I'm enjoying this discussion of the western Mediterranean bulbous irises, and it's interesting to see a sort of consensus emerging. However, there is one point on which I want to be a stickler. I would strongly object to calling this group the Xiphium group. Why? Because the word xiphium is the name of a particular species within the group. Consider that, unlike zoological nomenclature, formal botanical nomenclature is averse to tautological names at the generic-specific ranks. Prohibitions against this are written into the code. In zoological nomenclature, a name such as Bison bison bison is allowed (this is our North American bison in its type subspecies). If the bison were a plant, the name would have to be changed. If the name Bison were kept for the genus, the name of the species would have to change to a different name. I don't know if in naming groups above the rank genus the use of the specific epithet of an included species is prohibited by the code. Perhaps someone who has easy access to a copy of the current code can check this out. But prohibited or not, it strikes me as a poor practice to invite ambiguity when it is so easily avoided. That's why I suggested the name Xiphions. No, that's not a misprint for Xiphiums. Note also that this is English (or English in form - I used the plural to make that clear): it's not meant to be understood as a Latinized Greek taxon. Of course, it's nothing more than an Anglicization of the existing taxon Xiphion. I appreciated the comments of jlubelover. But I have to quibble with the assertion that > I. xiphium = Spanish iris I'm holding out for the narrower point of view that the term "Spanish iris" refers uniquely to the garden cultivars of Iris xiphium. Although it's a hairbreadth distinction, I don't think the name properly applies to the wild forms of Iris xiphium. In particular, it's not appropriate to call a species native to many north African and southwestern European countries "Spanish" (these countries include, according to some accounts, Italy - in particular, Sicily and even some mainland Italian sites). Nor is there any reason to suppose that the cultivated Spanish irises, taken as a group, correspond to any wild population of Iris xiphium. Note that I don't expect horticultural names to meet the same criteria of appropriateness, relevance, geographic accuracy or even implied relationship. Fantasy, metaphor, illusion, downright lies and misconceptions are all part of the tradition of horticultural names. In my book, they're like vernacular names: let sleeping dogs lie! And so with that in mind I'm not about to start to campaign to change the name "English irises". One more thing: when Mary Sue wrote " If not I suggest Jim McKenney does it since he is the one who first complained about the choice of words." But I wasn't complaining, I was promoting disambiguation. And I'll be glad to help with redoing the page. Jim McKenney Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where crepe myrtles are blooming and giving the area a sort of cotton-candy-carnival atmosphere.