Hi Dirt, lovely photos of a charming Iris. I'm specializing in crested Iris forms and cultivars, hybridizing them too, ordered 2 plants of 'Abbey's Violet' a few years ago from Edelweiss Perennials, got a blue one that looks similar to many other blues, and an alba form mixed in? Checking out the American Iris Society entry for this cultivar, suggests that it's poorly described, no verifiable photos, and stating "This cristata has been widely distributed but never properly registered".
http://wiki.irises.org/Spec/Sp...

I'll have to find the reference in the American Rock Garden Society bulletins, unfortunately my collection of ARGS/NARGS back issues (going back to late 1960s) is currently off limits to me while separated from my wife. Reaching out to Rick Rodick @leftwood, if you have access to ARGS/NARGS bulletin Index, can you see if you can find an entry for Iris cristata 'Abbey's Violet', the Iris society page makes a reference to LeRoy Davidson in 1982. LOL, I moved to Seattle WA area in 1982-86 and lived 1 mile from LeRoy (Roy) and would drive him to the Seattle ARGS meetings, Iris cristata wasn't on my radar at the time. I looked at NARGS web site, I seem to recall there was an online index to the bulletins, but can't find it now.

I'm not sure if anyone today can knowingly verify they have the true cultivar. I will contact Jan Sacks too, to see what she knows about it, she has an extensive collection of Iris cristata forms.

obviously, I cannot know. This is what was sold to me as Abbey's Violet. It's super cute whatever it is!

You can propose this image and the one from @uriania1 be moved to the generic species if you want...maybe let @Pistil know that hers is unverifiable as well and tell Edelweiss to stop selling it as the unverifiable cultivar...

The NARGS indices are in the Fall editions, but there is an index compilation of the pre-2015 publications available online and free to non members, as well as the quarterly publications themselves that are older than three years. Unfortunately, the indexing of cultivar names is spotty, and may or may not show up.

I did find mention in Cole Burrell's article on cristata (Vol.64,No.2,119-121). He mentions Abbey's Violet as My favorite is 'Abbey's Violet', one of the darkest selections, with deep blue-violet flowers.
https://nargs.org/sites/defaul...

I was working from the bottom (most recent) in the list here, and stopped when I found same, so you if you want to see if there is more....

From the index:
Iris cristata /
1.4, 2.97, 5.33, 6.38, 8.10, 10.27, 11.2, 11.50, 13.42, 14.40, 17.3, 17.61,
18.113, 19.99, 20.37, 20.45, 20.78, 21.99, 22.127, 24.126, 26.80, 27.2, 28.124, 29.66,
33.193, 35.79, 36.32, 36.114, 37.173, 38.73, 40.168*, 40.170, 46.134, 49.211, 51.110,
52.11, 52.274, 54.194, 54.242, 56.251, 56.253, 59.4, 64.109*, 64.110*, 64.119, 69.156
--
As an aside, the drupal system continues to present problem. For the second time I have renewed membership on line, and it skips the ensuing year and adds a membership to the next year, leaving me with a year inbetween when I am not a member. Panayoti promptly fixes it for me, but finds no explanation. And now I find that I don't have access to the most recent RGQs, even though I am logged in as a member. Ugh!

Mark, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Do you object to having an improperly (likely not at all) registered iris in the garden.org database?

If so, why not ask the moderator/sheriff of the iris section of the database to make a note that "this iris has never been properly registered" and leave it at that?

Or is there another outcome you have in mind?

I am such an amateur.
I got mine from Edelweiss Perennials as well. The owner described it to me as the iris most likely to survive dry shade, this has proved true. I like the flowers, although in shade they were sparse, as he said they would be. Last winter the huge pine tree it was under was cut down. The iris survived being buried in sawdust, it came back perfectly healthy although no blooms this year. It grew a lot more than I would have expected, I bet it likes the sun. Next year when it blooms I will photograph it, I never looked at the flowers closely.
Have you asked Urs (owner of Edelweiss) about the provenance of his plants? He strikes me as a careful person, and a real plantaholic. He is quite the plant breeder. He might be able to tell you something useful, like who he got it from.

NGA database already lists it as unregistered

also says under 'Parentage', 'collected in the wild'

The whole thing from Iris wiki:
(SPEC) 'Abbey's Violet'

before 1982, Collected

'Abbey's Violet' (Referred to by B. LeRoy Davidson, 1982). Crested Iris, a darker blue purple form. Flowers 1 1/2 inch in diameter, ground color dark red violet (RHS 86A), falls appearing darker than standards when first opening. Mentioned in American Rock Garden Society Bulletin. Iris cristata Solander. This cristata has been widely distributed but never properly registered. It is believed that it reflects the name of a nursery that first offered it for sale.

AntMan01 said:
I'm not sure if anyone today can knowingly verify they have the true cultivar.

Hmmmm...if it really was wild collected and possibly named by a nursery, referred to (somewhere?) by your buddy Roy in '82 and mentioned in an ARGS Bulletin at some point (the one Rick found?)...I'm not so sure that the phrase 'true cultivar' is all that meaningful in the first place...
could be that today's 'Abbey's Violet' is whatever dark purple variety some nursery is selling...

Good luck though!
Please let us know whatever you find out.

Mary, I look forward to seeing photos of yours next spring!

dirtdorphins said:
Hmmmm...if it really was wild collected and possibly named by a nursery, referred to (somewhere?) by your buddy Roy in '82 and mentioned in an ARGS Bulletin at some point (the one Rick found?)...I'm not so sure that the phrase 'true cultivar' is all that meaningful in the first place...
could be that today's 'Abbey's Violet' is whatever dark purple variety some nursery is selling...

A cultivar does not need to be hybridized or man-made. (Is this what you are implying??) There are an incredible number of registered cultivars selected from one individual wild plant. Absolutely, a cultivar can be selected from the wild. See the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (ICNCP) article 2. On the other hand and under certain circumstances, it is possible under ICNCP rules to have one cultivar name that encompasses source material from multiple provenances. Not saying I want to agree with this, but, an excerpt from the Rules:
Article 2.20. In considering whether two or more plants belong to the same or different cultivars, their origins are irrelevant.

Of course, under the International code of botanic nomenclature (ICBN), there are no cultivar names, and the closest rank would be forma (f.). But in most cases, these are by no means equivalent.

No, I never meant to imply that a cultivar must be a hybrid.

I recognize that a wild collected plant can become a cultivar.
It does kinda need to be identified and cultivated by man, though, or else it doesn't quite achieve and maintain that cultivar status, now does it?
In this case, Mark says "Checking out the American Iris Society entry for this cultivar, suggests that it's poorly described, no verifiable photos..." and he is also the one concerned that no one today can verify this supposed cultivar.

I am merely suggesting that it is possible that in the case of this unregistered iris that has been widely circulated and referred to and mentioned as noted, that there could be some legitimate questions about the truthiness of its cultivar designation.

Personally, it's not really that interesting to me and I don't care one way or the other whether I have a generic dark purple crested variety or the one and only true cultivar declared as 'Abbey's Violet' prior to 1982 whatever, it's a lovely little thing and I hope it multiples and prospers in my garden.

Beyond that, it is a decent enough photo that I submitted...if it can't reside in the current location because no one can knowingly verify that they have the true cultivar, then I'll move it somewhere more acceptable, capiche?

Thanks Rick, Burrell's article is good, interesting seeing the cultivars listed, I have many of them as I'm seeking out cristata cultivars for a hybridization effort, I'd like to find a few that I don't have yet. On that list I see more that are named selectionss from the wild, such as several Don Jacobs selections (my fav is 'Eco Orchid Giant', looks similar to 'Powder Blue Giant' also wild selected but from a different State, minor but discernable differences).

Dirt, not suggesting you do anything with NGA plant records, merely looking for more info on this early cultivar with which to make a determination, finding details on older cultivars can be scant and hard to make positive determinations. Last year Jan Sacks generously gave me a collection of named cultivars to add to my current collection, and very happy to get true plants on a few that are sometimes mixed up in cultivation. Had a couple of blooms on 'McDonald' and what joy seeing that ever-so-soft palest blue color, and I got true 'Navy Blue Gem' not the medium blue thing going around under that name.

Asa, you're chasing phantoms.

AntMan01 said:
Asa, you're chasing phantoms.

evermorelawnless said:...I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

...is there an...outcome you have in mind?

If that's a question without an answer, maybe this one is better:
How is any of this discussion germane to the pic she posted? Or, in other words, why is it happening here, in the database?

We're in the database right now - under a specific photo of an iris (or not). The fact that, for example, you lived in Seattle in the 80s and drove someone around isn't a datum (relevant) that has a thing to do with the pic - nor the iris in question.

Bottom line, for the pic that we are (or should be) discussing: either the pic belongs in the database or it does not. That's the datum (is the pic a pic of the right iris?) in question.

The rest of this stuff, while arguably interesting elsewhere, is ancillary - they are not data specific to the picture.

No phantoms. This is a database. What do you want to have happen here - regarding this picture?

Do you want her to take her picture down? Ask her. She may.
Do you want this iris yanked from the database? Not much she can do about that. Not her call.
Do you want a prohibition on posting pics of it (whatever people think it is) until you get it NARG-ed out to your satisfaction? Again, not much she can do about that. Not her call.

The datum is true or it isn't. All else has nothing to do with the picture. Which leaves me wondering what your point is.