I have rattled around our reference collection books, periodicals and nursery catalogues as well as on line sources to no great advantage on this one. Off the top, it would appear to be either an example of progressively repeated spelling errors in one or more nurseries - hardly a new phenomenon or more than likely another infuriating example of vanity nomenclature, i.e. an invalidly published or unpublished names - also hardly another new phenomenon.This name, however it is spelt, doesn't come close to any recognised taxon therefore at best it may have been used by a nursery or individual attached to a sport or cultivar. Invariably ladies don't do vanity nomenclature but men litter the world with this junk. None of the works either by Waddick & Zhao, Innes as already cited, Cassidy & Linnegar, RBG -Edinburgh and RBG - Kew have anything like this. It clearly is not a recognised plant at any level including that of basonym. Perhaps a back track to the supplying source might be useful, if its an option other than that it seems to be a dead end. If its a nice Iris just enjoy it as your secret mystery plant. Another thought is that this word loosely relates to a colour used in the manufacture of expensive cloth in the late middle ages and it was traded from the Far East. I am no doubt probably/certainly/positively wrong once again but I think it was produced by crushing certain types of invertebrates but not much help is it when trying to track down a wee Iris! Postscript - the word 'COCHIN' in one context refers to a large region in south-east Asia, e.g. Cochin China, could it have originated there? Iain