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i.e. an invalidly published or unpublished names - also hardly another new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
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/