Biological Success of Siberian Irises

An organism can be defined as "Biologically Successful" if it passes on its genes to future generations.

Cultivars show various degrees of biological success. It can be measured by the number of descendants. Relative success can be seen by comparing the number of registered offspring to other cultivars in the same generation.

The most successful cultivars make up the foundation of the current gene pool. They have been named "Foundation Irises"

See Below

• Most succesful for year ##
• Discussion
• Cultivar Rank
• Successful Lineages
• Questions

Most succesful for year:

Discussion:

Methods

While between 50-70% of cultivars recorded in a given year never produce registered offspring, the remaining cultivars vary considerably in their contribution to the future gene pool. Usually less than five percent produce more than 10 registered offspring. These irises are the foundation of the future gene pool. But identifying these "Foundation Irises" is a bit tricky. Historic records are not as complete as we would like. Many irises are reported as parentage unknown. A large number of cultivars only have the pod parent recorded. This absent information undoubtedly results in undercounting cultivar's progeny.

First generation offspring give us the most accurate information. But second generations where the cultivar is mentioned in the parentage are also counted. This results in an under count because the grandparent is often not mentioned in the registration parentage when the parents themselves are both registered. To distinguish the extra generation parentages an asterisk is placed after the listed offspring that have the parent cultivar as further back than the first generation. Early hybridizers often mixed pollen from several plants and suggested the parents included the irises in the mixture. This practice probably results in counting more than the actual numbers.

It is probably unfair to compare cultivars introduced in different years. During World War One many nurseries were asked to convert to growing food. This badly affected the famous nursery of Amos Perry. All his stock was plowed under and replaced with vegetables. Probably because of this, many of his introductions were not as widely distributed and hence were not used as much in hybridizing.

It would be expected that Morgan Medal winners would be used extensively in hybridizing. But not all of them played a major part in creating today's gene pool. To see their relative contributions check out "Foundation Siberian Irises". Recent Medal winners will have fewer offspring because they have not been around long enough to have many offspring registered.

Despite all the caveats we can determine those special Irises that laid the foundations of our current gene pool.

Results

Under cinstruction

We have only scratched the surface discovering Irises that may not have won medals but contributed mightily to the gene pool. You are invited to research your own favorite irises on the wiki.

Cultivar Rank:

At present this list comprises only those few irises that have been researched and their progeny enumerated: Cultivars with less than 10 progeny are not included.

(few researched so far)

'White Swirl'
R 1957 - Cassebeer
102 progeny 'Ruffled Velvet'
R 1973 - C. McEwen
63 progeny 'Cambridge'
R 1964--Brummitt
60 progeny 'Isabelle'
R 1989-Warburton
50 progeny 'Careless Sally'
R 1996 - M. Schafer & J Sacks
42 progeny 'Silver Illusion'
R 1985 D.Johnson
41 progeny 'Butter And Sugar'
R 1976 - C. McEwen
37 progeny 'Perry's Blue'
1912 -Amos Perry
35 progeny 'Pink Haze'
R 1969- W. McGarvey
34 progeny 'Blue King'
R 1902--Barr & Sons 34 progeny 'Forrest McCord'
R 1984 - Hollingworth
33 progeny 'Dear Dianne'
R 1979-McEwen
30 progeny 'Percheron'
R. 1980 -Warburton
28 progeny 'Atoll'
R 1974 - Warburton
27 progeny 'Ceasars Brother'
R 1932 - Morgan
27 progeny 'Gatineau'
R 1932--Preston
27 progeny 'Tom Schaefer'
R 2000 -Schafer/Sacks
27 progeny 'Lemon Veil'
R 2000 - Bauer/Coble
26 progeny 'Polly Dodge'
R 1968--McEwen
26 progeny 'Tealwood'
R. 1959 -Varner
26 progeny 'Eric The Red'
R 1943 - Whitney
25 progeny 'Mad Magenta'
R 1986 -Warburton
25 progeny 'Blue Brilliant'
R 1959- Cassebeer
24 progeny 'Dreaming Spires'
R 1964--Brummitt
23 progeny 'Wing On Wing'
R.1969-McGarvey
23 progeny 'Tycoon'
R 1938 - F. Cleveland
22 progeny? 'Harpswell Happiness'
R 1983--McEwen
21 progeny 'Silver Edge'
R 1973 - C. McEwen
21 progeny 'Super Ego'
R1965 -McGarvey
21 progeny 'Anniversary'
R 1965- Brummitt
20 progeny 'Turn A Phrase'
R 2000- Schafer/Sacks
19 progeny ‘Dreaming Yellow’
R 1969--McEwen
18 progeny
'Esther C D M'
R 1981--McGarvey
18 progeny 'Reprise'
R 1986--Warburton
18 progeny 'Where Eagles Dare'
R 1993 - C. Helsley
18 progeny 'Book Of Secrets'
R 2000 -schafer/Sacks
17 progeny 'Riverdance'
R 1997 - Schafer & Sacks
17 progeny 'Creme Chantilly'
R 1981--McEwen
16 progeny 'Dance Ballerina Dance'
R 1982--Varner
16 progeny 'Lavender Bounty'
R 1981--McEwen
16 progeny 'Mabel Coday'
R. 1984-Helsley
16 progeny 'Pirouette'
R 1963 - Cassebeer
16 progeny 'Star Cluster'
R 1977 - Hager
16 progeny 'Snow Prince'
R 1988 Sarah Tiffney
15 progeny 'Swank'
R 1968 - B. Hager
15 progeny 'Springs Brook'
R 1988- Warburton by Schafer/Sacks
14 progeny ‘Sailor's Fancy’
R1991- Schafer/Sacks
13 progeny 'Snowy Egret'
1938- Cleveland
13 progeny 'Strawberry Fair'
R 1992-Hollingworth
13 progeny 'Strawberry Social'
R 2000 -Schafer/Sacks
13 progeny 'Temper Tantrum'
R. 1969--McGarvey
13 progeny 'Dear Delight'
R 1975 - McEwen
12 progeny 'Emperor'
1914 -Barr & Sons
12 progeny 'Jewelled Crown'
R 1985 - R. Hollingworth
12 progeny 'Sultan's Ruby'
R 1988- R Hollingworth
12 progeny 'Orville Fay'
R 1969 - C. McEwen
11 progeny 'Devil's Dream'
R 1990 -Schafer & Sacks
10 progeny 'Humors Of Whiskey'
R 2007 - Schafer & Sacks
10 progeny 'Ego'
R1965 - McGarvey
10 progeny 'Lady Vanessa'
R 1985 -Hollingworth
10 progeny 'Marlya'
R 1974 Varner
10 progeny 'Tree Of Songs'
R 2006 - Schafer & Sacks
10 progeny

Successful Lineages:

Under Construction See about lineages

Measuring Success Across Lineages

To assess the biological success of various lineages, one can follow a systematic approach:

1. Identify Progeny: Begin with a parent organism and record all its direct offspring.
2. Track Offspring Success: Among these offspring, determine which individuals produce the most offspring themselves.
3. Continue the Process: For the most prolific offspring, repeat the process: identify their offspring and again select the line with the most descendants.
4. Repeat Indefinitely: By following this method across many generations (“ad infinitum”), one can trace the most reproductively successful lineage.

Implications of This Method

This approach allows researchers to pinpoint the line that contributes most to the gene pool over time. Even if a parent produces many offspring, only those lines that continue to reproduce successfully across generations will have a lasting impact on the population’s genetic makeup.

Applications and Considerations

• This method is useful in evolutionary biology, conservation, and breeding programs, as it helps identify individuals or families that have a significant influence on future generations.
• It is important to consider environmental factors that may affect reproductive success, as well as potential genetic bottlenecks or founder effects.

Conclusion

Measuring biological success through the most prolific lineages provides insight into how certain traits and genes persist within a population. This approach highlights the importance of not just the number of offspring produced, but the lasting reproductive impact of an individual’s descendants across generations.

Lineages Limitations and strengths

If one compares a lineage drawn from the extended pedigree of a cultivar it is clear that the other parents in the lineage have their own stories Compare below the the extended pedigree of Black Joker with its Lineage below the pedigree

'Black Joker extended pedigree curtesy of Alexander Solla

Click on pedigree name to view pdf.

'Black Joker' Extended Pedigree

A biologically successful Line of Siberian Irises

'Caesar's Brother'
27 progeny 'Tealwood'
26 progeny seedling
('Tealwood' x 'Snowcrest') 'Illini Encore'
4 progeny 'Showdown'
8 progeny 'Sultan's Ruby'
12 progeny Seedling
('Sultan's Ruby' x Hollingworth seedling) Seedling S89-A2 'Shebang'
3 progeny 'Lemon Veil'
26 progeny 'Hot Sketch'
1 progeny 'Black Joker' 😊
7 progeny SeedlingS10-22-13 'Cape Cod Girls' ‘Lingering Sweetness’ 😊

'White Swirl'
101 progenyMorgan Award 1962 seedling 61/Cas 4:
('White Swirl' X unknown) 'Ruffled Velvet'
63 progenyMorgan Award 1980. 'George Henry'
3 progeny 'Springs Brook'
14 progeny 'Swans In Flight'
6 progeny American Dykes Medal 2016. ‘If Swans Were Blue’

I. sanguinea
24 F1 progeny 'Emperor'
12 progeny 'Snowcrest'
5 progeny Seedling('Tealwood' x 'Snowcrest') 'Illini Encore'
3 progeny 'Showdown'
8 progeny 'Jeweled Crown'
11 progeny 'Coronation Anthem'
8 progeny 'Blueberry Fair'
3 progeny 'Neptune's Gold'

A lineage showing pod parents for 12 generations

'White Swirl' 'Atoll' 'Silver Rose' 'Reprise' Seedling S89-16-1: ('Reprise' x 'Mad Magenta') 'Book Of Secrets' 'Creme Caramel' 'Tree Of Songs' 'Tipped In Blue' 'Theme And Variation' 'Purring Tiger' 'All Gothed Up'

😊 Indicates pedigree available on cultivar page

Questions

Extended Siberian Pedigrees