Coming soonCannabis EducationCannabis Education at the Institute: a professional course and a free public program.Register your interest

Not-for-profit research & education institute · Cassowary Coast, Far North Queensland


Blue flag (Iris versicolor)

Blue flag (Iris versicolor) - Australian Institute of Pharmacognosy
In this article
  1. 0. Free-teaser block
  2. 1. Nomenclature
  3. 2. Definition
  4. 3. Source and Australian supply
  5. 4. Macroscopy
  6. 5. Microscopy
  7. 6. Chemistry
  8. 7. Named markers and assay limits
  9. 8. TLC fingerprint
  10. 9. HPLC fingerprint
  11. 10. Identity, purity, adulterants and contaminants
  12. 11. Traditional use
  13. 12. Current practice: use, preparations and doses
  14. 13. Clinical evidence
  15. 14. Pharmacology
  16. 15. Safety
  17. 16. Discussion
  18. 17. Conclusions
  19. 18. Research still needed
  20. 19. References
  21. 20. Document control
Share this articleFacebookXLinkedInWhatsApp

AIP-PH-IRIVER · Version 1.0 draft · First published 2026 · Last modified 2026 · Version history · Report an error

Blue flag rhizome (Iris versicolor L.), Iridaceae

Australian Herbal Pharmacopoeia (working title) · Monograph AIP-PH-IRIVER · Version 1.0 draft
Date: 2026
Status: working document, version 1.0. Not a statutory standard.
Prepared by: the Australian Institute of Pharmacognosy, Far North Queensland, Australia. Every author and contributor is named at the end of the monograph.

Figure 1l. A single blue flag flower held above its sword-shaped leaves among grasses at the edge of a pond, Ann M. Banc
Figure 1l. A single blue flag flower held above its sword-shaped leaves among grasses at the edge of a pond, Ann M. Banchoff Park, New Jersey, USA, 20/05/2026; the yellow signal patch on the sepals is visible. Photograph Famartin, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons (image record ref 28). Species as named by the photographer; not an AIP voucher.

0. Free-teaser block

Figure 1. A clump of blue flag in flower at the edge of a stream, New Brooklyn Park, Winslow Township, New Jersey, USA,
Figure 1. A clump of blue flag in flower at the edge of a stream, New Brooklyn Park, Winslow Township, New Jersey, USA, 22/05/2021: sword-shaped grey-green leaves in fans and violet-blue flowers with broad, down-curved sepals. New Jersey is inside the native range of I. versicolor and outside that of I. virginica (Figure 9); the name is the photographer’s, read from a photograph, and is a provisional identification. Photograph Famartin, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons (image record ref 28). Not an AIP voucher.

0.1 Identity card

Register number AIP-PH-IRIVER (MediHerb A–Z list No. 21)
Title Blue flag root (Iris versicolor L.), Iridis versicoloris rhizoma
Version / year 1.0 draft, 2026. Next review 2029, or sooner when AIP bench data exist or a human study reports
Accepted binomial Iris versicolor L., Species Plantarum 1: 39 (1753). Accepted in the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) version 16.0 of 04/06/2026, the dataset Plants of the World Online displays, read through ChecklistBank in September 2026; IPNI 439235-1 [1]. Not to be confused with the later homonym Iris versicolor Thunb. (1784), a synonym of I. laevigata [1]
Family Iridaceae [1], order Asparagales in the APG IV system as maintained on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website [39]; subgenus Limniris in the chemical literature [25]. No family change affects the genus
Plant part Dried rhizome, with not more than 5 per cent of roots and leaf bases (NF IV, 1916) [12]; sold in the Australian practitioner trade as "root" [13]
Latin drug name Iridis versicoloris rhizoma (AIP form). The US National Formulary IV (1916) called the drug "Iris Versicolor" [12]; the US Pharmacopoeia called it "Iris" [11]
Principal synonyms Iris boltoniana Regel, I. caurina Herb. ex Hook., I. dierinckii K.Koch, I. flaccida Spach, I. picta Mill., I. pulchella Regel, Limniris versicolor (L.) Rodion., Xiphion versicolor (L.) Alef., and several varieties and forms [1]. Not synonyms: I. virginica L. and I. caroliniana S.Watson (the latter a synonym of I. virginica), which some pharmacy texts treat as the same drug [1,2,8,9]
Common names English: blue flag, larger blue flag, harlequin blueflag, flag lily, water flag, liver lily, snake lily, poison flag, flower-de-luce [2,7,11,20]. French (Canada): iris versicolore [2]
Pharmacopoeial status elsewhere US Pharmacopoeia, last official in the 1890 revision, and US National Formulary IV (1916), with macroscopy, powder microscopy, ash not more than 7 per cent and roots and leaf bases not more than 5 per cent [12]. British Herbal Pharmacopoeia 1996: yes, listed as Iris versicolor and I. caroliniana [9]; British Herbal Compendium 1992: yes [8]. The BHP and BHC texts themselves are not among the sources read. Ph. Eur., BP, WHO, EMA/HMPC, ChP, API: no monograph found in the sources searched
Australian status Permissible Ingredients Determination: yes, item 2724 IRIS VERSICOLOR, and items 914 BLUE FLAG RHIZOME DRY and 915 BLUE FLAG RHIZOME POWDER, each for purposes A (active) and H (homoeopathic), no specific requirements [3]. Poisons Standard: blue flag is not named; its minor constituent furfural is Schedule 6 except in preparations with 0.1 per cent or less, and sweet flag (Acorus calamus), its historic look-alike, is Schedule 10 for human therapeutic use (section 10) [4]. ARTG: a product-name search found no product called Iris versicolor [38]. Not recorded growing in Australia: the 10 specimens in Australian and New Zealand herbaria were collected in North America and New Zealand [5]. Not native, so no Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) permit applies; not a prohibited or restricted invasive plant under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld) [6]
Named markers Iriversical (CID 71587326): identity, rhizome-specific, proposed; no limit. Irilone (CID 5281779): supporting identity at genus level, proposed; no limit. Furfural (CID 7362): safety marker, proposed; no limit exists anywhere. Total ash: not more than 7 per cent (NF IV) [12]
Evidence snapshot Chronic skin disease (acne, eczema, psoriasis): Tier T, 0 trials. Liver and gallbladder complaints, constipation: Tier T, 0 trials. Enlarged lymph nodes: Tier T, 0 trials. Goitre: Tier T, 0 trials. Oral biofilm, anti-adhesion: Tier P, one in vitro study. Weight loss: Tier P, one rat study of a three-herb mixture [8,11,13,24,27]
Suggested citation Ridley T, Iggulden L. Blue flag root (Iris versicolor L.), Iridis versicoloris rhizoma. AIP-PH-IRIVER, version 1.0 draft. Cardwell: Australian Institute of Pharmacognosy; 2026. DOI to be assigned
Provenance Original AIP data: none. Every analytical figure, limit, method and dose belongs to the source cited beside it. Every photograph of the living plant, rhizome and microscopy is a licensed photograph named by its photographer or institution, and its identification is provisional. Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 carry AIP bench data pending (no AIP voucher, section, plate or run yet). The map (Figure 9), charts (Figures 6b, 7b, 8, 10–13) and drawings (Figures 5, 6) are AIP drawings from cited data
Compiler and review Compiled by Dr Thomas Ridley (Education and Research). Technical review: Dr Fiona MacAllister (Botanical, sections 1-5, 10; reviewed in 2026), Dr Hana Suzuki (QA, sections 6-10; reviewed in 2026), Dr Eleanor Whitcombe (Medicine, sections 12, 13, 15; reviewed in 2026). Layout, figure placement and figure credits: Jesse Kirby (Community Outreach, Figures 1–13 and the page design; reviewed in 2026). Evidence and citation audit of all sections, references and figure sources: Dr Thomas Ridley (Education and Research; reviewed in 2026; as the compiler, this audit is not independent, and sections 11, 14 and 16–18 still await a reader outside Education and Research). Published: not yet. Last modified: 2026. Version 1.0 draft
Canonical URL /pharmacopoeia/iris-versicolor/ (on publication)

0.2 Summary

Blue flag is the dried rhizome of Iris versicolor, a wetland iris of north-eastern North America from Newfoundland and Labrador to Virginia and west to Manitoba and Minnesota. It is a natural allopolyploid that arose from ancestors of the southern blue flag, I. virginica, and the Arctic I. setosa group. It does not grow wild in Australia and is imported. The last official standard was the US National Formulary IV (1916): a branched, annulate, grey- to purplish-brown rhizome whose powder shows resin cells, calcium oxalate prisms and sparse starch, with ash not more than 7 per cent. The British Herbal Pharmacopoeia 1996 kept a monograph that also admitted I. caroliniana, which botanists now treat as I. virginica.

The rhizome contains iridal-type triterpenoids, including iriversical, first isolated from this species, with isoflavones, benzophenones, xanthones, phenolic acids and a trace of volatile oil containing furfural. The isoflavone glucoside iridin, often listed for blue flag, was found in the leaves and not in the rhizome in the two profiling studies read; the "iridin" of nineteenth-century pharmacy was an oleoresin extract.

Australian practitioners prescribe a 1:2 liquid extract at 20 to 40 mL a week for skin disease, sluggish liver and bile flow, and enlarged lymph nodes. That use rests on North American First Nations, Eclectic and later practitioner tradition. No clinical trial has been found. The main safety points are dose-dependent nausea, vomiting and purging; avoidance in pregnancy, while breastfeeding, and in active bowel inflammation or a blocked bile duct; no use in children outside a degree-qualified herbalist’s care; and confusion with sweet flag, a Schedule 10 plant in Australia.

0.3 Contents with extent

Section Extent (A4 pages in this printing)
0 Free-teaser block 5
1 Nomenclature 2
2 Definition 1
3 Source and Australian supply, with 3.1 origin, climate and chemistry 3
4 Macroscopy 5
5 Microscopy 3
6 Chemistry 2
7 Named markers and assay limits 1
8 TLC fingerprint 2
9 HPLC fingerprint 2
10 Identity, purity, adulterants and contaminants 2
11 Traditional use 4
12 Current practice 1
13 Clinical evidence 2
14 Pharmacology 1
15 Safety 2
16–18 Discussion, conclusions, research needed 6
19 References 2
20 Document control 3
Totals (draft) 49 A4 pages. 33 embedded figures: 11 licensed photographs of the living plant, fruit and seed; 3 licensed photographs of the fresh rhizome; 2 licensed photomicrographs and prints (a root cross-section and a leaf epidermis); 4 public-domain plates (1787, 1817, 1887, 1918); 2 licensed photographs of look-alike species; 1 AIP composite of PubChem structures; 1 AIP schematic redrawn from the 1916 description; 7 AIP charts and replots; 1 AIP map; 1 captioned placeholder for the AIP TLC plate. About 20 tables. 0 AIP photomicrographs, 0 AIP chromatograms, 0 AIP plates. 0 clinical trials to grade; 2 trial registers searched in full (ClinicalTrials.gov and ANZCTR) and 1 attempted (WHO ICTRP); 2 literature databases searched. 44 numbered references

Gaps stated plainly. AIP holds no voucher, photomicrograph, TLC plate or chromatogram of blue flag. No openly licensed photomicrograph of the rhizome was found; Figure 4 is a licensed stained cross-section of the root, which the NF IV allows at up to 5 per cent of the drug, and Figure 5 is an AIP schematic redrawn from the 1916 description of the rhizome. No published TLC method for this drug was found in the sources read, so the Figure 7 slot carries a captioned placeholder. No openly licensed chromatogram of this species was found; Figure 8 is an AIP retention-time map redrawn from a published table, labelled as such, and is not a chromatogram. The BHP 1996 and BHC 1992 monographs are reported through Barnes and Trease and Evans and have not been read directly. The crude-drug photographs (Figures 3, 3b) are of fresh rhizome and carry no scale bar; an AIP photograph of the dried drug with a scale bar is pending. The APG IV paper has been requested in full text; the family placement is cited meanwhile to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. ANZCTR and the TGA adverse-event database (DAEN) were searched in a browser session in October 2026 (sections 13 and 15). The WHO trial register search failed its positive control on both attempts, so it does not count as searched. TGA safety alerts and recalls were searched (section 15), but the CITES checklist and the DAFF BICON case for dried rhizome were not searched for this edition. Three earlier Indian reports that claim weight loss in people with a mixture containing blue flag have not been located (section 13). All are listed for a hand search (section 18).

0.4 Contributors and access

Compiled by Dr Thomas Ridley, Head of Education and Research. Dr Fiona MacAllister, Head of Botanical, reviewed sections 1–5 and the adulterant species of section 10, with Figures 1–5 and 9. Dr Hana Suzuki, Head of Botanical QA, reviewed sections 6–10, with Figures 6, 6b, 7, 7b and 8. Dr Eleanor Whitcombe, Head of Medicine, reviewed sections 12, 13 and 15, with Figures 10–13. Jesse Kirby, Head of Community Outreach, reviewed the layout: the placement of every figure in its section, each caption and credit line against the image record, and the printed page design. Dr Thomas Ridley audited every reference, quotation and figure source against the source itself; because he also compiled the monograph, that audit is not independent, and sections 11, 14 and 16–18 still await a reader outside Education and Research. Dr Luke Iggulden, Chief Scientific Officer, is senior author: he set the scope of the pharmacopoeia series and made the research possible. A preview of the monograph and all of section 15 (Safety) are free to every reader; the full text is for Scholar members and above, or the AUD $20 copy of this one title.

Free to every reader. The safety section of every monograph is open to everyone, signed in or not. In an emergency call 000. For poisoning, call the Poisons Information Centre on 13 11 26.

15. Safety

Key points. Blue flag is an emeto-cathartic drug with a narrow comfortable range. Harm rises with dose and is worse with fresh root. Felter (1922) wrote that iris "is capable of causing gastro-enteritis resulting in death" [19]. That is a historical statement with no case details, but it rules out self-dosing above the practitioner range. AIP Medicine advises against use in pregnancy, while breastfeeding, in children outside professional care, and in active bowel inflammation or bile duct obstruction.

Adverse effects in use. No trial has recorded adverse events, because no trial exists (section 13). The practitioner texts record gastrointestinal upset at or above the top of the dose range. MediHerb advises monitoring sensitive individuals and patients taking the high end of the dose [13]. Barnes lists nausea, vomiting and irritation of the gut and eyes, put down to the fresh root and to furfural in the volatile oil [8]. Duke records the same from Barnes’s first edition, and adds practitioners’ reports that fresh-root tinctures are much stronger than dried-root ones [16]. Felter records "a more or less persistent belly-ache and mild catharsis" even at "moderately full therapeutic doses" [19]. The historical texts describe large doses as causing acid vomiting, watery purging with intestinal burning and colic, salivation, facial neuralgia and "considerable prostration" [11,19]. Barnes, weighing the absence of data and the known toxicity of related species, states that "the use of blue flag is not recommended" and that it "may not be suitable for internal use" [8]. That is an overseas pharmacist’s judgement and is recorded as such. Grade: practitioner and historical observation; no controlled data.

Case reports. No published case report of harm from blue flag in a human was found in either screen (section 13). The USDA guide of 1907 records "cases of poisoning among children" who mistook blue flag for sweet flag, and gives the name "poison-flag" for that reason, without case details [20]. Felter’s fatal gastro-enteritis is likewise given without a case [19]. Causality cannot be assessed for either.

Toxicology. No study of the whole drug in animals was found. Barnes reports a rat oral LD50 for furfural of 127 mg/kg, and describes furfural as irritant to mucous membranes, causing lachrymation, eye inflammation, throat irritation and headache; whether the irritancy of blue flag comes from its volatile oil "has not been established" [8]. The volatile oil is about 0.025 per cent of the drug [8], so the furfural LD50 cannot be turned into a dose limit for the herb. The rhizome extract was cytotoxic to human fibroblasts at 96 mg/L in vitro [24]. King’s records that animals dying after ingestion showed "marked congestion of the gastric and intestinal tissues" [11]. Grade: laboratory, animal and historical data.

Contraindications and cautions.

Situation Statement Grade Source
Pregnancy Avoid. AHPA class 2b ("not to be used during pregnancy"); "should not be taken during pregnancy" (Barnes); "not appropriate in pregnancy" (Moore); professional supervision (MediHerb); Mills and Bone category B1 No human data; texts agree on caution and differ on strength; irritant and cathartic action [8,13,14,16,18]
Lactation Avoid. "Safety has not been established" (Barnes); professional supervision (MediHerb) No data [8,13]
Children Not without a degree-qualified herbalist’s care; no source gives a paediatric dose No data [14]
Active inflammatory bowel disease, gastrointestinal ulceration or irritation Avoid Theoretical, from the recorded emeto-cathartic action and fatal gastro-enteritis [11,19]
Gallstones Caution, "due to the potential for impacted gallstones and obstructed bile ducts" (MediHerb). Avoid where a bile duct is known to be blocked (AIP Medicine) Theoretical (cholagogue tradition) [13]
Before surgery Discontinue 7 days before general anaesthesia Precautionary, applied to MediHerb liquids generally [13]
Fresh-root preparations Do not swap for a dried-root product at the same dose Practitioner observation [16]

The pregnancy statements come from different frameworks. The AHPA class 2b and the Mills and Bone category B1 appear side by side in Hechtman’s Appendix 2, taken from Romm (2009) [14]. Duke gives AHPA classes 2b and 2d [16]. Barnes also lists blue flag among herbs best avoided in pregnancy, for its irritant oil [8]. King’s records that an "iridin" pill was once given in Edinburgh for the vomiting of pregnancy [11]. That is history, and it says nothing about safety. The Medicine view is to avoid blue flag in pregnancy and while breastfeeding. No source reports harm in either. The advice rests on the missing data and on a purgative, mucosal-irritant action that could harm a pregnancy or reach an infant.

Herb-drug interactions. None documented. Barnes and MediHerb record none [8,13]. Stockley’s Drug Interactions (2008) and Lam, Huang and Hall (2006), both held in the AIP reference library, have no entry for blue flag or Iris [41,42]. MediHerb refers users to its herb-drug interaction chart, which was not among the sources read [13]. Theoretical interactions (AIP Medicine interpretation, untested):

  • A cathartic dose could shorten gut transit and reduce the absorption of oral drugs taken at the same time. This matters most for drugs with a narrow margin (for example levothyroxine, lithium, digoxin, warfarin and antiepileptics) and for oral contraceptives if vomiting or diarrhoea occurs.
  • Repeated purging could lower potassium and add to potassium loss from diuretics, corticosteroids or stimulant laxatives. A low potassium level increases the toxicity of digoxin.
    Grade: theoretical for both. There is no clinical report and no pharmacokinetic study.

Older people. No data. The risk of fluid and potassium loss from purging is greater in older people and in anyone taking the drugs listed above.

Overdose. The recorded picture is emesis, purging with colic, salivation and prostration [11,19], with a historical report of fatal gastro-enteritis [19]. Management is supportive, with attention to fluid and electrolyte loss. In an emergency in Australia call 000, or the Poisons Information Centre on 13 11 26.

TGA safety information. TGA safety alerts and recalls: on 30/09/2026 the addresses of all 767 safety-alert pages and all recall and market-action pages listed on the TGA website were searched for Iris, blue flag, Acorus and calamus. None matched. The search picked up its controls (the kava, turmeric, withania and garcinia alerts) [43]. An alert on a multi-ingredient product that did not name blue flag in its title would not be found this way. The TGA Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN, medicines) was searched through its interactive portal in October 2026, for reports received from 01/01/1971 to September 2026. "Iris versicolor" and "blue flag" matched no medicine and no report. "Iris" matched three medicines, none containing blue flag (an Irish moss cough syrup and two monoclonal antibodies), and "versicolor" matched six, all containing the mushroom Trametes versicolor. The control, Cimicifuga (black cohosh), matched 14 medicines with 36 reports [43]. DAEN lists a medicine only under the ingredient names it was reported with, so a report on a product that did not name blue flag would not be found.

Confusion with sweet flag. Sweet flag (Acorus calamus) is Schedule 10 for human therapeutic use in Australia [4], and the two rhizomes have been mistaken for each other [20]. A misidentified lot would be a legal and a safety problem. The identity tests of section 10 exclude it.

Referral. Anyone thinking of taking blue flag, especially in pregnancy, while breastfeeding, for a child, with gallstones or bowel disease, or with other medicines, should consult a degree-qualified herbalist with competencies and adequate training in pharmacognosy.

Figure 13. What is known about harm from blue flag, by the kind of evidence behind each statement. Gold: observation rec
Figure 13. What is known about harm from blue flag, by the kind of evidence behind each statement. Gold: observation recorded in practitioner or historical texts; grey: laboratory or animal data; red: absence of data or a search still to run. AIP chart, 2026, from refs 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 41, 42 and 43.

32 more pages follow · 15,996 words, 30 figures, 13 tables

Still to come in this monograph

  1. 1. Nomenclature
  2. 2. Definition
  3. 3. Source and Australian supply
  4. 4. Macroscopy
  5. 5. Microscopy
  6. 6. Chemistry
  7. 7. Named markers and assay limits
  8. 8. TLC fingerprint
  9. 9. HPLC fingerprint
  10. 10. Identity, purity, adulterants and contaminants
  11. 11. Traditional use
  12. 12. Current practice: use, preparations and doses
  13. 13. Clinical evidence
  14. 14. Pharmacology
  15. 16. Discussion
  16. 17. Conclusions
  17. 18. Research still needed
  18. 19. References
  19. 20. Document control

The rest of this monograph is open to members. One membership covers every members’ feature on the site.

Checking your membership…

Share this articleFacebookXLinkedInWhatsApp

Report an error or submit evidence

If something in this monograph is wrong, out of date or missing, tell us and show us the evidence. Every report is logged under the AIP Evidence Charter and assessed on the evidence alone; the outcome is kept on the record, and an upheld report is corrected with a dated notice on this page.

Open the report form

What kind of report is this?

A report without evidence is still logged, and closed as “no evidence lodged”.

We use your name and email only to acknowledge and answer this report. They are kept with the dispute record, are not shared, and are not published unless you tick the box above. The evidence you send may be published. See the Privacy Policy.

The Institute sets and publishes its own monographs. The catalogue is in Publications.