| Dykes in The Genus Iris, 1913 notes:Description. Rootstock , a compact rhizome. Leaves , linear, falcate, slightly glaucous, about 6 in. long at flowering time. Stem , one-headed, about 6-8 in. in height, bearing about the centre a clasping leaf-like bract. Spathe valves , lanceolate, green, 3-4 in. long, rising far above the top of the tube, I -flowered. Pedicel , none. Ovary , light green, rounded trigonal, 3/4-1 in. long. Tube , 1¼ in. long, green with dark stripes in line with the standards. Falls . There is no constriction between the broad oblong haft and the slightly more oval blade, but the haft is suddenly constricted at its attachment to the tube. In colour the haft is veined with thick red purple veins which merge into the dark purple ground colour, while the blade is almost black with a rectangular greenish yellow signal patch, in front of which there is a semicircular velvety quite black patch. The diffuse beard consists of thick, scattered yellowish hairs tipped with purplish black. 2 in. by I½ in. Standards . Orbicular, with canaliculate unbearded haft, of a dark reddish purple with inconspicuous black veins, 3 in. by 2 in., but bearing no hairs. Styles , much arched laterally, keeled, mottled with dark reddish brown. Crests , quadrate, dark purple, edges finely serrate. Stigma , mottled with reddish brown, conspicuously notched. Filaments , yellow. Anthers , twice as long as the filaments, white. Pollen , Capsule , Seeds ,Observations.It will be convenient to discuss several other names together with that of I. atropurpurea, for there has arisen an unfortunate confusion in the nomenclature.If the view is accepted, which was put forward in the introduction to this section (p. 107), that several of these supposed species are really only differently coloured local races of the same species, it will be easy to understand how confusion may have arisen, seeing that colour is the only distinguishing feature and that this fades nearly entirely away after a few months or years in a herbarium.The question is further complicated by the fact that these plants were most of them introduced from Palestine and Syria by Messrs Dammann of Naples, whose assistants seem to have been in the habit of setting up for themselves and then importing plants from the same neighbourhoods. In this way confusions arose, which were unwittingly perpetuated by the Kew authorities to whom specimens were sent for determination and to be named. (The evidence is in Herb. Kew.)As far as I have been able to unravel the tangle, the truth of the matter seems to be as follows. In 1889 there were sent to Kew specimens of an Iris which Messrs Dammann had obtained from Syria in 1888. These were named by Baker I. atropurpurea (K) in Gard. Chron. 1889, I. p. 330. See also *Gartenflora, 1891, t. 1361. This Iris, which has somewhat small and narrow and often falcate leaves, is distinguished by its undotted flowers of a uniform black colour with a beard of dark purple black hairs, between which the yellow ground is apparent.In 1893 Messrs Herb and Wulle of Naples sent to Kew plants, which Baker described as I. atrofusca in Gard. Chron. 1893, I. p. 384.In the same year the same firm supplied to Gartenflora and to the Bull. Soc. Tosc. Ort. a double coloured plate containing an I. atrofusca Baker. There is also a photograph of the whole plant at p. 487 in that volume of Gartenflora.In Baker's original specimens enough colour still fortunately remains to show that the standards are coarsely veined and dotted with small purple blotchy spots. This fact and the above-mentioned figures and descriptions leave no doubt that the plant in question here is that which has been in cultivation for some years as I. Haynei.Whether the name is really applicable to this plant cannot be determined, for all we know of I. Haynei is that two specimens were collected by Hayne on Mt Gilboa in 1872 (K), and that the colour was originally "lilac-purple" (Baker, Gard. Chron. 1876, II. p. 710, Hdk. lrid. p. 19 (1892)). It is unfortunately no longer possible to see from the specimens (K) whether the flowers were dotted with purple or not.It should be noticed that in his article in Gartenflora, 1893, p. 486, Wulle mentions the existence of a poor dull-coloured form of I. atropurpurea, which some supposed to be Baker's I. atrofusca, and points out that the plants which he had sent to Baker were much finer and larger.In 1894 Messrs Dammann sent to Kew the plants which formed the subject of Bot. Mag. t. 7379.These are doubtless the poor form of I. atropurpurea, mentioned by Wulle. Baker recognised their affinity to that species and accordingly stated that he had come to consider I. atrofusca as a mere variety of I. atropurpurea, not apparently realising that the plants that he had originally received from Herb and Wulle and described as I. atrofusca were not the same as the later consignment from Messrs Dammann.The result of this somewhat intricate investigation is that we must attach the name of I. atrofusca to the plant well known in gardens now as I. Haynei, until we can ascertain whether this is really the Iris that grows on Mt Gilboa. If this proves to be the case, then Baker's name I. atrofusca of the Gard. Chron. becomes a synonym of I. Haynei and his I. atrofusca from the Bot. Mag. becomes recognised as a dull brownish-black variety of I. atropurpurea.I. atropurpurea must apparently be fairly closely allied to I. Barnumae from which it differs chiefly in the colour and in particular in the yellow patch that relieves in the intense black of the falls.