| Dykes in the Genus Iris 1913; under the name Iris humilis gave the following;"Description. Rootstock , a slender rhizome of the spuria type. Leaves , linear, 6-14 in. long by 1/6-¼ broad, firm, ribbed. Stem , very short, not more than 1-1½ in. long and bearing two long leaves immediately below the spathes. Spathe valves , 2-2¼ in. long, most usually 1 -flowered (Janka records the finding of a single 2-flowered specimen), closely set in a pair of leaves 3-4 in. long. Pedicel, very short, sharply marked. Ovary , rounded trigonal, with a broad groove on each face. Tube , 1-1½ in. long, gradually becoming wider above. It may be considered as the elongated neck of the ovary. Falls . The winged haft is separated by a sharp constriction from the almost orbicular blade. The haft is closely veined and mottled with reddish brown on a greenish yellow ground, which on the upper part of the blade becomes white, veined and dotted with deep purple. The main portion of the blade is deep blue purple with distinct deeper veins. There is a slightly raised central ridge, finely dotted with purple on a yellow or orange ground. Standards , oblanceolate unguiculate, of a blue purple colour with indistinct deeper veins. Styles , slightly keeled, narrow at the base and becoming much broader above. Crests , almost quadrate, sharply revolute. Stigma , bilobed, with two pointed teeth, which project downwards. Filaments , fulvous. Anthers , bluish. Pollen , red-orange. Capsule , short and broad, with double ridges at the angles. Seeds , spherical or pyriform, reddish brown, with an outer wrinkled papery skin like those of I. graminea. Observations.It is difficult to say anything in praise of this Iris as a garden plant. It seldom flowers at all, and even when it does, it produces a flower that can hardly be called beautiful, for the chief effect is produced by dull purple veinings on a yellowish white ground. Moreover, the absence of stem leaves the flowers very close to the ground, out of which the buds seem actually to emerge.It does not appear that any one has ever taken the trouble to ascertain under what conditions this Iris may be induced to flower freely, or it may be that efforts have met with no success. I have grown plants which have remained flowerless year after year, and it was not until 1911 and 1912 that one clump of the plant in a very hot and sunny patch of rather heavy calcareous soil mixed with old leaf mould consented to produce three or four flowers.This Iris has been confused with the dwarf forms of I. unguicularis, which are common in the Greek islands, where I. humilis does not apparently occur. It seems to be confined to Hungary and the Caucasus, and the supposed specimens from Crete were recognised by Janka in 1 868 as being different and given specific rank as I. cretensis. This, however, they do not seem to deserve, for in cultivation they do not differ from typical I. unguicularis in any particular other than size. I. humilis has also been much confused with I. ruthenica Ker-Gaw!. The growth is not dissimilar, but the true humilis is obviously allied to I. graminea and the spuria group. The bases of the leaves sheathe the rhizome in the characteristic manner of all the members of this group, and the leaves are of the same somewhat hard firm texture, while the rootstock of I. ruthenica is more like that of a minute water Iris, such as I. Clarkei or even I. versicolor, and is always covered with the loose shaggy fibrous hairs, into which the remnants of old leaves have split up.Another point of difference is that the spathe of I. humilis rises from a pair of leaves two or three times as long as itself, attached to the stem immediately beneath it. One spathe valve is indeed often altogether suppressed and its place taken by one of these leaves. This phenomenon is also not unusual in I. graminea.The stigma also provides a convenient differentia. In I. ruthenica it consists of a prominent, conical, central tongue, in I. humilis it forms two points, one beneath each crest, as in the other members of the spuria group.Moreover, the growth of I. humilis is more upright and less fan-shaped than that of I. ruthenica, and the leaves are slightly glaucous on either surface, while those of I. ruthenica are glossy above and glaucous beneath.By the kindness of Dr Boris Fedtschenko I have recently been able to see an example of an Iris collected by Ludwig in the Altai district, and obviously very closely allied to, if not identical with, I. humilis (MB). It has the same stemless character, and the two flowers emerging from a membranous spathe, closely clasped between two reduced leaves. The falls also are panduriform, with the blade much broader than the haft. The stigma also is bifid with two teeth, which is a characteristic of the spuria group, and moreover the ovary has apparently double ridges at the angles. The chief difference, if any exists, lies in the character of the rhizomes, which in I. Ludwigii is noticeably slender and wide-creeping. To judge from the fragments that I have seen, it seems to spread by means of slender stolons. This may or may not be due to the character of the soil in which the plants grew, and if it were not that I have had only very scanty material of this plant, I should be inclined to maintain with confidence that it is merely I. humilis. That this Iris should occur in the Altai is hardly surprising in view of the fact that both I. ruthenica and I. Flavissima are common both in the Altai district and in Transylvania, where I. humilis is also found.