This iris has been pretty much ignored in the past by gardeners searching for Californicae to grow in their gardens, and by hybridizers looking for material to add to the genetic pool of the Californicae hybrids. I think this situation merits reconsideration.
    It may well be that the species I. hartwegii, with its three distinctive subspecies (I. h. australis, I. h. columbiana and I. h. pinetorum), contains genes for survival in cold-winter climates. Incorporation of these genes into the pool could extend the geographical range in which Californicae hybrids can be grown, thereby bringing pleasure to many who cannot now grow the Californicae, and who can only occasionally appreciate their beauty elsewhere.

The Subspecies Revisited

Iris hartwegii australis is the southernmost iris in the Californicae, and has had little written about it. It occurs in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Los Angeles, isolated from all the other Californicae species and subspecies. It lives in the Yellow Pine forest plant community, mostly in flat or gently sloping areas. It prefers dappled sunlight, but is occasionally seen in locations that receive considerable direct sunlight. It is rarely found on road cuts, but it likes to produce exceptions to most generalizations.
    My wife Marty and I live relatively close to this iris, and we have visited the area in the past while it was in bloom, but not for the past 15 years or so. This spring we decided to try to see the bloom. We made the decision in late June, but 1999 had been a late year for irises in general, and since normal bloom time for I. h. australis is early June, we took a chance. We were fortunate to catch the iris in bloom. Fifteen years can bring new perspectives to the evaluation of the irises.

Aesthetics
    Iris hartwegii australis has rarely been praised for its beauty, and I did not find it particularly attractive during visits years ago. Compared with the other members of the Series Californicae, it is admittedly well down the list of contestants in any iris beauty contest. The flowers are small, the flower parts are narrow, the color range is restricted, and the foliage is not noteworthy and would have little ornamental value in the average garden. But now I was seeing it in a different light.
    Aesthetic taste is notoriously relative, but there is a development of judgment, sometimes called "good taste." As I have seen more and more Californicae in the wild, my views have changed, perhaps even become more sensitive, though that assertion could be argued.
    In partial comparison, Iris douglasiana is often robust, with flowers that can be fairly large in a wide range of colors. Iris munzii has been called "stately." It is impressive enough to inspire the American public, that great judge of beauty, to attempt to transplant (during the absolutely wrong season for transplanting) most of the very choice stands from the Coffee Camp area east of Springville. Iris chrysophylla and Iris tenuissima can be characterized as "fragile." If a similar description of Iris hartwegii australis were chosen, it would be perhaps "diminutive" or "dainty without being fragile."
    The species, I. hartwegii, and two of the three subspecies, I. h. columbiana and I. h. pinetorum, have mostly buff or yellow flowers, but there are reported lavender stands of the species. None of the lavender hartwegii is reported to be as dark as the colors that occur in hartwegii australis. The color range of this subspecies is restricted to shades of lavender, with charming subtle variations within most stands. There is enough red in some of the clones to produce interesting purples, and others approach mauve. Slate gray shows up occasionally, often with darker veining, which makes those flowers attractive in a wildflower sort of way.
    Victor A. Cohen in his "A Guide to the Pacific Coast Native Irises" notes that a clone of this subspecies grew for years at Kew Gardens in England, and it earned the word "attractive" from Cohen. That is about as strong praise as I have found, and there are opinions to the contrary.

Value to the Gardener
    One of the questions that comes up is whether this subspecies has any value as a garden subject. The answer is usually negative, but I think some reevaluation is in order.
    I have seen it grown in a private garden out of its native range only once. In the late 1960s, Leo Brewer grew it in his east San Francisco Bay Area garden from seed which I had collected. I visited his garden and saw the plants growing quite happily under an oak tree. He was concerned that they were not happy in his garden, because of the irregular, scattered, semi-horizontal foliage. I assured him that what one sees in its native range is usually scattered, irregular, and semi-horizontal foliage, and his plants were looking extraordinarily typical. He reported that he did get it to flower, if my memory is correct. He also said that he watered it quite infrequently during the summer since it does not get much water in its native range during that time.
    Percy Everett, for years the horticulturist at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Gardens in southern California, noted in his "A Summary of the Culture of California Plants at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden 1927-1950", that he and his staff germinated several collections of seed of the subspecies over the years, and also made several bare root collection. They lost it several times until they withheld water during the summer. He stated that even then it was not easy to grow; it apparently goes dormant, requiring little water. There was no success with I. hartwegii, though fewer attempts were made with the species.
    Duncan Eader of Arcadia, California, near Los Angeles, reported in the Spring 1990 Almanac, that he had no success with bare root collections, while germination of seed was very low.
    Clearly, Iris hartwegii australis is a difficult but not impossible garden subject. Its aesthetic value has been discussed, and it appears to be minimal except to a wild iris enthusiast.

Value to the Hybridizer
    I believe Iris hartwegii and its subspecies I. h. australis may have value in the production of cold-hardy hybrids. They both live at high elevations in the Yellow Pine Forest plant community, where they are subject to winter freezing. I. h. australis occurs from 5,000 to over 7,000 feet elevation. Snow piles up at those altitudes, even in southern California, and the temperature can reach zero or below. Using both forms to introduce cold hardiness into the Californicae hybrids seems like a reasonable approach.
    It has been theorized that I. tenax might be a good source of cold-hardiness genes, since it is the most northern of the Californicae irises. I. hartwegii, and especially its southern race, have been mostly ignored as sources of cold-hardy genes, but the elevation at which both occur suggests otherwise. I. tenax does not live at anywhere near these altitudes. The duration of sub-freezing weather, and the degree of coldness, may be more severe than in the lower elevation Washington - Oregon range of I. tenax.
    I have personally seen only one attempt to use I. h. australis in hybridizing for any reason. Part of the problem is its June bloom season in the wild. By June, Californicae species and hybrids in the coastal areas and valleys of southern California are past their blooming season, which normally occurs from March to late May. So there are few, if any, flowers left on the lowland garden hybrids that might receive the subspecies' pollen. Other problems await anyone wishing to carry stored pollen from garden hybrids to the mountains to use on the subspecies. [Note: The ALMANAC editor advises against pollinating a wild population of iris with garden hybrid pollen.]
    In the early 1970s, George Stambach, a hybridizer in Pasadena, California, produced seedlings by using pollen brought from the mountains in June and placed on several late blooming garden hybrids. I saw the results - hybrids with grayish, sparse, scattered, semi-horizontal foliage and narrow flower parts, so I think he had a successful cross or two. The result so displeased Stambach that he destroyed the seedlings; his goal was aesthetic and those seedlings had little appeal.
    This strongly suggests there would be little, if any, immediate aesthetic advantage to using either the subspecies or the species as parents. Anyone who wants to incorporate hartwegii and hartwegii australis genes into the gene pool of Californicae garden hybrids for the sake of winter hardiness will need to wait before seeing aesthetically pleasing clones. A little luck will help.
    Pollen transfer is one method for moving genes from I. h. australis to other species and hybrids within the Californicae. The work might be easier if seedlings could be grown in gardens and the source pollen obtained from their flowers.
    Brewer, Cohen, and Everett showed that the subspecies can be grown from seed under normal garden conditions - with considerable care and persistence. It seems to like hot, dry summers with little water, which is what it gets in its native range. According to their reports, it blooms with the other Californicae in gardens, though fairly late. Crossings with other Californicae clones and hybrids would be relatively easy under those conditions. It could save a few trips to the San Bernardino Mountains for pollen to use on one's own plants, or to mail around the country to hybridizers in colder climates.
    It is worth speculating that both species and subspecies might grow in areas where winters are colder than most Californicae can tolerate, such as the Midwest or the East Coast. Plants growing from seed planted in these areas could be crossed with Californicae clones that already survive in these climates. The result might be a series of hybrids much more resistant to cold damage. Several growers report success with Californicae species and hybrids in the Midwest and on the East Coast, so such a plan might yield good results.

  San Bernardino Mountains host
  the southern race of I. hartwegii

    A discussion on growing Californicae species and hybrids in cold-winter areas appeared in the Spring 1990 edition of the Almanac. Several writers who had succeeded commented on problems and solutions, especially the problem of winter kill. I will not repeat that discussion here, but anyone interested in growing Californicae in cold-winter areas should consult those articles.

Conclusion
    The goal is to extend the geographical range in which Californicae hybrids can prosper. Genes from either I. h. australis, or the species I. hartwegii might contribute to enhanced cold hardiness. One method to incorporate those cold-hardy genes would be to to use pollen gathered in the wild on Californicae garden hybrids that bloom late in the southern California season, or perhaps mail the pollen to growers with later blooming seasons in other, colder climates. A second approach would be to collect seed from the subspecies or species so hybridizers could grow seedlings whose pollen could then be used to fertilize Californicae already growing in their gardens.
    Marty and I obtained pollen on our latest visit to native stands of I. h. australis to put on our late blooming hybrids, but it is too early to tell if any seeds will result. We also hope to collect seeds of the subspecies in the mountains during the late summer for the SPCNI Seed Exchange. These attempts might provide a first step toward testing the hypothesis that I. h. australis can be a source of enhanced cold tolerance.
    Could this program succeed? Some folks just relish a challenge. Our members who are successfully growing Californicae species and hybrids in difficult areas prove this. Is anyone up to this new project?

ADDENDUM: After finishing the above article, it came to my attention that in 1997, Robert Annand from Forest Ranch, California, registered as GOLDEN SCISSORTAILS a Pacific Coast Native hybrid that had I. hartwegii as its pollen parent. If my hypothesisis correct, this could be a very important hybrid in the quest for greater cold tolerance in pacificas.