I've recently written about Iris domestica, but I had posted the entry under a now-rejected scientific name, Belamcanda chinensis. As Brent noted in the comments for that entry, the change was made recently (see: Goldblatt, P. & D.J. Mabberley. 2005. Belamcanda included in Iris, and the new combination I. domestica (Iridaceae: Irideae). Novon 15: 128–132). Carol Wilson, who studies the genus Iris at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, has published a phylogeny of the genus Iris based on DNA sequencing data, illustrating why the placement of Belamcanda in Iris is warranted.
Two items of note for local readers today. First of all, if you have little ones or know someone who does, consider attending or recommending UBC Botanical Garden's Haunted Halloween. Nadine Diner, the garden's education coordinator, is so enthusiastic about this event that it is certain to be a fun and educational afternoon for children!
Speaking of Nadine and education, she's organized the courses and lectures for the next 8 months or so. Do check them out and register early, as some of the courses requiring registration are already nearly full.
Botany resource link: The web site of Belize Botanic Gardens – a very modern site written to subtly entertain and inform (“Call us crazy, but at Belize Botanic Gardens we enjoy figuring out how to grow things without the use of pesticides or chemicals.”). It certainly makes me want to visit. Don't forget to see their orchid photographs.
Daniel;
I realize this may not be the proper forum for this question, but perhaps you could explain to an amateur how DNA studies will affect plant classifications. Will this relatively new science completely replace phenotypic characteristics (I hope I am using the right term; I am trained in medicine rather than botany) or be used as an adjunct, or neither?
Thanks, Bev
DNA evidence is one of the most powerful techniques we have to correct errors in classification. Belamcanda was mistakenly separated from Iris as its inner and outer perianth parts are somewhat more similar than is usual in Iris. (Technically it is homochlamydeous rather than heterochlamydeous). However, it was an error to attach so much weight to a minor characteristic. In other phenotypic characters (and, tellingly, in large numbers of DNA characters) it is a "typical Iris".
Classification is all about ancestry, rather than appearance, and DNA studies give the tools to determine ancestry by comparing how much DNA species have in common.
Bev, Clive Stace argues that “DNA data should not be regarded as inevitably of paramount importance, nor to be used at the expense of other ("traditional") data”. I'd agree with that assessment. You can read more from Stace's article in the latest issue of Botanical Electronic News: “Does DNA Provide All the Answers?”
Seems like recent interpretations I've looked at have tended to address both morphology and cytology.