseries,Upper Hutt, Wellington, New Zealand. Bulb Catalogue 1904.
GERMAN FLAG IRIS
Hamlet Standards and Falls straw and peuce, dark veins.

Biltmore Nursery, Biltmore, Asheville, North Carolina, The Iris Catalog, 1911
Gypsy Queen. Still another unusual and welcome blending of rich colors is found in this meritorious variety. Standards are of golden hue shaded with smoked pearl, and the falls are dark maroon with delicate tracings of pale yellow. It blooms late.

The Dean lris Gardens, Moneta, California.The Iris 1916.
SQUALENS GROUP The standards are clouded shades of copper,bronze and fawn.
Gypsy Queen (syn. La Prestigieuse). S. old gold, shaded smoked pearl; F. black-maroon, reticulated light yellow. Each, 25c.

Farr's Hardy Plant Specialities, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.Seventh Edition 1922.
SQUALENS GROUP The standards are clouded shades of copper,bronze and fawn.
GYPSY QUEEN (syn. La Prestigieuse). S. old gold, shaded smoked-pearl; F. black-maroon, reticulated light yellow; late bloomer. 2 ft.

A.B. Katkamier, Macedon, New York. Hints to Pleasure and to Profit in Growing the Iris, 1931.
Gypsie Queen; Honey yellow : Black maroon. Tall. Strong.

Cornell Extension Bulletin 112, Austin W. Sand, 1925.
Gypsy Queen (Salter before 1859) 
Color effect an old gold, velvety maroon veined bicolor.Standards honey yellow to old gold much undulated. Falls velvety maroon-brown to blackish brown , distinctly  veined to a point one-half inch from the end of the blade. The edge blends yellow to old gold on the haft. Occasional lavender or cream white flecks occur on the blade. This plant is a vigorous grower, and has stiff, slender, deep green  foliage, tinged purple at the base. The flower spikes are tall and well and widely branched.It is very late bloom, its dull color combinations like those found in the Cypripedium orchid and its early history,being a parent of the variegata groups, make it still worthy of selection.

1939 AIS Checklist
GYPSY QUEEN IB-MLa-S6M John Salter before 1859 Floricultural Cabinet and Florist Magazine 29 172 June 1859: L'Illustration Horticole 40: tab 182 1893%%. The Garden Chronicle 14th July 1899; Farr, 1912; Francis 1920; Bonnnewitz, 1920; A.B. Katkamier 1939; Journal Royal Horticultural Society January 1928 page 146 Trials; germanica gypsea; Hamlet; La Prestigieuse; Queen of Gipsies; Reine des Fees; Reine des Pays; Virgil (Lovett); Gypsie Queen; 
Note: The above checklist notation L'Illustration Horticole 40: tab 182 1893 %% is another of the early checklist anomalies as the L'Illustration Horticole published full page colour plate image of Iris Germanica var. Gypsea which shows a white coloured Iris that has all the appearances of a Florentina hybrid of sorts. The percent sign (%) is the symbol used in the 1929 and 1939 Checklist to indicate % -Illustrated and %%- Colour Plate.

Perhaps the very, very small group of people within 'The Historic Iris Preservation Society' who are currently embarking on a campaign to 'call out' iris growers who are growing and displaying images of what is now known as 'The fake Gypsy Queen' should be mindful of the fact that HIPS photos at a time 'not so long ago' were also stating the so called 'The fake Gypsy Queen' was the real deal and at that time these gardeners could have used HIPS as an authoritative means to identify their Iris!!! 'Pot calling kettle black'??

As always clicking on the above image will take you to the larger, higher resolution version. Reproduction in whole or in part of this post, its opinions or its images without the expressed written permission of Terry Johnson is strictly prohibited. Photo credit and copyright Terry Johnson and Heritage Irises ©.

Read More

The Iris known as "Braemar Station"

"One of the most serious difficulties the American Joint Committee has had to encounter is the duplication of names caused by the re-use of established names for the new introductions, or, in some cases, the renaming of old varieties; in fact, these mischievous practices have caused a large part of the chaos in common names of plants which now exists in American horticulture. The duplications doubtless occur more as a result of ignorance than deliberate intent to deceive. The genus Iris is a conspicuous example of this bad practice." Statement of the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature in Check List No. 8 of the American Iris Society, October 1923":[Ref 1]

My friends, oh my friends!!! The things I wrote and then deleted from this article! Words like, “Indignation”, “Deception,” and “Ignorance”! And then phrases like “I suppose an apology will be out of the question,” “smoke and mirrors,” “in denial of reality” and “yep we gotcha”!! Gone – all of them. It seems that even after waiting six years for a confirmed ID result that has exposed the iris ‘Braemar Station’ as just a impostor, a cultivar with lost labelling that was renamed, none of these reactions are appropriate for an Iris blogger.
I am sure the above photo will interest you. It shows a group shot of 'Gypsy Queen' and 'Braemar Station' growing together this growing season in the garden of an eminent American irisarian prominent in the Historic Iris world. Would you care to guess which flowers are which? It would be difficult not to reach the conclusion the two irises are the one and the same. [Ref 2] So let’s look at how a 2005 registered iris could possibly be the same as the Iris 'Gypsy Queen' which the 1929 Check List attributes the breeding of to 'Salter before 1859' (his catalogue listed it in 1848).

This is the registration from NZIS Checklist 2007:
BRAEMAR STATION Carol Mackenzie by Gwenda Harris, Reg., 2005. SPEC-X, 39″, (100cm), L. S. and style arms greyed yellow (RHC 62A); F. white tinged yellow at haft and edges, heavily striped deep red-purple (59A) deepening to almost solid black; beards white deepening to gold; sweet fragrance. I. variegata X unknown. Maritima 2005.

It was apparently found in a horse paddock growing beneath a Lombardy poplar tree in the Mackenzie Country in New Zealand's South Island. It must be said that I do not have a problem with Carol Mackenzie finding an historic iris in a paddock and wanting to keep it – in fact she should be applauded for doing so – but the registration of this iris by Ms. Harris has always been of a concern.
First up there is a problem with its registered class. This description comes from AIS Judges’ Handbook: “ “CHAPTER 20; SPECIES IRISES
SPEC-X is the class for interspecies crosses. These hybrids have a mix of species traits creating a new plant. Any cross involving an iris species as one of the parents and another plant not of that species is a species cross. Also included in SPEC-X are further hybrids from interspecies crosses. All of the above crosses are included in the SPEC-X class. Even when a specific class exists for an interspecies cross, the hybridizer may elect to register his/her iris as SPEC-X if he/she feels it is more ''species-like'' and not representative of the definition of the specific class. The Randolph-Perry Medal is the highest award for irises in the SPEC-X class.”

In 2007 an eminent European Irisarian wrote to both myself and Ms. Harris stating: "I am afraid its registration could cause confusion without a notice that it is a cultivar with lost labelling. The picture speaks for a variegata parentage but it is decidedly NOT a species, dry tops of spathes, at least, speak clearly for a hybrid origin. No one wild variegata can have such spathes".
How is an Iris found in a paddock able to be registered with I. variegata as the pod parent?? What evidence was submitted at time of registration to justify this part of the pedigree????
The NZIS bulletin (September 2009 #179 page 17-18) published the introducer's self-reinforcing and awkward interpretation of how the registration could be justified with regards to ‘Braemar Station’ and part of the article stated "Iris variegata, I. pallida and perhaps I. aphylla were the main parents of modern TB cultivars. I. variegata was particularity prolific, but its progeny have had a confused history with many names and many spellings. Some early hybrids and cultivars like, 'Victorine' have been listed in catalogues under at least seven different names".
Nothing new here!!! ‘Gypsy Queen’ also had been listed in catalogues under at least eight different names and this iris was sold in New Zealand under at least one of its synonyms – "Hamlet" listed in the 1904, H. C. Gibbons, Wellington Bulb Catalogue, page 17. It could have also sold in New Zealand in other catalogue listings by others as, ‘Queen of Gipsies' and ‘Virgil’.
Ms. Harris has also stated in the same article: “The ‘Braemar Station’ debate is reminiscent of the confusion surrounding two other variegata cultivars, ‘Honorabile’ and ‘Sans Souci’, which went on for more than a century and is also described by Mahan 2007 [Ref 3].” Well sorry, but no its not! I am not sure how an American domestic ID problem that is still subjected to discussion in America today becomes a justification for the registration of 'Braemar Station'.
The difference between the above described scenarios and the registration of ‘Braemar Station’ is that all the confusion with catalogue published names of historic irises occurred prior to the publications of the 1929 or 1939 checklists. As irises rose in popularity in North America and Europe in the 1920s, an immense amount of research work in Catalogues and Journals, as well as in the recognised reference books, was undertaken in Britain and America prior to the publication of the check lists, to ascertain which varieties circulating under different names were in fact, the same plant, and to determine which was the original and therefore the legitimate, so that each iris cultivar, past, present, and future, would carry one “approved” name which identified it uniquely.
Since then, there have been very limited examples to date where anyone has blithely attached a new registered name to an historic Iris with lost ID, and probably even less that have had a parentage fabricated.

Now that the iris ‘Braemar Station’ has been grown alongside ‘Gypsy Queen,’ it has removed any doubt that the two named irises are one and the same. The day has come for registration of 'Braemar Station' to be withdrawn and nothing could be more inept than publication by Ms. Harris of any more dubious reasons of why the iris was registered in the first place. In case of ID confusion with the above photo, the iris labelled and sent to America by Ms. Harris as 'Braemar Station' is the stalk on the left of the photo, all others in the shot are ‘Gypsy Queen’.
The original article 'Braemar Station- The Iris' by Gwenda Harris was published in The New Zealand Iris Society, June 2005, Bulletin 166, and then republished in 'ROOTS' the Journal of the Historic Iris Presevation Society, Volume 20, Issue 2, Fall 2007, the later a real surprise as by then many doubts had been raised, both in New Zealand and internationally surrounding the authenticity of this Iris. A second Article,'Braemar Station- An Update' by Gwenda Harris was published in the New Zealand Iris Society, September 2009, Bulletin 179.

Update 2014; The truth about this iris is scarce but the supply has always been in excess of the demand. The NZIS on their web site now refers to photos of this iris as an 'Iris of no certain identity'. 

References:
 [Ref 1] AIS Alphabetical Check List 1929 'EXPLANATION' page 3
 [Ref 2] Some of the Iris blooms shown in this shot belong to the iris named as 'Braemar Station' and was sent to America by Ms. Harris two bloom seasons ago
 [Ref 3] Chapter 6 "Classic Irises and the men and women who created them" C Mahan, published Krieger 2007

As always clicking on the above image will take you to the larger, higher resolution version. Reproduction in whole or in part of this post, its opinions or its images without the expressed written permission of Terry Johnson is strictly prohibited. Photo credit and copyright Terry Johnson and Heritage Irises ©.

Read More