Some criticism about my supposedly having ignored the flowers in Haworthia comes at a very inopportune time. I set aside flowers for the reasons very obvious from the historical record but also because of the considerable problems of similarity in the appearance of the flowers in apparently quite different species. My priority was a geographic overview and a rational basis on which discussion and decision making could be based. It I just grossly unfortunate that other writers and critics seem to be wedded to a classification paradigm locked into the approach that prevailed 70 years and more ago. This in the total absence of a species definition other than the vague acceptance of a zoological one based on interbreeding capabilities. This ignoring the ease of hybridization among Haworthia variants in general.
While I have written an account of flower appearances in a small selection of populations, I also came across these few images I have of flowers in what I regard as the species H. nortieri. I have also added images of a single flower of H. maculata from a population high in the mountains at Worcester that could be seen as a southern extension of the H. nortieri set of populations. Note must be taken of my early contention that H. nortieri and H. globosiflora were the same species, based on my observation of the intermediate appearance of the flowers of a Vanrhyns Pass population. The H. maculata bud is typical of the species in the Southern Cape, whereas H. nortieri has rounded bud-tips.
The flower of the Trawal plant are dramatically different from that of, say, Sneeuberg. It is very understandable that differences like this lie at the base of all the argumentation and confusion that so despoils the naming and identification of Haworthia. A classification has been needed against which to explore and examine these differences. It seems to me totally unnecessary to try and construct another hierarchy of solely Latin names while so little is still unknown.
(Haworthiamaculata var. livida (Bayer) Bayer, comb.nov. H. pubescens var. livida Bayer in Haworthia Revisited, p.134, 1999, Umdaus) Type: Cape-3319 (Worcester): S Lemoenpoort (-CD), Bayer 1128 (NBG, Holo.).
I described Haworthiapubescens var. livida in Haworthia Revisited (Umdaus, 1999), in the full knowledge that it was in a twilight zone of inadequate information. It is a good example of how Latin names give plants a false reality. The system forces decision making without any slack being cut for doubt. This is thus a good opportunity to demonstrate what inexperience and ignorance add to the process of classification. In the small area along the Breede River north of the Brandvlei Dam near Worcester, the species H. herbacea, H. maculata and H. pubescens grow in close proximity. H. herbacea is ubiquitous throughout the Worcester/Robertson Karoo, while H. maculata has a curious distribution in that area. It occurs at widely separated localities on the western fringe of H. herbacea and I have wondered about its relationship to that species because of the similar flowers and flowering time. H. pubescens is only known from a small set of low ridges east of the Brandvlei Dam where it grows in close proximity to H. herbacea. It also has similar flowers but it flowers a little later in late spring as opposed to early spring.
Set 3. Map point 5. Figs. 3.1 to 3.34 MBB7066 H. maculata, Lemoenpoort.
This is the type locality (ie. MBB1128, W. Lemoenpoort) for H. maculata var. livida that I think is largely untenable or unnecessary fragmentation. Lemoenpoort is the valley that separates Hammansberg from Ouhangsberg. The first few plants seen were in exposed situations and had the purplish or bluish-grey colour that prompted the latin name. This was maintained in cultivation. I linked it at the time to H. pubescens that seemed more probable at the time than to H. maculata and then simply because of the perceived demands of a relatively inflexible nomenclatural system. There are now seven new populations that contribute and improve understanding of H. maculata as a species. All these localities are in Witteberg Sandstone and the type locality is only slightly different in that the stratum of rock is less feldspathic (i.e. mineralized).
Set 5. Map points 6, 9, 13, and 14. Ouhoekberg. Figs. 5.1 to 5.24 MBB7991a H. maculata, Ouhoekberg E.
Figs. 5.25 to 5.28 Panoramic views.
Figs. 5.29 to 5.33 MBB7991b H. maculata, Ouhoekberg.
These populations were first observed as one on a higher eastern point of the Ouhoekberg above Moddergat in about 1975. George Lombard accompanied Kobus Venter and me there in 1996 and we found them on the western high point. I located them nearby in 2004. We found them again recently as two more populations on the eastern heights near where I must have observed them first. Note the reticulation in the dried fruit capsule. It can be very much more evident in species like H. pulchella but I seriously doubt its diagnostic value. I have included views to… (a) north to show the water of the Brandvlei Dam in the far distance. The area between has not been adequately explored. What is interesting is the geology. The mountains on the left are the Table Mountain Sandstones, nearer is the valley where the soft Bokkeveld Shale has been eroded away, and then comes the Witteberg Sandstone with a neck of soft shale, and then low down is Dwyka tillite. H. herbacea is present on the Dwyka outcrop barely visible in the middle right. (b) The second view is looking east at first the Hammansberg and beyond that Ouhangsberg with H. mirabilis on its eastern flanks. The view looking southeast is over low Bokkeveld shale ridges with an abundance of H. herbacea. The view south is to Villiersdorp where Wolfkloof (not the Robertson Wolfkloof) is a deep valley behind the Table Mountain Sandstone left of the gap through the Rooihoogte Pass. Here is where H. herbacea ‘lupula’ occurs, unusually in sandstone. Altitude and skeletal soils of different origins contribute hugely to the genetic mosaic. Arable depositional soils exclude Haworthia and obviously inhibit contact between populations.
Set 7. Map point 11. Cilmor. Figs. 7.1 to 7.3 MBB7271
An interesting point here that H. herbacea (map point 18) occurs between this point and all the Die Nekkies populations. I am not sure that the area between can be fully explored although I have been into it.
Set 10. Map point 18. H. herbacea ‘submaculata’. Brickfield, Brandvlei Dam. Figs. 10.1 to 10.20 MBB7995 H. herbacea, S Brandvlei Brickfield.
Figs. 10.21 to 10.53 MBB7996 H. herbacea, E Brandvlei Brickfield.
I have associated this locality with vonPoellnitz H. submaculata and treated it as a synonym of H. herbacea. However, here I first illustrate a population about 600m south of that where the plants are in the usual size range for the species ie.30-40mm diam. At the locality east of the Brickfield and next to the Breede River, the plants are 1/3 to 1/2 as large again and can form huge clumps. North-west from this is a population of H. maculata at the extreme end of Die Nekkies and only about 300m distant, and this population I have always regarded as somewhat intermediate. What is interesting to note is the huge variation in leaf shape and armature within each population. In both cases the plants are in Witteberg Sandstones and at the first site this is both in a very shale-like stratum as well as in a highly quartzitic one. This is unusual for H. herbacea. Both populations wedge in geographically between H. maculata populations and in no known case do both occur.
Donald A. Levin (2000) quotes Raven, Berlin and Breedlove (1971), who wrote…“our system of names appears to achieve a reality which it does not in fact possess”. I find this a curious quote, as Levin was discussing species concepts and we could ask if species themselves have any reality. There is a lack of a universal definition for the word “species” and I find the recurring reference to “concept” as related to the word, very confusing. Why should the species be a concept, subject to individual interpretation? This is of course if they have no reality and we each create our own. How useful is this for science? Donald goes on to generate his own “species concept” in which he proposes…“that each species has a unique way of living in and relating to the environment and has a unique genetic system…”, and he refers to this as the eco-genetic species concept. (But still we do not know what he means by “species”.) He says that the ecological properties of such species are not uniform within the species and thus not equivalent to the taxonomic properties of species, “which are chosen because they are conservative and stable attributes”. It would be interesting to know just what he means by “taxonomic properties” and I presume he means primarily morphological characters. Certainly there must be taxonomists who utilized or have utilized ecological facets to decide on their species. It must also be recognized that the taxonomist is confined to the material at his disposal for examination and decision making.
My view, to the degree that I can understand Levins’ arguments, is that he has not truly stated the case. The problem concerning the reality of Latin names, is that they have largely been generated by taxonomists who may not have recognized that morphological (“conservative and stable attributes”) properties of a species may vary just as substantially as those of eco-genetic species; and also that these “realms” for each species may be different. From my long experience in taxonomy and the usage of names in communication, it is evident that it is the taxonomic system and taxonomists, which have induced the majority of people who use Latin names in any way, to believe that they do have a reality. The system has been based on the view that Levins apparently has, that a taxonomist determines species by characters or character sets which can be quantified and easily (sic!) used. Perhaps also, that the taxonomist has had enough material to make a decision that is universally true. In the absence of a universal definition it is self-evident that taxonomists and persons, who use the names they give and are given, may have quite divergent views on what those names actually mean and what reality they have. This is especially true if sight is lost of the fact that the characters taxonomist use and have used either morphological or ecological, are simply not as “conservative or stable” as believed. Neither may they be adequately circumscribable or quantifiable. The material examined may simply be inadequate to convey the varied characteristics of the species as it occurs throughout its distribution range.
I would like to use an example to illustrate the relationship of names to taxonomic characters and identification. Drosanthemummicans is an old latin name that was given by Linnaeus for a mesembryanthemum species. The name is apparently based on a Dillenius illustration (fig.1). While the name has been commonly used in the ranks of botanists and horticulturists of my personal acquaintance, there is some doubt that the connection of original illustration and name, to the plants identified as such in recent times may be right. In this case, my use of the name stems from the usage of my predecessor at the Karoo Botanic garden, F.J.Stayner, and he probably obtained the name from identification by Mrs. L. Bolus. I many cases names may come into general use through less authoritative channels. At this point in time the true typification of this name and its correct application is under review, so I will use the name as I know it for a species that to my knowledge occurs both within the Karoo Botanic Garden Reserve, a short distance to the east and also in the developed suburb to the northwest of Worcester, Brandwacht. The name “micans” means “glittering”, and indeed this is the case for this plant (fig.2). The species is characterized by inner and outer rings of bright colour, the calyx bears enlarged bladder cells and the leaves have a grey-blue colour in the summer months. The flowers have outer black staminodes and there is a series of inner smaller petals, often uniformly one-colour, which accentuate the coloured ring effect. There is another species with these black stamindodes viz, D. speciosum, which can be separated from D. micans primarily by the appearance and colour of the leaves. In the former the leaves tend to be slightly more globose and have a greenish-yellow colour. In the latter the leaves are grey-green and tend to be elongated with an uncinate (hooked) end. The black staminodes seem to be unique in the mesembryanthema and who knows if they serve any particular function.
In more recent times, Mrs. Bolus described several other species. One is Drosanthemum bellum that is said to have been collected “near Ceres”, and D. hallii from hills east of Rawsonville. D. bellum was described as pink with black staminodes, and D. hallii as yellow with black staminodes. During a period I which I was interested in these very colourful plants, I came across a population of plants at one spot on the hills “east of Rawsonville” (Die Nekkies, north of the Brandvlei Dam) that demonstrated an array of colour forms. Among these were pink (bellum – fig.3), white, and purple. At the same time I found a population of plants nearby in which all the flowers were bright yellow (hallii – fig.4). More recently I have had occasion to examine this more closely and find many more populations, which indicate the problem that taxonomists have apparently yet to come to grips with if botanists and scientists in other disciplines are to find any reality in among latin binomials. This is that these characters are not diagnostic for the “species”
On revisiting the “bellum” population I found the same array of colours. There were plants with very pale yellow flowers, pink, pale rose-red, white and white shade with purple (figs.5, 6, 7 & 8). There were no bright yellow flowers despite the fact that such bright yellow flowers characterized plants from every other population along the length of the Nekkies. (Here is where Levins could apply his ecogenetic concept!). What was most dramatic was finding some plants with flowers of the micans type (fig.9 in one population of hallii. I observed colour variants in other populations of hallii further to the south-east where the plants were primarily with bright yellow flowers. On revisiting the D. micans population just east of the Karoo Garden, I found that there were plants with the plain bright yellow flowers of hallii as well as pale rose-red to red flowered plants (figs.10, 11, 12).
The question now arises…”What else?” My own approach to taxonomy and plant identification, is that one has to consider not just the ecological associations of plants, which are mostly more difficult to describe accurately than any morphological property, but geographical distribution. Plant species are just like any other material phenomena. They are distributed in space, and they change with time. This is the determinant of their reality. Taxonomy and the decisions that are made are dependent on the material available to taxonomists and it is often simply not substantial enough to establish a practical reality in the application of their names. Looking further afield, I have three more populations of plants from the southern Worcester area namely at Jonaskop (figs13, 14), Lemoenpoort (figs 15,16) and Droogerivierberg (figs.17, 18,19, 20, 21) which fit the micans/hallii mould in terms of all but colour. The population of D. micans on the Droogerivierberg south of Worcester I thought to be fairly consistent in flower colour. It proved not to be and we found a wide range of colours, which extended to white and also included the more typical bi-colour thought to be the real thing. Curiously Mrs. Bolus also described D. leptum from Stormsvlei Pass as white with black staminodes. I have not been able to find it again, but it does seem, in the light of the distribution and variation of D. micans as I have discussed it here, that it is in fact also this species.
Outside of the Worcester area, there is a population north of the Langeberg mountains in the Keerom Dam area, which is characteristically micans (fig.22 – not that single images can represent the variation in the population). Still further afield is a population north-east of Montagu which suggests affinity with the populations of southern Worcester (fig.23).
Then there is Drosanthemum aureorubrum described from near Drew west of Swellendam. It has the characters of micans except in respect of colour. It is inclined to have flowers rather bronze-red-bronze in colour (fig.24) apparently without much local variation, and it should be noted that this variability can only be assessed in the field or by observation of plants mass propagated and cultivated. I can relate that population to three others, one from the middle Breede River Valley at Napky (fig.25), another from northwest of the Potberg at Potteberg Farm (fig.26) and the third from near the mouth of the Breede River at Infanta (fig.27). All well and good, except that the colour does not agree either with D. micans or D. hallii. Nearly everything else does.
The nail in the coffin of a narrow “character” driven taxonomy is a population northeast of the Bromberg Mountain at Stormsvlei in the Swellendam district. I had found these plants when without flower. Visiting the site in September/October when in flower was quite a revelation. There was a range of colours which included the bronze-red of Drew and the southern Worcester and Breede River populations (figs 28, 29). Very significant were a few plants with flowers coloured precisely the same as micans (fig.30). There were also plants with pure yellow flowers, but the yellow was distinctly on the golden-yellow side. I regret leaving out another dramatically varying population eat of Barrydale.
There is yet another “species” viz. D. lavisii, named by Mrs L. Bolus after Bishop Lavis who collected the original specimens ostensibly from between Struisbaai and Bredasdorp. Although Acocks also deposited a collection, purported to be this species, from Northumberland Point, I have looked for it there in vain. I have found three populations of what must be this species with its red flowers, from Napier (fig.31) from Swartjeskop (fig.32) northwest of Bredasdorp and from Soutkloof (fig.33) still further northwest. At first sight this did seem to be distinctive, but in summation I would opt for the geogenetic option. Looking at all the collections and attempting to relate them to the distribution of other plant species (AND their variants), I suggest that D. lavisii is another name for D. micans. I have seen a red-flowered Drosanthemum in the Bontebok Park at Swellendam (fig.34) and Van Jaarsveld and Pienaar report D. lavisii from the Goukou River in the Riversdale district (fig. 35), and these may be related to what Mrs. Bolus described as D. edwardsii from near George (figs. 36, 37, 38) If one considers the geographic aspect and notes the relationship of the distribution of D. micans and D. speciosum then one must perforce suspect that D. edwardsii is the eastern extension of D. micans. D. micans and D. speciosum do grow in very close association, although very seldom actually sharing habitat as they do on Jonaskop. My observation would be that the distribution of D. micans extends into the Swellendam and southern areas, whereas the distribution of D. speciosum is more karoid and it can be found eastward to Oudsthoorn. An apparently vicariant population near Uniondale has flowers which are golden yellow and with long pedicels (fig.39).
Thus we come to the point where we can ask what these names now mean. An aspect of exploration has been interaction with landowners and other members of the public. In this interaction use is made of names. Botanists (non-taxonomists) who have had reason to explore and report the plant species of the Overberg, have used the names lavisii and speciosum. They seemed not to have the capacity to assess if these identifications were right or wrong, and this is not because they were incompetent. It is essentially because from necessity and habituation they apply a species concept which has no reality. When one tries to convey to a lay-person what one is looking for, names clearly have either no meaning at all, or else are linked tightly to an image and association that the person may have derived from book or contact with someone else. It was most notable that in the Worcester/Robertson area, any red flowered mesem was linked to what I know as Drosanthemumspeciosum and people found it difficult to conceive that there was a second species also with red-flowers. It proved well-nigh impossible to convey and communicate that either species could have different coloured flowers or that such variants were not different species. Fig. 40 demonstrate some of the variants in D. speciosum, also at Doogerivierberg, but while D. micans occurred in closer association with Witteberg Sandstanes, D. speciosum was on Dwyka Tillite.
A closing point is to refer again to Levis, where he is copied by Charles Craib in the magnificent work on “The Grass Aloes of the South African Veld”. Levins writes…”the eco-genetic species concept has utilitarian value, which is important from an operational concept.” The implication is that taxonomists have propounded a system of names which has little operational value. What then is the sense of taxonomy? Certainly this is what Craib conveys where he propounds a choice of a classification that serves the purpose of the user because the officially accepted system does not (meet the need of an informed user). The fact is that no system will have operational value while there is no universal definition in place, and common realization that a binomial system and names will never have any worthwhile reality unless there is a commonality about what names mean. Taxonomists have to start, with self-examination, to teach the user that names are for communication and have a meaning outside of the very narrow confines of obvious morphological difference, guess work based on limited material and knowledge, or idiosyncratic opinion. While it may be argued that the confused names I have quoted are directly related to the absence of a taxonomic revision of Drosanthemum since Mrs. Bolus last described her species, I use this example to reflect my long general experience with plant names and what people make of them.
Acknowledgment: I must acknowledge the association with Dr H.E.K. Hartmann with whom I have been privileged to communicate over many years, and whose contribution to the knowledge and classification of the Mesembryanthemaceae parallels and possibly exceeds that of Mrs. L. Bolus. Also I would really like to express my appreciation to the many landowners who have taken us on trust and so kindly allowed us access to their property and plants. To list them all would occupy more space than this whole article but I must particularly acknowledge Messrs Poffie and Hettie Conradie of Worcester (Droogerivierberg), Messrs Jon and Cindy Webber of Cape Town (Klippoort, Stormsvlei) and Neil and Saartjie Neethling of Swellendam (Potteberg Farm). Jan and AnneLise Vlok very kindly sent me pictures from Riversdale and Mossel Bay. I do not know how to acknowledge Conservation authorities in terms of their permit system and how these are issued and monitored, nor the paranoid response one gets to the term “collecting”. There is in my opinion a total failure to make any distinction between collecting for knowledge gain and satisfaction of natural curiosity, intelligent plucking for financial gain, or crass exploitation that could lead to degradation of the environment, nor to balance this against doubtful control of development and concomitant destruction of natural vegetation by other agencies. A permit applicant seems to be regarded as a confessed reprobate with no sense or sagacity and an immediate threat to biological diversity. At least this is my impression of how I have been seen. Who wants to draw attention to themselves in this way? Steve Hammer kindly commented on the manuscript.
Reference: Levin, Donald, A. 2000. The Origin, Expansion, and Demise of Plant Species. Oxford University Press..
Fig. 01. The possible type of Drosanthemum micans.
Fig. 02. MBB7415.2 D. micans, Karoo Botanic Garden
Fig. 03. MBB7436 D. ‘bellum’, Nekkies Resort
Fig. 04. MBB7435 D. ‘hallii’, W Nekkies
Fig. 05 MBB7436 D. micans, Nekkies Resort
Fig. 06 MBB7436 D. micans, Nekkies Resort
Fig. 07 MBB7436 D. micans, Nekkies Resort
Fig. 08 MBB7436 D. micans, Nekkies Resort
Fig. 09. MBB7435 D. ‘hallii’, W Nekkies
Fig. 10. D. micans. Panorama.
Fig. 11. D. micans. Panorama.
Fig. 12. D. micans. Panorama.
Fig. 12a. D. micans. Panorama.
Fig. 12b. D. micans. Panorama.
Fig. 13. 7433 D. micans. Jonaskop.
Fig. 14. 7433 D. micans. Jonaskop.
Fig. 15. MBB7267. D. micans, E Lemoenpoort
Fig. 16. MBB7267. D. micans, E Lemoenpoort
Fig. 17. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 18. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 19. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 20. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 21. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 21a. 7472 D. micans. Droogerivierberg.
Fig. 22a. MBBsn D. micans, Keerom
Fig. 22b. MBBsn D. micans, Keerom
Fig. 23a. D. micans, Gadsfontein
Fig. 23b. D. micans, Gadsfontein
Fig. 24a. D. Micans, Sanddrif
Fig. 24b. D. Micans, Sanddrif
ig. 25a. MBB7451 D. micans. Middeldrift, Napky
Fig. 25b. MBB7451 D. micans. Middeldrift, Napky
Fig. 26a. MBB7498 D. micans, Potteberg Farm
Fig. 26b. MBB7498 D. micans, Potteberg Farm
Fig. 26c. MBB7498 D. micans, Potteberg Farm
Fig. 27a. MBB7545 D. micans, Bar Harbour, Infanta
Fig. 27b. MBB7545 D. micans, Bar Harbour, Infanta
Fig. 28a. MBB7493 D. micans, Klipport, S Bromberg
Fig. 28b. MBB7493 D. micans, Klipport, S Bromberg
Fig. 29a. MBB7493 D. micans, Klipport, S Bromberg
Fig. 29b. MBB7493 D. micans, Klipport, S Bromberg
Fig. 30. MBB7493 D. micans, Klipport, S Bromberg
Fig. 31. MBB7465 D. ‘lavisii’, N Napier
Fig. 32a. MBB sn. D. ‘lavisii’, Swartjeskop
Fig. 32b. MBB sn. D. ‘lavisii’, Swartjeskop
Fig. 33. MBB7940 D. ‘lavisii’, Ouplaas, DeHoop.
Fig. 34. MBB7824 D. micans, Klipbult, SE Swellendam.
Fig. 35a. MBB7572 D. ‘lavisii’, Nature Reserve, Riversdale.
Fig. 35b. MBB7572 D. ‘lavisii’, Nature Reserve, Riversdale.
Fig. 35c. A. Vloks D. ‘lavisii’, Nature Reserve, Riversdale.
Fig. 36. MBB7787 D. ‘edwardsii’, Pinnacle Point, Mossel Bay
Fig. 36. J. Vlok D. ‘edwardsii’, Pinnacle Point, Mossel Bay
Fig. 37. J. Vlok D. ‘edwardsii’, Pinnacle Point, Mossel Bay
There seems to be so much harping about my departure from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) that I obviously need to try and explain myself better. The real issue is that we are dealing with a group of plants that is largely appreciated for its vegetative characters and not for its small and unexceptional flowers. Because the plants are small and so commonly grown by collectors the numbers of plants in cultivation and close observation is large. The plants also do vary in respect of leaf morphology, arrangement, and surfaces to a greater extent than in many other genera. Furthermore, the variation is also exaggerated by growing conditions. The fact that flowers are not used in the classification process beyond the level of sub-genera means that there is an almost total reliance on vegetative characters for classification. The nomenclatural system in botany tends to be a typological one, which means that reliance is placed on descriptions very often derived from single specimens. This is particularly so when the nomenclatural types are simply old illustrations that have been used to arrive at identifications and names by consecutive authors for decades. Thus use of those identifications and names, and their continuing re-interpretation causes a great deal of either grief or great personal satisfaction depending on just who is being affected by the process. The fact that the names should indicate “species” is lost from sight and totally obscured by the additional absence of any good universally accepted explanation for what a species is or might be.
Explanation in and around all this has been a large part of my writing since I started this in 1962. Thus I will not enlarge on the subject but rather try to explain again this way using a species name generated by Col C. L. Scott with whom I had some considerable altercation. It must be understood that Col Scott was not a biologist and it is just a simple fact that the problems that the above brief remarks expose, trouble many professional taxonomists to this day. I do not condemn Col Scott and express my respect and admiration for him and am very grateful to him for the friendship he later extended to me before he died.
The example I will take is that of his species Haworthia geraldii. It comes from a small hillside east of Riversdale running south to north, named Komserante. This is an Afrikaans term meaning the ridge around a small geographic basin. In the way that Haworthias are assembled in small habitat defined and localised populations, there are three recognizable populations of plants (of the subgenus Haworthia) along this one ridge about 1km long. The southern population used to be complemented by still another that occurred where the stream bed left the basin at the southern end. A plant from that southern population was named as H. foucheii by K. Von Poellnitz. The northern population is a bit problematic and I initially included it in my then concept of H. magnifica. Since then however, it has become clear to me that my idea of species was too conservative and that H. magnifica as described by Von Poellnitz from south east of Riversdale (now the Frehse Reserve) is part and parcel of a huge complex that I regard as H. mirabilis.Thus this northern population is seen by me as H. mirabilis but complicated by the fact that it is largely influenced by hybridization with the next population or populations south. A plant (or perhaps, and doubtfully, plants) have been given the name H. vernalis by the Japanese writer M Hayashi. The name H. geraldii is attached to the second population southwards. The plants are very proliferous, form large clumps and the leaves are usually quite strongly retused (“bent back like a thumb”). The name H. foucheii is simply attached to the third because the plants there tend to be solitary and the leaves are also fairly erect and spreading as described and pictured for the original from the fourth population that was off the ridge.
The problem is now that we have descriptions and plants in each population that do not match the descriptions. While I assign the northern population and all the plants in it to H. mirabilis, other writers use the names H. vernalis, H. magnifica and even the confused name H. asperula. What they mean is by no means clear and in actuality a lot more names and descriptions would then be required to name each of the countless variants there for what might be an original pure species and variants or for first second or third generation hybrids with H. geraldii or H. foucheii as those names were applied.
But the problem is far more extensive than just these four populations. After years and years of field exploration it has become evident to me that like H. mirabilis, H. retusa is also highly diverse and I see it to include all the variants of H. turgida. In fact I suggested a long time ago that H. retusa is simply the solitary large form of H. turgida in low-lying level areas as opposed to the more common and extensive clumping cliff dwelling forms of that species. This is also why I object to the requirements of the ICBN that require the name H. retusa to take precedence for the species for historical reasons when it would be far more realistic to take it as a variant of H. turgida for biological reasons.
It has always been simply evident to me that H. geraldii and H. foucheii are variants of H. retusa. The problem now is that the plants in the two populations vary so much that, while the names are indeed useful for commercial and collector use, there can be problems that the use and application of the names will be confused.
Look at it like this. In respect of H. geraldii; it came from one population at Komserante, Riversdale and not all the plants are the same. I think this one population and all those plants in it belong to the species H. retusa, so I called it H. retusa var. geraldii. (var. = variety). Because not all the plants look the same that means that only some are truly geraldii and only the plants that meet Scott’s description are actually var. geraldii. Because the plants multiply vegetatively and Scott only took a piece, the original plant may still be there. This means that we should recognize it as H. retusa var geraldii forma geraldii and in cultivation as H. retusa ‘Geraldii’ or just as H. ‘Geraldii’. What do we do with the other 100 plants or more in the population that are not H. retusa ‘Geraldii’? I do not think they can all get names so I take away the capital letter, leave out “var.” and use ‘ and ‘ (inverted commas) to show that the identification is, and will, be a bit uncertain unless you know from a label that the plant comes from that particular population at Komserante. The same applies to H. retusa var foucheii. In this case the original population is gone and I am not sure if H. ‘Foucheii’ is still in cultivation. So I use the name H. retusa ‘foucheii’ for a second population on Komserante. Some of the plants in this population look like some of those in the H. retusa‘geraldii’ population but not quite like H. ‘Geraldii’ itself. So for me the answer is MBB7780 H. retusa ‘geraldii’, Komserante and MBB7781 H retusa ‘foucheii’, Komserante.
It can be seen that a complication comes in when more than one population is involved. The problem then is that you can put them in a line so that some plants in the first population look like plants in the second, some in the second look like plants in the third, some of those look like those in the fourth until at the end none of the plants in the last population look like any in the first. The trouble in the field is that the line is not straight and it can also go off in different directions. Some of those directions may end up where they started. One simply cannot be truly confident about many of those names that are given to plants. Serious and proper consideration must be given for how different they may be even within the populations. Not to say of the shared similarities and still added variation from geographically adjacent populations. It may happen that I may write H. ‘retusa’ (and add number and place name) for a population that may better (not necessarily correctly) be identified as H. retusaXmirabilis. Other writers who are not biologists and have other considerations in mind may want to give a new name altogether. That new name and description may be again really only for one plant, or maybe a few more in a population, that have real or imagined novelty value and attraction. But they take no account of all of the less attractive variants or other populations that comprise the biological whole by close proximity if for nothing else.
The above discussion is integral to the rationalized list of names that Dr John Manning helped me produce. There are some species names there that I have deliberately presented as synonyms or variants of the species I recognize, because the authors of those names fail to convince me that they have any understanding of the situation at all. The word “species” is apparently simply a convenient naming system for oddities and novelties and not any scientific construct to explain the natural phenomena of living systems and their parts.
To summarize; I have written a report on flower characters in which I refer to the Komserante populations and I have used the following names and my own convention as follows:-
Please note that the way I have omitted the word variety from the following names and also used inverted commas …
7779 H. mirabilis, Komserante (the northern population – I could add ‘vernalis’ but it carries all the baggage of doubt about actual status).
7780 H. retusa ‘geraldii’, Komserante.
7781 H. retusa ‘foucheii’, Komserante.
7920 H. retusa ‘ nigra’,, Van Reenens Crest.
The omission of the word variety is for two reasons…
1. Economy
2. To convey the idea that the actual indication of status is not certain as I have used the name to indicate a population or populations rather than a single described plant. The prime and overriding uncertainty is that we cannot know what a species is that I have described for Haworthia. Thus how can we possibly rank populations at levels below?
The use of inverted commas reinforces what I want to convey. This is that the individual plants in the populations are variable and it may not be easy to always identify the plants (individual or population) according to a more formal classification.
Any departure from the ICBN or the way the names are treated in formal botany conveys the difficulty that I personally find in trying to reconcile formal nomenclature with names that are so often tied to single plants.
Previously published Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 84(1): 41-50
Map Legend – east of Swellendam.
1. JDV84/75 Haworthia retusa ‘turgida’.
2. MBB6666 H. retusa ‘nigra’↔ H. mirabilis.
3. MBB7898 H. retusa ‘nigra’.
4. MBB7899 H. retusa ‘nigra’.
5. MBB7897 H. retusa ‘nigra’.
6. MBB7896 H. retusa ‘nigra’.
7. MBB7871 H. mirabilis.
8. MBB7823 H. mirabilis.
9. MBB7909 H. mirabilis
10. MBB7805 H. mirabilis.
11. MBB7801 H. mutica ‘groenewaldii’.
12. MBB7886-7889 H. mutica ‘groenewaldii’, H. mirabilis, H. minima, H. marginata.
13. MBB7722 H. floribunda ‘major’
1. Haworthiamarginata and H. minima
The Robustipedunculares is quite a distinctive group within the currently recognized genus. While the four species in the group are generally quite distinct, there are some remarkable complexities that rival that elsewhere in the genus. Recognizable and obvious hybrids are found between H. marginata, H. pumila and H. minima, but there are instances of whole populations that appear to consist of such in-between forms e.g. H. Xmortonii. I have speculated that perhaps rather than have just hybridized, the species have never ever really truly separated in the supposed evolutionary process. There is a vast body of variants that still link them in intimately as this piece will show.
I long ago observed that a small remnant population of ostensibly H. minima just south of Swellendam flowered in November as opposed to the general rule for the Robustupedunculares as late summer flowering. A vicarious population at Brandrivier north of the Langeberg (H. minima ‘opalina’) also flowers in November and both populations have fairly large and white flowers for the species.
I have recorded the normal bluish-green H. minima within the Bontebok Park at Swellendam as well as a very green variant. But in very recent exploration to the south-east we found an even more divergent group of plants that, while varying among the plants, seemed to be hybrids of H. marginata and H. minima (fig. 2 as a single sample and not representative of all).It was September and there were no signs of old or new flower spikes. Kobus Venter, who was present, remarked that the first plant seen was reminiscent of the plants once present south of Swellendam. The plants were large and in exposed situations even colored brownish as does H. pumila. No flowers were present and their color may have shown if H. pumila could have been directly involved at all, while it is essentially its distribution restricted eastwards from the Robertson Karoo by some 20km that reduce the possibility.
What makes the situation more interesting is that nearby was a population of H. marginata that was flowering and the flowers were also large and very white for the species (figs 3 & 4). Added to the fun was a smaller probable hybrid (fig. 5).
Differences and complexities like this do not really surprise me because it is what I have come to expect in my many wanderings in the field. The problem is that it certainly makes classification and any agreement on a set of names very difficult. I just accept it as a fact that plant species can exhibit greater differences between individuals of the same species than between individuals of different species, ridiculous as it may sound. This is because I perceive species as systems of individuals in populations with a very strong geographic component. To actually make a decision it is frequently necessary to determine just what else is growing in the vicinity in respect not only of the genus in question, but also that of other plants. Even the habitat factors need to be considered.
In the case of the plants pictured with this, the Bontebok Park terrain is mostly tertiary gravels, while the habitat we found the plants in was more recent riverine boulders. It is very curious that in the description of H. groenewaldii, the habitat is implicitly described as Ruens Silcrete. I do not think this is true. It is in the true Ferricrete/Silcrete that we found the next and it seems to be these differences in substrate geology that play a large role in generating variation and consequent controversy.
Fig. 2 MBB7891 cf H. minima, Rotterdam
Fig. 3 MBB7892 H. marginata, Rotterdam
Fig. 4 MBB7892 H. marginata, Rotterdam
Fig. 5 MBB7891 H. minimaXmarginata, Rotterdam
2. Haworthia retusa ‘nigra’
I first allied this element with H. mutica because this is how G.G.Smith referred to his collection from Kransriviermond south of Heidelberg. Since then there have been many new collections from which can be gathered that this population is a hybrid one between H. retusa ‘turgida’ and H. mirabilis. There is another collection north of this at Morning Star that appears to have the same parentage but also including H. floribunda. Then there are populations continuing up the Duiwenhoks and then Klip rivers to northwest of Heidelberg, a population between Heidelberg and Tradouw Pass further west and also a population at Goedverwagting south from there. Apart from the Morning Star population (February/March) these are all September/October flowering. There is a population at the southern entrance to Tradouw Pass of the same ilk that is February/March flowering. Then there is quite a distance between these known populations and a remarkable population at Buffeljags south of Tradouw Pass. It is remarkable for the fact that it is lauded as a new species viz. H. groenewaldii when I consider it to be generated from the interaction of H. mirabilis, H. mutica and H. floribunda. I attach no special importance to the fact that it flowers, contrary to H. mutica, in February/March. This is because I have observed many hybrids between patently different species despite a seasonal difference in flowering time.
To explore the realities of the situation we undertook two expeditions, one was to Buffeljags to explore west of H. groenewaldii and the other was to the Tradouw Pass area to explore H. retusa ‘nigra’. The first exploration yielded three populations of ‘groenewaldii’, which convince me that despite its flowering time as for H. marginata above, is simply H. mutica in another guise. I also think far too much is made of superficial and trivial differences that are as much characteristic of the variation in the one original population as they are within the four populations and for H. mutuca in its full sense. I consider it significant that H. mirabilis in its more normal non-retuse and dark green form is present in discrete populations both at and west of Buffeljags.
The second expedition was nearly as fruitful. It showed the Tradouw Pass population to be February/March flowering (see figs 6 & 7), while three new populations we discovered between there and the previous records in the easterly Heidelberg direction were Sept/October flowering. They link up to the populations elsewhere that I assign to H. retusa ‘nigra’. An additional find by Jannie Groenewald, for whom that H. mutica viz. H. groenewaldii, variant is named, also took us to a population of what is clearly H. mirabilis (see map) as I know it in its many disguises in the white kaolinic/bentonite clays of the silcrete/ferricrete inselbergs throughout the low-lying Southern Cape. There is unquestionably an overlap of characters between what I assign to H. mirabilis and H. retusa and I consider inarguable that H. mutica is a reflection of a shared gene pool.
Fig. 6 MBB6666 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Tradouw Pass
Fig. 7 MBB6666 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Tradouw Pass
What this demonstrates again, as does the Kiewietsvlakte populations between Heidelberg and Riversdale, that H. retusa and H. mirabilis are closely intertwined from east to west. There is an added complexity that H. floribunda is admixed along the northern populations and H. variegata along the southern. The admixture of the two species produces H. retusa ‘turgida’ and H. pygmaea in the east and H. mirabilis, H. mutica and H. retusa ‘turgida’ in the west. This is complicated by the other interactions along the northern and southern areas. In the Potberg area it appears that the genetic material of all five “species” is evident in the populations that I have seen there.
While I would like to explain the situation around H. groenewaldii I. Breuer that I interpret as a variant of H. mutica, this should be left for another occasion as too many images are required to support any argument. As it is, the issue of H. mutica ‘nigra’ occupies 29 pages and 79 illustrations in my book Haworthia Update Vol.2 pt 1:50., where all the above mentioned variants are discussed and illustrated. The naming of Haworthias is highly contentious because the species consist of aggregates of small fairly isolated populations that may differ to large or small degree. The populations are in turn also aggregates of plants that can all be identical from vegetative propagation, similar because of low genetic difference or very different from each other because of large genetic differences. Therefore figures 6-13 simply show just a sample of the variation within these four populations in the Tradouw Pass area. The plants vary quite considerably in size too and the one in Fig 8 is nearly 200mm diameter. I have added to the map locations of the only significant other populations that I know of in the area including H. retusa ‘turgida’ and H. floribunda ‘major’, excluding those within the Bontebok Park viz. H. minima, H. mirabilis and H. marginata.
Fig. 8 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 9 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 10 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 11 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 12 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 13 H. retusa ‘nigra’, Heuningklip
Fig. 14 The typical ‘pressure burst’ of white kaolinic soil from under more solid ferricrete where H. retusa and H. mirabilis are commonly found.
Perhaps I should close by explaining that I have dropped the use of any rank below that of the species name. I simply am suggesting that we recognize the need for a trinomial system without the pretension of status, and more greatly honour the binomial as an entity of a greater significance than we may know. I do this because botany has no proper species definition and consequently species descriptions are just based on wild guesses about possible non-similarity and on the flimsiest of supposed character differences. The loosely used word “typical” is only truly useful in respect of the one plant dried as an almost unrecognizable specimen that is used to anchor the Latin name.
Acknowledgement. Any proper excursion into Haworthia territory always requires acknowledgement of landowners and I thank Jaap Viljoen and Jannie Groenewald for organizing that and for their company. I was also glad to have Kobus Venter along who had persuaded me to show him some of populations known to me on promise of new exploration.
Note. Cross seasonal hybrids observed are-
H. retusa turgida X H. floribunda Blackdown, Heidelberg.
And also Platjieskop, Riversdale.
H. pygmaea X H. floribunda Coopert Siding, Albertinia. H. mirabilis X H. retusa Soetmelksrivier, Riversdale H. mirabilis X H. variegata Stoffelsriver, Swellendam.
References. I need to record that Harry Mays of Alsterworthia kindly undertook the non-profitable publication of 5 volumes of Updates (2-6) between 2006 and 2009. Vol. 1 was published by Umdaus in 2001. These volumes were the product of research to validate or correct what appeared as a formal revision in Haworthia Revisited, published by Umdaus in 1999. The description of H. groenewaldii appears in Alsterworthia 11.2:15 (2011).
Previously published in Alsterworthia International Volume 12, Issue 2. July 2012.
I ask this question because too often the views of the collector are espoused as an excuse or defense for some or other argument about classification. It has often been said to me that collectors are not interested in taxonomy and they are at the most, happy just to have a name. This argument does not impress me because as a society we have a trust and a belief in science and whatever is written, outside of fiction, should seriously address the truth. It should not matter what the reader may want to make of the product other than that the reader may just by chance really want to know and understand something. On reflection, one writes for the reader who must surely be reading because they want to know something, and names are the key to the “something”?
This is why I have responded to reviews of my writing that have been published at various times. I have written as a communication and am glad to know what the reception or rejection has been. Recently Steven Hammer wrote what is listed under the title of “Book Review” comment on a recent book by Ingo Breuer and of Update Vol. 6 by me. It is a wonderful piece of prose and worth every bit of reading and appreciation, but it does not pass as a Review. Or does it? I feel that it has a few mistakes as well as passing over the very real differences between the two publications. So, I wrote a response in the way I treat any publication as an invitation to think and form an opinion; and express it. Passing a draft of this response to a competent observer, I got this reply…” Fortunately, there is little expectation of a review. The point is: was the review positive or negative? Did the reader learn something and gain deeper appreciation, or not? Will they buy the book, or did the review satisfy their curiosity? For most readers, the details are unimportant, as much as you may hate this very concept.”
Why I should hate the concept of most readers regarding the questions of detail unimportant I do not know. But I do think the accuracy, in respect of detail or general, is very important. What my commentator was implying is that the review met the requirements that he was suggesting, and he added that my response was “nit-picking” and would only be seen as criticism of someone who is widely held in high esteem. The fact is that Steven Hammer is also held in very high esteem by me and I am so glad to be able to say that he expressed to me personally that his “review’ was rather a literary fantasy. What Steven does comment on is a view of the needs of collectors. That they care little about schemes of classification and that labels are necessary irritants. I do not question the truth of this view. But would not accept that this is a justification for the imposition of just any kind of scheme because that is what a writer wishes to propound for reasons of his /her own.
These then are the points I made in my response that I think Steven should have addressed. The ‘mistakes’ are … a). The Audensberg population was actually shown to me by Elsie Esterhuizen many years ago and it is not the place where any haworthiophile would ordinarily look for plants. b). The reference to Drosanthemum bellum is odd because Steven describes this as a “niche-sensitive species”. This “species” is at the heart of a very long and detailed story of Drosanthemum micans that I once wrote and lies unpublished. I would surely have used this as an example of the way in which botanical science has also failed us. D. bellum is a pink flowered variant in a much-localized population of D. micans that also has white, purple and red variants. This tiny population sits among a larger widespread population of yellow flowered variants that go by the name of D. hallii. This is turn has variants that include the typical bi-colored flower of the older D. micans that is common north of Worcester. Further variants occur north-east of Montagu, to Oudtshoorn and then south to Mossel Bay (D. edwardsii) back west to Bredasdorp, (D. lavisii, D. aureopurpureum and D. croceum?). The problem here is the failure to establish what is meant by “species”. To refer to D. bellum as a species is a misconstrual of science, or an example of the liberties that are taken with Latin names – botanists and collectors alike. c). Chameleons. Wonderful words of Steven’s, but not quite complete. The story about chameleons’ parallels that of the very low non-tech problem of impossible identification even when there are heaps of “characters” to use. It fortuitously exposes the probability that we are being led up a garden path by high-tech. I have used chameleons in the same way that I studied Oxalis ultimately demonstrating that species are complex systems of variables! d). Kaboega is not the only area I know exceptionally well and it also figures in practically all the other volumes of Updates of which there are five. I doubt if these have ever had much coverage, but they are an account of my voyage of exploration and discovery that is the concern of mine in respect of omission. In the Updates I discuss the populations and their variants as they occur at many different places and show this impact on the application and use of Latin binomials. There is a prevailing misconception that this is only a problem within Haworthia. I show that this is not so. I also make several references to the fact that Haworthia is by no means an integral single genus and that the nature of genera in the Alooideae needs proper attention based on a lot more than the fact that the Haworthia subgenera have small flowers. e) “Shaggy dog” for H. mirabilis Ballyfar is not a name I coined but Steven himself.
I do think the omission is in the comparison of the books where there is in fact none. My Update Volumes revolve around the way that science has let us down to the extent that any pretender can take up the mantle of taxonomic expert. Botany provides no species definition and hence the Latin binomial is not required to carry any meaning other than a guise of authority. Whatever collectors may require has no import whatsoever in a process of classifying plants as biological entities. They are focal points for the collection and storage of knowledge indicated by Latin binomials and these are not simply and only intended as labels. Even I recognized this as a child when I wanted to know what the plant actually was that my father called H. chalwinii, and where it came from. Every collector who refers to names at all surely expects and believes that there is some mystic or real knowledge associated with the names he is given and uses. It is an injustice to any collector to coin Latin names outside of the context of science where the collector is entitled to believe they belong.
The only predicable thing about Breuer’s system, which is a watered down version of a much more focused and detailed one by Hayashii, is that there are going to be a lot more names. This is not only when someone else climbs the Audensberg, or recollects the Sandhills population, or drifts across into the Heatley Peak area. Throughout the Updates, I warn and demonstrate that character fixated taxonomy may be very misleading. Vavilov was a Russian botanist who pointed out that variations in a genus may be expected in all the members of that genus. Species are therefore to be seen as systems that are natural assemblages of plants that can be associated in respect of ALL the forces, factors and features that generate them – not propagules of single clones that fill availability lists and price catalogues. Drosanthemum bellum is just such an example of how Latin binomial names are used to describe variation within species, rather than to properly organize the basic entities that make up the entire living system.
I have, even in the Updates, shown how the watchdogs of science let us down. I have tried to communicate my experience and observations to a wider and expectedly interested audience. This, in the hopes that it would lead to greater understanding and comprehension of the problems of finding names as the backbone of communication, appreciation and understanding. It is a huge disappointment to me that I have achieved very little other than to grow wiser myself. One of my many critics makes a show of taking up middle ground between me and other Haworthia taxonomists. My response is that taking up middle ground between myself and the ignorant is not going to be very productive. In the first place there is not much space there as I am quite aware of my intellectual limitations. In the second place I have not actually been all that certain that my overview is entirely correct. Despite being credited with a lot of field work (and no good sense to go with it) I am extraordinarily aware of how much I have not seen. This adds to my discomfort as I see a proliferation of new names, gaily forgetting the multitude that I moved aside in my Revision. These are often based on propagules from my own collections (concealed by the creation of new collecting numbers that are not mine). I recognize that the only predictive element in this kind of science is that we can expect many more Latin binomials in a collector driven system rather than one of botanical science. So indeed I see no change from the failed methodology of Von Poellnitz, Smith and Scott.
There is no comparison at all between the two books that a true review might have suggested. One book (Breuer) is a collector’s guide to a limited range of variants (albeit 336?), while the other (Bayer) is an account of a very wide range of variants and a hypothesis (not a statement) of how they are related. The latter also throws some light on the universal quandary knowledgeable observers soon come to experience viz. Elton Roberts in the same edition of the Journal where he questions the identity of Mammilarialasiacantha. The problem he has is a classification fixated on superficial small differences rather than one based on the realities of the variation that should be expected in any system arising from, and actively responding to, differences related to time and space. The essence of science is that an experimental method is applied to a sample and repeated, the result will be the same. If everyone is coming up with a different plant classification, it should occur to us that there is something wrong with the method and perhaps also the hypothesis that is being tested.
I am curious why my commentator dismissed all the above as “nit-picking” when myself I feel that they deal with the most significant elements of writing at all. Especially, they touch on the very core of why we even classify and name plants in the first place. My response should not be seen as a criticism of my commentator, or of Steven, a remarkable man who is also very dear to me. I also respect him enormously for his empathy with plants because if there is anyone who projects my view that this is a conscious creation all the way down to its rocks, it is him. There is surely purpose in creation if only that we should seek and find what that is.
The article by Gerhard Marx in Haworthiad 26.2:41 is really excellent. There is however some behind the scenes innuendo as well as repeated use of words like ”ignored” and “neglected” that need attention. There are furthermore comments on “substantially different and unique characters”, “forcing” elements into synonymy and use of words like “truthfully” and “knowledge of the genus” that distorts a reality that is historically under stress. This is totally unnecessary in an article that otherwise contributes so much in the real area of interest and information.
What we first could deal with is this vexing question of what science is and who is a scientist? In the issue of Haworthiad the editor feels it necessary to state that he is not a scientists and both Al Laius and Stirling Baker imply that there are things that the uninformed dare not comment on. Let me make it clear that most of the writing and classification of Haworthia has been done by authors with no formal training in biology whatsoever. I could fill the whole of an issue with detail of how trained and experienced botanists (scientists) have made mistakes in their small contribution to our “knowledge of the genus”, or simply confounded it.
What the Gerhard Marx’s article actually does is ignore history and written knowledge of the genus. He does profile himself on Facebook as a “succulent botanist” but I doubt if this meets the South African Association of Botanists requirements for membership. Many taxonomists have not been scientists at all, and one cannot fault the enormous contribution that most ordinary people (education-wise) have made to botany. So who am I then? With an MSc and a thesis on morphology and taxonomy, am I a scientist? Does training and a formal qualification mean anything at all? Am I really just another writer? Perhaps not. But…
My first bone of contention is the use of the word “ignored”. This is because it is combined with the notion of unknown transitional elements. This is plainly misleading and incorrect. Von Poellnitz described H. mirabilis ‘beukmannii’ as a variety of H. emelyae probably as the first clue to some sort of transition between elements south and north of the Langeberg and Outeniquaberg. Von Poellnitz cites several specimens from north of the Langeberg that he confused with H. pygmaea and what I later recognize as the totality of H. mirabilis. As long ago as 1976 I published a map in Excelsa, replicated in my Updates, to speculate on the transition of the southern retusoids into the Little Karoo as far as Steytlerville. In a recent treatise available to all I explained the remarkable similarity that I perceived in H. pygmaea in the Herbertsdale area to H. emelyae a relatively short distance away north of the Gouritz Gorge. Many years ago and lost in my writing is the extraordinary similarity of H. emelyae ‘major’ and H. mirabilis ‘paradoxa’. While surely there must be a record there too of the extraordinary similarities that I observed of H. emelyae ‘multifolia’ to H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’ as well as to H. mirabilis ‘heidelbergensis’ and even to H. rossouwii.
As an aside I must just draw attention to Al Laius’s comments on what he refers to as H. heidelbergensis and H. magnifica. This is because Marx also uses names like átrofusca’, ‘magnifica’ and ‘mirabilis’ with no appreciation of the realities of these names. This brings me to the second bone of contention – the one of “neglect”. One can only do so much, and if Marx can concede that then he can approach this from a more objective angle. I have been fairly limited by opportunity and finance apart from the enormity of the task, but I can and have pointed to a multitude of situations that are no different from the area in the Little Karoo that Marx has easy access to. I have not felt it necessary to venture there where activities of collectors and others have made it too often to ask the indulgence of landowners. Also, when there is just so much else to do. But one of the situations I must refer to is that of the “species” H. groenewaldii, the description of which was also instigated by Marx. The explanation of this taxonomic deviant occupies almost all of Haworthia Update 7 that is available in hardcopy and also on the internet. This explains some of the aberrations that filter through to Marx’s article.
Does that bring us to the question of “substantially different and unique characters”. My MSc thesis had as the subject the nature and significance of complex morphological structure – albeit in entomology. So I actually do know a little bit about characters. I also know a little bit about the use of DNA strings as character sources. More practically is the work that I have done in respect of characters in Asclepiads, in Drosanthemum, especially in Oxalis and even in chameleons. A scientist unfortunately cannot restrict him- or her-self to what they think are the realities in one small area. There is far more to life than Haworthia and it does not have any special problems. There are any number of substantially differences and unique characters even in individual plants. Marx throws this all away with a rather mixed final sentence and reference at the end of it to a “very consistent set of measurements”. Stephen Gould once said that the strongest statement that one could make in biology was “hardly ever”. A consistent set of measurements in biology is spelled out in the science of statistics viz. biometry. Perhaps that article by Loucka and myself dealing with the statistics of H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’ needs to be unearthed. Some variation in Haworthia mirabilis var. sublineata
So this takes me to the other bones of contention viz. “forcing” “truthfully” and “knowledge of the genus”. I have written elsewhere that the taxonomic system is at fault, and I will not even try to defend that simple statement. It is. One of the difficulties is that things that are neither here nor there have to be unequivocally assigned to a taxon. If this is coercion as Marx implies, then he is unaware of a very self-evident truth. There is no place for the chemical equilibrium equation or the subtle variants that Marx even describes. The sorry fact is that formal botany and the ICBN does not actually provide for “aggregates” and this is just a ploy to evade the issue of the definition of “species” and what it truly means. Manning as a professional botanist needs more than ordinary opinion, in a very small field of interest, on which to base a formal list of names for a national catalogue of 23000 names. To treat each genus in that list on the basis that Breuer and Hayashi have done would be unthinkable.
In closing we have this fudging statement…”Haworthia will remain a taxonomical argument problem for many years to come”. It surely will when writers, editors and readers prefer the mileage they get from disagreement instead of properly informing themselves and working actively towards a common goal with “truth” as a commitment rather than as a word to discount what is already suggested.
The reason for my dumping H. marxi was purely political as I explained elsewhere. It is just my opinion that there were and are shortcomings in the author’s whole approach to names in Haworthia. So I expected some attempt at vindicating themselves like this. I have no problems with considering H. marxii as a species. I would simply prefer that it remains an element that desperately requires an explanation.
My problem is with statements like this …”Typical H. archeri can be found only … at Viskuil (JDV89/62)”. I described this species and from where it occurs at Ghaapkop and at Baviaans Station just east of there (and Viskuil is just a few miles further east). I later placed it with H. marumiana because of several other oddities widespread and also because of the very wide distribution and variability of H. marumiana. I have since found it also at Lospersberg. Marx has previously been on at me about the relation of H. archeri to H. marumiana. I did not realize that he was unaware of what actually constituted the knowledge of either species.
There is also mention of a collection of PVB1405 as from 20km SE of Rooiberg Pass. This is a bit of a mystery to me as I thought I had noted this collection of PVB from east of the Floriskraal Dam and was for a long time the only possessor of the single plant in cultivation. This collection is cited in my Revision as are the two “archeri” collections noted above. I am sure I noted this collection 40km ESE Laingsburg. It is a mystery because it is north of the Witteberg and Swartberg and is tied in with another population that Bruyns recorded at Baviaanskloof. Every indication is that it is connected to a population of mine at Scholtzkloof, Prince Albert; and so with things that I pondered may be a marumiana connection i.e. ‘var. viridis, or even connected to monticola or more probably, H. vlokii.
Another statement I must make is about the significance of flowering time, as the evidence is that it is not as meaningful as the authors imply. There are hybrids and population evidently arising from hybrids in these interactions – retusa/mirabilis, mutica/mirabilis, floribunda/pygmaea,floribunda/retusa,and herbacea/reticulata. The latter is not across a seasonal flowering difference but the others are.
The large gap between Montagu and Rooinek Pass is reduced somewhat by the old populations of H. mirabilis northeast of Montagu at Dobbelaarskloof and by the new population recorded near the Pienaarskloof Dam. Also relevant is the distribution of H. pumila. So maybe exploration has simply been inadequate. I was and am fully aware of the distance issue.
Regarding flower morphology. Similarities in the flowers of otherwise very different things, is just as significant as differences in the flowers of things that may in fact be very similar. So these small differences should not be punted without far more attention been given to what actually constitutes difference. The few pictures of the flowers that are provided are hopelessly inadequate to base any opinion on. The ultimate issue is that the authors are using idiom, method and logic that have been in service since before Von Poellnitz, Smith, Scott and the rest of us. It has not worked. It is not going to resolve the complications we can find in situations like between say H. mirabilis and H. retusa, or H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata, or H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis, or H. cooperi and H. bolusii var.blackbeardiana. To name some of the more obvious interacting species or elements if we do not know what species are.
I recently wrote an essay on the situation between Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis at Komserante east of Riversdale. The essay was entitled “My view of names” and is posted on the HaworthiaUpdates.org web site. Etwin Aslander posted some pictures from what he called Kruisrivier. These caught my eye because they did not look like the plants I know from a place of the same name. My known population is JDV95/62 and generally these plants have the dark colour and rough surface texture of H. mirabilis. The issue is that they are spring flowering whereas H. mirabilis is generally considered and observed to be late summer flowering. Etwin indicated to me where he had found his plants and I duly went to look.
In the process I incidentally called on a well known H. retusa population at the Skietbaan locality south of Riversdale. There has been a dramatic turnabout in the appearances of these plants since I last looked there 2 years ago. Whereas there were then huge clones well above ground level, the plants were now again smaller and drawn into the ground. I experienced this dramatic shift in plant appearances just west of the Frehse Reserve many years ago when there were giant size plants as opposed to my first visit when the plants were really small and withdrawn.
Kobus accompanied Daphne and I to Kruisrivier where the owners Wilhelm and Mandi Zietsman were extremely helpful. They told us also of a neighbor, Gert van Rensburg, who had also seen the same plants on his farm to the west. Mandi accompanied us on a jaunt to find that farmer and failing that we explored north of the original Kruisrivier locality. There we found another population of plants as well as H. floribunda (see Set 1 MBB7998). These two species H. retusa and H. floribunda were occupying different habitat and spaced about 100m apart. The H. floribunda was numerous and rather smooth leaved as well as paler green in colour than I expect from that species. The H. retusa-like plants were much smoother in surface texture than the original known population and they were in bud (see Set 2 MBB7999). We went back to the older population just to confirm that they were in bud too as we expected. Just so and the buds were just emerging from the rosettes. The plants were generally smaller than they were at a previous visit (see set 3 JDV95/62).
We parted company with Mandi Zietsman, and went off westwards intended to explore the Klein Kruisrivier area that seemed to better fit Etwin’s site indicator. By good fortune we ran into Gert van Rensburg of Wegwysersrivier. He eyed us very suspiciously indeed and obviously very reluctant to show anyone the plants. However, he very kindly relented, took us to the spot and left us to freely photograph and explore (see set 4 MBB8000). The plants can be described as midway between the generally rougher surfaces of JDV95-62 and the smooth surfaces of MBB7999. What was more dramatic is that there were six flower spikes so that flowering is possible as early as July 6th.
We returned via another route regretting leaving distant habitat unexplored. But we did find another population of H. floribunda, a little more toothed and perhaps brighter green than at Kruisrivier.
I also note that I long ago confirmed Smith’s record for H. retusa ‘turgida’ at Klein Kruisrivier in the upper Wegwysersrivier Gorge. This is the small spinose proliferous version known elsewhere from the Langeberg Mts.
Digesting this new information is a bit difficult in view of the very opposed views of what names mean and how they should be applied. Taking all the populations that I have explored and written about, my perspective is further to a view expressed in Haworthia Update 7. This is that H. retusa and H. mirabilis are uncomfortably close. The only thing that appears to separate them is the yellowish green and smooth tendency in H. retusa and the darkish green and surface rough tendency in H. mirabilis. Further to that is of course the question of spring flowering versus late summer flowering. But I have already reported several case of hybridization across this divide as well as the Komserante situation. Here we now have plants in three populations that occupy middle ground and one of these populations has a significant degree of a winter flowering capacity. The identification should perhaps utilize the chemical equilibrium symbol. This is not quite it “↔” as the better symbol comprises halved arrows pointing in opposite directions.
I wish to add that in the case of plants I attribute to H. ‘turgida’ at Towerlands, I commented on the very real possibility of a close connection to H. emelyae. There is also evidence for this elsewhere. I use the name ‘turgida’ like this because of the uncertainty of it really being H. retusa var. turgida or perhaps H. pygmaea.
My experience in other situations viz. H. limifolia, H. herbacea/H. reticulata, H. arachnoidea/H. mucronata, H. cymbiformis/H. cooperi, Kiewietsvlakte etc. all suggests to me that the view of species is grossly distorted in the splitter direction. It is clear to me, if to no one else, that H. retusa and H. mirabilis form a very cohesive entity with ramifying oddities the length and breadth of the distribution range. I do not cover this issue here, but there is the added complication of the involvement of H. floribunda. It seems to be very discrete in most places, whereas at others it seems to get lost mainly (only?) in H. mirabilis. This may be because the introgression is favoured by the same flowering season. H. retusa and H. mirabilis are drifted apart by the difference in flowering season but it is by no means anything more than a general observation.
I have added the images of the available flowers as well as that of a bud to show the flared fishtail bud-tip that the southern Cape species tend to have. The flowers are variable and it is difficult to make a statement that characterizes them i.e. no composite image forms.
Acknowledgement: I would like to acknowledge Etwin Aslander’s input. Wilhelm and Mandi Zietsman were extremely helpful. Gert van Rensburg was surprisingly well informed about the plants too and very generous in his attitude to us. Part of the pleasure of field work is meeting people like this.
Set 1. MBB7998 H. floribunda Kruisrivier
Set 2. MBB7999 H. retusa Kruisrivier
Set 3. JDV92/65 H. retusa Kruisrivier
Set 4. MBB8000 H. retusa Wegwyserivier
MBB8000 flower faces
MBB8000 flower profiles
MBB8000 flower bud
Addendum: To demonstrate the problem of similar looking plants that appear in different populations, I take 3 plants from the original Kruisrivier population (JDV92/65) see figs 1 to 3. Fig. 1 is obviously a mirabiloid plant and if this population flowered in late summer it would probably be identified as H. mirabilis. The figs 2 and 3 are more retusoid. I leave out plants from the newer Kruisrivier population (MBB7999) because none of the plants have the rougher mirabiloid leaf surfaces. I add a Wegwysersrivier (fig. 4 MBB8000) plant that is again mirabiloid and like Fig. 1 except that it appears to be a spring flowering population with a significant number of plants in flower in early July. From there I take a plant from Komserante (MBB7779) that flowers in late summer but is apparently generally hybrid with H. retusa. Moving eastwards from Riversdale and impinging on H. mirabilis splendens, I show a plant MBB7762 from Platkop (fig. 6) where both H. mirabilis and H. retusa occur with occasional hybrids. Fig. 7 is MBB7818 H. mirabilis Windsor SE Riversdale, where the plants frequently have a frosted appearance because of minute surface spines.
There is a significant geographic jump with fig. 8 MBB7850 H. emelyae north of the Langeberg at Aasvoelvallei. This is a population that I have noted elsewhere that highlights the probable relationship of H. emelyae with the H. retusa turgida and pymaeaoid elements from Herbertsdale eastwards. Fig. 9 is a plant of MBB6666 Tradouw Pass that I recognize as a hybrid population H. mirabilisXretusa. Inland from there are several populations, MBB7899 is H. mirabilis, Heuningklip (fig. 10) and MBB7896 H. retusa nigra also Heuningklip (fig. 11). East of that are three populations of H. mirabilis, MBB7912 and MBB7913 Rietkuil and MBB7919 Van Reenens Crest (figs 12 to 14).
As only single plant comparisons, it seems fairly safe to say that, bar flowering time and figs 2 and 3, they are all similar. However, the variability in each of these populations is great and this has been reported elsewhere in the Update volumes. If one had to now take figs 2 and 3 and look for similarities in other populations, it would be very easy to demonstrate a complete gradation from what could be construed as typical H. mirabilis through to typical H. retusa through a large array of populations.
Truth = N+(N+1): Non-existent in the singularity of plant classification. (By restricting itself to only that which can be quantified, measured and observed by the physical senses, science confines itself to a black hole from which scientists will never escape.. (see also Fritjhof Capra, The Turning Point, and other writers who seem to be free)… aspirant and practising plant taxonomists do not seem to class even as scientists.
CONTENTS
Foreword
Introduction
Minus 1
Enigma 1. Another open letter.
Enigma 2. The real enigma in Haworthia.
Enigma 3. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea
Enigma 4. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Della Sea
Enigma 5. Cabbages and kings.
Enigma 6. A change of title – Predictiveness in science.
Enigma 7. ICBN vs. Larry Leach and Col.C.L. Scott.
Enigma 8. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done
Enigma 9. Ditto 8.
Enigma 10. Ditto 9.
Enigma 11. Titles of talks mutate.
Enigma 12. N+(N+1) As the title of a presentation.
Addendum 1. Haworthia – where do we go from here?
Addendum 2. Notes of talk – Omaha June 1988.
Addendum 3. Gist of talks – USA June 1988.
Addendum 4. A paper on Oxalis.
Addendum 5. A letter to a prospective taxonomist.
Addendum 6. A review of “The World of Haworthias. Vol.1”
Addendum 7. A manuscript for the Journal Asklepios.
(Having received a belated invitation to make a presentation at the I.O.S. Congress being held in Cape Town, I hurriedly faxed the following to the organiser..)
Fax to Craig Hilton-Taylor
Congress organiser.
Sorry I am late with this but I had a crisis in connection with this very topic and had to see that through first. This is my abstract for the congress. Please ring me if there is any doubt in your mind about its suitability for the programme.
“The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea
M B Bayer
I get a perverse delight in the picture of Adolph Hitler the megalomaniac, whose CV resume is highlighted by his simple beginnings as a house painter, and my career ending as a paying house painter.
The talk will deal with the special nature of species in the subgenus Haworthia as it may relate to the quote ‘the ship of many a taxonomist has been wrecked on the rocks of the Liliaceae’. It will present a definition of a species which the author feels is totally adequate for taxonomy at any level. A definition that is simple, intellectually unpretentious and meeting the needs of both layman and scientist, as indeed it has to do. It is based on the authors extensive experience in recognising pattern in biological systems.
A letter to the Editor of Haworthiad, Mr Harry Mays.
Dear Harry,
Thank you for the recent Haworthiad and your letter.
I have also just been asked to speak at the IOS congress (20 Min) so it will be nice to see you there. No, you said Borgman and Breuer had asked for their manuscript not to be released prior to publication. I have glanced at it now and initially thought it really may be quite good. There were some critical comments which I was going to make thinking arrogantly perhaps that I could maybe help the authors to greater heights. There did not seem to be anything new here and it looked if these two were promising to keep you in manuscript for the next millennium.
I did think you might not like to publish my comments but as I progressed I found myself getting more and more irritated and my writing more aggressive. In the closing paragraph you will see that I say ‘Someone has lied’. This was intentionally or otherwise, but it remains a lie. Much as I appreciate the way you have accommodated my writing, the comment below does not seem suited to Haworthiad based on your support for Breuer and on the comments you convey to me from your readership. I doubt if your readership would have any appreciation of the subtleties of the argument nor the revulsion I feel at this piece of work. I am therefore contemplating a sort of private mailing list for this comment and possibly also launching it out into cyberspace as a loud thought. I would like an early answer as I am contemplating simply giving it to the internet as my last last word.
Thank you for the WWW page. Harry my time is very precious to me at the moment and I did write something for the special Haworthia issue of the CSSA Jl – influenced by Colin Walker’s letter. I actually want to go and see the E. Cape complex later this year and feel really torn between my inner wish for ‘rest’ and the outer wish to ‘know’. Time is wasted on endless refutation and takes me right away from wanting to write anything new. Did you get my notes on Resende, Uitewaal and Smith – 30th June? :-
Harry Mays kindly explained that I have been not very well balanced since too much time at computing, and this is perhaps one reason for the aggressive note in my writing which offends many readers. During the last few years Kobus Venter has been a great friend and tried to nurse me through a tough time. I was avoiding even seeing Haworthiad outside of those surreptitious loans from Kobus. I wanted to see my manuscript published and then get out altogether because the mental stimulation of working with Haworthia is excessive. I know that for some reason that readers are not really cogniscent of the import of what is written and all I have been doing is undermining my own credibility by attempting to defend myself. As the book drags on and in consequence of a really enjoyable visit to the USA thanks to their Succulent Society, I began to be more positive. So much so that I asked for Haworthiad to be addressed to me again. I expected an anticipated article by Metzing and Breuer to maybe give me some problems because I had already advised Harry Mays not to publish a poor manuscript which Ingo Breuer had submitted on the arachnoidea/herbacea enigma. Harry informed me that a revised version was on its way which, he said they had asked not to be released prior to publication. I assumed from Harry’s letter that Metzing would be senior author. Assessing Breuer’s capabilities from the Taxon article for which Metzing was the senior author, I was anticipating something really solid and meaningful but dreading a paper driving me into a desperate mode. I honestly and truly did not anticipate that a paper on the so-called enigma could do anything but go back to a 1986 paper of mine where I pointed out that there was a simple problem of application. There was no enigma at all. Another problem for me has been the fact that I have given a copy of the manuscript of my book to Breuer. I did it in trusting and helpful mode thinking that the book would appear before Breuer’s. I did it like this thinking I could pre-empt the problems that arose and persisted for so long because of the difference between Scott’s book and my own.
When a rabbit is pulled out of a hat during a stage show, it is not required to then give a learned discourse on the theory and practise of illusion.
This is the very strange position I find myself in. If I ask myself why I am here I have to reply ‘I do not know, I did not intend coming,, but I am here because I knew I would be here.
Why I was not going to be here is because the only subject I could talk about, the one I would want to talk about, would be about a species definition in relation to the actual meaning of life.
I would talk about consciousness, the creative event, development of physical form, the distribution of phenomenon in space changing with time, the significance to the individual consciousness, and species evolution and definition.
Obviously I have struggled a bit to make up this presentation. Some of the struggle has produced some interesting ideas for which evidence is available separately.
The problem arises around the fact that I have two things to talk about. The one is what I have the perceived authority to talk about – viz.
1.) Species definition as it is arrived at from my experience with Haworthia and biological systems in general, which has implications for Asphodelaceae and Aloideae. This is what I see as the organisers requirement from me and hence I feel they give me credibility.
2.) Nomenclature and taxonomy as it has affected me and hence the classification required for 1 above. Which is what I also have the apparent authority for, but not the perceived credibility. (It is generally stated that there is confusion regarding the nomenclature and classification of Haworthia).
It has long been my contention that there is no separation between Haworthia retusa and Haworthia turgida. It is one very variable system viz H. retusa, with a larger fairly non-proliferous plants tending to level areas and then smaller proliferous plants on steeper habitats. There is huge variability among members of any one population and of course much more between populations. Over and above this is the relationship of this apparently one single system, with H. mirabilis that is probably even more complex and varied. If one takes all the known populations and variants into consideration it become necessary to ask if H. retusa and H. mirabilis are also not just elements of one system , and one species. If all the considerations are summed and referral is made to vegetation and speciation drivers; what constitutes an area of endemism, then I am sure the answer will be “Yes”! What seems to have happened is a natural sequence. As sampling has progressed so has there been recognition of differences. The logical outcome is that sampling progression should lead to understanding and synthesis by reduction. Unfortunately there will be diehards that stay with the differences syndrome and cannot see the similarities.
I do not know how Galileo and Copernicus were really treated in the Dark Ages or of the persecution they were subjected to for their beliefs. But I know how they suffered. I feel exactly the same fear in trying to explain to any single person never mind a group (and never mind a group of scientists), how my belief system, based on all my life’s experience and knowledge, influences me as a scientist. Why, in explaining how I try to understand what a Haworthia species is and arrive at a classification, cannot I say that the simple creative event which scientists hypothesise is fundamental to the problem.
The reason for my fear is that I am hounded by religion on the one hand and by orthodoxy of science on the other. These two aspects are embodied in my two closest friends. As a free thinker I feel terrorised by society to a point where he cannot remotely feel allowed to say why my system of classification gets what little recognition that it does.
What I have here before me is the masterpiece, the piece de resistance of my entire life, the summum bonum of efforts to be a scientist and a writer. It is all these prepared talks of mine reduced to a single paragraph:-
You have repeatedly invalidated me as a science writer and denied me the role of a taxonomist on your insistence that classification and taxonomy is a matter of opinion and therefore an art form and not science. You do so also through the binding power of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature which in effect says “The value of your scientific classification hypothesis is equivalent to saying that I am an artist commissioned to paint the same picture that some unknown artist is going to paint in the future.”
