Just as there is a difference between what one orders and what one receives, there can be a difference between what is commonly accepted to be true and what really exists. In particular, what should we make of the name Iris x anglica? I don't mean the name Iris anglica, which is an old synonym of Iris latifolia. I mean the horticultural name Iris x anglica. This is the name used by some continental writers to name the garden forms of English irises. The implication is that they are not simply Iris latifolia cultivars. When Jim Waddick says " Theoretically there can be NO hybrid English or Spanish Iris, by definition these would be Dutch Iris (all hybrids)." I think I understand what he is trying to say here, but in fact it's more likely that the Spanish irises and maybe the English irises too are in fact hybrids. When Jim Waddick says that there can be no hybrid English or Spanish irises, I think what he meant to say is that no inter-specific hybrid can properly belong to those groups. But the existing forms doubtless arose from infra-specific hybridization. That's what horticulturists do best: mix it all up to see what they'll get. Cultivated corn is attributed to a single species, Zea mays, yet the widely grown corns of today are almost always described as hybrids. Jim McKenney