MBB6694 Kanetvlei, Hex River Valley as a variant of Haworthia nortieri.

In  Haworthia Update Vol. 9 dealing with H. maculata, I again draw attention to several populations that are problematic in an area very difficult to explore. The populations are MBB7865 at Keurkloof southeast of DeDoorns, EA1441 at the Hex River Pass, an unrecorded population south of Sandhills (about 3km east of Kanetvlei) reported by Ernst van Jaarsveld. In addition there are two populations apparently of H. arachnoidea at Tunnel Station east of Osplaas.

The illustrations that accompany this article are:

  1. MBB6694 Vreesniet, Kanetvlei.
  2. EA1441 Hex River Pass, east DeDoorns.
  3. MBB7865 ex E. Van Jaarsveld, Keurkloof, DeDoorns.

This population MBB6694 is at Kanetvlei southeast of Sandhills, and I originally ascribed it to H. arachnoidea but this is not correctTo this I can add unexamined populations reported by PV Bruynsdeep in the Langeberg at Keerom Damand another of Ted Oliver in the mountains north of Nuy.  MBB6694 is only 200-300m north of MBB7994 also in sandstone.  The sandstone strata are by no means all the same and one can even find shale bands in what is essentially a sandstone formation.  H. maculata flowers late winter to early spring and these other populations in early  summer.

I have not examined the flowers in any number and remain doubtful that this information will clarify any deductions that can be drawn from the vegetative characters or the geographic positions of the populations.  It appears to me that consideration must be given to a relationship with H. nortieri  that in my assessment occurs from the far northwest to as far east as Prince Albert {i.e. H. nortieri (devriesii)}. What I have seen of the flower, and shown now is that it definitely does not belong in the context of the Southern Cape species where the bud-tips tend to be “fish-tailed”. The inflorescence are slender and few flowered.

There is some criticism of my emphasis on geographical distribution as a key indicator of species. It was even said, as though I would have denied the fact, that I could not identify plants unless I knew where they came from. There is an incredible amount of both ignorance and the obtuse behind these statements. One critic feels that I have ignored detail and even ignored flower characters in the development of my opinions. This same critic claims a high degree of agreement with me (80%) based apparently on the view that so much of my classification is correct (meets with his approval), and presumably that the 20 percent that he contributes to the system makes it 100% correct. This is wholly wrong. This critic is simply unable to bridge the historical chasm between his introduction to, or knowledge of, Haworthia and mine.   He simply does not recognise the shift in method and why I switched from a “character-based” approach to a phytogeographic one. It is really very simple in that the character based system as used from the very beginning of classification, has not produced a solution to the identification and classification of Haworthia.  It all rests on a very weak and shaky definition of species determined by breeding barriers and consequently that morphological differences necessarily exist. My approach was to show that breeding barriers (at least in plants) could be integral to species and that morphological differences could equally be nothing but variation within species.  Therefore I arrived at a definition of species from the view that they were phenomena spread in space and changing with time. This is just a fundamental of plant species as they constitute the vegetation and the floras of the world. Virtually the first question following “What is that?”, is “where does it come from?”.

Why 6694 is so interesting is precisely because it occurs in an area which is so poorly known and represented in our knowledge of Haworthia.  The reality in the subgenus Haworthia is that there are several areas of great species richness and there is real pattern in the distribution of the various elements as they are listed in the 80% agreement area.  The 20% disagreement zone concerns truly trivial opinion and unsubstantiated statements, and almost ignores the real reasons for disagreement at all.  The real reasons are the realities that superficial morphological difference does not mean species and I have posted a vast amount of material that demonstrates that.  I have shown repeatedly that differences in single characters in what can be rationally said to be the same species, can be greater than between different species.

In the case of 6694 I did not pick any particular character to identify the plants as H. arachnoidea from probably as far back as 1975 and I can find no earlier record of this location.  I do recall a specimen in the Compton herbarium made by W.F.Barker that I mentally allied with H. arachnoidea but it is not cited as such in my revision. The identification was based on little else other than the spiny-ness of the plants and the fact that the nearest known locality for that species was a very new one of mine a few kilometres to the southwest. At the time, H. nortieri was barely known and this was from far to the northwest at Clanwilliam.  Since then H. nortieri has become much better known although still some distance north of Ceres, and with its globose-flowered variants at Laingsburg and eastwards.  H. arachnoidea remains remarkably unknown from the Cedarberg and Koue Bokkeveld mountains but does appear in the upper Hex River Valley.  Here it is odd that the leaves tend to have the translucent dots that one would expect to characterise H. nortieri.  But otherwise the leaf coloration is the much darker green that is associated with H. arachnoidea.  A twist is that at Kunje, southeast of Citrusdal, H. nortieri does have very dark green leaves and there is no doubt that confusion with H. arachnoidea is inevitable.  I have very little to offer in this regard because this degree and level of confusion or doubt is intrinsic to the genus anyway.

Why I now decide to relate this Kanetvlei population to H. nortieri is not to be construed as a decision now to call white what previously was clearly and definitely black.  It is taking all my knowledge and experience to suggest simply that this is a better reflection of the situation where there is not enough hard data to determine identity at a higher level of certainty than about 50%.  What I do suggest that there are many situations in Haworthia as the case with H. maculata and H. pubescens only recently exposed.  In this case the two very different elements can be very confidently be said to be the same in respect of distribution and linking populations AND characters.  Throughout, particularly the subgenus Haworthia, we have situations of continuity and spatial (geographic trend) and nearly all my many publications deal with exactly this reality.  What it suggests is that my critic should come to consider if he has some other motive between punting points of difference that prevent him from finding points of agreement, besides those that rest coldly on logic.

1. MBB6694 Vreesniet, Kanetvlei.

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Flower buds.

2. EA1441 Hex River Pass, east DeDoorns.

3. MBB7865 ex E. Van Jaarsveld, Keurkloof, DeDoorns.

Haworthia minima and pumila flowers

6645.1b H. pumila

This flower (H. pumila) is apparently persistently regarded by botanists as actinomorphic (star-shaped, radially symmetrical) – as though zygomorphy (yoke shaped, bilateral, asymmetrical) in the aloids is an uncommon condition!

Radial symmetry means the flower can be divided into 3 or more identical sectors which are related to each other by rotation about the centre of the flower. Typically, each sector might contain one tepal or one petal and one sepal and so on. It may or may not be possible to divide the flower into symmetrical halves by the same number of longitudinal planes passing through the axis. Zygomorthic flowers can be divided by only a single plane into two mirror-image halves, much like a yoke or a person’s face.

If you see the way the inner upper petal overlaps BOTH the two lower inner petals, you recognise that there can not be actinomorphy in aloid flowers.

Haworthia pumila

Haworthia minima

MBB7989 Haworthia pumila, Lemoenpoort

Kobus drew my attention to a glabrous plant of H. pumila while he was photographing this species at Lemoenpoort. The plants here have a missing chromosome and tend to have a purplish colour. I have seen smooth non-tubercled leaves elsewhere. But do check out that one plant – if you look carefully you can see the leaves are in 8 nearly vertical tiers. Proper botanists recently, for Taxon, described the arrangement of leaves like this in only two tiers (e.g. H. truncata) as “distichous insertion”. This is weird. Are the leaves in this plant of H. pumila “octichous”? Is H. viscosa “tristichous”. No. The leaves in the aloids are alternately and spirally inserted.

Flower profiles

Flower faces

Leaf arrangement in Aloe striatula

Herewith is an image of the leaf arrangement in Aloe striatula. I have numbered the leaves in inverse order to show that the leaves are as much distichious as trifarious i.e in two rows or three. The primary set is 1 through 10, the distichous set is 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. The trifarious set is 1, 4, 7, 10; 2, 5, 8 and 3, 6, 9. I have also added a picture of the leaf insertion – here it is entire and there is a leaf sheath around the stem – the actual point of insertion is at the pointer although the “veins” continue through that point to the stem itself. In this species the next leaf is inserted just below the opening of the previous sheath. Despite the leaves being alternate, they are spirally arranged. In Aloe broomii the leaf insertion is continuous and you can peel all the leaves off the stem in one piece. In most Haworthias the leaves are imbricate (overlapping alternately) but always in a spiral sequence. H. wittebergensis has leaves that have entire insertion and by memory the same is true for H. blackburniae and maybe for H. viscosa.

Just what do we do with names for Haworthia?

Previously published in BCSJl (Cactus World) 30.4:211(2012)
M B Bayer

Taxonomy always provokes differing views, and Haworthia in particular has been subject to years of vacillation. The author has long been a campaigner against the haphazard proliferation of new names for every new, morphologically different population or variant. He questions the vagueness of a conventional species concept and pleads for a more reason-based, logical and sensible, communal approach to understanding and classifying Haworthia species. He hopes in this article to convey a message which is relevant to whatever genera of plants you grow. Photography by the author.

In Haworthia, professional botanists have struggled with and avoided the group because it is so infused with amateurs whose interest in the genus far outweighs any knowledge of botany. So classification of Haworthia has muddled on with scant regard for the discipline of botany as a science. Whether that has changed, is not for me to say. I have personally been gathering information on distribution and variation for over 50 years and have very seriously tried to keep that in the context of the science I was trained in and present it in a manner that botanists can follow and hopefully accept.

What has developed is that academic and professional botanists have been working with the tools of molecular biology and the results of five independent studies have all pointed towards the same conclusion, which is that the species of Haworthia are elusive, and the related genera are also not adequately distinguishable in the DNA data.  The best solution they can offer is to merge the genera back into a single genus, namely Aloe.  My personal reaction is that this is not a new idea and also Gordon Rowley pointed this out as far back as the 1970’s.  I have also said that the subgenus Haworthia does not sit comfortably with the other two subgenera.  Had I been a true taxonomist I would have implemented that by separating Haworthia into three separate genera and that is what I really would like to see.  But the reality is that this does not solve the other problems that exist regarding Astroloba, Chortolirion, Poellnitzia, Chamaealoe, Leptaloe, Lomatophyllum, and the small Madagascan aloes.  True botany alone can resolve the current and a new classification (still in manuscript form) has been proposed by a group of scientists that will really ‘rock the boat’ as far as collectors are concerned.

In Haworthiad (2012:4), I wrote about Haworthia mirabilis ‘submagnifica’. (Ed. note: The name in inverted commas, according to the author’s system indicates a variant name rather than a formal conventional variety, subspecies or form.  It is his contention that there is no species definition and thus formal names have a large element of uncertainty.  Another option is to drop the use of any rank denotion at all).  It is one of the first populations linked to von Poellnitz’ H. magnifica long before so much was learned about distribution and variation.  I used the prefix “sub” because this means “somewhat”, “almost”, “slightly”, “partially”, and possibly a few other words that mean… it is, but it is not.  The population concerned is Komserante (Figs 1-2) and this particular population has acquired the name H. vernalis (Figs. 3-4).  But I think we need to start from scratch and drop all the ‘baggage’ of the years.  I personally have learned so much since I wrote my revision in 1996 that I know it is not possible to properly backtrack and retrace the passage forward by the use of Latin names.  Interfertility is the basis of the system we use to identify and describe species and my field experience was already proving that this cannot possibly apply in the way in which Haworthia has been, or is to be, classified.

It is quite evident that H. retusa and H. mirabilis, both of which I accept in a very much broader context, do hybridise and there are populations that fit between.  But first let me just explain that I regard H. retusa now to include H. turgida and all the variants of that species (nomenclatural priority obviated the use of the name turgida to cover the greater body of populations for this species).  In the same way I regard H. maraisii, H. magnifica, and H. heidelbergensis and whatever variants were attached to those, as H. mirabilis.  There are thus two species.  My further observation is that H. pygmaea and H. mutica are segregates from the common gene pool of H. retusa and H. mirabilis.  The Komserante population is the one in which that same gene pool is re-combining (Figs. 5-10).  I am not in the least sure of all the intricacies but it seems to me that it is actually the group of populations that I recognize as H. retusa var. nigra that is pivotal in the relationship of all these species that I recognize. In this we discuss populations using names as prescribed by convention. This convention caters for chronology and authorship and not for evolutionary pathways. Both the names “retusa” and “turgida” precede the name “nigra”, but the populations that I now assign to H. retusa ‘nigra’ may better fit the concept of evolutionary origin.

The picture is complicated by the role of H. floribunda. This also hybridizes with both H. mirabilis and H. retusa as odd hybrids as well as at a population level. Just what are we to do? History has demonstrated all too well that a bevy of ill-assorted interested parties trying to impose a botanical classification is going to produce nothing but conflict and confusion. This has been going on now since the time that Smith, Von Poellnitz and Resende were simultaneously describing new species. How are we going to turn around and arrive at the understanding and stability of names that we seek?

In the past I have been extremely reluctant to make the following suggestion, and even now am a bit hesitant. What we need to do is turn to people who are employed to do this work. Herbaria and herbarium botanists are tasked and entrusted to classify and name plants. Perhaps it testifies to the complexity of the subject, or just its enormity, that these botanists have too often needed to defer to amateurs who have the interest, energy and enthusiasm and commitment to acquire field knowledge that a professional could never get the time or funds to do. The unfortunate part is that sometimes amateurs may not be able to relate their knowledge adequately to academic botany.

So what is the solution?  It is that the community leaders assume the responsibility for the establishment of a system of classification that is meaningful to the community they serve.  (By community, I mean initially the botanists who should be providing us with scientifically sound classifications, then editors who are familiar with what botanists do, next are the Societies with their memberships, and also opinion formers in those groups. Finally included are the reviewers and commentators who lead opinion in one direction or another).  It is surely not that difficult to sit down together to discuss and arrive at a set of guidelines by which a decision can be reached as to what (not whose) system to accept. A solution does not belong to anyone. Latin names are assumed to refer to an entity called a “species”. Botany has indeed been very lax and remiss in not providing a definition and this is the prime reason why amateurs have had so much freedom in generating Latin names for the most frivolous reasons. Botanists themselves have often not been far behind.

I think it is time to change all this and must excuse myself from any decision making body or process because I have a vested interest in respect of all the words I have written on the subject.

M B Bayer
PO Box 960
Kuilsriver 7579
South Africa

Email: bbayer227@gmail.com

Literature cited:

Bayer, M B(1999) Haworthia revisited. Umdaus Press, Hatfield.
-(2012) Plants in my collection 7: H. mirabilismagnifica’. Haworthiad 26(1): 4-5

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 6

Appendix  6  to Haworthia Update Vol 8.

Two further records and data for Haworthia mirabilis.

Kobus Venter drew my attention to a second population of H. mirabilis on the eastern boundary of the farm Schuitsberg, which is the origin of the var. beukmannii of von Poellnitz.  But the real motive for exploration in that area was a photograph sent to me by Messrs Daryl and Priscilla Hackland of a plant on the Zigzag Path just east of the northern end of the town of Greyton.   It was their son Andy Hackland who observed the plants and thought I might be interested – indeed.  The bright green colour of the plant struck me as most unusual for that area where most of the populations known are south of the river in shale and they are of the brown and red hues.  This is not strictly true because records of an expedition by messrs Beukman, Otzen and others mentions a small “black” species just before the entrance to Greyton.  I have never found that.

Continue reading

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 7

Appendix  7 to Haworthia Update Vol 8.

Three further records and data for Haworthia mirabilis.

The populations covered here are:-

6631 H. mirabilis ‘mundula’, Mierkraal, SW Bredasdorp.
6635 H. mirabilis ‘badia’, NW Napier.
6639 H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’, S Bredasdorp.

There has been some published comment about the distinctiveness of these three populations stating that I do not recognise this because I treat them as variants of single species.  The implication is that I do not see any difference.  This is quite bizarre.  At the present moment I have a digital library of 165 H. mirabilis populations and this is by no means all there are.  There is an enormous amount of variation both in and between these populations.  If the specified three are to be recognised as species, it means that there is a wholly unrealistic number of species quite out of keeping even with an already highly diverse set of species of the Cape Flora.  Furthermore,as I point out in appendix 6, there is no typical variety of H. mirabilis in any practical sense because the variability in the population designated by me, as well as that of Schuitsberg apparently preferred by another, precludes it.

Continue reading

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 8

Appendix 8 to Vol. 8 Haworthia Update. A report on Haworthia mirabilis ‘badia’ / ‘subtuberculata’

I cannot claim that I have resolved the nomenclature niceties around the use of this name and its many varietal names and synonyms.  If critically examined even the use of the name “mirabilis” is in doubt and the very original epithet of “Aloe atrovirens” may be nomenclaturally correct.  This would create havoc because then the name H. herbacea as typified by W.T. Stearn may best apply.   So I put that all aside and use names as I have in my Revision and subsequent publications.  I am well aware that there is a problem with the use of H. mirabilis var mirabilis where it may be thought that the name “mundula” is therefore redundant.  I cover all this up with the explanation that there is no typical variety “mirabilis”  and actually use just the name H. mirabilis to cover all those populations and variants to which no Latin names exist. I use names like “badia” and “sublineata” as it is generally possible to recognise all or most of the variants from those populations.  But names like “magnifica”, “maraisii”, “heidelbergensis”, “rubrodentata”, “beukmannii” and “depauperata” (among others) have no clear and direct application in respect of a population or even a group of variants of any kind.  In my Revision I attempt the use of the name “triebneriana” to cover all the variants that are not included under the typical varietal name “mirabilis”.  This does not actually work either because the name has its origins at Stormsvlei and there are other populations that are very different from those occurring there too.

Continue reading

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 9

Appendix 9 to Vol. 8 Haworthia Update –  A report on Haworthia mirabilis and Haworthia rossouwii ‘minor’, Rooivlei, NNE Bredasdorp.

In Appendix 8, I explain some of the rationale of my use of names.  A detailed report on H. mirabilis can be found in Haworthia Update Vol.3. and in various chapters of the subsequent Updates.  It is shown why I consider the possibility that H. mirabilis and H. retusa are in fact the same species.

In this report I will show just one population of many from Napier northwards and westwards for which no broad name exists.  There is simply a transformation from elements that I refer to as H. mirabilis ‘subtuberculata’ in Appendix 8, to a very wide range of populations in the central Southern Cape.  Both the names “maraisii and “heidelbergensis” have been applied to populations in this area.  The name H. maraisii var. simplicior from Napky may even be relevant but its application, simply irrational.

Continue reading

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 10

Appendix 10 to Vol. 8 Haworthia UpdateAn additional report on Haworthia mirabilis and Haworthia rossouwii ‘minor’, Rooivlei and Brakkloof, N and, NNE Bredasdorp.

The previous report indicated the necessity for further exploration of Rooivlei.  I had observed H. mirabilis, but not reported it in Update 3, at Brakkloof to the west in 2004.  So the object of this appendix is to remedy this oversight and to also cover more area of Rooivlei.  At Brakkloof there are several small remnants of rocky shale and we located several populations, while at Rooivlei we actually explored the very western boundary.  This constitutes the same topographical area as the Rooivlei populations but the plants we observed were factually on Brakkloof.   

The populations reported on here are:-

  1. 6537 H. mirabilis, Groudini, W Napier
  2. 7285 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 3
  3. 8046 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 2
  4. 8047 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 1
  5. 8048 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 1
  6. 8049 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 2
  7. 8050 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 3
  8. 8051 H. mirabilis, E Rooivlei
  9. 8045+ H. rossouwii ‘minor’, NW type locality
  10. 8052 H. mirabilis, S.Welgegund
  11. 8053 H. mirabilis, Welgegund SE 8052

Continue reading

The Haworthia species of the Bontebok National Park

M. B. Bayer (MSc), Kleinbegin Farm, Kuilsriver, South Africa
Mrs Carly Cowell (MSc), Regional Ecologist, Cape Research Centre, Conservation Services, South African National Parks, Cape Town, South Africa.

Objective:  The significance of the Park occurrences.
The occurrence of members of three aloid “genera” (the three sub-genera of the genus Haworthia could indeed be genera) and the absence of any other member of the Aloids (bar the ubiquitous Aloe ferox) must surely be indicative of the driving forces that determine the flora of the Park.  This also must surely help establish the significance of the park as a conservancy of considerable merit.  The complex interaction of the species enhances even that.  The purpose of this report is to examine more closely the variation and nature of a small segment of the Park flora, and demonstrate how much more can be done.     

Note: This report has several constraints.  Firstly is the situation in which there is no formal general definition and hence understanding of what a plant species is.  Secondly there is the generally understood view that there is an evolutionary process at work by which organisms evolve from a common distant origin by genetic mutation and adaptation.  Thirdly there are serious flaws in the classification of the Aloid genera.  Several essays dealing with these issues by DNA sequencing are weak because they rest on those flaws and consequently do not address some serious questions of relationships that the results pose.  Fourthly of course is the reality that the knowledge or intellectual capacity to overcome these deficiencies may be absent.  Thus the report is written in the context of all the publications as the original genus revision (Haworthia Revisited, Bayer; Umdaus, 1999) and others available on the internet (HaworthiaUpdates.org).

Continue reading

The absurdity of taxonomy and nomenclature?

In Alsterworthia 13.1:6 (2013) there is yet another statement about the correct name for a species of Haworthia.  It reads …”The vexing matter of the correct name for Haworthia pumila has taxed some of the finest minds in botanical nomenclature”.  The article then goes on to replace that name with H. margaritifera with an explanation so simple that it casts considerable doubt onto the quality of those minds that have examined the problem. There is of course also a difficulty in that the quoted sentence implies that H. pumila is the correct name, while the article goes on to dismiss it.

The fact is that Linnaeus listed four different things (varieties) under a single name Aloe pumila, and the only issue was about which of those four things ends up with that particular first name. It so happened that Burman in 1701 made a choice, and was followed by Aiton in 1789 who chose something else.  So the name Aloe pumila stood but applied to two different things (species). Duval was unaware of the earlier Burman choice and used Aiton’s choice when he created the genus Haworthia.  Dr L. A Codd, whom I would have accepted as a fine mind (and also as a very ethical man), advised C.L. Scott that Aiton’s choice was in fact illegitimate and hence also Duval’s usage in Haworthia.  The opinion was that Burman’s choice was the first and also thus the legitimate one; and it could not be denied by the illegitimacy of the Aiton usage as a later action.  So perhaps it was/is a question of rank or just an opinion that Aiton made up pumila as an entirely new name.

There is nothing complicated and mind boggling about this simple state of affairs. Or is that so?  What on earth does the ICN as the product of presumably fine minds actually say about this? Does it take 50 years of debate to establish such a simple fact? The situation is further exacerbated in that the finest taxonomic minds are involved in an epic battle to either create a single alooid genus or many lesser genera. It appears that the latter option is winning ground although the war against single-species genera has surely not been abandoned. When the dust finally settles, it will be recognised that the taxon onto which this unfortunate species viz. Haworthia pumila/margaritifera resolves, will be a separate genus, probably Tulista, and then the truly correct name will be Tulista pumila. Or will it?

My personal opinion that however the case may truly be judged, the correct answer is the intent. Scott and Codd came to a workable end point way back in history and it has been my misfortune now to have defended that. I think there is a parallel in the case of Aloe bainesii. Put into use by Reynolds far back in history, it is found that the name barberae had page priority and thus preference. In what interest was the change made? Why does the code have a conservation facility for names? The fun seems to be in the argument rather than in usage.

The argument that I think L.A. Codd would have made is this. There are four varieties covered by the Linnaean epithet pumila. The first effective use of that epithet for one of the four was to the warty t10 of Commelin and that is how the name is formally typified.  To use of that same epithet at any other time for any other of those four Linnaean varieties would be illegitimate.  It is also not in the least certain that the name margaritifera is correctly typified by Wijnands on the same Commelin illustration t10. I aided Wijnands to this conclusion before myself stumbling on the fact that its correct typification would be on a Bradley illustration.

There is a curious twist to the issue and it is somewhat of an oversight that the persons involved never read the introduction to Haworthia Revisited. I explained the problem and also in respect to the correct application of the original name margaritifera to what we know as H. minima. I also cited the name H. pumila with the authors as (L.) Bayer to make it clear that I was not accepting the name with the authors (L.)Duval as Scott cited it. I thought at the time that it was a mistake on Scott’s part. I had also written to Dr Codd specifically about the issue and this is when he explained to me (as a professional taxonomist and fine mind) that the illegitimate use of the name pumila in Haworthia did not prevent the correct usage. It only strikes me now that he probably had advised Scott to the effect that the NAME as Duval had taken it through to Haworthia was correct, even if he had applied it to the wrong species. This whole issue has not been properly and fully aired. To argue that it is a new name seems to me just a piece of intellectual vanity that serves no purpose other than to demonstrate our collective failure to honour the intent of the code – or respect the dismay of interested person.  A last point I make is that people can and will always find topics to disagree on, so this is an important trap to avoid and be mindful of. It is not particularly in the case of nomenclature that this seems to happen. I had no doubt at the time when I made the decision to accept Scott’s usage that no matter what my decision was, cause would be found to change it.  If I had decided on either margaritifera (correctly typified) or maxima (as I. Breuer later did), this would also have been argued as wrong.

[-ed. There seems to be a number of taxonomic changes brewing. Time will tell whether pumila survives.]

References:

1. Haworthia margaritifera/pumila
Dr. John Manning. S.ANBI.

The vexing matter of the correct name for Haworthia pumila has taxed some of the finest minds in botanical nomenclature. Since I do not include myself among their company, I was not in the least surprised to find that I had misrepresented the situation. Thanks to expert input from Roy Mottram and Urs Eggli we can now put the matter to rights.

The issue of the correct name for Haworthia pumila starts with the fact that in his original publication of Aloe pumila, which forms the basis for this species, Linnaeus recognized several varieties, but without explicitly listing the typical variety, thus he did not list Aloe pumila L. var. pumila. Linnaeus’ Aloe pumila was subsequently effectively lectotypified by Burman f. (1701) [and later in enor by Scott (1978)] against the illustration in Commelin’s Horti medici Amstelodamensis, which is also the type of var. margarit!fera. This renders the name margaritifera homotypic with Aloe pumila L. (i.e. they share the same type). As the autonym (i.e. following automatically from the species name) for this species, pumila would normally have statutory priority over margarit(fera BUT, in the interim, the combination Haworthia pumila (Aiton) Haw. (1804) had been published, based on the name Aloe arachnoidea var. pumila Aiton, a quite different species that we know now as H herbacea. The publication of this combination renders Haworthia pumila (L.) Duval (1809) an illegitimate later homonym and thus not available for use in Haworthia. Because the combination Haworthia pumila cannot be used for Aloe pumila L. as a result of its prior usage for some other taxon it must be substituted with the next available valid and legitimate epithet, which is margaritifera. Note, however, that in any genus other than Haworthia the epithet pumila is the correct one to be used for this species.

The formal rendering of this situation is as follows:
Haworthia margaritifera (L.) Haw. (1819). Aloe pumila var. margaritifera L. (1753).  Aloe margaritifera (L.) Burm.f (1768).  Aloe pumila L. (1753). H pumila (L.) Duval. (1809), hom. illegit. non H pumila (Ait.) Haw. (1804). Lectotype, effectively designated by Burman f. in Prodromus florae Capensis: 10 (1768) [Superfluous lecotypification by Scott (1985)]: Illustration in Commelin, Horti medici Amstelodamensis, Pars altent: t.l 0 (1701): Aloe Afric: folio in summitate triangulari margaritifera, flore subviridi.

2. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code)

3. Aloe pumila, Haworthia pumila; what or who is confused?  ISBN: 0-9534004-4-1 Bruce Bayer. Alsterworthia International Special Issue No.3. https://haworthia-updates.haworthia.org/aloe-pumila-haworthia-pumila-what-or-who-is-confused/

 

4. Commelin, Johannes, Horti medici amstelodamensis rariorum tam Orientalis, vol. 2: t. 10 (1701)
http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=122192
Commelin t10 1701 H. pumila

 

5. Commelin, Johannes, Horti medici amstelodamensis rariorum tam Orientalis, vol. 2: t. 11 (1701)
http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=122193&height=750
Commelin t11 1701 H. pumila

 

6. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine, vol. 33: t. 1360 (1811) [S.T. Edwards]
http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=8348
ST Edward 1811 Curtis Bot Mag v33 t.13608348

 

7. Moninckx, J., Moninckx atlas, vol. 3: t. 12 (1682-1709)
http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/i/image/image-idx?c=botanie;view=entry;cc=botanie;entryid=x-421058064 and
http://plantillustrations.org/illustration.php?id_illustration=133655
Moninckx

 

8. History of Succulent Plants,  Bradley, Richard (t30) (1716)
http://www.botanicus.org/page/614136
Bradley t30

 

10. History of Succulent Plants,  Bradley, Richard (t21) (1716)
http://www.botanicus.org/page/614116
Bradley t21

Ed. – another …

11. J., Moninckx , Aloe Africana, folio in summitate triangulari / Margaritifera, Flore subviridi. / C: Commelin, Hort: Amst: Part: 2. pag: 19. Wijnands, D.O., The botany of the Commelins, Rotterdam 1983, p.134

http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/i/image/image-idx?c=botanie;view=entry;cc=botanie;entryid=x-421058064

A further report on Haworthia mirabilis in the Greyton area.

Appendix 11 to Haworthia Update Vol. 8.

In appendix 6 I reported on H. mirabilis just east of Greyton and also at Schuitsberg further east and south.  I undertook this excursion to fill out on a population at Uitkyk (MBB7092) west of Genadendal illustrated with one image in Haworthia Revisited.  En route we discovered still another population along a road from Caledon to the northwest (8055 Hammanskraal), briefly called at a site east of the bridge on that road crossing the Riviersonderend (MBB8056).  We also visited the population MBB8040 east of Greyton and explored some of the hiking trail between Greyton and McGregor.

The population 7092, H. mirabilis, at Uitkyk, is indeed interesting.  It is a steep riverside, south facing, vertical slope.  There are many plants that may not receive any direct sunshine for most of the summer and of course none in winter.  It is really curious because there are groups of plants that seem to be holding clumps of moss, lichen and a modicum of soil to the rock.  There are orchids, oxalis, shade-loving Asparagus, and all the small bulbs one expects in these moist south facing habitats.  The rock seems to be metamorphosed from fault-shearing heat and pressure on shale.  Among the illustrations is a view looking east along the road with the roadside south-facing habitat on the left.  The Riviersonderend River is immediately on the right.  In the distance ahead is Leeukop, the type locality for H. mirabilis ‘rubrodentata’.  That is a dry north-facing slope.

Continue reading

Variable chloracantha

Variability – sounds so hackneyed now but still it does not seem as if anybody “gets it”. These are plants from two populations of chloracantha east of Herbertsdale. Two very different soils. One is shale and I show only a single plant from there – the left one of the three unearthed plants. There the plants were “ordinary” chloracantha. But the other locality was exposed “pressure burst” kaolinite such as you get around Riversdale and westwards. Some of the plants reminded me of floribunda and even parksiana. I know of only 6 populations around Herbertsdale and there the plants are different too.

7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7472 7827 & 7866 H. ch;oracantha. Herbertsdale 100_7505 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7458 7866 H. chloracantha. E herbertsdale 100_7459 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7460 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7461 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7462 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7463 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7464 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7465 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7466 7866 H. chloracantha. E Herbertsdale 100_7467

Leaf sequence in Haworthia emelyae ‘comptoniana’ over a long period

Here is an interesting series of pictures showing Haworthia leaf replacement over only 16 months.  The plant is in an outdoor rockery.   Leaves are numbered from oldest to youngest.  Leaf loss has not been quite sequential as the 7th leaf outlived the 5th.  In the growth condition of September 2012 the leaves show three tiers viz. 1,4,7,10,13 / 2,5,8,11 / 3,6,9,12.  The figure for Dec 12 illustrates the “5-tiered” artifact of the spiral sequence with leaves 15/10, 14/9, 13/8, 12/7 and 16/11/6 in each tier.

These pictures demonstrate that the plants grow quite fast. They may not be very long-lived in nature. I estimate a life span of 15-20 years?

The first picture of this plant was taken in Dec 2011 when the leaves were numbered 1 to 10. Here in March 2014 leaves 1 through 12 have died away and there are 10 new leaves. At the same time the stem will be stretching as roots are replaced in a similar sequence. The life of the plant is going to be determined by the way in which the old stem and roots decay and how that decay will affect the ultimate health of the whole plant.

1962628_736771639689402_1648805527_n

In the field it seems as though the decay of the old leaves and stem is well regulated as a sort of dry composting. In cultivation this can vary from this state to when all the roots and even the base of the stem can rot unhealthily. In the field one does finds moribund old plants that are at the end of their life and with large aged stems. Just how long the plant can maintain good health in either the field or in cultivation is an unknown. A grower just has to depend on experience and feel for his/her plants and this is why some time back I guessed at the normal life of one of these ‘retuse’ haworthia at about 10-15 years. Some things like T. pumila and H. coarctata are quite different as the stems can elongate and re-root along the ground. Plant of H. coarctata more than 3meters in diameter must be very old. Even H. reticulata or H. herbacea do this – look at H. cymbifomis ‘ramosa’. What you can consider is that new leaves and flowers follow a regular process and it is useful to remember that the plants go through a non-growing stage in the year. I tend to think most haworthia grow in the spring and autumn disliking the heat of summer and the cold of winter. But this is just a generalization that points to things that need to be considered. All species are not the same. Good root health is also associated with drainage and adequate air space in the growing medium.

In species like coarctata and reinwardtii – and I doubt that these are two different species – the plants easily lose obvious connection to the mother clone and a single clone can come to occupy a very large area. H. cymbiformis and H. angiustifolia can also spread widely by pieces breaking off to establish somewhere else. H. limifolia does it by stoloniferous expansion as can H. marumiana and H. zantnertiana. But coming back to the solitary non-pupping growth forms it would be interesting to know just where the essential life of the plant resides. Sometimes the stem just seems to get too thick and cutting it back too far also cuts away the support and source of the very young and new centre leaves.

What do you think this is?

Incidentally both the soft shale bands within the Sandstone strata as well as the Bokkeveld Shale above, decompose to kaolinic clay.

I took so many pictures that I will just post because I was so fascinated myself. The population is in an area quite new to me and wholly empty as far as haworthia records go – but perfectly predictable if you throw out the chaff. In the meantime, keep thinking.

The plants were all in much the same situations among sparse restioids and grass and very few other succulents. Next I will post better pictures of a few plants and explain a bit more.

What do we have so far? Mirabilis, ‘magnifica’, atrofusca, pygmaea, comptoniana, esterhuizenii, Quite good actually – but some serious omissions. Any more offers – these are all excellent.

Just to make sure the name “magnifica” makes sense, here are a few pictures taken at the type locality.

While looking at those magnifica pictures I was struck by these two to show how a retusa influence is present.

A closer look at the new find.

The scenery

what F1

Those flat top hills are the remnants of an ancient african plateaus prominent from near Barrydale to beyond Uniondale – north of the Langeberg. – silcrete upper layer like the concreted layers also present topping the inselbergs south of the Langeberg.

So what is it? If H. magnifica makes sense to anyone as a species, that person is lost to me. This new population is in the sequence from Muiskraal eastwards and it is H. emelyae (‘breueri’, ‘wimii’). The identifications put forward are nearly all in the context of H. mirabilis which includes ‘magnifica’. This naturally supports my perceptions that H. emelyae is in fact the karoo extension of H. mirabilis. More widely that H. mirabilis, pygmaea, retusa and emelyae form a single system. If one reads in the Updates the reports of Towerlands/Aaasvoelkrans one will appreciate the connection better. The “magnifica’ as a species myth is simply and easily dispelled by studying the floral data presented in updates. There is no reason why there should be any doubt and confusion that the cabal so enjoys and wallows in. Aloe barbara jeppeae indeed.

The truth of the matter is that there is no taxonomic solution other than recognising this and stop prostituting science in the name of populism.  There are hundreds if not thousands of people interested in Haworthia, and millions affected by the formal names of plants. I see some responsibility in respecting this fact and even more so in trying to understand what all this marvelous stuff really means. It comes down to what a species truly is and how it is defined. If I could bring just one person to that realization I might feel comfortable – with no one caring a damn, I am not. :) I have not far or long to go now and I will be posting more on this topic before I am finished.

M.B. Bayer
June 2016

Kaboega

Kaboega is located in the Zuurberg Mountains north of Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. Read more about this in Haworthia Update Volume 1, Chapter 5:- The Haworthias of Kaboega. There are a mind-boggling array of Haworthia populations here in an area considered to be the meeting point of several vegetation biomes. There is much exposed rock, and the soil is very skeletal, composed of three major groups: sandstone, mudstone, and glacial deposits. These pictures are of a Haworthia cooperi variant that occurs high up on sandstone. I went to this spot because researchers had sent me a picture of a cycad festooned with Haworthia. I did not get to the exact spot but have seen the way it forms hanging bundles in other situations.

Haworthia glauca!! can also be found here. On Kaboega these plants often have a very close resemblance to H. coarctata and it is no co-incidence that the distributions of these two species complement each other. An essential element of species recognition is their juxtaposition and if they occur in very close association or not. Darwin said as much.

I visited four populations of this greenish cooperi. One can find plants like this from east of Grahamstown right through to the Little Karoo. Here they are on Dwyka (glacial) skeletal soil.

These next are in the shales low down in the valley on Kaboega – I name it H. aristata. It is very common in the area but complements H. cooperi while there are populations that are neither. Populations cannot be treated in isolation and there is a distinct possibility/probability that I have been too generous with species. The attempts to find answers via DNA sequencing should make the vendors of that technology thoroughly ashamed.

More of these green things. I would guess that these would class as the simple progenitors of cymbiformis and cooperi. Perhaps even of mucronata?

This is Haworthiopsis sordida that does not occur, as far as I know, north of this. H. nigra also occurs here at it’s most southern at this longitude. Altogether it is quite a complex network of distribution patterns that relate to greater plant geography.

From another population as variants on a theme. have seen about 30 such just on this small mountain area and it just suggests what is still unseen on the length and breadth.

Not a great diagram but a way to appreciate the drammatic choreography of plant distribution and how it impacts on classification. Without it Haworthia names make no sense other than as imagined and fantasized. Cooperi and cymbiformis occur as intertwined species to the east and south. In the south they extend westwards to get lost in H. mucronata. Cymbiformis as an independent species does not enter Kaboega except as an observable variant of H. cooperi. The cooperi gets lost westwards as variants of H. decipiens. Perhaps close northwards as H. aristata. H. glauca does cross the Zuurberg but is here confused with H. coarctata that may occur in recognosable form on the eastern tip. Angustifolia is on the eastern end too but does not enter Kaboega. Neither do H. monticola or H. zantneriana from the west. This is also closely tied to the intrigue of winter vs summer rainfall and still further to the massive geological changes of the very recent..

k map
Zuurberg

Habitat Views

Mystery – Introduction

More light on the Haworthia pygmaea/retusa/turgida species mystery.

While editing some old pictures I was just stunned that I have so understated the case that retusa, mirabilis, pygmaea, mutica, turgida and emelyae are really one species. The photographic evidence of the plants alone is unbelievable. What I do think has gone under the radar is evidence that I got from the flowers where the flowers of mirabilis, mutica, floribunda are shown to be inseparable.

Warwick Bayer: Do the flowers as a characteristic often fly below the radar as one may struggle to see flowers from different populations together? And one may so often be in the field and not see flowers at all.

Bruce Bayer: Yes, they do mostly because they are seasonal and often these places are not so accessible that it is practical to revisit. The other problem WAS of recording anything the so-similar flowers might be able to say. Dried they are useless. What I ended up doing was digital images of floret profile, side view and face. Very illuminating :)

2019.5.3 – Between the Gouritz Bridge and Herbertsdale. I do not anymore think it is a mystery in itself. The mystery to me is that a rational explanation is neither wanted nor sought.

Here is a map to give a general idea of the locations.
1. Greyton/Genadenal area
2. Robertson Karoo
3. Bredasdorp, Napier
4. Breede River with Infanta, Malgas, Potberg at sea end
5. Tradouw with Buffeljags between this and 4
6. Slang Rivier to SE Heidelberg
7. Duiwenhoks River from Hedelberg to sea
8. Goukou River Riversdale to sea, Kruis and Wegwysers rivers to NE Riversdale
9. Gouritz River with Albertinia to east and Wydersriver to north Albertinia
10. Mossel Bay, Great Brak, Herbertsdale area
11. Montagu area N. Langeberg Range
12. N Garcia Pass in Little Karoo
12. Aasvoelkrans in Little Karoo

2019.5.6 – I thought I would post this to show how confusing classification, plant names and classification can become. I found a folder with these pictures – turgida, pygmaea, retusa, mutica, mirabilis, floribunda, and emelyae. Ridiculous as it seems, they can be linked by a geographically arranged sets of variants that morph them into a single set. In the process my mind just boggled at collectors who just cannot seem to grasp the problem or a solution. Around Mossel Bay we have two species H. turgida and H. pygmaea but in the west around Greyton to Napier, we have three H. retusa, H, mutica and H. mirabilis. In between there are a host of combinations while a fourth species intervenes viz H. floribunda. Difficult enough, but across the Langeberg there is a fifth, H. emelyae. All one? H. floribunda has its own complications. No single picture is remotely adequate to illustrate any one of them. It is this kind of complexity that pervades the plant world and the botanical names we need to communicate about them.

Steven Molteno: I’ve recently got very interested in the relations between floribunda and mirabilis, because of this gradient being so often syntopic with T. marginata. The N.Bredasdorp-Rooivlei Haworthia interest me in particular. Some really remind me of floribunda. More and more I feel the need to draw out some multidimensional lattice in order to try model or understand these relations. A bit like the map you once drew of them Bruce.

Bruce Bayer: Yes Steven – I think this is the real challenge and I find it difficult to believe that there are not botanists who are working at this – confounded by the majority who are stuck in a dead-end. I think I arrived at a classification solution by visualising such a lattice as a reality. What should be done now is to take the end classification and generate layers according to it. This would be a great test of the classification.

 Here are more giant retusas from the same locality – what is true is that populations have characteristics as much as the “species” do. The haworthia species mystery continues …

 2019.5.8 – I only have two pictures of cultivated variants for a place north-east of Albertinia near the Gouritz River = “turgida”. They add to the next three that are the pictures sent to me from a locality a few miles further east right on the Gouritz. These pictures support this fact. If you interpret them in the light of populations to the east you might say the third and fifth pictures are H. pygmaea and the 4th “turgida”. But if you do so from the west you arrive at H. mirabilis and H.”turgida”. In fact, they are not quite either. Why? They come from a common gene pool that is one species! Proliferating all these personal and acquaintance names does nothing but bury the issue under a pile of garbage.

Mystery – part 1, Heidleberg and Albertinia

1. 2019.5.7 – I am going to post a heap of habitat pictures of H. retusa/turgida to help enthusiasts understand these plants and their relationships. As with H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi, there is a direct correlation of clump-forming cliff dwellers (turgia) and more solitary ground hugging plains dwellers (retusa). It is quite important to recognise the geographic relationships as well but that is rather difficult to do without maps. The immediate geological formation e.g. less erodable sandstones vs more erodable shales, is also significant. This is H. retusa at the midwestern limits of its distribution on the Breede River near Swellendam.

  What I find extraordinary is the way in which amateur succulent journals resist any effort to rationalise names in accordance with some sort of scientific intent. The Latin binomial seems to be all significant and it has made life in Haworthia absurd. All it needs is a very simple adaptation and the adoption of a convention where the species name is taken as generic and is so understood in the community?

Steven Molteno : This post made me look at my maps again. I see the west-east gradient between mutica-nigra-retusa … I think I also see the habitat-gradation from retusa to turgida in the Eastern Overberg & Riversdale area. On the map it looks like turgida then stretches out in all directions (often along the river-valleys). I get this initial impression because in its westwards extension (i.e. back towards Swellendam), I do not yet see any gradient between turgida and mutica. Would it be correct then to assume that this is because they’re at different “ends” of this entity’s spectrum? (I’m not factoring in the other arms of this entity yet – i.e. mirabilis, pygmaea etc., or my brain will explode. I find it easiest to just examine portions of the Haworthia lattice, one by one, and maybe that’s a human tendency that leads us to the illusion of discrete binary units in nature.)

2. 2019.5.8 – Heidelberg is an extraordinary place for Haworthia and H. retusa has many guises particularly towards its turgida variant. In this population the plants are large and there is a mirabiloid connection as well.

Steven Molteno: I’ve wondered about the mirabilis at Die Plotte west of Heidelberg. Many I thought had features I previously associated with retusa-turgida

Bruce Bayer: Steven – this was the near origin of “heidelbergensis” as very small mirabilis. But looking at only one population does not help much. There are several river systems in the southern Cape and these are associated with the drivers of species variation. At Heidelberg we have the Klipriver and the Duiwenhoks going down to the sea. So, from the sandstone Langeberg to the limestones at Vermaaklikheid we have all the ingredients for difference in the Haworthias. The entire mirabilis/retusa lineages seem to have their origins down those valleys.

 3. 2019.5.9 – H retusa/turgida at Draaihoek NNW Albertinia – a classic as H. dekenahii also originated here but it is of more solitary and flatter to the ground (it fits better into the pygmaea element than into retusa). The 5th picture is significant because it is very mirabiloid and could easily be passed off among southern populations of H. mirabilis.

 4. These are unfortunately the only pictures I have for “H. dekenahii” (=H. pygmaea) Draaihoek. The locality has been severely impacted by bush encroachment associated with fire management along a power servitude. I wonder if there are still plants there?

  Delightful, as I find myself confounded by the very trap I am explaining away. Draaihoek is a principal element in the illusion that H. pygmaea and H. turgida are two different things. When the picture is complete it is very obvious that the two things there are the plains and the cliff forms of the same thing (H. retusa). It later becomes clear that we have a thing south of a mountain range and one north of a mountain range (H. emelyae) where space is the only difference?

5. 2019.5.10 – These posts are not in any sequence and are just taken fairly randomly. So just let us go back to Heidleberg and the Duiwenhoks river that runs to the sea. River systems was an early insight into how this puzzle arises. Tierhoek is a dry area to the SE Heidleberg. It seems to have been unknown or there would probably be a name for the plants!

6. 2019.5.11 – In one of my very early articles I wrote about the continuity of H. turgida from about 16 miles north of Heidelberg down the west bank of the Duiwenhoks river to the town itself. This proved to me that the small spiny green forms in the Sandstones were continuous with the bigger, smoother, yellow, pink and red-coloured plants southward and again to the east all up the Goukou river at Riversdale. The foundation was already laid for the understanding that turgida led on to retusa.

This is an odd population from SE Heidelberg along the Duiwenhoks that in a way replicates the Sandstone forms of turgida (= caespitosa?).

2019.5.12 – As an aside. While looking at these greener things, it occurred to me to make this connection. It brings multiple things to my mind that are fairly new and additive to my story. Is there a suggestion of continuity? What do you think?

Lawrence Loucka: Oh look, 3 different species all in one spot!

Bruce Bayer: Too true! Disastrous! It makes me wonder if the story is worth telling. This is actually “H. paradoxa” in limestone at the mouth of the Duiwenhoks. Taking all the variants, I have no doubt that I could find images from the whole periphery of the distribution of emelyae, mirabilis, retusa, mutica, pygmaea to indisputably say this must be ONE. Strange how unavoidable it is that I use names to explain that only one is actually necessary!

2019.5.13 – The first two pictures are from Kransriviermond where this “turgida” hybridises (sic!) with “mirabilis” to generate “mutica var nigra” – a lineage that can be traced back up the Duiwenhoks, through Heidelberg, along the Klipriver, Van Reenens Crest, Tradouw Pass, Buffeljagts Rivier to “mutica” in the west. The second two are “turgida” again, from a bit south at Dassieklip. That lineage crosses over to the Goukou River to the east and merges in the “retusa” “turgida” “mirabilis” melange of that area.

Jakub Jilemicky: I think plants from Brakkekuil, a bit further South have also both, turgida and retusa nigra.

Bruce Bayer: Yes Jakub, I posted a whole set of those Brakkekuil plants – what is also interesting about them is that it is neither a steep cliff-like habitat nor a flat surface habitat.

https://haworthia-updates.haworthia.org/2012/01/30/volume-5-chapter-4-haworthia-retusa-part-2/

7. 2019.5.13 – Neither “retusa nor turgida” are known near this to the SW of Heidelberg on the Slang River.

Mystery – part 2, Hypothesis

7. 2019.5.19 – Perhaps I should have spelled out my hypothesis in the very beginning of this haworthia species mystery. This is that Haworthia was separable into morphological and numerically defined entities that would fit into a clearly defined set of species. A proviso being that the word species was defined as based on the ill-considered and untrue precept of non-interbreeding entities. The nature of variability coupled with this weak species definition result in the initial hypothesis to be totally false. Haworthia does not present such clearly defined entities and in fact there is a very variable set of elements that can only be recognised in respect of their general appearance and their geographic distribution and relationships. These are themselves mildly confounded. In fact, the issue was grossly confounded by the now established fact that Haworthia was, in reality, three very different genera.

When I dismantled G.G. Smith’s putative two-volume manuscript purporting to be a monograph, these three genera were split into 20 sections with specimens of many of the currently recognised species, represented in more than one. I never pretended to be the knight in shiny armour that was a going to slay that windmill of confusion and I put a great deal of effort into looking for someone who could and would. That never materialised.

From my personal perspective (isolated as I am from the popular literature of the last 5 years), all I can say is that there is a publication authored by myself and Dr. John Manning that reasonably presents the truth of Haworthia. It does not entirely do so as this series of posts will show.

Science as a real matter of inquiry, together with objectivity, rationality, logic and reason, are not strongly represented in the human endeavours that have been and are being made to properly understand the phenomenon of the Haworthia species that can be observed. There is no doubt that DNA sequencing offers the very best solution to the issue. My experience suggests that there is still some way to go before that goal is reached and it will not be done until the complexity of issues like this one are seen to be real and understood as they are.

This is the reference … Bayer, M. B. and J. C. Manning. 2012. A rationalization of names in Haworthia: a list of species with new combinations and new synonyms. Haworthia Update, Essays on Haworthia, vol. 7. Preston: Alsterworthia International.

Haworthia Nonemclator 10-7-2012

Mystery – part 3, Slang River and Haarwegskloof

8. 2019.05.14 – The Slang River first runs south as does the Duiwenhoks, but instead of going on to the sea, turns westward and enters the Breede River further west. So, we find retusa again near Malgas – further south than my first post. Note I have abandoned using the name “turgida”! This is symptomatic of the whole issue viz. that application of names is so difficult because even in a single population the plants can be so different. Plant geography is interesting here in that Ceropegia (Stapeliopsis) stayneri is only found in its lower reaches. Recent developments in the taxonomy of the asclepiads and the disappearance of many genera is also worth noting.

9. 2019.05.15 – It gets exciting for whatever direction one goes. This is to Haarwegskloof where Jannie Groenewald found this namesake. Here we also have H. mutica and H. mirabilis. So, I am trying to explain that they are actually the same species!!! Three posts a day and all my pictures; by the years end you too will concede that they are.

Haarwegskloof is west of the Breede River and it is important to consider the nature of rivers and river systems as they affect speciation. Rivers follow fault lines and other geological features, while haworthias thrive on exposed eroded surfaces and low biomass sites. So rapidly and deeply eroded formations provide different habitats to shallow surface erosion. The immediate river environment results in stepper cliffs and rawer rock. Thus we have the very deeply cut Gouritz river and fairly deeply cut Goukou, Duiwenhoks, Breede and Slang Rivers. West of the Breede we have curious rather shallow valley drainage systems with some water courses barely reaching the sea.

10. 2019.05.15 – Still going further west from Haarwegskloof we come to Rooivlei, N Bredasdorp to the most SW known retusa and we have entanglement supreme. We have various forms of mirabilis, and perhaps rossouwii or variegata while mutica lurks not far away. These last two locations do make it difficult to accept that we are dealing with one species when in fact it suggests that the situation may be far more complicated. But really if one takes the various nodes on river or drainage systems, the situation becomes much more obvious.

Steven Molteno: What I don’t fully understand is how Rooivlei and Haarwegskloof connect to the major river systems to the east. Breede river tributaries maybe?

Bruce Bayer: No, they do not and I don’t think so much significance needs to be attached to this if any. The occurrences of the populations are attached to geographic and geological features so drainage systems are just a weak underlying kind of thing. It is like the role of the Langeberg separating the karoo from the S Cape that also relates to the greater retusa complex and how emelyae emerges as a consequence.

Steven Molteno: Okay thanks Bruce, yes I didn’t see an obvious riverine corridor going there. But then there are several interesting parallels between that area north of Bredasdorp, and (specifically fluvial!) terrains further east. The relevant Haworthias seem to extend here of course, as you point out. In addition, Tulista marginata – usually known from high, eroded fluvial terraces further east (e.g. Die Plotte, Riversdale) or north (Bontebok, Drew, and maybe … overlying the Ashton Enon Formation!) … T. marginata is also on the flat-topped hills N. Bredasdorp, which intrigues me. I even tried to look up whether perhaps a long-dead primeval river might have run past there, before the glacial cycles played havoc with the sea levels! It doesn’t seem so, but who knows.

Mystery – part 4, Where to from here?

11. 2019.5.16 – Where does one go from here? These pictures all date from after the 1999 revision so forgetting all the pictorial information to that date I have only given a peek at what was “turgida”. I still have 5-6 folders for that, 24 for retusa itself and 14 for “nigra”. Then many more for mirabilis, mutica, pygmaea and emelyae. There are 6-8 threads among these that trace various continuities and I think next I will just go via “nigra” on the way to mutica?

What I find extraordinary is the way in which amateur succulent journals resist any effort to rationalise names in accordance with some sort of scientific intent. The Latin binomial seems to be all significant and it has made life in Haworthia absurd. All it needs is a very simple adaptation and the adoption of a convention where the species name is taken as generic and is so understood in the community?

Cohan Fulford: taxonomy is seen as a dirty word by many horticulturists, with what is perceived as constant changes – often to well known and cherished entities – and dissent among taxonomists taken as meaning the whole field is arbitrary.

Bruce Bayer: Yes Cohan and even qualified scientists in other disciplines, including botany, do not actually understand the processes.

True “retusa” is already posted from this same locality on the Duiwenhoks and just across the river is a small form of mirabilis that could involve floribunda! When I first saw a picture of this I speculated that it might prove to be involved with H. mutica. I cannot remember the exact history and why it came to be known as nigra var mutica – but as a matter of interest I quote from the New Haworthia Handbook with reference to mutica and retusa…”if the two species do meet it can be suggested to be in the area between Heidelberg and the lower Breede River”. How true this has proved to be. But no meeting at all – just a dramatic flow.

Cohan Fulford: Every one beautiful! Fascinating to get a glimpse into how the various taxa interact.

Bruce Bayer: Better understood as largely interaction within one taxon? There is or are levels above this doing similar things. Why are taxonomists not examining these weird happenings?

12. 2019.5.17 – Here are more pictures of the potential mutica viz a mirabiloid/retusa with floribunda infused. Between Kransriviermond and Heidelberg.

Steven Molteno: It seems a lot of the complexity arises from repeated radiations and confluences – in certain directions. The directions interest me because the southern cape’s been subject to repeated pulses of arid – wet climate (driven by the ice caps’ cycles apparently). So the suitable “bands” of habitat would’ve moved back and forth over the millennia, inhaling and exhaling Haworthia radiations across the Overberg! Perhaps especially along the river valleys, which sound like plant highways!

Bruce Bayer: Yes – I think one of the strongest points to make is that the model has been that an imagined model based on this sort of thinking has been predictability e.g. the fact that nigra is continuous with mutica.

Irving Navarro: Steven Molteno, I always wondered how bruynsii came to be, it’s yellow roots always amazed me

Bruce Bayer: Irving that IS an interesting observation. Bruynsii may have its origins in or near sordida but yellow in the roots may be an aloid character?

13. 2019.5.17 – There is also a very strong north/south influence in the distribution of the elements. Floribunda is playing a much stronger role in my narrative than I anticipated. It covers virtually the same range as the 6 elements of retusa. But to the east it does not occur south of the principal road from Cape Town to Mossel Bay. It is only at Swellendam where it does come south of that and it emerges from mirabilis as a wholly separate element far further south at the Potberg where it is partly confounded with H. variegata. It has an incredibly close association with the atrofusca forms of the mirabiloids. These here are from 3 populations west of Heidelberg where the preceding muticoid influence is very strong as well as the input from floribunda. As a general comment, the mirabiloids to the west are generally more dominant in the southern parts.

Bob Hunter: Bruce – I am finding this series of posts very.interesting, and am glad that they are going to be collated, edited, and published. I hope that, given the problems with the traditionally used language here, that published collation can in some way accompanied by some sort of ‘graphical’ illustration of these insights – a hard ask, I know, but it would help a lot to make people think more about this issue.

Bruce Bayer: Thank you Bob, there is already a great deal published in HaworthiaUpdates.org as edited by Lawrence Loucka, but the whole issue is bigger than myself and it would be nice to grow it as a community of interested people like yourself. Steven Molteno is addressing a big part of the story and we are going to learn a lot more.

14. 2019.5.17 – I have not pre-planned this narrative of the haworthia species mystery in the belief that there is a natural coherence to it despite the very broken nature of the available evidence. Human habitation and agricultural development have changed the landscape dramatically while exploration itself is not complete. I am finding a flow to the story that comes out of the evidence and not out of personal prejudice. Here I post some pictures for a population a bit south of the previous one. The retusoid and muticoid influence is dropping out and it is changing to mirabiloid dominance with an unquestionable infusion of florabundoid.

The language of “oids” is proving very meaningful and from here I will pick up again on the mirabiloid retusoid and the muticoid mirabiloids. I asked Lawrence to edit into the introduction I bit I wrote about the nature of the plants as they relate to geographic space, geological formation, slope and aspect. But also the question of a spring, as opposed to a late summer – early autumn flowering period being a major driver of diversity of this single species complex.

From the population illustrated, the mirabiloids burst southward and westward right up northward into the Robertson karoo and through the Tradouw Pass into the Little Karoo. From there they extend eastwards and merge into the emelyaeoids as other retusoids spread northward via Tradouw Pass, Garcia Pass, and Gouritz Gorge.

15. 2019.5.19 – Language – I have been and am, using the suffix “-oid” to mean belonging to a group of similar things. So far I have not shown that mirabilis and retusa are the same group of things. In fact I may not have done so for turgida and retusa either and tend to treat this latter as an accepted fact. What I have shown is my perception that a mutica-like group originates from retusa and mirabilis. So muticoid arose from retusoid and mirabiloid. So far my posts are following these groups westwards from the Duiwenhoks river and Heidelberg. My last two posts were mirabiloid with a floribunda infusion and these flower autumn. The next post is a little further west of a retusoid – I will call it muticoid retusoid because it does have a mirabilis infusion and it will lead to mutica. As will another group I will call muticoid mirabilis. Bear in mind that flowering time is important and not always available. These pictures now posted, were taken in September and thus spring flowering.

Incidental but very important is that nearby is one of the few floribunda populations South of the main e/w highway. These elements/oids are not sharing habitat!!

Mystery – part 5, A digression to Kransriviermond

2019.5.16 – I need to digress – again. Here at Kransriviermond we have two things viz mirabiloid and retusoid. They hybridise to produce this element we call muticoid (“nigra”). The word “hybridise” normally implies interbreeding of different things (species). This is not the case here at Kransriviermond where it is recombination of diverging elements of the SAME species. In my next set of pictures from further north you will need to understand the dramatic role of H. floribunda. This is because this species is intrinsic in the mirabiloid at Kransriviermond. Note this carefully as it becomes very significant both eastwards and westwards and the issue will re-occur. Another thing very important to note is that the popular succulent journals service commercialism and popular interest; and not science. Some years ago there was a very well-written and eloquent article in one of the journals that virtually called for dumping of any discussion of the meaning of names in respect of species. All that was important was for a set of binomials to satisfy the collector frenzy and make it easy to label pictures? Thankfully Lawrence Loucka is editing and compiling all this stuff I am now posting, for Updates. I trust that one day there will be a true record untainted by the poor record objectivity has in plant classification. I will work on a map.

Please be sure you have read that digression carefully. This population is between Kransriviermond and Heidelberg. A significantly small version of H. rossouwii is nearby, a turgidaoid green form of retusa is not that far away and there is a mirabiloid very close by that is distinctly floribundoid. Haworthia floribunda has a characteristic rounded leaf tip without a terminal point – is this what appears across the board from pygmaea to mutica? I need to do a separate series on floribunda to explain its curious distribution and how it is absorbed in, or reacts with, the greater retusa complex. Sadly for me this sort of stuff is not popular with the Haworthia community and botanists have proven seriously disinterested – including those that have pretended to explore the DNA of the group.