Haworthia History – Zurich (1997)

HAWORTHIA

History
The history of this succulent genus is an interesting one as it has its roots in the earliest botanical exploration of the Cape.  Haworthia were included in the first collections of plants when the main concern of botanical collections was medicinal and culinary use of plants.  Haworthia were depicted by several different artists in the late 17th and early 18th century.  These early illustrations were surprisingly good and can be interpreted according to present understanding.  The fact that they have been the object of much confusion is really attributable to the inherent difficulty in understanding the genus and its component species, rather than to poor quality of the illustration.

The genus is not easily separated into separate and easily distinguishable species and the history is correspondingly confused.  Although there are some earlier illustrations, it is the illustrations in Caspar Commelin’s ‘Horti Medici Amstelodamensis in 1701 that form the basis of the taxonomic record.

Continue reading

Fundamentals as I see them (1997)

I commented rather defensively, harshly and disparagingly on Ingo Breuer’s article in Haworthiad 10:1, and now here is Haworthiad 10.2 with the second part.  There are also three good letters responding to my request for comment on the requirements for another handbook.

In my frustration with the other authors who also write about Haworthia, it has become obvious to me that I have to look at my own motive and what reward I seek.  H. Jacobsen wrote an article (C&SJ(US) 46:230, 1974) entitled ‘Why I wrote books’, but it disappointed me as I do not think he addressed the issue very well.  He cited talent as one motive for writing and, as a second and only alternative, the professional scientist writing in pursuit of his own perfection.  I do not think that either of these are correct.

It is generally acknowledged that in life we try to create an impression.  Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbs) put it ‘God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things..’.  Here we have two other views.  Surely another is simply to earn a living, and there are probably more.

Continue reading

Gravitational collapse and black holes in Haworthia (1997)

97-08-11
Bruce Bayer
29 Weltevreden Str., Paarl, 7646 South Africa.

I think Haworthia is a gremlin genus.  For some reason or other the rays of clear thought and good sense become distorted and bent as they pass by.  Is it perhaps a black-hole that takes nothing in but easily lets nonsense out?  In making the following comments I try to take into account how the black-hole affects me.  I ask myself what causes this gravitational warp, because you cannot dabble in Haworthia and not know that you are a potential Haworth, Resende, Uitewaal, Smith, Baker, Von Poellnitz, Scott, Bayer and/or Simple controversial Simon.  As a holist, I have been tempted to ascribe ‘warp’ to some sort of homeopathic toxic ingredient in the plants themselves.  However, the inescapable truth is that it lies in human weaknesses such as ego, ignorance, envy and other lesser virtues.  These warp factors also influence this response to Haworthiad 11, No.1:-

Continue reading

Haworthia cymbiformis var. reddii (Scott) Bayer – a test of an hypothesis. (1997)

M.B. Bayer, with acknowledgment to P.V. Bruyns and J.D. Venter.

It is unfortunate when a situation arises where individuals compete to provide a classification for a group of plants.  The normal process for aspiring taxonomists is to determine what needs to be done that is not being done, and which attracts and interests them and so select a group to study.  There are probably not many instances where different people have worked comfortably together to explore and resolve the taxonomy of any plant group.  The objective of this article is to show how that it should be possible to look rationally and objectively at a problem and produce a solution which can be taken forward in the same way.

I think it is understood in the taxonomic fraternity that one of the main aims of a classification is that it must presume to account for all of the plants in the group in question.  Is this physically possible?  Nobody in the least familiar with Haworthia has any doubt that the territory to be covered for a study of the genus is unbelievably big.  The nature of habitats and size of populations, coupled with intrinsic variability and the sometimes cryptic nature of many of the plants make it not only possible but probable, that exploration of even a relatively small geographical area may miss something important.  This complexity in the field is not unique to Haworthia.  A classification therefore can never be considered to be complete and is only an hypothesis based on what is known.  For that which is at the time unknown, it should be assumptive and predictive.  It is further necessary that the classification meets the needs of a general group of people who will use it.  The nature of these needs is in a large part already expressed in the preceding attempts to classify the group and in the literature associated therewith.  A classification is important in the way it allows of generalisation, extrapolation to hitherto unknown collections and for communication.

The test of the hypothesis contained in the classification is the subsequent successful identification of plants by means of the key provided and also by the incorporation of new data into the structure of the classification.  It can also be tested by the ease with which people communicate about the components of the classification, and, of course, whether it comes to be generally accepted at all.  The strongest and most practical test is its acceptance by curators of herbaria and the way it is used to store and retrieve data in an herbarium.

In the case of plants popular in horticulture and with the general public (such as orchids and succulents) there is often controversy over their classification.  The reason for this controversy is that, because of their popularity with the general public, untrained and non‑professional people are drawn into the process of classification and identification.  Their only justification for this is their own enthusiasm and interest in the subject which they feel generates new and previously unrecorded information which they perceive a real need to express.  It should be recognised that they do not necessarily make any more or fewer mistakes than professionals working on obscure groups or at levels of classification (or sophistication) beyond the reach and interest of the layman.  There are also many cases where so-called ‘amateurs’ have made contributions unsurpassed by professionals.  It should also be noted that many classifications by professionals may very seldom come under any kind of practical and proper scrutiny because those plant groups do not attract the attention of anybody else.  Errors, inconsistencies and absurdities remain undetected.  The professional also goes to the outer limits of his intellect where he/she is just as error‑prone as any other person operating at their extreme.  Both classes of enthusiasts ‑‑ the professional and the layman ‑‑ need to draw on some other wisdom to know (probably) what is right and what is wrong.

One of the particular problems faced by both professional botanists and laymen in a popular group of plants, is the profusion of material that comes to be passed around in the horticultural trade without any information on its origin and frequently under the wrong name.  This considerably confuses the picture and this confusion is difficult to dispel without reference to populations in the field.

A further problem, again experienced by anyone who does not have extensive experience in the field (and indeed of pattern recognition generally, and not only in living systems), is the quite extraordinary variability of taxa like Haworthia.  The degree of variation is not consistent for species or for populations.  In extreme cases, where vegetative propagation has occurred, there may indeed be virtually no variation (eg H. reinwardtii); and at the other, hardly two clones in a population are identical.  There are no quantum steps where categories like sub-species, varieties etc. have consistent and invariable connotation.  The more fundamental and philosophical concept of even the species becomes questionable.

Haworthia has been one case where conflicting views have produced a fair amount of difference of opinion and acrimony among authors, and subsequent confusion in the minds of the audience that need the classification to serve their interest.  At present there are two classifications available for Haworthia, the one by C.L. Scott (Scott 1985) and the other by M.B. Bayer (Bayer 1982).  Neither has proved unassailable and both have shortcomings.  Particular shortcomings of both treatments are that they did not address typification, they did not comprehensively cite herbarium specimens and they did not provide credible identification keys.

In Haworthia the classifications are largely artificial because there are no definite morphological discontinuities between the different species recognised.  This is why I have said elsewhere that a truly objective botanical classification would probably reduce the numbers of species to about half of that recognised even by myself.  For such an objective classification a key could perhaps be provided.  A key was provided in the older Handbooks (e.g. Bayer 1982) but my new classification will not provide a key.  The reasons for this are very obvious in my handbooks and in most of my writing on the subject since 1971:-

(1) there are really not enough tangible characters on which to build a key.

(2) where two keys (Scott 1985, Bayer 1982) have been provided, I have no knowledge that anyone has been able to prove their worth or make anything out of them.

Out of about five published reviews of the two accounts by Scott and Bayer, three were quite ambivalent: they did not attempt to test the classifications and did not espouse either.  Since a reliable and useful key cannot be constructed, I have concluded that photographs and distribution information are the simplest, most reliable and most direct route to obtaining an identification.  The herbarium specimens in the three main South African herbaria follow the revised scheme (Bayer, in ms.) but this could be happenstance rather than cognitive intention.

Part of my strategy in the Handbook (Bayer 1982) was to retain species and varietal names even if the indications were that their status may have been weak.  There were two reasons for this.  Firstly, classification is also a communication process and I tried to match my classification to what I felt was the mood of the day.  Secondly I tried to avoid, where possible, dramatic change which may have had to be reversed, and where there was uncertainty of some kind.  Thirdly I retained names where I felt they had value in terms of the information portrayed if not as substantial taxonomic elements.  Whether or not I succeeded is beside the point because classification is an ongoing event, based on a sample that is known, on how well it is known and unfortunately on personal perceptions too.

The description of Haworthia reddii (Scott 1994) provides me with an opportunity to evaluate the respective hypotheses of Bayer (1982) and Scott (1985).  This account should also be a guide to aspiring taxonomists in the group who may be tempted to start at their own levels of knowledge and competence, rather than properly build on historical fact.


The population upon which H. reddii is based is referred to in the New Haworthia Handbook (Bayer 1982, p.30) under H. batesiana, as follows ‑ “… a collection from Klipplaat northwest of Cathcart is clearly comparable.  However, the plants there are too robust to be regarded as H. batesiana and it appears that there is a tendency towards H. cymbiformis“.

Scott did not seem to make the connection between this reference and the plants collected by Dr Reddi and himself at the same place which had in the meantime become better known as Waterdown Dam.  This is unfortunate because he does mention both H. batesiana and H. cymbiformis as possible relatives of his new species, and it would have been significant if this was an independent and credible observation.

In 1982, H. batesiana was not well known and there were very few pointers to the reality of its existence.  Since then there has been another collection from the Valley of Desolation to confirm its existence there, as well as two collections by P.V. Bruyns from the Kamdeboo Mountains and another from the Tandjiesberg.  These are both in the greater Graaff‑Reinet area.  From observations on these collections (and several others pertaining to H. archeri), it seems batesiana must be incorporated in H. marumiana as suggested in 1982.  Furthermore, the concept of that species needs also to be broadened to include H. archeri and relevant collections (Bayer in ms.).

In Bayer (Haworthiad, 1996) I wrote with reference to H. reddii ‑ “At the time I commented on the Waterdown plants there was some doubt about the existence, whereabouts and whatever of H. batesiana.  Since that time there have been any number of collections which fairly conclusively support its inclusion in H. marumiana.  There is, so far as I know, still nothing to show that marumiana comes far enough east to support speculation of linkage with cymbiformis via reddii.  The area NW of Cathcart to Tarkastad has not been fine‑combed by any collector and it probably would better be regarded as an under‑collected region.  Furthermore, the distance from Cathcart to Tarkastad is considerably less than Tarkastad to Beaufort West and Prince Albert (at the western known limits of marumiana).  There are plants in the upper Kei collected by Peter Bruyns which may strengthen the view that reddii is associated with cymbiformis.  In which case it may be sensible to consider it with the var. lepida.  My inclination is to put it with marumiana“.

It is quite obvious from Bayer (1982) that at the time I did not want to commit myself to a decision on the collection from Waterdown Dam.  I did not regard it as substantial enough as a single population to justify formal description and was fairly sure that it would fit into either of two already described species.  One of these was batesiana, which I suspected would prove to fit into marumiana.  The other was cymbiformis.  At the time the odds were heavily against the latter because it was not known at all from the Kei River valley, and only slightly better for the former.  The nearest populations included the missing H. lepida and a collection of my own from near that site and both of these came from the middle reaches of the Fish River which is rather far to the south.  However there were two collections from much further to the east in the Transkei to hint at a more extensive distribution for H. cymbiformis.

The drainage system of the Kei river and its tributaries is a highly dissected landscape and the terrain is rugged and steep.  There are many rocky cliff faces which undoubtedly harbour Haworthias.  It will be a very difficult task to thoroughly investigate even a small proportion of possible Haworthia sites.  (I did at one time point at the possible significance of river drainage systems regarding species, but it is self‑evident that geographical features of any kind will influence distributions and breeding systems.)  Nevertheless, some collections have now been made from which a clearer picture begins to emerge.

The first interesting collections relevant to the ‘reddii’ problem were collected by P.V. Bruyns at Inverbolo and Inversomo on the Kei River east of Cathcart.  These were of H. cymbiformis and established for the first time the existence of this species on the Kei River.  He also collected what purports to be H. marumiana var. marumiana in several places north of Queenstown, near to Sterkstroom (in an area which, like Waterdown Dam, is also drained by an upper tributary of the Black Kei).  This indicates that H. marumiana also occurs much further east than previously thought.  These collections have rather attenuate, strongly spined leaves and are highly marked with translucence between the dense reticulation.

In December 1996, I was fortunate that P.V. Bruyns was able to accompany me on a collecting trip to the Eastern Cape and one of our objectives was the upper Black Kei.  It is a tributary of the Black Kei on which the Waterdown Dam was built and the relative location of the populations discussed can be seen on the accompanying map.  We were also helped and motivated by a very old specimen in the Pretoria Herbarium collected by Galpin, which I only became aware of earlier in the year and which indicated the occurrence of plants related to H. cymbiformis and ‘reddii’ southeast of Queenstown.

We travelled on a road running northeast from Cathcart in the direction of the Galpin site, but stopped at the bridge over the Black Kei on the farm Turnstream.  Peter did the climbing of the huge south‑facing cliff there and came back with several clones of reddii‑like plants.  At the same time I found H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana at the eastern base of the same cliff.  We then turned back and travelled eastward along the river to the base of a still higher west‑facing cliff on the farm Highclere.  Peter again did the very strenuous climbing and again returned with a few clones which he described as difficult to reach on the vertical cliff face.

Peter’s earlier collection along the lower Kei at Inversomo is still further to the south and east.  He also collected H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana at this site.

We took the opportunity to revisit the Waterdown Dam on the way home.  I was really surprised to find the south‑facing cliff alongside the dam clothed with huge numbers of plants.  Although H. marumiana is also a clump‑former, these larger clumps were at lower altitude and much more accessible than H. marumiana usually is.  Some of the plants had very distinctive translucent dots and lines while others are unmarked and uniformly opaque with a faint reticulate patterning on the leaves.  The floral characters mentioned by Scott are not definitive although the flowers do appear to have strongly coloured veins.  We also noted the presence at Waterdown Dam of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana.  The repeated presence of this species may be important in the context of co‑occurrence which forms the basis of my hypothesis relating geographical distribution to the species concept.  It is only slightly relevant to this article but it is critical to a broader understanding of the genus [1].

The offsets we collected from Turnstream, Highclere and Waterdown Dam have taken several months under relatively low light to grow out enough to make useful comment.  At the moment it is extremely difficult to see any difference between three distinct clones from Turnstream and the collection made on the same trip from Waterdown Dam.  I put it like this because the Waterdown plants are quite variable as to the translucent patterning on the leaves.  This may be almost absent, or the margins may be translucent, or the face of the leaves may be quite heavily marked with a series of elongated translucent dots or short lines.  (It should be noted that in H. cymbiformis as a whole, there is a vast range of translucent patterning, from virtually absent, to only translucent leaf‑margins, to massive reticulate or dotted translucence).  The Turnstream collection comprises a very small sample (smaller than I would have liked, and I would have preferred to have seen the plants in situ if I had been fit enough to do so) but the plants are virtually identical in both shape and size to those Waterdown plants which lack the translucent markings.  The colour is also the same rather opaque mid‑green.  The leaves are sub‑cylindrical, or flatter and slightly recurved with a faint darker reticulation similar to that in H. marumiana var. batesiana, and which is also often evident in H. cymbiformis.  The leaf margins in both the Turnstream and Waterdown collections are relatively smooth with evidence of more spination in a few clones of the bigger Waterdown sample.  This spination is not comparable with that of the Andriesberg collections.

The Highclere plants looked slightly different at the time of collection.  They were bigger, paler in colour and less opaque.  The margins were also more heavily spined.  I relate these plants to a wider concept of H. cymbiformis var. setulifera V.Poelln.  It seems extremely improbable in the context of Haworthia, that these two populations at Turnstream and Highclere could be different species and I cannot harbour any question of this kind.

The Inverbolo and Inversomo plants have been in cultivation for more than eight years and, as they were also grown under brighter light, a straight comparison is perhaps unwise.  In comparison with the Turnstream and Waterdown plants they have relatively short obtuse leaves and form tighter smaller rosettes, the coloration is more intense, slightly more glaucous, and the reticulation, opaqueness and/or translucence in either of the two clones (the sample is too small) representing this collection is practically the same.  I included this collection among the specimens of H. cymbiformis var. setulifera, which is indicative of the compounding difficulty of making decisions, already difficult, below species level.

These three collections taken together seem to show a definite and tangible connection between the Waterdown Dam plants on the upper reaches of the Black Kei, through the collection at Turnstream and the herbarium collection of Galpin’s, to H. cymbiformis as represented by the Highclere collection and also the Inverbolo and Inversomo collections further to the south.

The connection to H. marumiana is weaker.  As one moves northeastwards from Tarkastad, populations of H. marumiana retain their more plentiful and rather slender leaves and do not tend to become more like the Waterdown collections or like H. cymbiformis.  The translucence becomes denser and the plants more spinescent.  Collections from the western Karoo (Sutherland, Merweville and Carnarvon by Bruyns and Bayer) which enforce the inclusion of H. archeri under marumiana, weaken the argument to include reddii there too.  In particular, forms of H. marumiana var. batesiana which do bear resemblance to the Waterdown Dam collections occur only very far to the west around Graaff-Reinet.  The clinal trend in this species from Tarkastad northeastward, is thus rather away from a resemblance to the Waterdown Dam plants than towards it.  Thus, if one is to seek continuity of variation, the Waterdown Dam populations do not form part of the series exhibited by H. marumiana but fit into the series of variants now known in H. cymbiformis along the upper reaches of the Kei River.

In 1982 I postulated that there were two species viz. H. batesiana and H. cymbiformis, involved in an assessment of the Waterdown Dam collections and was unable to fit it conclusively into either of these.  Nevertheless, I was convinced that it could be accommodated here and this was, and has been, the prediction of my classification hypothesis.

More recent collections (mostly by P.V. Bruyns) have filled in much detail in the distributions of both H. cymbiformis and H. marumiana that was, at that time, unknown.  These have indicated that H. batesiana and H. archeri can be included in a broader concept of H. marumiana (also as predicted), and they have amplified the known information on H. cymbiformis.  This new information shows that, if the species concepts of geographical continuity and co‑occurrence are followed, ‘reddii’ is not a discrete new element standing outside of known and variable species.  My prediction that it should not be accommodated in H. batesiana (i.e. H. marumiana) seems to be correct, and our investigations seem to confirm rather that it is an integral part of H. cymbiformis.  The important fact then is that recognition as a distinct species is not warranted, and it can adequately be discussed and classified in terms of the structure of the Haworthia Handbooks.  The hypothesis has not been disproved and there is a rational basis for development of a still better understanding.

An important implication has been that if reddii and similar individual populations are to be treated as distinct species, then each new discovery of which there could be many, will require a new name and the system will become increasingly disordered and fail.  Evidence of exactly this problem is presented by the descriptions of H. batteniae, H. pringlei, H. joeyae, H. venusta and H. mcmurtryi all of which can similarly be accommodated within other variable species.  As far as variability is concerned, the plants from Waterdown Dam, and other populations now associated with them, are not exceptional.  If we had to continue naming each apparently different element like this, we would end up with a structure that has no coherence, no predictive element and no value in the sense that botanical classification is required to express ‘pattern’ and carry information generally.  Such a system may work for the collector in that he may have a name for a particular clone or set of clones, but have no wider or deeper meaning.  Many people may be comfortable with and feel justified in using Scott’s treatment.  Nevertheless, such an approach simply does not accommodate the incredible variation within the genus.

Because of the conflicting views that seem to be an inevitable part of the process of plant classification, many commentators have said that it is not a science but an art.  However, this conflict should not be there.  The essence of science is replication i.e. the deduction of conclusions (for example, a classification) from experiments (for example, observations on plants) which should be repeatable.  In my work on Haworthia, I have been very conscious of the historic conflict in the genus, the need for credibility, and the responsibility attached to making public statements.  Unfortunately, while I may have made mistakes, other authors seem to be less conscientious.  Therefore the presentation of differing taxonomic treatments requires the reader to discriminate between them.  This demands of the reader that he consider carefully the evidence put forward by authors and then discriminate for himself which author has concluded correctly.  Most readers are not prepared to go to this amount of trouble and would rather declare the taxonomy of the group concerned to be ‘controversial’.  This is unfair to all authors and also to other readers as it discounts the effort and sacrifice these people put into collecting and communicating information.  The opinion that taxonomy is an art with little relevance to the enjoyment of the plants themselves, stems from intellectual laziness and ignorance.  It belies the fact that the mere conveyance of a name, which can be forgotten in the very same moment, satisfies some deep psychological need.  The audience also has the responsibility to think analytically and critically about what is laid before them.  Otherwise they may get a meaningless classification that they have earned, but which is just another yoke around the neck of others who may be striving for the light.

(1)  My classification hypothesis is built on a definition of species which pre-supposes that they are ‘continuous genetically and morphologically in space and/or time’ (Bayer 1982).  Therefore the prediction then is that not only is it probable that H. cymbiformis and H. marumiana will eventually found to be continuous in geographic space, but it is probable that they will also be found to be continuous with H. bolusii.  The entire hypothesis should fit within the framework of taxonomic botany, whatever the level of expertise, and satisfy the requirements of scientific discipline.  Any two people should come to the same conclusion.  If there is conflict there is error.

Factual information about BB

Factual information about BB
Haworthiad v.11.4 (1997) p.104

I was born in Kwazulu (Natal) RSA in 1935 while my father was a magistrate in Namibia. My father was one of three brothers who were all very interested in plants. One brother was professor of Botany at the University of Natal. My own field activities date back to 1939 when the first plant I collected was Tridentea jucunda. I studied Agriculture at Pietermaritzburg between 1952 and 1956, majoring in Entomology, and then worked at the College of Agriculture at Cedara from 1957 to 1964. I completed my MSc with Noctuid moths as the study field. In 1965 I joined a commercial company as Technical Products Officer and from there went to Veterinary Products for 18 months. But my real interest was always plants and I fell into a post at the Karoo Garden rendered vacant by the untimely death of Roy Littlewood. I had been in touch with him for several years about Haworthia. I was considered unqualified and worked as a Botanical Assistant until the absence of any candidates of any kind to replace the retiring Curator (Frank Stayner), led to my default appointment as such in 1973. I left there in 1987 when my independent and rebellious spirit (I was still considered unqualified) could no longer stand an unwholesome logic and principle in the workplace. It was an ambience which I could not reconcile with the enjoyment of plants and purpose which had brought me there. I did not mind being underpaid while I was enjoying my job. I went back to the role of scientist in the Dept. of Agriculture where I worked as a research ecologist until 1992. The influence of the older second uncle was too strong. He was a nonconformist and rebel against bureaucracy and authoritarianism. So I retired early to follow my own private quest for a holy grail for which I am still looking. Actually too much time at a computer terminal burned the hole in my head a lot bigger, but nobody believes to this day that I am sensitive to computer screen emissions. I think my acquaintances must think me strange anyway. While I was at Cedara I corresponded with a farmer from the Northern Transvaal, Mr. Bill Riley, who was an avid Haworthia fanatic. He intimated that he thought we should do a revision of Haworthia, but like others, I don’t think he had much idea what it required in terms of time and trouble. I had been on a long trip in 1962 to northern Natal and to Swaziland to look forHaworthia limifolia, and that taught me a lot about looking for things which you cannot see from the window of a car.

My work at the Karoo Garden was initially the curation of the collections and I spent my three years working on haworthias and asclepiads. After that it was a mixed bag and I was lucky to have Pauline Perry working with me who became an authority on Eriospermum, Bulbinella and other geophytes. There was a lot of contact with a host of collectors, botanists and scientists such as Kare Bremer, Ulrich Meve, Heidi Hartmann, Peter Bruyns, Laurie Malherbe, Lloyd Schwegmann, Anthony Mitchell, Steven Hammer, Col. C. L. Scott, Masahiko Hayashi, Walter Wisura, Harry Hall, Ernst van Jaarsveld, Pauline Perry, Doreen Court, Gideon Smith, Jan Vlok, Ian Walters, David Cutler, Peter Brandham, Sherman Carlquist, Larry Leach, Del Wiens, Dr. R. A. Dyer, Dr. L. E. Codd, Prof. Cronquist and of course the botanists of the National Botanic Gardens itself. I was also lucky to meet many of the old guard like George Payne, Miss G. Blackbeard, Gordon King, P. Meiring, Mrs. Grant, Japie Dekenah, Dr. Courtenay-Latimer, A. J. Joubert, W. E. Armstrong and of course Frank Stayner. I spent particular time on groups like Aloe, Crassula, Euphorbia, Tylecodon, Aspara gus, mesembs generally, asclepiads generally and Oxalis. The Bayer name actually was quite famous for a little while in names such as Protasparagus bayeri, Tylecodon bayeri, Anacampseros bayeriana, Huernia bayeri, Quaqua something var. bayeri, Euphorbia bayeri, Eriospermum bayeri, Gasteria brachyphylla var. bayeri, Namaquanuella bruce-bayeri, plus at least two other as yet undescribed species. It is also associated with the descriptions of Protasparagus exsertus, Protasparagus mollis, Protasparagus graniticus, Brachystelma minima, Euphorbia mira, Otholobium incanum, Kedostris ammophila, Senecio latissipes, several Haworthia species and a whole host of Oxalis species.

While I last revised the Handbook in 1976, I never relinquished my interest in Haworthia. I just fell to silent contemplation and introverted enjoyment of these extraordinary plants. The stimulus to update the Handbook owes most to a request for a synopsis of the genus for Dr. Peter Goldblatt’s and Dr. John Manning’s revision of the book ‘Plants of the Cape Flora’; and to the enduring trust and faith of J. D. (Kobus) Venter who has shared my interest in Haworthia since 1985. How do I want to be seen and remembered? As an objective, truthful observer who discovered what the true mission of human existence really is, and who lived his life accordingly. Fat chance!

Haworthia, why controversy?

An approximation of a series of seven presentations given during the course of a short visit to the U.S.A. in June 1998.

The title of the talk(s) was given as, “Haworthia, why controversy?”

I have come to the U.S.A. on invitation and the reasons I accepted this invitation are manifold. Primarily I feel a sense of responsibility and duty to the subject, secondly I feel a sense of obligation as my interest in the genus owes much to the USA for the role J R Brown played in stimulating my interests in the genus, and thirdly I felt I ought to dispel the discomfort of the culture shock I had experienced in the USA when I visited it in 1982.

I have wanted to give talks that will in some way enrich the lives of the people who hear them, and this seems to be a very arrogant wish against the limited wisdom which an ordinary individual can acquire about anything in a life-time. But I am concerned about the confusions and controversy, which seems to be associated with the plants I enjoy so much. Classifications and taxonomy have acquired such a negative connotation, and yet they are both fundamental to the whole experience of knowing and growing plants. Without good classification there is no way of organising our thoughts and communicating with one another about the plants.

My interest in Haworthia dates back to my childhood and a deeper interest developed from plants of H. limifolia, which an uncle had collected in Natal. Living in Natal myself, I started to collect plants by corresponding with other collectors and nurseries. It soon became obvious to me that most of the plants seemed to be very ordinarily the same. I was by then a qualified entomologist researching the biology of Noctuid moths, and my study was taking me into the realm of classification and identification which formed the basis of my master’s thesis. My career took a turn and from a government research post I moved to commercial agriculture until fortuitously I landed up as Botanical Assistant to the Curator of the Karoo Botanic Garden in Worcester. There I was given the job of curating collections and given access to the Compton Herbarium and all the Collected Works of G G Smith. I very quickly learned that there was little relation between the available published works on Haworthia and the diversity of the plants I was seeing in the field.

Six years later I could produce a book which was an illustrated checklist of names which I thought could be used to usefully explore the Haworthia further, and also to provide a firmer basis of John Pilbeam’s book on Haworthia and Astroloba. My handbook was revised in 1983 and then in 1985, Col Scott’s book was published which virtually ignored anything which either Pilbeam or I had done. This book seemed to undo any progress which had been made to stable nomenclature in Haworthia and I was very disappointed to find my work categorised with the confusion that collectors have since found themselves in. My conviction is that publishers, editors, other writers, and other collectors whether really serious or not, have simply failed to properly identify the sources of confusion and address them in an ordered way. In my talk I would like to deny any responsibility for any confusion and try to acquire some credibility by pointing out that my work is based on:

1. Extensive fieldwork and thus familiarity with the plants in their native state
2. A knowledge and review of all the literature (I may be the last person who can say I have read all the literature)
3. Extensive experience with pattern recognition in biological systems
4. Knowledge and experience of classification and identification in many plant genera
5. A very comprehensive physical herbarium record located in three different herbaria
6. A clear species definition for the work
7. A long period of validation and testing over a period of 35 years from my first publication on the subject, to the present

When a recent catalogue stated that there was confusion in Haworthia classification, what they were actually doing was confessing their own downright intellectual laziness, and inability to discriminate between writers who are themselves confused and those who are not.

In reading Gould’s book I was also reminded of my childhood belief that the continents of the world had once been joined because they so obviously fitted together. It was interesting to observe that it is only in the last ten years that this hypothesis is accepted as a probable explanation because tectonic plate studies provide an explanation for how this has happened. However, it is the denial of continental drift in the absence of a prior knowledge of this mechanism which is curious to me and I do not think that is science. This has strengthened my view that science is not a matter of education and qualification, profession or position and an impressive CV. It is an attitude which is grounded on common sense and organisation of scepticism.

In order to have this attitude about species, we do need to have a reasonable idea of what a ‘species’ is. Unfortunately science seems to have failed us here as good definition of the term seems either hard to find or impossible to understand and we have to go our own way to do so. Firstly we have to consider that the work should be seen to be a postulate of the biological sciences for a concept of a basic building block for the understanding and classification of all living things in a unified system. Thus it is not for us to hi-jack it, and use to classify things in our individual minds on a basis of limited information, limited material and limited understanding of biological systems, for our own limited purposes.

Unfortunately available definition of the term is poor. The Collins Dictionary defines ‘species’ as those groups into which a genus can be divided, and it then defines ‘genus’ as a group which can be divided into species. The Websters’ Dictionary inserts the work ‘logically’ before ‘divided’. Very few botanical revisions and classifications actually address this question of definition, while on the other hand there seems to be intense intellectual discussion of a biological species concept against other concepts. I cannot see much sense in this. Generally the zoological concept of a species as ‘a group or groups of individuals capable of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding’ is basic to the classification system. This fails in plants because of interfertility across even generic lines. I have simply devised my own definition as ‘a group or groups of individuals interbreeding or potentially interbreeding which vary continuously in space and in time’. This brings us face-to-face with the actual problem of having to determine where these continuities are in space and in time. The problem is that it is the continuities that are obscure and confusing and difficult to describe and circumscribe. Knowing this can make a big difference to how we organise our scepticism about a classification and what we should look for to determine the credibility of writers who can do no better than to confuse themselves and the rest of us.

All too often the view is expressed that classification is an art form and that it expresses the opinions of the individual. If imagination, fantasy and ignorance are the qualifications for the work, then indeed art is what one may get.

In truth classification is and has to be a science in the sense that it has to be based on physical and measurable data. That data has to be accessible to all. Statements must be verifiable and if they are contested, new data should be presented to verify the new and proven statement. This gives rise to a structure of knowledge and information in which the names we use are meaningful and informative. In the case of Haworthia there is a problem (which is not incidentally unique) in that there are very few tangible characters on which classification can be based. Even the characters which differentiate genera in the larger context can be disputed. Therefore, the key to understanding species in Haworthia has to be based on geographic distribution and the spatial relationships and continuities which are observed in the field. Unfortunately again, the strictures of the nomenclatural system and its controls to stabilize names, does sometimes make it a little difficult for the classification to really express how species are related in the field. I have recognised that there is often continuity of varying degree between many different species, and that often I am simply recognising significant nodes in a fairly turbulent sea of similarity. The botanical code requires that names may not necessarily be co-incident with principle nodes. My approach in my first Handbook of 1976 was to try and find as great a relationship between nomenclaturally valid names and the variation in the field. I know I achieved this in very large measure and I have tried to build on that foundation ever since. However, there seems to be no way that the nomenclatural code, whatever its pretensions are to ensuring stability, can do to prevent the structure of the classification from being rattled, shaken and even broken. The onus lies entirely at the door of the individual who should recognise how important it then is for organisation of scepticism.

In my slide presentations, I have pointed out that the genera in the tribe Aloideae of the family Asphodelaceae (following the new dispensation for the classification of plant families by Dahlgren) are not properly understood. What hypotheses have been put forward have been based on some very very poor character definition and analysis. The obvious sub-divisions within the genus Haworthia have been completely ignored and if this is the case I cannot see how any attempt to resort the genus can have any credibility.

I have shown a ‘flow-chart’ showing how the species of the ‘retuse’-type species are linked in a cobweb-like diagram. I pointed out that there are main role players in this web and that the species can be understood in the context of names which relate to geographic centres. My slides were selected to show some of the pathways in and between different centres. This was also to emphasise that a classification has to encompass all plants both known and unknown. In this way there is a predictive element. It is new collections and new methodology which test the classification and its predictions. This process is how an hypothesis is tested and how a classification is shown to be a product of a sceptical and inquiring mind; rather than the artistic product of an individual, driven by some undefined motive underlying a pretension to really understanding what has been done, and what needs to be done.

Haworthia Revisited – Introduction

Haworthia Revisited

Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction to The Haworthia Handbook – 1979 Version
Introduction to The new Haworthia Handbook – 1982 Version
Introduction to Haworthia Revisited – 1999 Version
Historical Sketch
Collectors and Contributors
Cultivation, Propagation and Plant Health
Contribution by S.A. Hammer
The Genus and Species Concept
Synopsis of Taxonomic Changes
Key to the Subgenera

Haworthia Revisited: A Revision of the Genus. (out of print)
Umdaus Press, Hatfield, South Africa, 1999
ISBN-10: 1919766081
Taxonomic revision of the genus. Comprehensively illustrated with photographs of both habitat and cultivation. Hardcover. 250 pages 21 x 26 cm.

 

Foreword

In 1977 Dr D.R. Hunt, formerly of Kew Gardens, London, wrote in the Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great Britain that M.B. Bayer “has emerged in recent years as the leading researcher on Haworthia“. Since the publication of the Ha­worthia Handbook, now a rare item of Africana, many more books and a vast number of articles have been written on Haworthia, with the popular journal Haworthiad leading much discussion on issues of topical interest. Twenty years later it is without exaggeration to say that Bayer remains the leading expert on Haworthia. His experience of these plants in the field and in cultivation is without parallel and it is con­sequently a great privilege for me to introduce his new and revised classification of Haworthia.

The eighteen years that have elapsed since the New Hawor­thia Handbook appeared has been a period of unprecedent­ed botanical exploration of southern Africa, with more and more remote areas becoming accessible and being investi­gated. Succulents have received their fair share of the at­tention. Bayer’s previous two books greatly stimulated interest in Haworthia among collectors. To some extent this has caused a “Haworthia-craze” on a smaller but similar scale to the “Aloe-craze” brought on in this country by the monu­mental works on Aloe by G.W Reynolds. In some cases, this had a very negative impact on plants in the wild but it has also had the effect of stimulating a new ethic of propagation from small numbers of field-collected plants. The present book will keep this interest alive. With the vastly increased success of cultivation and propagation of succulents it is hoped that the destructive collecting of large numbers of plants from their natural habitat is a thing of the past. It is my hope that this book will stimulate competent growers to new pinnacles of achievement on propagating Haworthia, rather than renewed efforts at pillaging their natural habitats.

The great increase in enthusiasm for Haworthia among col­lectors has brought with it plenty of controversy over names. There is now a plethora of opinions, often strongly and not always wisely held, nor necessarily based on observable facts. Bayer has steadfastly maintained that species must be related to continuity in characters and continuity in distri­bution of populations in the field and that any other arbi­trary selection of individual plants or populations for recog­nition as species, without placing them properly in their geographical context, is worthless. This rational view enabled him to reduce the “species” from about 150 to 68 in 1976. Since then, the steadily accumulating body of knowledge of these plants in the field has resulted in the reduction of the number of species to 61 in this new book, including 6 new species. It is particularly noteworthy that it has been possi­ble to fit most of the newer collections into the scheme first proposed in 1976. In the new book he sets out to jus­tify the changes made by presenting a much increased pho­tographic record of each taxon and basing his conclusions on material from the now reasonably extensive herbarium record. In addition he has maintained many names at vari­etal rank so that unusual populations are distinguished tax­onomically for the use of the enthusiast. My own experience of these plants in the wild has clearly demonstrated how complex the relationships between and within the different species are.

Bruce Bayer is to be applauded for creating some order in this maze of complexity and crystallizing out of this a fur­ther, far more detailed and much expanded account of the genus. This should once more set the standards for the group for many years to come, and also provide plenty of food for thought for those who take the trouble to read carefully what he has written.

Dr P.V Bruyns
Mowbray Cape Town

 

 

Preface

This book is written for my friends and at their instigation. It is also for those who genuinely like these fascinating plants. I have been extremely fortunate to have been able to spend so much time in the field, and still there is so much to find and see. Despite this, I am confident that this book presents a very sound hypothesis and it contains many lesser and secondary postulates. It is nested within a very wide experience and knowledge of other groups of organisms. The book rests comfortably on the 1978 and 1982 works, and is a very sound foundation for further construction. It is based on a firm definition of what a ‘species’ is, rather than on a personal construct.

Discussion and comment on the issue of the names Haworthia pumila and H. margaritifera could probably form a book in its own right and I could quote a number of other examples too. At the time Scott (and Dr L.A. Codd) worked out typification and application of the name H. pumila. I said I thought they were correct, possibly for the wrong reason. The obvious thing to do seems to me to opt for conserva­tion of the name. It was clear to me at the time that Linnaeus had used the name Aloe pumila to cover five different elements, and I think there should be an Haworthia pumila. By choosing and citing Commelin’s figure 10 to represent his concept of Aloe pumila, Burman (1768) implicity typified Aloe pumila. Haworth (1804) selected Boerhaave’s figure 131 to represent Aloe pumila and, in so doing followed Aiton (1781), who chose the same illustration to represent his Aloe arachnoidea var. pumila. Aiton had created a new illegitimate name Aloe pumiia and he was followed by Haworth and then by Duval. Scott (1985) recognised Haworthia pumiia (L.) Duval (with the support of Codd) ahead of the then fashionable H. margaritifera (L) Haw. Unfortunately Scott over­looked Burman and implicitly used the Aition illegitimate pumila (either as a new name or a Linnaean one). The fact has also been overlooked that H. margaritifera (L) Haw. is based on a Bradley figure which is indisputably H. minima. I had intended to use the name H. maxima (Haw.) Duval as the first and indisputable reference to a species everybody knows by apparently the wrong name. At this very late stage in writing the preface, I have chosen to revert to Scott and to Burman. This is to use the name H. pumila (L) Bayer as a new combination to equate H. pumila (L) Duval sensu Scott. I believe someone has decreed the Linnaean varieties to be typified in some fashion. It is more than probable that this someone is no less fallible than several authorities who have gone before, have made similar mistakes, and also stand correction.

I came to write about Haworthia because of my fascination with plants and because I saw a real deficiency there in the available literature. I have concern that my own honesty; and the accompanying difference and reservation in my writing will not be perceived and respected by readers and other writers. Socrates wrote -The living word of knowledge has a soul of which the written word is no more than an image’. King Thamus used the words ‘only a semblance of the truth’. I have tried my best to come as close to the truth as I can, and in doing this try to observe a fundamental principle of science.

Bruce Bayer

 

Acknowledgements

For a work of this kind, herbarium record is an absolute foundation and necessity. The work can be no better than the evidence upon which it is built, tested and tried. No opinion in a work of this kind really carries weight unless the evidence can be examined and corroborated. Therefore I owe everything to the institutions and custodians whose work it is to curate botanical specimens and literature. These are the National Herbarium: Pretoria (PRE), the Compton Herbarium (NBG) at Kirstenbosch, and the Bolus Herbarium (BOL), University of Cape Town: Dept. of Botany – and staff. These are people who care about what they do and who set high standards. I am grateful for their tolerance and patience.

Acknowledgement is also made to those who have contributed material and particularly assisted me in the collection process, including particularly Dr P.V. Bruyns and Mr J.D. Venter. Many others have assisted in one way and another and I am deeply grateful, in respect of material contribution or otherwise, to even the least of these.

This work and its completion owe a great deal to:
1. the eternal cheerful optimism and friendship of Mrs. W. Schwegmann of Sheilam Nursery, Robertson;
2. the resolute and steadfast encouragement and support of Kobus (J.D.) Venter, his integrity, and his interest in Haworthia;
3. Steven Hammer for his interest and collaboration, and for the editing which he did on the manuscript;
4. Peter Bruyns for editing and correcting the text;
5. the publisher, Umdaus Press, and specifically François Steffens for his meticulous editing and Kotie Retief for his patient co-ordination;
6. my wife Daphne, and our children, who have managed to endure and even come to share some of my absorption in another world, without asking anything in return.

Readers should please note that the plants on the photographs are denoted by JDV accession numbers. Some of these plants are from collections made by other collectors.

These include:

Dr V.B. Reddi, Dr P.V. Bruyns, J.G. Marx, C. Marais, C. Rowe, V. de Vries, E.J. van Jaarsveld, J. Louw, J. Vlok, C. Burgers, T. Visser, C. McDowell, H. Gie, J. Bouwer, P. Fourie, C. Grobbelaar, J. Meyer, G. Lombard, D. & T. Rossouw, D. Tribble, R. Kent, P. Bosch, E. Dunne, M. Parisi, D. Cumming, D. de Kok, E. Aslander, R. Kratz and E. Esterhuizen. Their cooperation and enthusiasm is greatly appreciated. The contribution of Sheilam Nursery, the Karoo Botanic Garden and Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens are also acknowledged.

Herbarium specimens are cited according to the system of Edwards and Leistner (PRE), and mapped to the centre points of the quarter-degree blocks, except in a few cases where the centre point represented the wrong aspect or the wrong distance between collection points.

 

Introduction to The Haworthia Handbook – 1979 Version

Interest in Haworthia has been very largely an amateur one, and this interesting succulent genus has a large following among the ranks of collectors. Names are critical to collectors as they are indeed to any attempt to observe and record information concerning the plants. There is an extensive literature to Haworthia and over 400 different names have been used at one time or another to refer to species, varieties, etc. The present publication is an attempt to review the history and literature of the genus and present a list of names which will be of practical value in dealing with it. This is by no means a definitive work and the writer does not pretend that it is anything but a simplistic view of a complex situation. It is however based on an extensive knowledge of the plants in the field derived from the records compiled by G.G. Smith and from the writer’s personal experience. The work was in fact made possible largely by the systematic and dedicated contribution made by G.G.Smith. The illustrations are all from photographs taken by the writer of living plants mostly from the original type localities where these are known.

In many cases more than one photograph is required to adequately illustrate a species and even colour photography cannot adequately demonstrate differences between species. The illustrations thus do not reflect the real diversity in the genus, and similarly the checklist does not express this diversity adequately either. Apart from the difficulties in applying the ranks of subspecies, variety, forma consistently, there are several populations known to the writer which cannot be confidently included in any given species and thus could merit independent species status. The rank of forma has no particular significance other than to express a particular form in a species where there may in any case be a high degree of variability. Many of the names rejected in this work could easily be resuscitated at this level. An attempt has been made to use varietal rank to denote populations with some geographically associated differences, and subspecies where such a distinction is greater.

The keys to the species must be regarded only as approximate particularly in the subgenus Haworthia where many of the couplets are indeed weak. This is particularly true towards the end of the key. The nature of the available superficial characters and their variability make it virtually impossible to construct any infallible key. The nuances of form, colour and armature and changes brought about by differences in growing conditions preclude an accurate and really worthwhile key. It is believed that the photographs will serve a better purpose than the possibly misleading keys. No attempt has been made to divide the subgenera into sections for much the same reason. The subgenera Hexangulares and Robustipendunculares are small enough to handle without sections, and in the case of the former the natural divisions may fragment it excessively. In the subgenus Haworthia there are several small natural sections leaving a residue of irreconcilable species.

A proper understanding of the genus Haworthia will have to be based on anatomical and ecological grounds, and this account is presented in the knowledge that a more objective technical account is desirable. In all, 68 species are recognized together with 47 subspecies, varieties and forms.

 

Introduction to The new Haworthia Handbook – 1982 Version

The original title of the Haworthia Handbook should perhaps have read ‘Illustrated Index of Haworthia names’. However, the Handbook was intended to serve a specific purpose in bringing all the names and literature of previous years together. The purpose of the second edition is to present an up‑to‑date version with necessary corrections and alterations in a new format. It is based on the G.G. Smith collection from the East London Museum acquired on loan and now housed in the Compton Herbarium at Kirstenbosch. Dr M.Courtenay‑Latimer was instrumental in obtaining quite a considerable quantity of papers, drawings and photographs from G.G. Smith’s estate. The collation of all this information and herbarium records has provided an ideal opportunity to review species concepts in Haworthia, and establish where problems exist. This was followed by many field excursions and new collections, which have all tried and tested the writer’s application of names. C.L. Scott has published several further papers which have contributed some useful ideas and called for further explanation. Notable here is the application of the older names H. pumila and H. altilinea. The latter name is not accepted in this work, but the former is. A further consequence of Scott’s work is that the name tessellata is resurrected in the place of recurva, but still as a subspecies of H. venosa.

Recent experience and observation have not led to any real solutions to the problem of recognising species in Haworthia. They mostly tend to confirm the views expressed in the first edition, in the chapter on genus and species concepts. This includes the view that species intergrade across geographic barriers and vary across ecological barriers. Very few of the more widely distributed species can as yet be clearly circumscribed to establish infallible identifications. For example, H. cooperi clearly intergrades with H. bolusii. H. bolusii has small forms which are to all intents and purposes similar to H. aranea. The small forms of H. bolusii lead, with little imagination, to H. translucens ssp. tenera. Similarly H. bolusii apparently transforms into H. translucens in the mountains near the southern boundary of its distribution range.

It has long been clear that a taxonomic solution may be possible for species together in one locality, and wrong in another. Thus H. herbacea and H. reticulata grow together and hybridise northwest of Worcester, but southwest of Robertson there are populations which cannot confidently be ascribed to one or the other species. Similarly this complex of H. reticulata/herbacea intergrades into H. turgida. The intergradation unfortunately is not through a continuous series of plants, but leaps across from isolated population to isolated population, creating an irregular pattern difficult to unravel into separate species.

The relationship between H. turgida and H. retusa is possibly more complex than the above, and is perhaps a contest of small/proliferous versus large/solitary plants. In other species too, there is variation coupled with distribution, and variation coupled with habitat.  In an area of broken terrain and diverse geology this will be aggravated, particularly in low rainfall areas and on skeletal rocky soils.  In some cases this is easily demonstrated in the field, e.g., H. turgida north of Heidelberg, H. habdomadis west of Ladismith, H. bolusii east of Jansenville, H. cooperi at Chalumna and at Kayser’s Beach. In other cases the presence of other species, or more dramatic differences, confuse the issue. H. decipiens, H. bolusii, H. habdomadis, H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi all diffuse into the mountains of the Baviaanskloof, and the Groot and Klein Winterhoek, merging with H. translucens and presenting something of a nightmare. Dramatic vegetative differences occur in the case of H. starkiana and H. scabra which are both closely related and practically sympatric; H. marginata and H. pumila occur practically sympatrically as do glabrous and hairy forms of H. translucens ssp. tenera. H. radula and H. attenuata grow mixed together and may in fact be only forms of one species. H. magnifica can sometimes be confused with H. retusa, which may be a true or false situation, i.e., there may be plants or populations which really are intermediate and neither one nor the other species. The same applies to H. magnifica and H. mirabilis.

Field hybridisation is definitely not the serious problem it has been made out to be. The number of known field hybrids is really minimal and the writer knows only the following:

H. pumilaAstroloba muricata (= Astroworthia bicarinata)
H. pumilaH. marginata
H. minimaH. marginata
H. turgidaH. floribunda
H. graminifoliaH. arachnoidea
H. herbaceaH. reticulata
H. cymbiformisH. angustifolia
H. scabra X H. viscosa
H. viscosaH. longiana
H. truncata X H. arachnoidea

There are, of course, a number of difficulties such as H. fasciata fa. browniana, H. glauca var. herrei fa. armstrongii, and H. angustifolia fa. baylissii, which may possibly be the consequence of hybridisation. The low incidence of hybridisation is a situation to be expected in a relatively young genus, as it would be difficult in the first place for species to arise until some form of isolation becomes entrenched. Hybridisation is more of a secondary mechanism operating where established species meet. In Haworthia there is definitely no sound basis on which problems of variability and identification in the field can be attributed to hybridisation.

This second edition, like the first, makes no attempt to meet the need of the collector in covering all those odd names which have arisen over the years.  Many clonotypes of species described by Von Poellnitz, Uitewaal, Resende and Smith are still cherished in collections. There are also many plants bearing names by Haworth, Salm‑Dyck and Baker which may even be reasonably accurately identified. Descriptions and illustrations are available in the literature and wait for another enthusiast to collate and present.

In this revised addition, three new species replace three species which cannot be further upheld, and there are several changes in the lesser ranks. Altogether 68 species are again recognised, with 47 subspecies, varieties and forms. These species are here grouped into 3 subgenera where they are arranged alphabetically and not in any phylogenetic order.

 

Introduction to Haworthia Revisited – 1999 Version

The Handbook was first published in 1973 and revised in 1982. It now seems timely to revise the work again, especially in view of the very extensive interest in Haworthia, and all the collecting which has been done since then. This has led to new perceptions, and the object will be to try and synthesise these in a consistent way in a new arrangement. It appears to me that much of the new material and evidence substantiates the robust nature of the old Handbook treatment, although many of the new finds cannot be accommodated comfortably in the existing nomenclatural framework.

The Handbook was originally written to ‘present a list of names which will be of practical value in dealing with it’ (i.e., communication – the history, literature and cultivation of the genus). There were a number of very substantial differences between my treatment and that of Col C.L. Scott and this is an honest attempt at reconciliation. Generally these differences will be treated in the text as they arise and there is no associated intention to be belittling in the process of doing this. Some differences are purely due to the fact that my work did not address some tricky nomenclatural problems. In some cases they are real differences of opinion and perception, and in others there does not seem to be any good explanation for gross divergence of view other than intransigence on both sides. I hope that readers will appreciate that their own perceptions as expressed in multifarious different journals, newsletters, round robins, etc. are very often also far removed from truth. These expressions are probably driven by the same misguided feelings and fervour common to us all.

I certainly erred in not recognising the differences between the Uniondale Haworthia bayeri and the westerly H. emelyae. I was aware of difference in flowering time but was so preoccupied in trying to establish H. emelyae as a valid entity (as opposed to ‘picta’ and ‘correcta’) which also took account of H. comptoniana that I just missed the obvious. The debate still continues. Which goes to show that a lot of effort is wasted in unresolved conflict, while the need for stable reference points comes second. I did come to see that there were two species present at the locality for H. comptoniana near Georgida, and David Cumming also astutely intimated that there were two species. There are a number of other instances where I really was not certain about what path to take, and the reasons will, I hope, become clearer on close reading of the chapter on species concepts – and perhaps in the main text also.

I made a number of other errors too and these are much more obvious in hindsight. A particular case is with regard to H. dekenahii Smith and H. argenteo-maculosa Smith. In reducing them first to synonomy and then to varietal rank, I unnecessarily confounded a real problem.  As pointed out above, the distinction between H. retusa and H. magnifica is problematic and the two varieties mentioned are in the trouble zone. Subsequent to the Handbook I also may have generated some problems by guessing at the identity of some troublesome finds.

When I worked on Haworthia there were very few fellow collectors. Much of my effort was directed at establishing what had in fact been collected and where. I was, and still am, more comfortable with generalising than with specifying. I was sometimes quite comfortable with tentatively identifying a collection and adding a locality to indicate that I was really uncertain eg, H. emelyae var. ‘montana’ – Swartberg Mts, which is now H. vlokii. Similarly, quite a few of my collections were identified with a two-way arrow because I could not be sure to which of two species the plants could belong. Since then the quality and extent of collecting has indeed been remarkable, although it is probably only P.V. Bruyns who has followed the proper route of herbarium documentation. J.D. Venter’s is the next best properly documented collection which, while frequently lacking the formality of the herbarium record (for which lack of herbarium space is the main reason) will at least ensure that information is preserved for posterity. These additional collections have helped a great deal in clarifying some points.

However, it appears to me that identification is always going to be a problem in Haworthia, and a sad truth that a workable key for Haworthia is an unattainable ideal. Taxonomy of succulent plants is often criticised and the amateurs who indulge are scorned for their efforts. However, there are probably many great taxonomic works by revered botanists which never receive a fraction of the critical examination that the popular genera do.

There has been a large degree of excessive, illegal, and disconcertingly self-interested collecting which has made and will make no contribution to the scientific and herbarium record. Whatever growers and collectors have to say about nomenclature and much of the necessity and nonsense that goes with it, this is what provides the reference framework for all their communication.

I have to pretend to have some knowledge of taxonomy and deep insights into genetics and speciation. These I do not have. My understanding is based on my life experience and is limited by my intellect, so it would be naive to think that everyone will agree with my perceptions. It has been disappointing to me that people better equipped than myself have often not come nearly up to my expectations. There seem to be other factors than training, education and intellect which determine the arrival at mutual and then good understanding and truth. Many decisions are by the nature of things subjective. It takes some effort to surrender one’s own opinions, especially when no good reason appears to substantiate the alternative decision. This kind of difference is illustrated in the description of H. reddii, where the population was well-known to me and referred to in the Handbook.

The Haworthia Society based in England first published its Newsletter in 1986, and this has continued as Haworthiad. This small magazine has done much to recapture the interest in Haworthia and bring it to the level it appears to have enjoyed during the years preceding World War II. My wish is to see the interest and skills of my collaborators combined as a tribute to a delightful group of plants, for whatever reason they attract the attention and interest that they do.

The list of natural hybrids can be extended to include:
H. sordidaH. woolleyi
H. blackburniaeH. arachnoidea
H. viscosaH. fasciata
H. viscosaH. glauca var. herrei
H. monticolaH. mucronata var. inconfluens

Many commentators in the general literature on Haworthia have since commented on the ease of hybridization across even the sub-genera. More important to me are those rare discerning commentators who have used this field to substantiate that the three groups are real and not just a product of Uitewaal’s or my own wishful thinking.

In this newer revised addition, 6 new species names appear while 13 are no longer upheld, and there are many changes in the lesser ranks. Altogether 61 species are recognized, with 105 lesser ranks. These species are again grouped into the 3 subgenera, arranged alphabetically within the subgenera.

 

Historical Sketch

1982 – The first written record concerning Haworthia appears to be that of Oldenland, superintendent of the Dutch East India Company garden at the Cape Colony in 1695. This record includes a list of 28 ‘aloe’ species and is found in Valentyn’s Beschrywinge van der Kaap der Goede Hoop (1726). These descriptions appear verbatim in Commelin’s Praeludia Botanica (1703) with amplified descriptions, and also illustrated.  Four of Oldenland’s ‘aloes’ are now placed in Haworthia; these are:

’23 … Aloe africana arachnoidea’ (Commelin, fig. 27) now Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval, although this name has not been previously associated with any field population. It is considered that the name is linked with H. setata Haw.

’25 … Aloe africana folio non nihil reflexo, floribus ex albo et rubro variegatis’ (Commelin, fig. 29) now H. venosa (Lam.) Haw. despite mention of white and red variegated flowers.

’26 … Aloe africana folio in summitate triangulari, rigidissimo marginibus albicantibus’ (Commelin, fig. 30) now H. marginata (Lam.) Stearn.

’27 . .. Aloe africana erecta, triangularis et triangulari folio viscosa’ (Commelin, fig. 31) now H. viscosa (L.) Haw. Commelin, in an earlier work of his, Horti medici Amstelodamensis (1701) described and illustrated four other Haworthia. These are:

‘Aloe africana brevissimo crassissimoque folio flore subviride’ (fig. 6) now taken to be H. retusa (L.) Duv.
‘Aloe africana folio glabro et rigidissimo flore subviride’ (fig. 9) which is perhaps best regarded as H. marginata also.

The two descriptions:

‘Aloe africana folio in summitate triangulari margaritifera flore subviride’ (fig. 10) and
‘Aloe africana margaritifera minor’ (fig. 11)

– are here both regarded as H. pumila (L.) Duval. Commelin distinguished the latter by the presence of tubercles on both leaf surfaces and being half the size of the former. These differences are not incompatible with known variability in H. pumila. The differences in the taste of the sap of the two elements is inexplicable as no real difference can be readily detected in the sap of H. pumila and H. minima (Ait.) Haw., as the only species which can be considered in this context. The statement that the two elements grow together suggests that but one species is involved.

Reynolds’ (1950) conclusion that Commelin used Oldenland’s Kruidboek verbatim regarding Aloe species, is thus not true for Haworthia.  Neither H. retusa nor H. pumila are listed by Oldenland, and Commelin did not consider Oldenland’s n.26 to be the same as his fig. 9 (H. marginata).  In the case of H. retusa and H. marginata, Commelin stated that at least the seed capsules were drawn from a book by (or compiled for) Nicolaas Witzen, Mayor of Amsterdam and Director of the Oriental Institute in about 1692.

Notable additions to this total of 6 species are in Commelin’s Praeludia Botanica (1715) where ‘ … margaritifera minima’ is taken to be the first real reference to H. minima; and Boerhaave’s ‘ … minima, atroviridis, spinis herbaceis numerosis ornata’, n.40 in his Index alter Plantarum (1720). This latter description is now interpreted as H. herbacea. These eight species were treated in various ways but without addition until De Candolle described Aloe rigida (1799) and Jaquin A. radula (1804). That so much confusion could ensue from such an elementary breakdown becomes understandable when it is realised that at least ten distinct segregates of Haworthia can be found in the Robertson Karoo, and a further eight in the South‑western Cape area alone. The Commelin and Boerhaave figures were probably regarded as a complete portrayal of the smaller Aloineae and subsequent collections identified accordingly.

The value of historical records of the early exploration of the Cape in elucidating taxonomic problems in Haworthia must be regarded as dubious. Even Reynolds, despite an elaborate account of early botanical exploration, cannot provide earlier references to Aloe microstigma Salm‑Dyck (1854) and A. speciosa Baker (1880), which are both abundant in relative close proximity to the Cape Peninsula. Conversely Reynolds could not relate the record of A. humilis (L.) Mill. by Commelin in 1701, to exploration. Both this aloe and H. viscosa (in Oldenland’s Kruidboek) occur at their nearest point to the Peninsula, at Calitzdorp and Barrydale respectively, both situated in the Little Karoo. From available accounts, the area as far east as Swellendam was well‑known by 1676, while Cruse had already travelled overland from Mossel Bay to Cape Town by 1668. If historical records are of any value, there is no good explanation for the appearance of H. mirabilis Haw. as late as 1804, or for that matter Poellnitzia rubriflora (Bolus) Uitewaal in 1920. Specimens of H. mirabilis may, of course, as already suggested, simply have been placed under H. retusa, while P. rubriflora could very well have been Oldenland’s ’28 … Aloe africana, folio parvo et in acumen rigidissimum exeunte’. The description of H. reticulata Haw. very common in the Robertson Karoo, as late as 1812 also emphasizes the disparities between chronological progress and botanical discovery. The suggestion by Scott (1970) in his description of H. springbokvlakensis, that H. mutica Haw. was probably collected by Bowie at Mossel Bay, also demonstrates the fallibility of this kind of historical evidence. A species (eco‑type?) barely distinct from the Mossel Bay element is common in the south‑western Cape, and at two localities, adjoins deeply rutted wagon transport routes between the Cape and Swellendam. The basis of Haworth’s nine new species described in 1804 is apparently to be found in the collecting by Thunberg and Masson. However, propagation from seed was practised from the inception of the Company garden at the Cape, and Miller (Gardener’s Dictionary, 1768) referred to a variety of H. herbacea raised from seed. It is thus certain that artificial hybrids were intruding on the taxonomic scene at an early stage. Willdenow described H. fasciata (Willd.) Haw. in 1811, Salm‑Dyck H. papillosa in 1817, and Haworth added another 13 species in 1819. Most of these additions by Haworth were of plants from Kew Garden, as were the six species added in 1821. In 1824 Haworth added a further six species resulting from collection by Bowie (1816‑1822), who undertook four journeys and travelled as far afield as Grahamstown eastwards, and Graaff-Reinet to the north. Bowie’s contribution extended to three more species by Haworth in 1825 and one more in 1828.  Several of Haworth’s species and varieties are referable to Salm‑Dyck too, whose Monographia was published in seven parts between 1836 and 1863. No significant additions were made until Baker published some 17 new species in 1880, all stemming from collecting done by Cooper. Cooper was in South Africa from 1859 to 1862 and Reynolds briefly records that Cooper resided at Worcester before moving to Algoa Bay, inland to Graaff-Reinet and then through the Orange Free State to Natal. There does not seem to be much hope for determining the precise geographic origin of Baker’s species and hence elucidating some of the problems these involve. Baker was responsible for the revision of the whole genus in Thiselton‑Dyer’s Flora Capensis (1896). This was followed by Berger’s monograph of Aloe in Engler’s Das Pflanzenreich (1908). New species of Haworthia were published by Wright (1‑1907), Marloth (2‑1908, 1912), Schonland (2‑1910, 1912), Archibald (2‑1940, 1946), Barker (1‑1937), Resende (5‑1938, 1946), Fourcade (1‑1932), Scott (4‑1965, 1968, 1970, 1979), Hardy and Mauve (1‑1967) and Bayer (6‑1972, 1973, 1981). More extensive contributions were made by Von Poellnitz from 1929 to 1940, Smith, 1943 to 1950 and Uitewaal, 1939 to 1948. J.R. Brown published many commentaries on Haworthia and in 1957, in “A brief review of the genus Haworthia”, noted the existence of 160 species and 210 varieties!  An attempt to catalogue these names was made by Jacobsen in his Handbook of Succulent Plants vol. II, published first in German in 1954 and in English in 1960. This was followed by a review of the sections and the species comprising these by the same author in Kakteen und andere Sukkulenten (1965). In the now vast and often inconsequential literature on Haworthia, mention can be made of the Haworthia Review, a roneoed publication of ‘The Succulent Liliaceae League of America‘. This first appeared in 1946, was edited by J.W. Dodson and one number was accompanied by a comprehensive check‑list. Also of passing interest are the publications by Farden and Zantner, and more recently by Fearn, Pilbeam (including booklets, The first 5O Haworthias and The second 50 Haworthias), Speechley, Scott and Bayer in publications of English, American and Australian cactus and succulent societies.

The genus has not lacked interested researchers so much as good observation of the plants, their affinities and distribution in their native habitat. It is particularly unfortunate that G.G. Smith discontinued his work at a critical stage when he perhaps could have made a major contribution. In 1947 he wrote ‘Views on the naming of Haworthia’ published in the Journal of South African Botany, in which he presented some of the difficulties arising from lack of authoritative field work. If anything this was a plea to be allowed to work to a conclusion, unhindered by duplication and developments elsewhere. Resende took violent and personal exception to Smith’s comments and replied in acrid tones in ‘Variability and taxonomy in the genus Haworthia’ in Portugaliae Acta Biologica (B) (1949). This attack undoubtedly led to Smith’s retirement from the field. Despite being responsible for several errors of the same magnitude criticised in his paper, Smith did leave an unrivalled legacy of herbarium specimens, photographs, field notes and literature compilation. Von Poellnitz was killed during the allied bombing of Berlin in 1945, when a straying bomber pilot mistook his baronial castle for an industrial target. Familiarity with his work arouses some sympathy for the errors which he made. Obviously open‑minded, with a willingness to concede misinterpretation and change, it is conceivable that he could eventually have revised the genus adequately. Most of his material was destroyed during the war, but fragments are still available in the herbarium at Berlin (see Appendix I). Flavio Resende was a highly regarded Portuguese botanist who published several papers in Portugaliae Acta Biologica, Broteria, Boletim da Sociedada Broteriana, and Memorias da Sociedada Broteriana. Nearly all his new species and varieties were of unknown or garden origin and included polyploid hybrids. His work is thus respectfully discounted in this review.

 

Collectors and Contributors

1976 – The role played by private collectors in adding to information on Haworthia has been a considerable one although not ever fruitfully collated. The revival of interest in the genus stems from Dr Karl von Poellnitz working at his home at Oberlodla in Germany, coupled with the collection by Hans Herre at Stellenbosch, F.R. Long at Port Elizabeth, J.R. Brown in America and Wilhelm Triebner in South West Africa. Most of the plants received by Von Poellnitz were routed through Herre, Long and Triebner. Herre’s contribution in the field of South African succulents generally, is very well known and does not need elaboration. As an enduring record, very little remains of an accessioned and labelled Haworthia collection at the Stellenbosch University Garden. The accessions are rather too sparsely recorded to be of much value in tracing localities, which are with the wisdom of hindsight, more important than then appreciated.

Triebner was a nurseryman at Windhoek ‑ an indefatigable collector and enthusiast ‑ his contribution is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable.  Many collections were confused, localities and collectors also frequently being incorrect. Plants distributed by Triebner were on many occasions misnamed, although it is quite certain that Triebner was not entirely at fault. Many independent observers relate the experience of submitting plants to so many recognised authorities and receiving that number of different identifications. J.R. Brown, in correspondence with Long, noted that names of one‑third of plants sent for re‑identification did not agree with previous naming by Von Poellnitz. Long was superintendent of parks at Port Elizabeth from 1930 to 1940. Taking a keen interest in Haworthia, he built up an enormous collection which he did not administer himself. In a protracted and sporadic correspondence with Brown, he made very little contribution in the way of constructive and informative comment. In fact, apart from a compilation of photographs and descriptions, the written record of his activities over a period of 25 years is disappointing. Had it not been for Dr H.G. Fourcade, forester, surveyor and botanist, it is likely that Long’s contribution would have gone completely unrecorded. Dr Fourcade saw Long’s collection in 1938 and recognised the importance of a collection containing co‑types of nearly all Von Poellnitz’s species. With the help of Miss Eily Archibald, a check-list was prepared and Fourcade took 230 photographs of plants in Long’s collection. Six sets of photographic prints were eventually prepared and, as intended by Dr Fourcade, form a useful reference in further study of the genus. With the outbreak of the second world war, Long became involved in the construction of airfields and his plants were left in the care of Mr F.J. Stayner (later Curator of the Karoo Botanic Garden at Worcester).

After the war, the entire collection was handed to Mr G.G. Smith, engineer, businessman and naturalist at East London. Smith collected extensively and contributed many new species and varieties. Despite the vast record handed by Smith to Kirstenbosch, together with his collection in 1957, there was very little to indicate in what direction his concepts of Haworthia were developing. Several notes indicated that he had new species and varieties in mind for publication, and also a few deletions. It was only with the recent acquisition of Smith’s papers, that it was possible to see that he was contemplating a whole series of species and varieties. He was proposing 13 new species, 18 varieties and 2 subvarieties in the H. cymbiformis complex alone, while in the H. viscosa complex he contemplated 4 new species and 14 varieties. In all there were 18 new species, 65 varieties, 4 subvarieties and 1 forma in draft manuscript. Contributors to Long’s collection included nearly all the persons commemorated in Von Poellnitz’s species names. G.J. Payne of McGregor, a pianist, church‑organist and collector of sheet‑music, sent plants mostly to Triebner, and later to Long and Smith. Mr Rossouw was a policeman stationed at Napier who collected with Payne. P.L. Meiring was a speculator in land and a horticulturist, who also sent plants to Triebner, Herre and Long. Hurling and Neil were two bachelors who owned the Winton nursery at Bonnievale and who submitted many plants to Kirstenbosch, Triebner and Long, for naming. Mrs Dora van der Bijl was president of the now defunct South African Succulent Plant Society, and lived at Great Brak. Mrs E.D. Helm was also a house‑wife at Great Brak near Mossel Bay and was responsible for the discovery of H. parksiana V. Poelln. Mrs Emely Ferguson, wife of a surveyor, lived at Riversdale. Miss G.V. Britten was the curator of the Albany Museum herbarium at Grahamstown, where Miss G. Blackbeard also lived. Mr C.H.T. Woolley resided at Addo, Mrs K.E. Jones at Steytlerville, Mrs H. Blackburn at Calitzdorp, W.A. van Ryneveld at Somerset East, M. Stiemie at Kirkwood, Mrs E.B. King and her son Gordon at Port Elizabeth, Mrs E. Braun at Kendrew, W.R.B. Marais at Beaufort West, Mrs L. Lategan, Mrs G. Morris and L. Smith lived at Oudtshoorn, Miss A. de Klerk at Tulbagh and Major H. Venter collected in the South‑western Cape. Several collectors operated fairly independently and these include M. Otzen, whose localities were fortunately recorded by Dr J. Luckhoff. A.J. Joubert was a teacher at Ladismith, as was C. Beukmann who retired at Bonnievale. G. Mclaren appears to have been involved in a nursery operation with L. Leighton near Stutterheim and may have been responsible for some of the localities dubiously recorded at Grahamstown by Von Poellnitz. S. Lockwood‑Hill was for a period magistrate at Laingsburg and W.E. Armstrong, stationmaster at Adelaide. As Smith took over Long’s collection, naturally many of these persons are also involved in Smith’s personal records. Here Dr M. Courtenay‑Latimer’s contribution was certainly considerable although not recorded to any degree. J. Dekenah, photographer and naturalist at Riversdale, also helped Smith considerably and his localities are the best recorded of all. Dr Nortier of Clanwilliam sent in plants from the Western Cape as did Miss E. Esterhuysen of the Bolus Herbarium, Cape Town. Mrs A. Taute lived at Molen River between Oudtshoorn and Uniondale. Prof. R.H. Compton was, of course, Director of the National Botanic Gardens at Kirstenbosch, where H. Hall was curator of succulent plants. Mr L.A. Malherbe, owner of the Sheilam nursery at Robertson, was specifically interested in Haworthia and submitted the original specimens of H. comptoniana Smith. Captain D.R. Keith of Stegi, Swaziland, also sent plants to Smith.

Several overseas collectors built up good collections from which relatively little useful information has ever flowed. This, together with the failure of local collections to provide any permanent and reliable record, should be a clear indictment of collecting per se as a corollary of preservation and scientific record. A specimen without a locality record is a liability in taxonomy, and Brown records his disappointment at Von Poellnitz refusing to accept plants from America for certainly that reason. Any plant considered out of its natural habitat and without reference to the population from which it comes, particularly in Haworthia, has to be regarded with caution. Thus even J.R. Brown’s admirable commentaries and photographs are at most a reflection on the contemporary taxonomy and interchange between collectors, rather than a contribution to further order in the genus. J.T. Bates, tramway conductor of Hounslow, England, was in a better position as many of Von Poellnitz’s plants found their way into his collection. Whether his collection will have retained its value as a privately administered record of Von Poellnitz’s work is doubtful. Brown felt that even the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had failed in providing any enduring record of Baker’s work, and Von Poellnitz must have felt this too regarding Wright’s H. pearsonii. This role of a botanic garden in relation to preservation of types is a vital one where herbarium material cannot (by ordinary methods) be depended on as a certain clue to identity. However, the conservation of a species with specific and restricted habitat preferences will depend on the preservation of habitats as the only effective and realistic method. In recent times Col. C.L. Scott has published widely, often expressing opinions at great variance from those in this work. All these have been considered and incorporated wherever possible.”

1999 – A great deal should be added here to account for the huge volume of additional information that has accumulated in the informal literature, and among collectors and growers. Seed propagation and selection are far advanced. Many collectors are very knowledgeable and authoritative comment is almost the order of the day. Only one thought needs expression and repetition: a revision like this is only an hypothesis built on the experience and knowledge of the author. It stands and falls on information. This is very largely the dry and seemingly uninteresting herbarium record. However, without that tangible physical evidence, identifications become hearsay and idle talk.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that field-collected plants are being commercially exploited. Two kinds of people are responsible – those who physically remove the plants from the field, and those who eagerly and irresponsibly buy or receive such plants. I came early to the point where I could really only justify my own aquisitiveness by going to work for an organisation whose function, it seemed to me, was to collect and conserve plants. However, I was disappointed to find that such an ideal is also too subject to human failing and organisations seldom have the motivation and skills that personal interest generate. However,by far the greatest change and losses that I have observed in the field are those directly attributable to physical damage and destruction of habitat. Nevertheless, the potential for such loss should never be construed as an excuse to remove plants from habitat that simply ensures non-survival. Cut collecting can be done in such a way that there is no detriment to natural populations. Offsets, seeds and moribund plants are often available.

There is no doubt that a work of this kind stimulates interest and leads to further collection and potential exploitation of plants. However, the positive side is awareness of those plants and their survival status that also develops. It is ridiculous to suggest that there should be no collecting when life subsists on life, and we harvest from nature in so many other ways. But we need to tread the world lightly and learn circumspection and conservatism.

 

Cultivation, Propagation and Plant Health

1982 – In nature, haworthias are very particular as to habitat. Where several species occur together, they very seldom share the same ecological niche. Species also change as habitats differ and so it is surprising to find how easy they are in cultivation. It is generally recognized that haworthias can be grown in nearly any potting mixture based on a loamy soil. The essential requirement is good drainage, although this is not necessarily what they always get in the field. Most species occur naturally under the protection of other plants or in rock crevices and crannies. They very seldom occur under a closed canopy of larger plants and in the field one looks for haworthias in stable habitats, in rocky situation or shallow soils. Established plants can tolerate full exposure and it is in such plants that really beautiful colouring occurs.  In some species the leaf tips naturally die back and it is unusual for H. longiana for example, to have tips on the older leaves. In H. lockwoodii and H. semiviva the leaf ends die back to afford the plants a protective umbrella of dry white leaf tissue. The complete dying away of the roots that so often occurs in cultivation is quite unknown in the field. Occasional large moribund clumps may occur where the centre rosettes begin to die but this is not the same condition as that of the cultivated plant losing its roots. This root loss is due to poor drainage and a wrong watering schedule. A plant may tolerate a heavy soil if it is watered less frequently. Mortality in the field seems to be very low whereas in cultivation plants may show signs of aging and frequently die. The development of a stem in the characteristically stemless species is a bad thing. Root development occurs immediately under the lowest living leaves and the stem beneath these roots is of no value to the plant. In cultivation this superfluous stem may remain alive to the detriment of the plant and a good root system. When re-potting plants care must be taken to trim away excess stem tissue. It is then often best to remove all roots and so encourage a completely new system. It appears that nearly all species will grow from a whole leaf cutting if the leaf is taken with some remnant of stem tissue – and if the timing is right.

Haworthias are essentially winter-growing plants and all species occurring west of at least Port Elizabeth respond to a winter growth cycle.  January, February and March are too hot and dry for haworthias to grow. These statements will be contested by growers in summer rainfall areas and naturally by growers in the northern hemisphere where the seasons are reversed. However, successful cultivation also requires intuitive skills and there is no doubt that different approaches will work for different people. Propagation of haworthias is more often than not by vegetative offset, and the most common species represented in collections, are represented by proliferous, adaptable clones. Not all clones of the same species respond in the same way, and certainly a species considered to be non-proliferous may have individuals which are.  Cultivation is an artificial situation. There is a selective factor in favour of easy-to-grow clones. The presence of self-sown seedlings and the speed and vigour at which they grow is evidence of this. Plants which do not normally offset can be forced to do so by damaging the growing point. Alternatively the entire plant may be cut into separate pieces, or only whole leaves used for propagating purposes. Roots may be treated the same way as leaves, although there is no documented success story. Various authors have now suggested or shown (Majumdar and Sabharwal, 1870; Wessels et al.,1976; and Shargi et al., 1980) that tissue culture is a feasible proposition.

Because of the penchant to hybridise in cultivation, seed propagation has been greatly neglected. Indications are that the species are all self-sterile which means that genetically different clones must be used for cross-pollination. The parent plants must also be isolated from bird and insect pollinators. Pollination is very simply effected by inserting a fine bristle into the flower tube immediately under the upper-middle lobe.  The bristle is then inserted similarly into the flowers of the second plant. Pollen is released from the youngest flowers and so pollen should be collected from the upper open flowers of the one parent and transferred to the lower unwilted flowers of the other. The quantity and quality of pollen shed is not consistent and seems to be associated with weather conditions and plant vigour. The seed capsules begin to form immediately after successful pollination and may ripen within a few weeks. Not all species and clones are equally fertile and results can sometimes be disappointing. Failure of pollination is indicated by the early abscission of the pedicels. Very little is known concerning either how soon seed should be sown after the capsules open, or viability of seed. Indications are that seed should be collected only from dry, splitting capsules and sown at least within a few months of collection. Flowering time is not a good indication of when to sow seed as it varies very much from species to species. In the strictly winter rainfall region there are species in which the seed ripens in October, December and February. No documented results are available to indicate the best sowing times. At Worcester seed has been germinated successfully at all times of the year as it becomes available after flowering. A well-drained soil mixture with some compost is used and pebbles of 3-5mm diameter are scattered over the prepared sowing surface. The seeds are lightly covered with the same soil mixture and the tray finally sprinkled with smaller pebbles. These both support the seedlings, prevent washing away of the seeds, and provide a surface mulch. Watering can be done by standing the entire seedling tray in a water bath, by fine sprayer from above, or by watering onto a piece of paper laid over the pebble surface. The tray must be kept moist for the first few days and in semi-shade. A glass covering to maintain moisture may also be used early on. The seed should begin to germinate within 7-10 days and if not up after 4 weeks can reasonably be considered a failure.

Haworthias are as a rule not particularly prone to either diseases or insect pests. The Robustipedunculares are more susceptible than other species to mealy-bug attacking the heart of the plant. In outdoor cultivation there is also a weevil which attacks the plants in the same way as a bigger version attacks aloes. The only other pest of note is a white scale-insect. All these problems are very easily controlled by physical destruction. If the infestation is already out of control resort has to be made to any of the multitude of insecticide/fungicide combination dusts available. Diseases are also seldom encountered but the softer species of the subgenus Haworthia can develop a devastating heart rot and be lost before one is aware of a problem. However, this is a problem preceded by loss of the roots. If the disease has recurred, plants must be regularly checked for firm root anchorage. Excess dying of the lower leaves is also symptomatic. The cause of the problem is a fungal disease initiated by unsuitable growing conditions such as poor drainage, poor ventilation, excess moisture or humidity and perhaps an other-wise unsuitable soil mixture. Again recourse can be made to a suitable fungicide for watering onto the plants.  However, it would be better to first use a dust formulation and allow the plant to dry off. If poorly rooted then the whole plant must be cleaned of all dead and moribund tissue, dusted with a fungicidal compound and carefully replanted in fresh soil.

 

1999 – Contribution by S.A.Hammer

Haworthia is a diverse genus in many respects, not the least in the varied horticultural requirements of its species. Most of these can adapt to widely different styles of growing, and almost all of them are easy to grow badly. A few seem universally fussy about what they need in order to grow well. It is therefore unsatisfactory to generalize, but perhaps a few points can usefully be made here. Some of the practices I discuss here are idiosyncratic, but they do work for me and can be assessed against, or added to, other methods which also work. It is fortunate that there are now so many keen people working with the genus horticulturally.

Roots are at the heart of the matter. I sometimes tell myself that I do not grow plants, I foster root systems; and while this may be only semantic, it does encourage me constantly to consider root health. Roots are of course hidden from view, but an experienced cultivator can glance at a potted haworthia and obtain a good idea of root health.

Healthy roots anchor the plants firmly and symmetrically; they absorb large amounts of water quickly; and they do not rot, although they die off periodically and systematically. Excessive root loss is taxing, but it is true that haworthias can regenerate roots with amazing speed. Not all haworthias have the same type of roots; consider the fat, stilt-like, long-lasting roots of H. truncata versus the finer stringy roots of H. venosa.

Roots are affected by many factors: the richness, acidity, tannic content, texture and aeration of potting media; the watering regime (depth and rhythm); and heat. The latter factor is critical. If certain species need heavy shade (H. pulchella is a good example), it is not so much that their leaves cannot endure bright light as that their roots cannot function well if they dry out quickly, as happens, of course, in bright and hot situations. Some plants have trouble establishing new roots in a hot environment. For example, a repotted H. angustifolia will re-establish very well below the bench, and can then be introduced to higher light; but it will have great difficulty if introduced to strong light before root formation is secure.

Why not grow them all in the shade? In a sense that would be safer, and I have tried it, but the results are generally unattractive; leaves bloat and turn a dull camouflage green, compactness is impossible, and (with some species) rot is more likely. Even worse, the species begin to look alike! Cultivation should emphasize the individuality of plants, not mask it. So it is usually good to give haworthias as much light as they can tolerate without risking root loss, tip burn, or the desperately self-shading bunched-in look that says: help! A bright and cool ambience is ideal. Bright = light strong enough to keep lithops from looking like newly-risen toadstools; cool = under 30°C, though plants will certainly tolerate far higher temperatures. Some species will tolerate frost, but it is better to avoid temperatures below 5°C. In any case good air movement is vital.

One of the main difficulties with haworthias is that they do not readily wilt or wrinkle; they do not give one an immediate signal of their needs. This delayed response always puts one at a remove from the plant’s condition, it is like reading last year’s newspaper. It is true that a heavy watering is quickly followed by obvious swelling and glossiness, but the effects (which are often cumulative) of subtler factors – misting, light feeding, adjustment of fertilizer ratios, slight changes of position, repotting, leaf removal, and, especially, root loss – take longer to manifest themselves. A virtuoso grower, Bob Kent, once told me that last month’s sunlight = this month’s leaf colour. It took me a long time to appreciate what he meant. Colour change can be so gradual as too imperceptible to an ardent daily viewer, and it can be positive (an increase in the reddish tints which attract most of us) or negative (reddish tints are also often indicative of stress).

Haworthias burn in an obvious way only if they are suddenly introduced to a grossly brighter environment. They may, however, darken quickly if they are moved from dull quarters to a situation in which more ultraviolet is available; they may turn nearly black overnight. This is not burning, exactly, but it can compromise plants all the same. Certainly it slows them down.

As a corollary to Kent’s observation, I would add that last year’s feedings = this year’s beauty; the effects on symmetry (and on the expression of leaf patterns) are that long-lasting. Should one feed at all? That partly depends on one’s patience. But there is a sense in which feeding= strengthening. And there is no virtue in waiting four years for a starved seed1ing to mature, when a compact look can be obtained in one-quarter the time, via dilute but frequent doses of low nitrogen fertilizer! Such feeding will also improve flowering and seed-set on mature plants. It will, however, encourage offsetting, which can be a bit excessive.

Soil mixtures have caused infinite anxiety. Many growers change their mixtures every few years and find that nothing works equally well for everything. Nothing can: roots and needs are too diverse, but one can adjust proportions here and there. A light mixture (i.e. fine-textured humus plus inert drainage material like pumice, gravel, perlite, or clay aggregate) is open in texture and will require frequent wetting. A heavy mixture (i.e., loam + sand + drainage material) stays wet for a long time, which can be an advantage in a dry warm climate, a fatal liability in a damp one. People who love the act of watering, for whom watering is synonymous with plant enjoyment, should either use a light mix, or employ a hand mister frequently and avoid the hose. But it remains true that haworthias will adapt to a wide range of potting media as long as the grower adapts along with them.

Whatever the soil one uses, a top dressing of grit, gravel, or pebbles is normally beneficial and always attractive. In a hot greenhouse, dark pebbles can actually cook plant tissue, so pale ones are better; they also show off the plants more effectively. Mulches do conceal the condition of the soil, but one learns to judge that simply from the state of the leaves.

I have avoided the difficult question: how often to water; it is too individual. However, for plants in full growth, a cycle of: 
1 – 2 days of saturation
3 – 4 days of even moisture
1 – 2 days of near-dryness
gives a rhythm which is effective in arid climates. In damp areas, and during the dampest periods anywhere, the cycle will be radically slower. In any case, small shallow pots dry out much faster than one imagines; deep pots, on the contrary, have hidden and dangerous reserves. Whatever the pot depth, one can consider an alteration of infrequent deep watering, in which water runs copiously out of the drainage holes, and frequent shallow watering – almost a splashing on the surface – which amounts to a light refreshment, perhaps mostly for the grower.

Too-frequent deep watering will lead to root loss and stem rot; it will kill some haworthias and turn others into green behemoths. Slightly overwatered plants tend to develop cracks or crevasses on their leaf surfaces (curiously, the upper, not the lower surface, is subject to this); such cracking is unsightly though not injurious. I might note that some clones crack even if they are watered gingerly; as a matter of good horticultural practice these should not be propagated. The syndrome is genetically based and cannot be wholly eradicated. In my experience H. magnifica var. atrofusca, H. truncata and H. emelyae var. comptoniana are particularly prone to this.

Many species grow continuously; their life is a perpetual spring. Has anyone ever killed, or even discouraged, H. cymbiformis? Others have obvious bursts of growth which should be observed and encouraged: one should run with the tide. Generally such tides flow in late winter and early to late spring. I will even water hyperactive plants twice in a row, on successive mornings, but only if the air is warm and dry.

Some Haworthia species have unmistakable dormancy syndromes, possibly because they are adapted to a winter rainfall regime: H. lockwoodii and H. semiviva are the most obvious of these. Summer is the time for their papery sleep; during this period they need only light watering, enough to prevent complete desiccation, not of the leaves, which are already desiccated, but of the roots and meristematic core. Other species turn inert and unresponsive for long erratic periods (e.g., H. bruynsii and H. springbokvlakensis, those unrelated behavioural twins). Generally this torpor occurs in winter, when light misting is sufficient to maintain a sluggish viability, but it may also occur in high summer, when extra shading is the safest response.

Pollination is now taken seriously by many growers. It might be helpful to mention that seed production is best on well-fed plants and that flowers are most receptive a day or two after anthesis (first opening). I generally pollinate a flower twice a day, morning and evening, two days in a row. I spray my hands with alcohol when shifting from one species to another to prevent accidental transfers, because the barriers between species – particularly in the subgenus Haworthia – are slight or absent.

Some species are usually difficult to pollinate. H. limifolia is a good example. Other species may elude one grower and not another; for me H. koelmaniorum is recalcitrant, for an excellent grower in torrid Arizona it makes masses of seeds, but then his plants look better and healthier than mine. He successfully uses a fine fibre of nylon as a pollinating tool; very narrow camel’s hair brushes are ideal but expensive.

Clones of most species exhibit some self-fertility but it is difficult to prove the absence of any animal vector. Often one will notice that the topmost flower of a neglected inflorescence ripens into a fat fruit; it is always worth sowing the contents. (By the way, the offspring will not necessarily be uniform.) In other cases, the whole inflorescence seems to ripen at once in a rush, skipping no fruits; this is certainly an instance of self-fertility and the offspring will usually be self-fertile as well.

Haworthias can be propagated by seeds, leaves, offsets, stolons, coring, tissue-culture, some even from roots. Seed raising is the best method for anyone who enjoys the promulgation of variability; tissue-culture is more efficient but it results in a massive sameness.

For seed work, start with good seeds! Much seed in the trade has a low endospermatic content – the seeds are well-formed but small – and the resultant weakness can cause much trouble. Seed germinates best when a few weeks old, better than when newly ripe, but it will keep for a few years, up to seven in my experience.

Seed can be sown at any time of the year. Preferably one should avoid the hottest and coldest periods unless one sows indoors under lights; indeed I sow all seeds under lights, which gives me far greater control of quasi-sterility, insects, and temperature, ca. 20 – 25°C being ideal. The lights can be the standard “cool” tubes, but those work best when paired with broad-spectrum “grow-light” tubes.

For sowing I use a commercial sowing medium (peat moss treated to improve its wettability + a little sand + vermiculite) which I cut with an equal part of fine-screened pumice (>2mm diameter) or perlite. I sterilize the mixture in the microwave and bleach the pots; this is tedious but it pays off. I fill the pots, tamp firmly, sow the seeds, and cover with a thin layer of grit. I sow the seeds in small pots, up to 100 seeds per pot. I prefer very small plastic pots (30 x 30 x 30mm); these dry out quickly, which means that I can water them frequently and thus administer frequent doses of fertilizer. It is important not to sow so thickly that seeds cover each other, leading to a tangled chaos.

I soak the sown pots in distilled water, draining them after being thoroughly saturated (an hour or so). The pots are placed ca. 15 cm under fluorescent lights which are never turned off, and are covered with tight-fitting plastic. The next day I make sure that the plastic shows a beaded film of moisture; if it does not, I mist the pots. After four days I remove the plastic, misting the pots twice a day thereafter. Germination should occur within a few more days, 6 – 14 from the time of sowing. After germination I mist the pots once a day but I avoid saturation; aeration in the soil is critical. A small fan kept on perpetually (along with the lights) helps to prevent damp-off and algal growth; the latter can also be stemmed by progressively mulching the seedlings.

I transplant seedlings at the 4 – 5 leaf stage which usually occurs for me when they are ca. two months old; the unspotted seedlings are soaked in an hour-long bath of distilled water to which I add some Vitamin B1. I use the same medium as I used for sowing (though sterilization is unnecessary and particle size can be larger). If newly transplanted seedlings dry out, they will have a hard time re-rooting, and of course the soil mix may be difficult to re-wet.

Not all species have the same rate of growth, either as cuttings or seedlings. H. bruynsii is always slow, taking at least four years to reach flowering size from seed under my conditions. H. sordida, H. scabra and H. koelmaniorum are also slow although the latter can expand quite rapidly once it passes the juvenile stage. The retuse species are much faster and most can be in flower at 12 – 18 months. H. bayeri and its ally H. truncata var. maughanii are quite slow, both pass through a tediously prolonged (and similar) juvenile stage in which they are not quite themselves.

With all species, extra shading will promote seedling growth. Though this is at the expense of colour, that can quickly be (re-)gained. One should experiment with placement of seedlings; full morning exposure and afternoon shade are the obvious poles but many gradations between these states are possible. Seedlings (and adults) are highly responsive to changes in light and many troubles can be cured or courted by a simple shifting of pots.

Most haworthias will root from leaves. Thin leaves, e.g., those of H. arachnoidea, are very difficult to root, and firm ones, e.g. H. sordida, are slow, taking many months. Plump leaves and a bit of stem should be removed from depotted plants, dusted with fungicidal rooting powder, and placed in a sowing medium in a dim corner of the greenhouse. I mist them once a day, lightly; otherwise I ignore them. They should start to callous in a few weeks and root soon thereafter, but differentiation can take months. Incidentally, leaf removal is probably the least damaging way to collect material in the field if the mother plants are not disturbed by it.

Offsets also amount to propagation from leaves, but the plant itself does the work, forming plantlets at the base of leaves which are nearing the end of their term of duty. The plantlets can be removed as soon as they have an independent root system. Coring plants – scooping out the meristem, like removing the eyes on a potato – often results in proliferation from the basal leaves, but it is an ugly method. In another rather brutal method, which I mention only as an experiment, plants are subjected to a few hours just below freezing; this may kill them, or it may result in enormously increased offsetting.

Hybridization is not much touched on in this book, which focuses on species as they occur in nature. Here I will only mention that hybrids have a great potential for horticultural beauty and taxonomic confusion, possibly for some elucidation as well. Hybridization includes, of course, pollinating plants from different populations. When making hybrids, keep meticulous records (noting which species is the pollen parent, which is the unorthodox father), use the most attractive parents, pollinate for three or four days in a row, and don’t give up if only a few seeds form.

To date the most attractive hybrids (attractive to me, anyway) have involved H. emelyae, H. magnifica and H. bayeri, but thousands of possible combinations have not been tried, especially when one considers those involving three or more already hybridized parents! Only a few of the hybrids in cultivation have great horticultural merit; the rest should probably be eaten or otherwise recycled.

Allied to hybridization in its artificiality, but more palatable to many growers, is the practice of selection. The plants are so variable in nature that they offer limitless scope. One can pollinate the most attractive examples of a species, the seedlings can be selected and back-crossed with the parents, and in this way many (any?) desired characteristics of form or colour can be reinforced. Of course, it can not be assumed that seedlings cultivated from material from a specific locality will represent those which would have survived selection processes in their natural state. Nor is it clear how long-lived haworthias can be, either in nature or cultivation, though well-favoured plants can probably live for centuries. The little amount of this work that I have done to date is most promising. It is simply a way of beating the natural odds.

Whether or not these “artificial” beauties should still bear the data their grandparents came with is a good question; my own opinion is that they have crossed over from nature into art. Fortunately a good collection of Haworthia can represent both realms!

 

The Genus and Species Concept

1982 – Since Berger’s monograph in Engler’s Das Pflanzenreich, the only real contributor to an understanding of the genus as a whole, and its relation to the Aloineae has been A.J.A. Uitewaal. This is expressed in 2 series of papers published in Desert Plant Life (1947), Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great Britain (1947), Succulenta (1948) and Sukkulentenkunde (1951). Originally Haworth recognised only Linnaeus’ genus Aloe and it was Duval (1809) who erected Haworthia to contain the species in Haworth’s section Parviflorae. According to Uitewaal, Haworth and Willdenow independently applied the same name Apicra to the genera now recognised as Astroloba and Haworthia respectively. Apicra Willd. is thus a synonym of Haworthia Duval, and the name Apicra Haw. for a different genus is a later homonym and invalid. This is the reason for the creation of the name Astroloba Uitewaal. Actually Haworthia is already a nomen conservandum in favour over the earliest name Catevala used by Medicus (1786).

Apart from Salm-Dyck, no authority with any reasonable knowledge of the Aloineae has suggested that the genera do not fairly reflect the diversity of the group. Parr has published (African Succulent Plant Society, 1971-2) what purports to be a revision of the genus Astroloba in which he includes these species together with Poellnitzia Uitew. as the section Quinquefariae in Haworthia. The wisdom and intent of such a change is dealt with by Bayer (National Cactus and Succulent Journal, 1972) and it is rejected for a number of reasons including that re-alignment of genera when the elements within them remain poorly defined, is unquestionably premature. Existing genera do portray natural groups despite weak rationalisation in terms of morphological and other criteria. The independent recognition of the different status of Haworthia and Astroloba by Haworth and Willdenow is indicative of the ‘naturalness’ of the two genera. It is true that there was some confusion as to the relation of H. viscosa (L.) Haw. to Astroloba prior to Haworth. Mrs P. Roberts-Reinecke in an unpublished revision of Astroloba (M.Sc. thesis, Department of Botany, U.C.T.) also concludes fairly convincingly that Apicra aspera Haw. is in fact synonymous with H. nigra Haw. This is nevertheless easily attributed to poor observation of floral characters and doubtful evaluation of vegetative characters. The question of incorporation of Astroloba in Haworthia needs consideration in light of recognition of three subgenera in Haworthia. This first finds expression under Salm-Dyck, later Berger, then Uitewaal (1947) and then Bayer (1971). The distinction between Haworthia and Astroloba on the basis of bilabiate as opposed to stellate flowers is extremely weak and Uitewaal’s usage of ‘approximately’ (plus/minus) in his key is very apt.

Mrs. A.A. Obermeyer-Mauve in Bothalia (11:119, 1973) included Chortolirion Berger (one species only) in Haworthia, and Chamaealoe Berger in Aloe L. She at the same time endorses Parr’s inclusion of Astroloba and Poellnitzia in Haworthia. The sole reason given here is also that the latter genera have regular flowers while some haworthias do too, and the claim is made that there are no correlated distinctions. This is quite a fallacious argument for reasons expressed elsewhere (Bayer, 1971, 1974). Mrs Mauve likens Chortolirion to H. graminifolia Smith when in fact the latter is not the least bulbous and neither is there the degree of similarity in the leaves which she suggests. The flower of Chortolirion is like that of the Haworthia subgenus Hexangulares and cannot be confused with that of the subgenus Haworthia where H. graminifolia belongs. In The Genera of Southern African Flowering Plants by R.A. Dyer (1976), Astroloba, Poellnitzia and Chortolirion are all included in Haworthia.  For the purpose of this book the traditional generic states are maintained.

The species concept in Haworthia is discussed briefly by both Uitewaal and Resende who stress the view that speciation in the genus is still in progress, and that species are poorly defined. To a greater or lesser degree this must be true in the majority of plant genera, and is certainly not true for all species, even in Haworthia. Each species needs to be considered in terms of distribution, variability and isolation. Speciation and the evolution of discrete segregates (species, subspecies, varieties, etc.) is self-evidently a function of isolationary mechanisms.  Whether anyone can honestly claim to have an adequate proven explanation for sympatric distribution of so many Haworthia species in so many areas, each with specific habitat requirements and consequent discontinuities is very doubtful. The isolationary mechanisms operative where species are growing in the same near vicinity can be of several kinds. Either the plants are not cross-fertile due to physiological or genetic barriers; or the fertile seed does not produce a seedling which can survive ecological selection pressure; or flowering times are staggered. Experience suggests that hybridisation is a common phenomenon, at least in cultivation, and many ‘species’ are, by admission, garden hybrids. Although hybridisation in the field is far less common than this suggests, it does occur and it can be implied that species have arisen from such hybrids too. Selection as a result of ecological requirements is in the writer’s opinion, a highly acceptable explanation for the development of Haworthia species whether breeding barriers occur or not. Flowering time also differs consistently enough in the field to suggest that it is a good isolating mechanism. However, the species problem in Haworthia very seldom arises where species grow together, but rather from the difficulty in associating populations strung out in isolated localities. These populations can be mostly recognised as species complexes, but populations do occur which cannot be confidently assigned to either one or more of their geographically obvious counterparts. The complexity of what species are is beyond the object of this book, beyond providing some clue to the concept of a species accepted in the checklist. The species have been largely defined in terms of geographical distribution, on the assumption that selection across ecological gradients is mainly responsible for their origin. It is very comforting for the laymen to know that even the most learned botanists cannot define a species in simple terms. It is important to realise, though, that a species is more than a simple expression of differences between plants which the ordinary man in the street can recognise. Two plants may appear to be quite different in size, colour, markings and flower, yet easily recognised as the same kind (species) when seen growing together with a number of other plants sharing all the differences of the first two. If one or several plants still stand out from such a group, then they can be recognised as distinctive forms. Normally a plant species can and should be considered to consist of several groups (populations) growing at different sites (localities). If one of these groups is considered to be sufficiently different from the others, then it may earn recognition as a variety. If several groups are different in this way, then they may be referred to as subspecies. In each case the degree of difference is important and different people may not share a decision to recognise differences by naming forms, varieties, subspecies or even species. In this way classification and taxonomy can become distorted by the judgement of the individual applying himself subjectively to the naming and renaming of plants. The more information available, and the more thoroughly and objectively the work is done, the less likely is the final product to be a reflection of individual idiosyncrasy and personal opinion. The differences between plants of the same kind may result from external factors such as soil type, exposure to light, availability of water, etc., or from internal factors such as age and genetic make-up. Uitewaal expressed the view that it would be possible to classify Haworthia even without a full understanding of how these factors actually affect the plants. The author agrees with this view because experience shows that under moderate conditions of cultivation, plants can be expected to remain consistent. Uitewaal in 1951 was perhaps less optimistic that floral characters would be useful than he had suggested in 1947, but the importance of using flowers as a source of characters is not diminished thereby. Most authorities have claimed that floral characters are too uniformly the same to be of any use in classification. Such a conclusion may have arisen only because similarities occurred where differences were expected and vice versa, based on the a priori presumption that classification by vegetative characters was correct. Vegetative characters have always been the predominant basis for classification in Haworthia in complete contrast to other genera. Far too much weight has been attached to differences which may occur even between plants of the same kind at the same locality. Examples are the presence or absence of tubercles or spines, or the number of veins showing on semi-transparent leaf faces. Smith’s descriptions are models of detail and uniformity, but rather than circumscription of species and varieties, are descriptions of single plants. Many other descriptions include few diagnostic characters by which the identity of a plant among near relatives can be determined with any certainty. The descriptions are padded with measurements which have no reference to the range of dimensions in the entity, or by characters equally applicable to other, or all, members of the genus. The state of Haworthia classification is easily assessed by the past arrangement of the species in 20 sections compared with their natural disposition in the three subgenera. If even sections have not been defined correctly to include related species let alone variants of one species, there can be little confidence that the species themselves are all correct.

1999 – As far as genera are concerned, the attempt to relegate Astroloba, Poellnitzia and Chortolirion to Haworthia appears to have failed, so that good sense can be said to be prevailing. Dr G.F. Smith has written many papers relating to Aloaceae which generally project the view that the genera are adequately different. Emphasis on the differences within Haworthia at a corresponding level is still sadly lacking and Dr L.E. Codd’s comment that ‘small differences are going to be ignored’ is sadder still. Small in size does not equate to small in significance. There can be no doubt that Haworthia is composed of three very distinctive sub-groups, recognisable on floral characters alone. I have previously commented on the similarity of the Chortolirion flower to that of the Hexangulares. I would like to say forcefully that while I doubt if I could distinguish many of the species in the subgenus Haworthia on the basis of the floret, I would confidently attempt to recognise Chortolirion among them, and among any of the other subgenera too. Nevertheless a taxonomic revision is only an hypothesis which cannot be proved right. If tested and it is infirm, a new hypothesis should replace it. Thus there will be an on-going attempt to re-define the genera, and one can only hope for some balanced approach where due recognition is given to the foundations of the old, before an equally, or even more greatly flawed alternative is put forward. The subdivision into lower groups (Sections) is very difficult and if the prime divisor is disregarded (i.e. the flower), likely to be impossible. If the subgeneric characters are disregarded, on what kind of characters are the species to be recognised? Simple characters which one would expect to separate species, and form sectional characters, do not exist. For example tuberculate versus smooth leaf surfaces or leaves spineless versus spined, frequently occur within species. Even windowing or coloration of the leaves is not a certain clue to identification. Ultimately the test is distribution and co-occurrence.

Why the taxonomy of these genera in the Aloaceae has been considered more confused than elsewhere in the plant kingdom is a bit of a mystery to me. I see a similar situation in the Cactaceae (although I do not know it very well); and have experienced the same problems in Asparagus, Oxalis, Pelargonium, several other genera which I came to know quite well, the Stapelieae, and also strangely enough in Noctuid moths. Very high collector interest and low academic involvement may be seen at the root of the problem. I am not confident that intellect as such will necessarily produce more truthful answers. The concept of truthfulness I use here is not that of an honesty of expression, but that of objective factual correctness. Anything subjected to the intense interest of collectors, is bound to generate controversy. It is salutory to see what wars have been waged in very quiet backwaters of botanical interest, between protagonists barely known to any but each other. I would like to repeat what I have already said in the introduction where I credit collectors with as much acumen as any botanist who claims that title by virtue of qualification rather than from interest. Both groups rate from low to high on the various and many scales by which intellect could or should be measured, and with an unfortunate poor correlation to how the individuals may assess themselves.

To understand Haworthia, it seems to me that James Gleick’s book on ‘Chaos: Making a New Science‘ is useful reading. Even if intellectually incomprehensible, the gist of infinite variability, period doubling and bifurcation diagrams will help how one thinks about species. The nature of variation in plant species – the nature of genetic material, the way it is ordered, and the way in which this is expressed in the appearance of plants – can be said to be a phenomenon of chaos theory: disorder which is highly ordered. We look for regularity and order in plant species and populations and it simply is not visibly there. How many of us have said that our classification system does not match the facts?

Vavilov’s law of homology presents the view that variation in one element of a group is parallelled in other elements of that group. He said that: ‘In closely related species and genera, similar series of heritable variations occur. These are found so regularly that knowing the series of forms within the limits of one species, we can predict the occurrence of parallel forms in other species and genera’.

Our attempt to assign position to things is really to locate them on a kind of dendrogram. No two individuals in a sexually propagating population are exactly the same, and the same can be said of vegetatively propagated plants, with certain provisos. Thus at what time will we recognise that a species has split into two? We have to do it on some kind of statistical basis or make an ‘educated’ guess. A split may be the consequence of a difference of only a tiny fraction of the total genetic material. A dendrogram indicates the split, but the appearance of the individuals in the now-divided species may not. On the other hand a single gene character may induce a massive change in appearance which might occur frequently or infrequently within a population. So it is logical and reasonable that individuals of closely related species will tend to resemble one another, and that variation within a species may exceed that between species. Some individuals of different species may resemble each other more closely than they resemble individuals within their own ranks.

This book has of necessity set out to honestly bypass technical nicety and complexity and to practically identify nodes in a complex interlinked web. I do not believe that there is any way that the vast variation that does exist can possibly be accounted for in any written or pictorial record. In many instances there are no real boundaries and we have adopted the view:

that species are a group or groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals varying continuously, genetically and morphologically, in both time and space.

There is an island-like situation in Haworthia which is both real in terms of the isolation of habitats, and also artificial due to destroyed habitats. The latter are significant to us only in present time because they affect what we can observe. The observation and interpretation (measurement and evaluation) of continuity is limited by inaccessibility to the past and by the sheer physical problem involved in locating and seeing everything. It is the nature of creation that diversity exists in space and change is brought about in time. Chaos theory must apply.

In this new treatment I have tried not to get involved in the rigours of systematic nomenclature for which I am not adequately proficient nor sufficiently orthodox. It has been proved to me that it is subject to gross error and personal antagonism as any other field of human endeavour. Some people are able to indulge in a semantic and legalistic forest of words for that reason and pleasure alone. I respect the purpose, but it is worth recounting briefly how senselessly it has been applied to Haworthia. In my very first encounter with the problem of the name H. margaritifera vs H. pumila I put the problem to a Professor and two of his doctoral graduates. None would even brave an opinion.  Then Dr Codd offered a view applied by Col. Scott, which was up-ended by Dr Wijnands. Since then that has been brought into question too, and I have become convinced that argument is directed to the end-point desired. Rationalization follows decision. In truth it appears they have all missed the mark because the element they are most frequently arguing about is most probably what we commonly refer to as minima and not pumila. Thus the correct interpretation is perhaps that pumila should be scrapped and that maxima should be used for this larger species, and margaritifera for the littler minima. An attempt in this direction will be apparent in this work, with an apology to the cognoscenti who are most active in critical retrospect, rather than pro-actively helpful when needed.

We have the case of the argument against the retention of emelyae based on doubts as to origin of the type, despite evidence which exists to show the contrary. I was no doubt wrong in avoiding the use of atrovirens for H. magnifica var. maraisii, and am also argued to be wrong about integra. In my view these are cosmetic problems which should not be allowed to distract anyone until such time as someone can come along with a truly better understanding of the things they are trying to classify. There seems little sense in getting all the names right while the elements to which they refer remain totally confused. There is a real problem in trying to typify the species on the basis of old herbarium specimens and also on the basis of old illustrations, because quite simply it is often very difficult to even identify living flowering material without direct reference to origin. In this respect it should be noted that the whole question of typification has been addressed by I. Breuer and D. Metzing and shown to me in manuscript form as I finished this manuscript. I assume that their typification is authoritative and where I have depended and used their typification it is acknowleged by the letters “B&M” as the source for designation of the type. I do not consider their typicication to be based on any real knowledge of the genus, and their selection of neotypes and epitypes is often unfortunate. This is apart from the lecotypification of photographs in the Berlin Herbarium which were mostly published with the original descriptions. Otherwise I have considered the types to be as designated in this work, and representing the historical record and the traditional interpretation and understanding of the names.

It has not been necessary for me to have the view confirmed that species of Haworthia can only be reasonably defined in terms of geographical distribution and interpreted on the grounds of co-occurrence. The nature of the interlinking web has been enormously strengthened by the collections I have seen in the past 15 years, without seriously weakening the artificial structure of names. It is this ‘structure’ which I would claim has facilitated communication and observation. The discussion under the individual species will deal with new collections and the insights which they bring.

The main point is that there are alternative decisions that can be made or could have been made – and if good sense is maintained there will be no problem. Problems arise from unseen mistakes as we have in the confusion of H. arachnoidea sensu Scott which is the same species as H. herbacea sensu Bayer. This is not just the product of nomenclatural nicety. There is also the mistaken identity of H. serrata by Col Scott where he has assumed that a population of H. mucronata is that species. In this revised edition, an attempt will be made to specify a type for each name, following Breuer and Metzing as closely as possible.

Other difficulties arise from completely different perceptions about what constitute species. Unless a good strong base is laid in the geographic component, it just becomes impossible to handle the close resemblances within Haworthia and the ‘chaotic’ nature of transitional populations. In this treatment we find difficulty in supporting, say, H. reddii as a species because we do not regard it as substantial enough to hold that rank. We think a species should be more substantial and have a range of distribution and variation across that range. We are, I think, a little pretentious in the use of the many ranks of subspecies, variety and form. In this revision I have reverted to mostly the use of varietal rank. However, this does have its own problems because as soon as a subordinate rank is created, it implies that the species is composed of two discrete elements. This is probably not problematic where subspecies are concerned and the concept of extended variability is retained. However, when a variety is selected to illustrate or communicate a specific population which is unusual in one or other respect the balance of variability is loaded towards the typical and we have incongruity. This is the view adopted here i.e. there is not a typical variety in the sense demanded by the nomenclatural system. Rather there are variable species which intergrade, and among them are consistencies which are identified as distinctive varieties. The convention of citing locality is by far the most suitable way of adequately communicating where identification becomes doubtful, as it inevitably will. The ideal of consistency is very difficult to attain because the plant populations seem to be aligned at different grades of similarity.

I recognise that if my initial view of the species is reasonable, then the formal recognition of varieties may ease the understanding of the nature of the variability and existing or potential inter-relationships between the species. This will be particularly evident in the way variation of the old H. retusa varieties are now treated and also in the many varieties recognised here, particularly in H. archeri and H. heidelbergensis, which were relatively unknown in 1983. Similarly while several new species appear in this work as a product of new finds, new insights, corrected mistakes, and new mistakes, some old species have been relegated to varietal level for the same reasons. Lesser ranks should not be taken too seriously as they also represent a view which changes with familiarity and with time. A revision may present a new set of names and ranks, but does not erase the history of those names and they remain there for the edification of all.

 

Synopsis of Taxonomic Changes

The main changes in this revised edition are as follows:-

  1. H. aranea A.Berger = H. arachnoidea var. aranea (A.Berger) M.B.Bayer. 
  2. H. archeri Barker ex M.B.Bayer = H. maru.miana var. archeri (WF.Barker ex M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer.
  3. H. batesiana Uitewaal = H. marumiana var. batesiana (Uitewaal) M.B.Bayer.
  4. H. comptoniana G.G.Sm. = H. emelyae var. comptoniana (G.G.Sm.) J.D.Venter &: S.A.Hammer.
  5. H. correcta of Scott (pro parte H. emelyae V.Poelln.) = H. bayeri J.D.Venter & S.A.Hammer.
  6. H. divergens M.B.Bayer = H. monticola Fourc.
  7. H. graminifolia G.G.Sm. = H. blackburniae var. graminifolia  (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer.
  8. H. habdomadis V.Poelln. var. habdomadis = H. mucro­nata Haw. var.habdomadis (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  9. H. habdomadis V.Poelln. var. inconfluens (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer = H. mucronata Haw. var. inconfluens (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  10. H. habdomadis V.Poelln. var. morrisiae (VPoelln.) M.B.Bayer = H. mucronata Haw. var. morrisiae (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  11. H. maughanii V.Poelln. = H. truncata var. maughanii (V.Poelln.) Fearn.
  12. H. magnifica var. major (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer = H. emelyae var. major (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer.
  13. H. magnifica var. paradoxa (VPoelln.) M.B.Bayer = H. mirabilis var. paradoxa (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  14. H. poellnitziana Uitewaal = H. minima var. poellnitziana (Uitewaal) M.B.Bayer.
  15. H. pumila (L.) Duval sensu C.L.Scott = H.pumia (L.) M.B.Bayer.
  16. H. radula (Jacq.) Haw. = H. attenuata var. radula (Jacq.) M.B.Bayer.
  17. H. retusa var. acuminata M.B.Bayer = H. magnifica var.acuminata (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer.
  18. H. retusa var. dekenahii (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer = H. magnifica var. dekenahii (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer – pro parte.
  19. H. retusa var. argenteo-maculosa (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer = H. pygmaea var. argenteo-maculosa (G.G.Sm.) M.B.Bayer – pro parte.
  20. H. rycroftiana M.B.Bayer = H. mucronata var. rycrof­tiana M.B.Bayer.
  21. H. starkiana VPoelln. = H. scabra var. starkiana (VPoelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  22. H. translucens Haw. sensu M.B.Bayer = H. gracilis V.Poelln.
  23. H. unicolor (V.Poelln) unicolor = H. mucronata Haw. var. mucronata.
  24. H. unicolor var. helmiae (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer = H. mucronata var. mucronata Haw.
  25. H. unicolor var. venteri (VPoelln .) M.B.Bayer = H. arachnoidea var. nigricans (Haw.) M.B.Bayer.
  26. H. wooI!eyi V.Poelln. = H. venosa subsp. woolleyi (VPoelln.) M.B.Bayer.
  27. H. xiphiophylla Baker = H. arachnoidea var.xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer.

New species included are:­

  1. H. aristata Haw.
  2. H. bayeri J.D.Venter & S.A.Hammer.
  3. H. maraisii V.Poelln.
  4. H. outeniquensis M.B.Bayer.
  5. H. pungens M.B.Bayer.
  6. H. vlokii M.B.Bayer.

Species desclibed since publication of The New Hawor­thia Handbook and their treatment :-

  1. H. joeyae CL.Scott = H. cooperi Baker var. dielsiana (V.Poelln) M.B.Bayer.
  2. H. magnifica VPoelln. var. splendens J.D.Venter & S.A.Hammer.
  3. H. mcmurtryi C.L.Scott = H. koelmaniorum C.L.Scott var. mcmurtryi (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer.
  4. H. pehlemanniae C.L.Scott = H. nortieri var. pehleman­niae (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer.
  5. H. pringlei C.L.Scott = H. decipiens V.Poelln. var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer.
  6. H. reddii C.L.Scott = H. cymbiformis (Haw.) Duval var. reddii (CL.Scott) M.B.Bayer.
  7. H. venusta C.L.Scott = H. cooperi var. venusta (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer.

In my view they are not substantial elements with variation and range, and can be accommodated within species already extant. The illustrations in this work will include similar el­ements in other species and still fall short of accommodat­ing quite substantial variation in many of the species.

 

Key to the Subgenera

1982 – Uitewaal (1947) presented a Latin diagnosis for two sections, Triangulares (type species Haworthia translucens Haw.) and Hexangulares (type species H.coarctata Haw.). The latter section he again divided into the Robustipedunculatae and Gracilipedunculatae, partly derived from Berger (1908). Uitewaal did not relate this subdivision to then existing sections and stated specifically that it was only of a tentative nature. The following exposition (Bayer, 1971) takes Uitewaal’s division to its logical conclusion with the recognition of three subgenera. In the process, the subgenus containing the type species for the genus repeats the name of the genus:

1. Perianth at base triangular or rounded-triangular, style upcurved, tube obclavate ………. subgenus Haworthia
Type species H. arachnoidea (L.) Duval
– Perinath at base hexangular or rounded-hexangular, style straight, tube obcapitate ………………….

2. Perianth gradually narrowing to junction with pedicel (substipitate), tube curved…….. subgenus Hexangulares Uitewaal ex M.B.Bayer
Type species H. coarctata Haw.

3. Perianth abruptly joined to pedicel (non-stipitate), tube straight ………………. subgenus Robustipedunculares Uitewaal ex M.B.Bayer
Type species H. pumila (L.) Duval

This construction of subgenera would necessitate re-organisation of the section Margaritiferae as composed by Jacobsen (1965), as several of those species belong naturally with the Coarctatae. H. papillosa (Salm Dyck) Haw. was placed in the section Coarctatae by Baker on account of its elongated stem. This was totally incorrect as caulescence does occur in the Margaritiferae where the plant can obtain sufficient water and nutrient to maintain an extended growing point. More often the central parent stem dies away and the plant is perpetuated by several acaulescent offsets. However, there are many other anomalies which can be quoted in demonstrating the inaccuracy of the sectional divisions up to Jacobsen (1965). The real problems and difficulties in Haworthia are best appreciated by referring to synonymies of species like H. reticulata and H. herbacea. Here it is seen how authors have described several species from what can be proven to be a single entity.

1999 – A key to species seems to be the summum bonum of revisionary work and it would be really an achievement to provide such a key by which the species could be readily identified. In Haworthia I do not think a key will provide a probability for correct identification of existing material much better than 50% of the time. For new collections from poorly explored or poorly collected areas, it may even be worse. This may confirm that in reality there are many fewer species, which I would not dispute.

The most common and practical way of identification is by trial and error using visual comparisons. In my experience there have been and are misidentifications with the simplest material and even the best of keys and explanatory notes. There are enough cases where even photographs and illustrations are hopelessly misidentified.

There have been several attempts to create sections in Haworthia and these have nearly all been across the subgeneric boundaries. One might expect that sub-division would be easier if the subgeneric limits were first accepted, but the subgenus Haworthia seems to defy resolution. Whatever way is attempted is eventually confounded by affinities across demarcated boundaries. Some links and affinities are clearly stronger than others. It is clear to me that as exploration and collecting yield more material, so will the complexity of the problem.  Hence the hope of finding a simple solution will recede with time and not as we like to think, improve.

Haworthia Revisited – 1. Haworthia angustifolia

1. Haworthia angustifolia Haw., Phil.Mag. 46:283(1825), Baker, JLinn.Soc. 18:210(1880).  Non Jacobsen 2:536(1954).  Bayer :97(1976).  Bayer :26(1982):  Bayer, Nat.Cact.Succ.J 37:31(1981).  Scott :54(1985).  Type: Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): icon, 13:f2, Salm-Dyck, Monogr.  Epitype: CAPE-3326 (Grahamstown), Highlands (-AD), Cooke in NBG68977, non B&M Bruyns 1653 (NBG):  Aloe stenophylla Roem. et Schult. Syst.Veg. 7:641(1829).  Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 13.t2(1849).  Type: As for H. angustifolia:  H. angustifolia var. grandis Smith JS.Afr.Bot. 9:105(1943).  Type: Cape, Albany Div, Smith 5216 (PRE):  H. albanensis Shonl., Rec.Albany Mus. 2:256(1912).  H. angustifolia var. albanensis (Shonl.) V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:194(1937).  Type: Cape, Grahamstown, Britten s.n. sub Triebner 835 (not preserved).

angustifolia: narrow leaved.

Rosette to 40mm φ, proliferous, stemless.  Leaves 10-40, slender, erect to 100 X 10mm, lanceolate‑acuminate, sub-flaccid, brownish to dark green, margins and keel finely denticulate.  Inflorescence to 200mm, lax.  Flowers 8‑10, white to dull pinkish‑white.

1982 – The introduction of this species to Kew in 1824 is attributed to Bowie.  It is a small clump-forming species with long narrow leaves, which has frequently been confused with H. chloracantha.  However, it is a softer species and the marginal teeth are smaller and more closely spaced.  The range of variation in both species is fairly similar.  Smith’s var. paucifolia was based on a miniature form from Coombes, east of Grahamstown.  Here the plants are miniaturised and growing within clumps of Restio among proteas.  Across the valley, in grassveld, the plants are much more robust and this is the origin of var. grandis.  Small forms are also found in grassveld along the edges of the lower Fish River Valley where only the short leaf-tips are visible above the soil in exposed rock cracks and crevices, sometimes shaded by grass.  The Fish River seems to be the eastern limit and from there H. angustifolia extends westwards to the Zuurberg mountains.  At Riebeeck East the leaves are particularly slender and this is probably the most attractive form to grow.

H. baylissii was described from the farm Oudekraal not far from the Zuurberg Pass.  It was first described as having broad, highly recurved leaves but plants collected by Bayliss at the same time and place, and grown at Kirstenbosch, were typical of normal H. angustifolia.  Plants from the type collection also do not retain their character in cultivation although the leaves remain very deltoid and spreading.  This prompted the idea that H. baylissii was only an odd form or hybrid of H. angustifolia.  A visit to the type locality in 1979 confirmed this view (of form) as vast numbers of H. angustifolia were found growing on a rocky sandstone knoll overgrown with fynbos species (Protea spp., Restio spp.).  This knoll was above a steep sided valley with the rocky faces clothed with succulents.  H. glauca and H. cooperi were both present and seen in the immediate area.  H. angustifolia must be considered to be a species of the False Macchia associated with acid quartzitic soils and in a moderate rainfall area.  The False Macchia peters out west of the Zuurberg and occurs in small isolated patches in the Klein Winterhoek Mountains and Groot River Heights, apart from the main body further to the southwest.  These areas have not been fully explored and it is possible that a relationship may extend between H. angustifolia, H. zantneriana and even H. divergens.  H. angustifolia has been known to hybridise with H. cymbiformis at Howiesonspoort near Grahamstown, and the hybrid was described as H. perplexa V.Poelln.

H. angustifolia is easy to grow and the ease with which some forms proliferate may be an embarrassment.  Under shaded conditions the leaves may also spread too much and lose the very dark colour that well-grown plants should have.

1999 – Scott selected a specimen to represent his concept of the species without specifically designating it as the type. The illustration in Salm-Dyck is available as the oldest and most generally used reference for the name, despite Fourcade’s discounting Baker’s description of H. angustifolia (see under H. monticola).  The type selected by Breuer and Metzing is the specimen cited as representative for the species.  It is an unfortunate choice because it represents a variation and is not typical of the species.

There have been no new collections to suggest any changes to the concept of this species.  G. Marx has commented on the leaf length changing with favourable growing conditions and Cumming also correctly states that the var. paucifolia loses its distinctiveness in cultivation.  Despite this it has been decided to recognise the following varieties:-

M-01-angustifolia

a.  var. angustifolia
This is most commonly found in the environs of Grahamstown and has been collected as far west as the Zuurberg (NE. Kirkwood) where it occurs together and appears to intergrade with the var baylissii.  It is not known east of the Fish River nor further north than Riebeek East.  Scott refers to records from the south-western districts but these are unquestionably mis-identifications of either H. chloracantha or H. divergens.  The latter both to a degree have markings on the leaves and in neither do the leaf-tips incline inwards as they do in H. angustifolia.

Distribution: 3325 (Port Elizabeth): Uyepoort, Zuurberg (-AD), C.H.F. Woolley (NBG); Somerset East to Zuurberg (-BB), Holland in NBG18/25 (BOL); Kommadagga Stn. (-BB), Stayner in KG688/71 (NBG); Annsvilla to Uitenhage (-BD), Smith 2540 (NBG).  3326 (Grahamstown): Albany(-AB), Britten in PRE 34949; Alicedale (-AC), Stayner in KG251/70 (NBG); Wireless Stn. (-AD), Highlands (-AD), Smith 7270, 7449 (NBG), Cooke in NBG68977; Fort Collingwood (-AD), Smith 639 (NBG); Howiesonspoort (-AD), Smith 911, 7440 (NBG); Timm (NBG); Grahamstown (-BC), Breijer in TRV 23226 (PRE); Mt. Drive (-BC), Dyer 2280 (PRE); Mt. Drive (-BC), Smith 5630 (NBG), Barnes (BOL), Dyer 5; Hospital Hill (-BC) Smith 5656 (NBG); Near Coombes (-BD), Smith 5216 (NBG, PRE); Trappes Valley (-BD), Britten (BOL); Bathurst (-BD), NBG 68060; Lincoln Siding (-DA), Smith 3839 (NBG).  3227(Kingwilliamstown): Paradisekloof, Britten 5676 (NBG);

Inadequately located: Grahamstown, Whitworth in NBG 901/23 (BOL); Bolus (BOL), van der Merwe 115 (BOL).

b. var. altissima Bayer var.novType: CAPE-3326(Grahamstown): Riebeek East to Carlisle Bridge (-AA), Smith 5220 (NBG, Holo.).

altissima: tallest

Rosette proliferous.  Leaves slender, erect to 150 X 10mm.  Finely denticulate along the margins and keel.  Leaf colour tending to greyish green rather than darker green. (A var. angunstifolia foliis griseo-viridibus erectioribus gracilibusque differt).

The var. altissima is created to accomodate a more distinctive taller element with more upright slender leaves than the var. grandis of Smith.  The leaves in that variety are not particularly long for the species and neither this nor the distribution are as significant as may have been originally thought.

Distribution: 3326 (Grahamstown): Riebeek East to Carlisle Bridge (-AA), Smith 5220 (NBG); Sidbury (-AC), Smith 7450 (NBG); 32km Grahamstown to Alicedale (-AD), Bruyns 1653 (NBG).

c. var. baylissii (Scott) Bayer comb.nov.  H. baylissii Scott, JS.Afr.Bot. 34:1(1968).  Bayer :102(1976).  Bayer, Nat.Cact.Succ.J 37:31(1981).  Scott :101(1985).  H. angustifolia fa baylissii (Scott) Bayer :26(1982):  Type:- CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): Oudekraal, Zuurberg (-BC), Bayliss in Scott 796 (PRE).

baylissii: for Col R.D.A. Bayliss.

P.V. Bruyns collected at the Oudekraal locality in 1993 and found again the forma baylissii, while independently Ernst van Jaarsveld recorded plants similar to the ordinary var. angustifolia from the same locality.  The account in the New Handbook states that the Bayliss type collection represented at Kirstenbosch was atypical of the form described in that the leaves were not recurved.  My own collection from Oudekraal was also not at all typical for Scott’s species as the leaves of the plants were not at all recurved and only slightly broader that in plants of the Grahamstown area.  Neither this collection nor van Jaarsveld’s included any really broad leaved plants (nor with recurving leaves) which resembled true baylissii.  Bruyns’ collection was made some 2-3km lower down the river valley where the plants were growing on rather sheltered rock ledges.  The leaves of the plants were broader than either my or van Jaarsveld’s collections.  The contention is that Scott’s species has neither the distribution, variability nor co-occurrence (other than with H. glauca and H. cooperi var. pilifera), to justify that status.  Varietal status is propose because of the Bruyns re-collection.  The concept is broadened somewhat to include plants with both narrower and non-recurved leaves.

Distribution: 3325 (Port Elizabeth): Zuurberg, Oudekraal (-BC), Bayliss in Scott 796 (PRE); Oudekraal (-BC), Scott in KG 416/70 (NBG); Oudekraal (-BC), Bayer 2052 (NBG).

d. var. paucifolia Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 14:48(1948).  Type:- CAPE-3326 (Grahamstown): Frazers Camp (-BD), Smith 6819 (NBG).

paucifolia: with few leaves.

This variety is fairly abundant along the lower Fish River around the old Chalumna Police Station.  This is a different grassland habitat to that at Frazers Camp where it was first recorded in Fynbos.  This variety is not proliferous and the leaves flex outward.  It is very small, with few leaves, seldom exceeds a height of about 7cm and the body of the plant is usually well drawn into the soil.  These differences are not maintained in cultivation.

Distribution: 3326 (Grahamstown): Frazers Camp (-BD), Smith 6819 (NBG); Frazers Camp (-BD), Compton 19092 (NBG).  3327 (Kingwilliamstown): Kaffirdrift, Leach & Bayliss 12636 (PRE); Kaffirdrift (-AC), Bayliss 2592 (NBG).

[ed.] Also see Natural Variation and Species Delimitation in Haworthia Duval. – Part 5. HAWORTHIA ANGUSTIFOLIA Haworth. (1981)

[ed.] Also see Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck [Salm-Dyck], J.M.F.A.H.I., Monographia generum Aloes et Mesembryanthemi (1849-1863) Aloes Vol.1 13.f2 

Haworthia Revisited – 2. Haworthia arachnoidea

2. Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval, Pl.Succ.Hort.Alenc. :7(1809).  Haw., Syn.Pl.Succ. :96(1812).  nec Pole Evans, Flow.Pl.S.Afr. 7:t.248(1927).  Bayer :97(1976).  Bayer :27(1982).  nec Scott, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 49:205(1977).  nec Scott, Aloe l6:41(1978).  nec Scott :66(1985):  Aloe pumila var. arachnoidea L., Sp.Pl. 1:322(1753):  Aloe arachnoides Thunb., Diss. :311(1785).  D.C., Pl.Gr. :f.50(1799).  Ker-G., Bot.Mag. :t756(1802).  Haw., Trans.Linn.Soc. 7:10(1804).  S.D., Monogr. 12:t.2(1840).  Lectotype: icones :78,t27, Comm., Prael.Bot. :78(1703).  Epitype (B&M): CAPE-3319 (Worcester) Buitenstekloof (-DB), Bayer 153 (NBG).  H. arachnoidea var. minor Haw., Suppl.Pl.Succ. :52(1819).  Type: Not preserved.

arachnoidea: spider-like.

Rosette stemless, variable in size from 60 to exceptionally 120 mm φ,  solitary or forming small clusters.  Leaves 25-80 dense incurving, uniformly light to dark-green, no translucence and only occasionally faintly reticulate, flattened and often drying grey‑white to brownish at the tips forming a protective cover for the leaves.  Triangular‑ to ovate‑lanceolate, 20‑70 X 10‑15mm, keeled, margin and keels bearing translucent spines to 12 mm in length, apex acuminate‑aristate.  Inflorescence to 300mm.  Flowers 20-30, perianth white.

1982 – There is some controversy and confusion over the application of the name H. arachnoidea.  The difficulty stems from the interpretation of an illustration dating back to 1703.  However, the interpretation arrived at by Salm-Dyck appears reasonable and in the light of his illustration it is difficult to understand why H. setata was not earlier reconciled with this species.  H. arachnoidea is recognised by its uniformly plain green leaves.  The ‘cobweb’ suggested by the name, is derived from the many white hairs on the leaf margins and keel, which in a healthy well-grown specimen do indeed resemble a spider-web.  However, Ker-Gawler (1804) did not like this name ‘cobweb aloe’ given by Miller (1768) because he considered that the spined leaves more resembled the legs of a spider and hence the name.  The plants are variable in size even within populations. Normally they do not exceed 60 mm in diameter but in some populations magnificent specimens of over 120 mm diameter may occur.  The distribution does not coincide distinctly with any of its likely relatives and a great deal more information will be required before its relationship to any other species is better known.  H. arachnoidea occurs in Namaqualand and in the Ceres Karoo.  It is replaced on the Roggeveld Plateau near Sutherland and then eastwards, by H. semiviva.  Plants from the Merweville area suggest an affinity with H. decipiens but are without the rather broader, flatter leaves and more deltoid spines characteristic of that species.  H. arachnoidea occurs recognisably with H. archeri at Matjesfontein.  Forms further to the southwest have marked leaves and are a deeper purplish-green so that there may be some difficulty in reconciling them with H. arachnoidea.  There is no difficulty in recognising H. arachnoidea in the Worcester/Robertson Karoo, where it is quite common.  It is poorly known in the Montagu area apart from at Cogmanskloof, Baden and the Ouberg Pass.  A rather depauperate form is found in the Tradouw Pass south of Barrydale, and in the wider Ladismith area it is replaced by either H. unicolor or by H. habdomadis.  However, near Ladismith itself H. arachnoidea is small and densely white-spined – more coarsely so than in the Oudtshoorn area where the plants are often small and the spination is finer and a little softer too (see H. aranea).  A weaker spined but very proliferous form occurs in Meiringspoort, east of Oudtshoorn.  The distribution eastwards from here is not clear.  H. decipiens occurs at Klaarstroom north of the Swartberg mountains and it is possible that odd collections east of Uniondale, attributed to H. arachnoidea may in fact be either this species or H. unicolor.  The illustration in Flowering Plants of South Africa (1927) is clearly of H. cooperi.  H. arachnoidea is generally not proliferous and offsets very slowly if at all.  Its distribution is clearly that of a winter-growing species and its occurrence on south slopes and shaded under bushes suggests the treatment it should get in cultivation.

1999 – The 1703 illustration referred to above is the illustration t27 in Commelin’s Praeludia Botanica.  Bayer (in Excelsa 12:91, 1986) discusses the problem of interpretation surrounding this illustration and the associated confusion, pointing out that Scott’s analysis of the picture does not support his argument.  Thus Scott uses this illustration to typify his concept of H. arachnoidea which is the same as Bayer’s H. herbacea in this work.  Kerr-Gawler disliked Miller’s name ‘cobweb’, preferring the likeness to the spined leg of a spider rather than to the woolliness of its web.  General usage seems to have favoured the use of ‘arachnoidea’ in terms of woolliness rather than simply spiny.  If one looks at the illustration Botanical Magazine t.1417 that is used by Scott to typify his concept of H. translucens  (viz. Aloe arachnoidea var. translucens (Haw.) Ker-G.) the situation is further confounded.  The illustration in black and white indicates a species vegetatively fairly similar to the t27 of Commelin.  Scott applies the epithet to what, in terms of its reported location, can only be one of three species viz. H. arachnoidea (H. setata sensu Scott),  H. pehlemanniae or H.  marumaina var. archeri (H. marumiana sensu Scott).  The herbarium specimen referred to by him is certainly of the latter, while the illustration of his H. translucens appears to be of H. arachnoidea.  It is not clear what Haworth actually intended in his Revisions when he created the section Arachnoideae and omitted mention of H. arachnoidea.  I assume that he simply subsumed it under his H. setata.  When Salm-Dyck discussed Aloe setosa he seemed to suggest that it was a remnant not adequately covered by Haworth’s description.  Typification and usage of these old names is problematic and the scheme followed here does not have a flawless rationale.  However, Salm-Dyck’s illustrations of both Aloe arachnoides and Aloe setosa are certainly not of H. herbacea as perceived in this work.  In ascribing the type to the Worcester/Robertson Karoo there is an inherent problem in that elsewhere there will be a residue which may not be well accommodated in other varieties.  However, the name setata is taken up for the more centrally situated variety  which will better do that.

The varieties are largely geographic entities.  The discovery of H. nortieri var. pehlemanniae (Scott) Bayer, as well as that of variants of H. marumiana var. dimorpha, which are vegetatively practically inseparable from H. arachnoidea, create problems.  Var. pehlemanniae grows in very close proximity to H. arachnoidea var. scabrispina from which it quite distinctive, but it is very difficult to distinguish it from some of the other varieties without flower or habitat information.  Possibly the former has leaves which tend to be more flaccid and thicker when fully turgid.  We already know that H. mucronata var. mucronata may probably be the origin of arachnoidea-like plants in the Tradouw Pass.  A similar transition of a deviant population of H. mucronata from north of Montagu, to the Cogman’s Kloof, also occurs.  In the widest context, H. arachnoidea is impinged on by all three varieties of H. nortieri, as well as by H. marumiana var. archeri, H. mucronata, and H. decipiens.  It is quite probable that correctly interpreted, more than one species may be involved in the concept of H. arachnoidea given here.   However, there is no reason why over its whole range it should not exhibit the same degree of variation that for example H. magnifica or H. turgida exhibit over their comparatively restricted ranges.  The species does hybridise with H. blackburniae var. blackburniae and var graminifolia, as well as with H. truncata.

M-02-arachnoidea

a. var. arachnoidea
The form common in the Worcester/Robertson Karoo is taken as the typical variety although the choice is arbitrary.  In this area there is no confusion with other species and although it grows in close association with a number of other species, there is no evidence of hybridisation.  This variety often occurs on southern slopes where it is embedded in moss and lichen, and thus very moist in the winter months.  The plants can reach as much as 18cm in diameter.  The basic leaf coloration is darkish-green and the marginal spines are white.  The terminal bristles tend to be blackish.

Distribution: 3319 Worcester): Hex River (-BD), Bruyns 2411 (NBG); Tonnel Stn. (-BD), Bayer in KG36/71 (NBG); Worcester (-CB), Fouche 14 (PRE); 8km NE. Worcester (-CB), Bayer in KG 640/69 (NBG); Worcester (-CB), Marloth 12572 (PRE), Venter 3 (BOL); Effata (-DA), Bayer in KG 118/70 (NBG); Buitenstekloof (-DB), Bayer 153 (NBG).

b. var. aranea (Berger) Bayer comb.nov
H. bolusii var. aranea Berger, Das Pflanzen. 33:114(1908).  Scott, :72(1985), not as illustrated.  H. aranea (Berger) Bayer :98(1976).  Bayer :29(1982).  Lectotype: icon :114,t39, Berger, Das Pflanzen. 33(1908).  Epitype (B&M): CAPE-3322 (Oudtshoorn): Moeras River (-CA), Bolus 12372 (BOL).

aranea: cobweb.

1982 – This species is described and illustrated in Berger’s revision.  The first comparable plants seen by the writer were from the fynbos vegetation between Oudtshoorn and Uniondale.  The uniform green coloration and soft canopy of hairs, as well as the existence of larger similar forms near Oudtshoorn itself, suggested an affinity with H. arachnoidea rather than with H. bolusii.  Since then a much smaller proliferous form of H. bolusii has been discovered by Peter Wilkins east of Jansenville which could well be closely related to H. aranea.  Here the plants have the typical bluish green colour and translucence of the upper leaves as in H. bolusii.  They occur in a flaking blue shale.  Plants close by in compacted brown shale are larger and with fewer firmer hairs.  It appears more likely that Berger’s plants originated from the Oudtshoorn area.  Until the complete picture of species distribution is available H. aranea is being retained.

1999 – No new information suggests any change here and it has long been known that it intergrades with H. arachnoidea var. setata around Dysseldorp and De Rust as well as in Schoemanspoort.  Thus H. arachnoidea in itself is so variable that the pressure for consistency seems to call for varietal rank.  Col Scott maintains this element as a variety of H. bolusii and cites a specimen which is apparently not that species at all, disregarding the comments made above.  Scott’s illustration also does not accord with the type of var. aranea species but nevertheless appears to represent H. arachnoidea.  The earlier comment ‘until the complete picture…’ is nonsense and it is unlikely that there can be new evidence to prove the original species closest to either bolusii or arachnoidea; nor likely or even possible that distribution data will clarify a position clouded by history.  This variety is characterised by its small size (to 6cm diam.) and very dense soft spination.  Despite the comments made in 1982 concerning colour and translucence, there opacity of the leaves of this variety (and the species) is often forgotten.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): Huis River Pass (-DA), Bruyns 1266a (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): S. Cango Caves (-AC), Bayer 4462 (NBG); Raubenheimer Dam (-AD), Bayer 4647 (NBG); Jagersrivier (-BD), Rossouw 411 (NBG); Moeras River (-CA), Esterhuysen 19497 (BOL, PRE), Bolus 12372 (BOL); Moeras River (-CC), Barker 7720 (NBG); De Rust (-DA), Kleinberg Forest (-DA), Matthews 1211 (NBG); Smith 4008 (NBG); Ganskraal (-DC), Fourcade 3398 (BOL), Stayner 174 (BOL), Bayer 2086 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Springbokvlakte (-BC), Bruyns 1827 (NBG).

c. var. namaquensis var.nov.
Type: CAPE-2917 (Springbok): Karrachabpoort, Richtersveld, Bayer 1674 (NBG, Holo.).

namaquensis: from Namaqualand.

Rosette as for species, to 60mm φ.  Leaves paler green.  (A var. arachnoidea foliis subviridibus et in terra valde submersa differt).

The var. namaquensis has not been previously accommodated.  It is essentially recognised for its geographic association and applies to populations in Namaqualand, Bushmanland and the Ceres Karoo.  The spination is usually moderate and the plants are usually lighter coloured than elsewhere in the species.  It also differs from the typical variety in being pale green and well-drawn into the soil.

Distribution: 2816 (Alexander Bay): Top Hellskloof (-BD), Roux 519 (BOL).  2817 (Vioolsdrift): Cornellsberg (-CA), Bruyns 3305 (NBG); N. Lekkersing (-CC), Venter 93/8; Kliphoogte (-CD), Bayer 1652 (NBG).  2917 (Springbok): Lekkersing (AA), Smithers in NBG3092/35 (BOL); Karrachabpoort (-AB), Bayer 1674 (NBG); Steinkopf (-BA), Meyer (NBG); N. Steinkopf (-BB), Venter 88/35; Springbok (-CA), Hurling & Neil (BOL); 20km E. Springbok (-CA), Salter 3773 (BOL); Kourkamma (-CD), Bruyns 6745 (NBG);  Meyer in PRE 34984.  2918 (Aggenys): Witbank (-AC), Venter 92/105; Kangas (-CB) Venter 91/44.  3017 (Hondeklipbaai): Soebatsfontein (-AB), Le Roux 3991 (NBG).  3018 (Kamiesberg): Hosabees (-AA), Venter 89/37; Putsiesekloof (AD), Bruyns 4774 (BOL); Kotzesrus (-CA), Bruyns in KG 274/76 (NBG); 6km NE. Garies (-CA), Leistner 733 (PRE); NE. Bitterfontein (-CD), Venter 91/43.  3019 (Loeriesfontein): Donkiedam (-CC), Bruyns 6818.  3118 (Vanrhynsdorp): Komkans (-AA), Peers (BOL); Mierhoofdskastell (-AA), Barker 6383 (NBG), Venter 91/73; SE. Nuwerus (-AB), Lewis (BOL); NW. Nieuwoudtville (-BB), Venter 94/28; Liebendal (-CB), Hall (NBG).  3119 (Calvinia): Ezelskop (-AA), Bruyns 6832; Koringberg (-AB), Bayer 3398 (NBG); Beeswater (-BC), Bayer 3423 (NBG); Keiskieberg (-DB), Perry 1994 (NBG).  3219 (Wuppertal): Skitterykloof (-DC), Bayer 2574 (NBG); Ceres Karoo (-DD), Bayer 1619 (NBG), Herre in Stell.6391 (BOL).  3220 (Sutherland): Ganagas Pass (-AA), Venter 89/51; Ouberg Pass (-AD), Bruyns 2547 (BOL); Verlatenkloof (-DA), Bayer 4320 (NBG); Sutherland to Laingsburg (-DD) Smith 7392 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Little Namaqualand, Britten in PRE 34983.

d. var. nigricans (Haw.) Bayer comb. nov
H. setata var. nigricans Haw., Revis. :56(1821).  Type: Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3321(Ladismith): SW. Vanwyksdorp, Bayer 2419 (NBG):  H. helmiae V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:201(1937). Scott :99(1985).  H. unicolor var. helmiae (V.Poelln.) Bayer : 121(1976), Bayer 59:(1982):  Type: Cape, Heidelberg, Smithers in Triebn. 901, Gt Brak River, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 901. Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): icon, (B).  Epitype (designated here): CAPE‑3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (‑AC), Bayer 171 (NBG).  H. venteri V.Poelln., Cactus.J 8:19(1939).  H. unicolor var. venteri (V.Poelln.) Bayer :166(1976).  Bayer :59(1982):  H. aristata sensu Scott :110(1985)  Type: Cape, Barrydale Distr. Major Venter (not preserved).  Lectotype (designated here): CAPE-3320 (Montagu): Barrydale to Lemoenshoek (-DC), Smith 3994 (NBG).

nigricans: blackish, for the dark hues.

1982 – The type locality for H. venteri was recorded by Smith as ” 3/4m. Barrydale‑Lemoenshoek”, although Major H. Venter’s localities are very broadly stated in publication and practically valueless.  Only Smith’s notes give any better clue to these but in this case there is still no certainty.  However, there is a very common species extending from Barrydale to Oudtshoorn from which this variety is clearly drawn.  At Barrydale itself the plants are rather pale green with elongated sparsely setate leaves – this is regarded here as the species H. unicolor.  Eastwards the plants are more robust and often glabrous, usually distinguished by particularly dark‑purplish coloration towards the leaf tips.  The further eastwards one progresses the more setate the plants become until at Oudtshoorn, south of the Cango Caves, the plants are comparatively small and more softly setate (H. unicolor var. helmiae).

It is not in the least clear what the relationship is between H. unicolor and H. arachnoidea.  They do not appear to cohabit which suggests that they may be conspecific and only differentiated on an ecotypic basis. This is borne out by the pale arachnoidea‑like population at the northern entrance to the Tradouw Pass, south of Barrydale.  However at Ladismith H. arachnoidea is present as a very distinct heavily setate form, and similarly south of the Cango Caves it occurs near to H. unicolor var. helmiae as a softer haired but also highly setate form.  The species H. unicolor is therefore not well‑known or properly understood and this solution must be regarded as suspect.  Von Poellnitz’s citations of localities for the var. helmiae are highly confusing and in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 44:223(1938) are totally disparate.  The type is cited in 1938 as “Great Brak River, Mrs Helm” and three Triebner numbers are added to this.  Mrs Helm’s strong personal recollection (private communication, and acknowledgement to Col C.L. Scott) is that the original plants were collected at a specific site south of the Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn.  The photograph extant in the Botanical Museum Dahlem (which must serve as the type) is of a very poor specimen, but it can be reasonably allied with plants from the site given by Mrs Helm.  It is concluded that it is an extension of the complex to which it is here referred.  J.R. Brown’s illustrations in Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 18:39(1946) are not of this variety.

1999 – The incorporation of H. unicolor var. venteri under H. arachnoidea as the var. nigricans of Haworth represents a major change.   Smith does state that his collection is from the locality to which he was directed by Col Venter.  The type selected by Breuer and Metzing for the name venteri, is doubtful because of the locality cited.  The initial problem was to relate unicolor (= H. mucronata) to a substantial species body, which I could not previously do.  How this problem is resolved is also discussed under H. mucronata.  It is clearer now that var. nigricans is better associated along its northern and western borders with var. arachnoidea and there are areas where it is not possible to make a distinction between these two varieties.  This realisation suggests the re-application of Haworth’s original name which means blackish-green.  From records of Dekenah’s collections it appears that var. venteri does interface with H. mucronata in the southwest and I can confirm this from my own collection from south of Vanwyksdorp.

Regarding H. helmiae:  neither of the three numbers given by von Poellnitz in 1938 agrees with Heidelberg, Smithers in Triebner 901 as in the original description, to which was added a collection of Mrs Helm’s from Great Brak.  In addition Von Poellnitz cites several quite disparate and improbable localities between Worcester in the west and Avontuur in the east.  Where H. helmiae was reputed to have been actually collected (Schoemanspoort), fairly glabrous forms occur together with softly spinose ones.  These are small dark elements with very reduced spines and often without spines at all (they do not resemble the softish translucent plants figured by Brown as mentioned above).  They must be closely associated with the var. nigricans (previously unicolor var. venteri) and the change of interpretation here makes it very much easier to accommodate a very wide range of forms which tend to be glabrous and without any spines.

Southwest of Oudtshoorn var. nigricans can be robust with heavy spines and it is probably here that H. ferox var. armata V.Poelln. originated.  The point is made that H. arachnoidea does have glabrous variants and they are generally accommodated in this variety.

It is distinguished by the purplish coloration towards the tips of the leaves and the generally darker colour.  The leaves tend to be broader and the spines larger and sparser than for the species generally.  Glabrous forms with pronounced keels commonly occur and the more delicate softer versions of this can perhaps be ascribed to H. mucronata var. integra.   These variants of H. mucronata are distinguished by their translucent margins and keel.  The interaction between that species and H. arachnoidea is an interesting field for investigation.

Distribution: 3320 (Montagu): Jagerskraal (-AB), Bayer 3612 (NBG); Kareevlakte (-AD), Archer (BOL); SE. Konstabel Stn.(-BC), Bruyns 2448 (NBG); Elandskloof (-BD), Bruyns 2418 (NBG); Prinspoort (-BC), Venter 91/114 (NBG); Keurfontein (-BD), Bruyns in KG18/76 (NBG); 24km Montagu to Ladismith (-CB), Esterhuysen (BOL); Bellair Dam (-DA), Venter 5 (NBG); E. Barrydale (-DC), Bayer 4671 (NBG), Stanford (BOL); W, Barrydale (-DC), Smith 5770, 7310 (NBG); Brandrivier (-DD), Smith 3995 (NBG); Near Barrydale (-DD), Smith 5672, 3994 (NBG); E. Lemoenshoek (-DD), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Bayer in KG126/72 (NBG), Stayner in KG15/67 (NBG); Warmwaterberg (-DD), Bayer 1704 (NBG); W. Warmwaterberg (-DD), Bayer 4575 (NBG).  3321 (Ladismith): N. Calitzdorp (-BC), Bayer in KG441/75 (NBG); Winkelplaas (-CA), Bayer 2716 (NBG); S. Ladismith (-CA), Smith 5506 (NBG); Ockertskraal (-CA), Smith 4004, 5510 (NBG); W. Ladismith (-CA), Smith 7140 (NBG), Bayer 1624 (NBG); Die Eike (-CA), Laidler 314 (NBG); SW. Ladismith (-CA), Bayer 1615 (NBG); Kareebosch (-CA), Laidler 481 (NBG); Adamskraal (-CA), Smith 4002 (NBG), Bayer 1617 (NBG), Ferguson 5 (BOL); Ladismith to Vanwyksdorp (CB), Bayer in KG573/51 (NBG); Springfontein (-CC), Smith 5657, 7325 (NBG), Bayer in KG 166/71 (NBG); W. Springfontein (-CC), Smith 5379 (NBG), Bayer in KG167/71 (NBG); Muiskraal (-CC), Smith 3989, 7136 (NBG), Bohnen 8416 (NBG); Riversdale to Ladismith (-CC), Smith 537 (NBG); Muurkeeskraal (-CC), Smith 4000, 3976, 3995, 3997, 7138 (NBG); W. Vanwyksdorp (-CD), Bayer 2418 (NBG), Stayner in KG57/67 (NBG); S. Vanwyksdorp (-CD), Bayer 2419 (NBG); S. Calitzdorp (-DA), Bayer in KG126/72 (NBG), Bayer in KG125/73 (NBG); Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp (-DB), Bayer 1616 (NBG); Warmwaterbron (-DB), Bayer in KG115/71 (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (‑AC), Bayer 171 (NBG); N. Oudtshoorn (-AC), Bayer 4499 (NBG). Volmoed (-CA), Bayer 4656 (NBG), Zeekoeigat (-CA), Gie (NBG); Mt Hope (-CB), Bruyns in KG437/75 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Near Doornrivier, Helm in Fourcade 4740 (BOL); Caledon, Venter 9 (BOL);

e. var. scabrispina var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3320(Laingsburg): Baviaans (-BA), Bayer 2105 (NBG. Holo.).

scabrispina: rough-spined.

Rosette roundish and raised above ground level.  Leaves with firm rigid brownish spines.  (A var. arachnoidea spinis rigidis bruneolis differt).

The var. scabrispina is created to accommodate the southern Karoo elements which have very hard stiff spines.  The plants tend to be raised and the leaves and spines are fairly rigid so that the plants form quite rounded spheres rather than flattened rosettes.  There are populations in which the plants have the spines produced from translucent raised bases and also in which the upper petals do not curve upward.  This seems to suggest some affinity with H. marumiana var. archeri.

Distribution: 3220 (Sutherland); 35km N. Laingsburg (-DC), Bayer 2124 (NBG).  3221 (Merweville): Schoppelmaaikraal (-CD), Bruyns in KG30/76 (NBG).  3320 (Montagu): N. Baviaans Stn. (-BA), Bayer 2105 (NBG); Whitehill Ridge (-BA), Barker 13368 (NBG), Archer (BOL); Laingsburg (-BB), Lewis & Barker in NBG2772/32 (BOL); Nougaspoort (-CA), Bayer 1963 (NBG); 20km W. Ladismith (-CA), Bayer 4462 (NBG).

f. var. setata (Haw.) Bayer comb. nov. 
H. setata Haw., Suppl. Pl.Succ.:52(1819).  Brown, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 16:3(1944).  Scott, Aloe 16:42(1978).  Scott :68(1985).  Type: not preserved.  Neotype (see Scott, 1985): icon, artist unknown, specimen received from Dr Mackrill ex Cape, (K):  H. setata var. media Haw., Revis. :56(1821).  Type: Not preserved:  H. setata var. major Haw. ibid.  Type: Not preserved:  H. gigas V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 31:84(1932).  H. setata var. gigas ibid. 44:224(1938).  Type: Cape, Amalienstein, Stellenbosch 6692 (not preserved).  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3321(Ladismith): Amalienstein, Smith 7390 (NBG):  H. minima var. major V. Poelln., Kakt.u.and.Sukk. :39(1938).  H. tenera var. major Uitew., Sukkulenta :52(1948).  Type (designated here): Cape, Derust, Mrs Helm (not preserved).  Neotype: CAPE-3322(Oudtshoorn): Meiringspoort (-BC), Bayer in KG 160/72 (NBG):  Aloe setosa Roem. et Schultes, Syst.Veg. 7:641(1829).  Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 12:f3(1841).  Type: Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): icon, f3 Salm Dyck, Monogr. 12(1840).

setata: bristled.

This variety tends to have dense white spines which do not blacken on drying, and the texture of the species is always softer than the var. scabrispina.  It is quite a variable element and like the var. nigricans is also closely interwoven with H. mucronata.  Although usually moderate in size and only upto about 8cm in diam., some robust specimens occur east of Ladismith.  Two specimens are cited below from the Jansenville district and it is more probable that they belong with H. decipiens var. cyanea.

Distribution: 3224 (Graaff Reinett): Jansenville (-DC), Long 1321 (PRE); Jansenville (-DC), Marloth 9384 (PRE).  3320 (Montagu): Keurkloof (-BC), Barker 1913 (NBG); Elandskloof (-BD), Bruyns 2259 (NBG); Buffelsrivier Pass (-BD), Bruyns 2564 (NBG); Cogmans Kloof (-CA), Esterhuysen (BOL), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Long 1124 (PRE), Smith 7224 (NBG), Stayner in KG38/67 (NBG), Otzen in NBG 1316/35, Barker 8266 (NBG), Smith 3989, 7490 (NBG); Prins River (-DB), Bruyns 2462 (NBG); Barrydale (-DC), Smithers (BOL); Tradouw Pass (-DC), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Smith 3991, 6782, 6789 (NBG), Thompson 664 (NBG).  3321 (Ladismith): Amalienstein (-AD), Herre in Stell.6639 (BOL), Smith 7390 (NBG); Huis River Pass (-BC), Smith 7389 (NBG); Opsoek (-BC), Smith 6886 (NBG); S. Ladismith (-CB), Bayer in KG 160/72 (NBG), Smith 5507 (NBG), Joubert 10 (BOL); 5km S. Ladismith (-CB), Smith 5652 (NBG); 6km S. Ladismith (-CB), Smith 5729, 5733 (NBG), Stayner in KG42/70 (NBG); 14km E. Ladismith (-CB), Bayer in KG593/71 (NBG); W. Vanwyksdorp (-CB), Bayer in KG535/71 (NBG); Groenfontein (-DA), Smith 6888 (NBG); Calitzdorp (-DA), Fouche 53 (PRE); E. Vanwyksdorp (-DA), Bayer 5753, in KG388/71 (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): 32km S. Prince Albert (-AC), James (BOL), Taute (BOL); Boomplaas (-AC), Moffett 141 (NBG); Schoemanspoort (-AC), Bruyns in KG92/77 (NBG), Smith 5230 (NBG); Meiringspoort (-BC), Bayer in KG160/72 (NBG); Oudtshoorn (-CA), Smith 5785 (NBG), Bolus 12375 (BOL); N. Dysselsdorp (-CB), Bayer & Venter 6608 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): N. Steytlerville (-AC), Bayer & Venter 6610 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Ladismith, Jordaan (BOL), Joubert 11 (BOL); Sundays River Estate, Heatlie in NBG254/25 (BOL).

g. var. xiphiophylla (Baker) Bayer comb.nov. 
Haworthia xiphiophylla Baker, Fl.Cap. 6:354(1896).  Baker, Curtis’ Bot.Mag. t.7505(1896).  Bayer :168(1976).  Bayer :61(1982).  Scott :73(1985).  H. setata var. xiphiophylla (Bak.) V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:225(1938).  Type: Cape, Uitenhage, Howlett (K):  H. longiaristata V. Poelln., Kakteenkunde 9:134(1937).  Type: Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): N. Coega Station (-DA), Mrs E.B. King (NBG).

xiphiophylla: sword‑like leaves.

1982 – This is a bright green species with broad but short, well‑spaced marginal teeth.  The leaves are long and slender.  H. xiphiophylla is found in the vicinity of Uitenhage and Coega.  It has been regarded as a variety of H. arachnoidea but this is highly unlikely from the viewpoint of distribution only.  A number of anomalous populations at Coega, Dead Man’s Gulch and Kirkwood confuse the issue.  Thus H. translucens and H. xiphiophylla pose an intriguing and interesting problem for the field worker.

1999 – The latter sentence is also fairly typical of the loose words used when the herbarium record is inadequate.  This is a bright green variety with broad but short, well‑spaced marginal teeth.  The leaves are long and slender.  The incorporation into H. arachnoidea is to include the variables along the southern Swartberg mountains from Anysberg through to Steytlerville where the species meets with the Eastern Cape variants.  One of the populations alluded to is represented in this work by the ‘re-discovered’ H. aristata.  From the collections by J.D. Venter, it seems that var. xiphiophylla does merge directly with var. arachnoidea at its westerly limits.  I would have expected a relationship with the greener, braoder leaved H. decipiens var pringlei as discussed under that species.  However, var. xiphiophylla does not develop translucent windows and the leaf spines tend to be separate and narrow at the base.  The flowering time appears to be early summer ahead of typical var. arachnoidea which flowers in the summer.

Distribution: 3324 (Steytlerville): 30km E. Steytlerville (-BC), Venter 85/68 (NBG).  3325(Port Elizabeth): Mentz Dam (-AA), Venter 91/122 (NBG); S. Mentz Dam (-AC), Venter 91/117 (NBG); Mannetjie (-CA), Venter 94/19 (NBG); Maraishoop (-CA), Smith 3583 (NBG); Bauerskraal (-CB), Venter 93/75 (NBG); Sandfontein (-CB), Archibald in NBG 1326/32; Uitenhage (-CB), Britten in PRE 34951; De Rust, 2km NW. Couga Kop (-DC), Branch 5 (NBG); Couga Kop (-DC), Smith 3546 (NBG), Britten (BOL).

[ed.] – Also see A fleeting look at Haworthia arachnoidea, and A shadow of the past – Haworthia arachnoidea again. (1999)

H. arachnoidea - 1844
H. xiphiophylla - 5005
Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval
[as Aloe arachnoides Thunb.]
Curtis’s Botanical Magazine,
vol. 20: t. 756 (1804) [S.T. Edwards]
Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval
[as Haworthia xiphiophylla Baker]
Curtis’s Botanical Magazine,
vol. 122 [ser. 3, vol. 52]: t. 7505 (1896) [M. Smith]

Haworthia Revisited – 3. Haworthia aristata

3. Haworthia aristata Haw., Suppl.Pl.Succ. :51(1819),  Rev.Pl.Succ. :58(1821).  Non V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 43:92(1938).  Non Jacobsen 2:537(1954).  Non Scott, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 35:12(1980).  Non Scott :110(1985).  Type: Cape, ex hort Kew.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon (K).  Epitype (designated here): CAPE-3325(Port Elizabeth: Deadmans Gulch (Soutkloof) (-DA), Smith 3550 (NBG):  H. denticulata Haw., Rev.Pl.Succ. :58(1821).  Baker, JLinn.Soc. 18:213(1880).  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:199(1937).  non idem. 45:168(1938).  Type: Cape, ex hort. Kew.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon, Kew library.

aristata: furnished with an awn.

Rosette stemless, proliferating slowly, to 6cm φ.  Leaves slender, erect, incurved, dark-green, margins and keel entire or finely spined, with little translucence and faintly reticulated.  Inflorescence simple, lax.  Flowers 10-15, white.

In the first editions of the Handbook these two names were rejected as insufficiently known, and I did not agree with von Poellnitz’ use of aristata for his later H. unicolor.  I mentioned too with regard to H. denticulata, that Von Poellnitz had consistently allied that name to the Hankey H. translucens (now gracilis) complex.  However, von Poellnitz cites a number of improbable associates, further lists it as a variety of H. altilinea, and also describes it as having translucence.  I do thus do also not agree with Scott’s 1985 interpretation where he overlooks the very translucent margins and keel of the species (see H. mucronata) to which he applies the name.  It is only recently when I re-examined collections in the Compton herbarium, and a collection received from W.R. Branch from Addo, that it became apparent that Haworth’s two species can be allied to collections which have previously been hidden in H. gracilis.  As applied here, it is indeed to a small dainty species which has very little translucence to the leaf.  It is odd that the description as it appears translated in Scott (1980), reads ‘resembles a dark green cuspidata…’.  Haworth’s description refers to Sempervivum cuspidatum and not to the big presumed hybrid Haworthia of that name.  The late F.J. Stayner had in private communication commented on this odd species from Cougakop, east of Port Elizabeth.  He collected specimens for the Karoo garden and these are still in cultivation.  It was treated as a variant of H. xiphiophylla because it was not as translucent as most of the small elements in that area are, and because it was not substantial in terms of botanical record.  Cougakop is now virtually quarried away.  H. aristata is represented by about four collections from that area and also by three collections by P.V. Bruyns from further north and west.  Here the plants do show some translucence and also tend to bluish-green, so it is possible that it may link up with small forms of H. decipiens.  It should not be assumed that this element is really subtstantial enough as recent attempts to establish its validity have not been very successful.  The collection from Mt Stewart cited below is probably H. decipiens var, minor.

Distribution:
3324 (Steytlerville): S. Mt. Stewart (-AB), Bruyns 1812 (NBG).  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Stonefountain (-BA), Bruyns 1654 (NBG); E. Verdun (-BB), Bruyns 1630 (NBG); Near Kommadagga (-BC), Smith 5890 (NBG); Soutkloof (-DA), Swart (NBG), Stayner in KG7/76 (NBG), Branch 459 (NBG); van Jaarsveld 6902 (NBG); Deadmans Gulch (Soutkloof) (-DA), Smith 3550 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Somerset East, Herre in STE6612 (BOL).

M-03-aristata

Haworthia Revisited – 4. Haworthia bayeri

4. Haworthia bayeri Venter & Hammer, Cact.Succ.J. (U.S.) 69:75(1997).  H. emelyae p.p. Bayer, figs. 10 & 11 in Natn.Cact.Succ.J 34:28(1979). p.p. Bayer :109(1976).  Bayer :38(1986): H. willowmorensis sensu Scott, Aloe 11:8(1973).  H. correcta sensu Scott :74(1985).  Type: CAPE-3323 (Willowmore): Hills S. Uniondale (-CA), F.J. Stayner in KG164/69 (NBG).

bayeri: for M.B. Bayer.

Rosette stemless, 15-20 leaves.  Leaves: retused, dark brownish-green to blackish- green, slightly scabrid, keels and margins with minute spines, or smooth, tip rounded and not pointed, the end-area opaque, cloudy transparent, with sparse reticulate patterning or longitudinal lines.  Inflorescence to 300mm.  Flowers 15-25.

This species is in some respect an embarrassment to me.  The fact that it now bears my name may be a tribute but it also points to fallibility.  It must surely be one of the more spectacular of the retuse-leaved species and my own two illustrations in 1979 indicate how clearly different it is to H. emelyae.  It is only after the publication of the revised Handbook that I saw this species growing in the very near vicinity of H. emelyae var. comptoniana.  I was also aware that a Dysselsdorp collection of mine flowered at a different time to H. emelyae.  Dr W.R. Branch of Port Elizabeth had also sent me a plant from near the western end of the Baviaanspoort near Willowmore which was more like H. bruynsii than H. emelyae.  David Cumming of Australia had also commented in his astutely observant way that there were two species involved.  Robert Kent’s discussion of this species in Haworthiad (7:15, 1993) under the title H. emelyae, deals with the original description of H. correcta.  His view is that while Mrs Blackburn may have collected H. bayeri at Uniondale as Scott contends, it was not the element described and illustrated by von Poellnitz.  The photograph in Kakteenkunde is not the species from Uniondale and shows the leaves as pointed as they are in H. emelyae.   My collections of H. bayeri were grown rather hard and were never free of surface encrustation, and neither did my specimens of H. emelyae ever reach a pristine condition.  This further obfuscated already poor observation on my part.  There is a reliable report of a collection of this species in the Rooinek Pass south of Laingsburg which constitutes a considerable extension of its range.

H. bayeri always has a rounder leaf-tip than does H. emelyae and in cultivation develops a dark green coloration.  The translucence of the leaves is deeper and there is no flecking in the leaves as is the case in H emelyae.  There is no significant difference in the habitats where the two species are found.  H. bayeri is a small degree eastward from H. emelyae, north of the Kamanassie Mountains, and does not go much further west than Oudtshoorn.  This species has the potential to produce the same stunning range of selected cultivars that Japanese growers have produced in H. truncata.

Distribution:
3321 (Ladismith): Rooinek Pass (-BB), Venter sn. (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): S. Oudtshoorn (-CA), Peers in NBG1940/37, Smith 5780, 5781 (NBG), Bayer in KG111/72 (NBG); De Rust (-BC), Smith 2061, 2062 (NBG); 3km S. De Rust (-CB), J. Scott 243 (PRE); Doringkloof (-CB), Bayer in KG146/72 (NBG); E. De Rust (-DB), Smith 2062, 4009 (NBG), Rossouw 404 (NBG).  3323(Willowmore); SW. Willowmore (-AC), Smith 5206 (NBG); E. Willowmore (-BC), Viviers 908 (NBG); S. Uniondale (CA), Stayner in KG164/69 (NBG).

M-04-bayeri

Haworthia Revisited – 5. Haworthia blackburniae

5. Haworthia blackburniae Barker, JS.Afr.Bot. 3:93(1937). Bayer :103(1976). Bayer :38(1986). Scott :2(1985). Type: Calitzdorp, Reynolds 1842 (NBG).

blackburniae: for Mrs H. Blackburn.

Roots fusiform. Rosette stemless, fibrous, 10-15mm φ at base, clumping. Leaves 10-15, long slender, to 400 X 1.5 to 5mm, channeled on the upper surface, margins glabrous or finely spined, colour bright green to brownish green or dark greyish green. Inflorescence simple raceme, to 300mm. Flowers white, green veined, 15-20.

M-05-blackburniae

a. var. blackburniae
The typical variety shows considerable variation over its range. The leaves may be very long and slender, or even be squat, short and with a tendency to flex downward and sideways. Leaf coloration bright green.

1982 – This is one of two unusual species with long slender canaliculate grass-like leaves, fibrous dry leaf bases, and thick fusiform roots. It is common in quartzitic rock in the Rooiberg mountains southeast of Calitzdorp and extending to about 32 km west of Ladismith. The full extent of its distribution and hence also its variability, is not known. Originally found growing singly and exposed, it generally prefers a cooler protected southern aspect where it forms dense clumps. In some forms the leaves are only 60 to 80mm long but as much as 3mm wide. In others the leaves may be 200mm or more long and only 2mm wide. H. blackburniae is very slow and difficult in cultivation. The Little Karoo is technically a summer rainfall area but with rainfall peaks in March and September/October. The hot dry summers discourage plant growth and many of the indigenous plants respond best to the cool wetter winters.

1999 – Many new collections have precipitated the decision to now include H. graminifolia here. H. blackburniae has in recent times been collected northeast of Calitzdorp as well as much further west in the Touwsberg and Anysberg. There are variants with more slender leaves which are toothed. Most significant is the collection by Jan Vlok in the De Rust area which is given varietal status here. Mention of the bluer-green coloration of the leaves of var. graminifolia was omitted from my previous discussions. This colour difference seems to be the only significant character which can really contribute to the decision to recognise three varieties. There is speculation about the affinities of this species. The fibrous nature of the stem as well as the broad insertion of the leaf onto the stem suggest a close relation with H. wittebergensis, which is very similar in these respects. This relationship is confirmed by Dr M. Hayashi (priv. comm.) on the basis of similar karyotypes. Interestingly Smith had, in his records, proposed a variety ladismithensis for plants collected southwest of Ladismith which flowered two months ahead of the Calitzdorp collections. Thus while flowering time is significant it may also vary quite dramatically within a species.

Distribution:
3320 (Montagu): Prinspoort (-BC), Bruyns (NBG). 3321 (Ladismith): W. Ladismith (-AC), Bayer in KG100/74 (NBG); Hartmansberg (-BC), Bruyns (NBG); SW. Ladismith (CA), Smith 5505 (NBG); Assegaaibos (-DA), Bayer 4429 (NBG); Rooiberg (-CB), Acocks 20395 (PRE); Rooiberg (-DA), Smith 2062 (NBG), Bayer 4428 (NBG); 12km SW. Calitzdorp (-DA), Blackburn in Reynolds 1842 (PRE); Calitzdorp (-DA), Blackburn in NBG1174/36 (NBG); Blackburn Valley (-DA), Barker 5094 (NBG, PRE) Warmbaths (-DB), Bayer in KG100/740 (NBG) Inadequately located: ex hort. Thudichum in NBG130/43 (NBG); Calitzdorp, Blackburn in BOL21933, Barker 5094 (BOL).

b. var. derustensis var.nov.
Type: CAPE-3222 (Oudtshoorn): West of De Rust (-BC), J. Vlok in J.D. Venter 93/24 (NBG, Holo.).

derustensis: from Derust.

Rosette robust, to 18mm φ. Leaves very long, to 450 X 3mm wide, brownish green at base, green above. (A H. blackburniae var. graminifolia foliis bruneo-viridibus validissimis et subtiliter striatis differt).

This variety was discovered by Jan Vlok east of Oudtshoorn in the De Rust area. It differs in that it is far more robust than the species, while the colour of the leaves has a brownish tinge and the leaves tend to be more erect. It occurs on the north upper slopes of conglomerate hills together with Euphorbia enopla. The brownish coloration is more pronounced in the old leaf bases. The seeds are surprisingly large. According to S. Hammer, the leaves of seedlings are characteristically striped. There is a difference in the flowers and the flowering time is also earlier than in the other two varieties. This robust variety also is a vigorous grower in contrast to the other two which are generally slow in cultivation.

Distribution:
3222 (Oudtshoorn): West of Derust (-BC), J. Vlok in Venter 93/24, (NBG).

c. var. graminifolia (Smith) Bayer (stat. nov.):
H. graminifolia Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 8:247(1942). Bayer :120(1976). Bayer :40(1982). Scott :3(1985). Type: CAPE 3322(Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort ( AC), M. Courtenay Latimer in Smith 5222 (NBG).

graminifolia: grass like leaves.

1982 – When first collected, the plants were presumed to be a new species of Aloe and given to G.W. Reynolds. It was only when they flowered that they were seen to be a new Haworthia species. The leaves can be over 300 mm long but are seldom more than 1,5 mm wide. They are more channelled than is the case in H. blackburniae, and the margins are armed with minute white teeth. The leaf bases are amplexicaul and fibrous to papery not at all swollen or bulb like. The roots on the other hand are very thickened and fleshy. The narrow attachment to the stem is very easily broken or damaged and this must be guarded against when moving plants. H. graminifolia is only known in Schoemanspoort, north of Oudtshoorn. A smaller form has been reported on the rocky slopes above the Cango Caves, and collections have also reputedly been made from further west. Although separated from H. blackburniae on the basis of the narrower leaf and pronounced marginal teeth, this distinction may fail as the species becomes better known. H. graminifolia occurs on cooler, higher south slopes and is winter-growing. It is not as proliferous as H. blackburniae although J. Dekenah spoke of huge clumps overhanging the road between Oudtshoorn and the Cango Caves. This has never been confirmed, and H. graminifolia remains very scarce.

1999 – I have no indications that var. graminifolia is any commoner than I have suggested. The very slender leaves and their coloration were all that influenced the decision to maintain it earlier at species level. Leaf channeling is as much a characteristic in the typical variety, as is the presence of marginal leaf spines. Curiously I seem to have confounded the initial response to the collection of this variety by Miss Courtenay-Latimer. Scott I think correctly states that it was in fact H. blackburniae which was first considered to be an Aloe species. I clearly recall Miss Latimer also recounting her reaction to seeing the plant for the first time and her response was also to consider it an Aloe rather than an Haworthia. If she collected it in the absence of flowers, she must have indeed been very observant to have identified it among the many grass-like look-alikes, as being of interest to G.G. Smith. A collection by Peter Bruyns in the Gamkapoort is very similar to the original from Schoemanspoort, having perhaps a less blue coloration to the leaves, which are also slightly broader.

Distribution:
3321 (Ladismith): Hartmansberg (-BC), Bruyns sn. (BOL). 3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort ( AC), M. Courtenay Latimer in Smith 5222 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 6. Haworthia bolusii

6. Haworthia bolusii Baker, JLinn.Soc. 18:215(1880).  Bayer :104(1976).  Bayer :31(1982).  Scott :71(1985).  Type: CAPE-3224 (Graaff-Reinet): Graaff-Reinet, Bolus 158 (K).

bolusii: after H. Bolus

Rosette from 40-150mm φ, slowly proliferating. Leaves oblong-lanceolate, incurved, not acuminate or truncating, translucent bluish green, with spines on margins and keel >2mm long.  Inflorescence robust, simple.  Flowers broad and flat across upper basal part.

1982 – The previous concept of H. bolusii was based on plants occurring around Graaff-Reinet.  Here the plants are 50-60 mm in diameter and the white bristly leaves are tightly closed over the centre of the plant.  The essential difference between this species and H. arachnoidea is the colour.  H. bolusii has translucent bluish-green or greyish-green leaves.  Further investigation in the field has shown that it is not possible to clearly separate H. bolusii and the previously recognised and larger H. blackbeardiana.  Thus H. bolusii is now here considered to be a widely distributed species with a fair degree of variability.  It extends from Middelburg to Sterkstroom and southwards to Graaff Reinet and Cradock.  The distribution extends further southwestwards in the eastern Karoo to Klipplaat and Jansenville, where very small forms occur in some habitats.  It is probable that the small, relatively hairless plants south of Klipplaat are extreme forms of H. bolusii.  Similarly there are aberrant, small forms with rather fewer but larger leaves than normal in the extreme northwest near Barclay East.  At Middelburg the plants are also very large (up to 150 mm diameter) as they can also be at Cradock.  There is no justification for upholding H. batteniae in which the supposed distinguishing characters, viz. spiralled florets and raised leaf venation, are wholly fortuitous.  The problem really lies in separating H. cooperi and H. bolusii as discussed under the former species.  H. bolusii is technically in the summer rainfall region, but responds to winter growing conditions.  Good light is necessary if it is to be grown to handsome natural appearances.

1999 – Col Scott’s perceptions of var. blackbeardiana, H. mucronata, H. cooperi and H. batteniae perhaps reflect the problem in this melange of species.  Scott’s H. mucronata seems to include the relatively glabrous elements of three different species.  His 1983 discussion of that species includes what is quite obviously the spined H. cooperi var. pilifera.  My perception is that H. cooperi is a main element and includes several of Scott’s species.  It is in fact difficult to exclude H. bolusii if the var. blackbeardiana is placed with cooperi; unless a distinction is made between elements which tend to have at least partially truncated leaf ends.  My dilemma is that blackbeardiana could have been placed as a variety of H. cooperi as there is unquestionably a close alliance.  However, this is largely a problem of the nomenclatural system.  Had H. cooperi not been described, it would have not been presented here as a species but rather as a variety of a more substantial species.  I concluded that larger elements with the more lanceolate leaves and longer spines from the higher altitudes of the Eastern Cape formed a more logical and coherent entity.  In the northern Transkei (higher altitude) there appear to be elements with truncated leaves which I would assign to H. cooperi var. obtusata).

A similar problem arises in the wider Port Elizabeth area where a similar transition to H. decipiens occurs.  I have experienced difficulty with plants collected east of Pearston but have never had adequate material on which to pass an opinion.

M-06-bolusii

a.  var. bolusii.
This typical variety is a smallish element in which the spination is dominant.  The spines are fine and fully cover the plant so that it appears like a white ball.  There is no clear integration with H. semiviva, but near Murraysburg and also at Victoria West the plants do show some tendency for leaf tips to die back as in that species.  The collection from Jansenville cited below has understandably been confused with H. arachnoidea var. aranea because of the fine spination.  It does have the bluish coloration of bolusii.  A short distance away, on dolerite soils as opposed to tillite, the plants are larger and more typical of this species too.

Distribution:
3123 (Richmond): E. Murraysberg (-DD), Bayer 2389; Murraysburg (-DD), Banks (BOL).  3124 (Hanover): W. Graaff- Reinet (-CC), Bayer 2380 (NBG).  3224 (Graaff-Reinet): W. Graaff-Reinet (-BA), Smuts (NBG); Graaff-Reinet (-BA), Bolus 158 (BOL, K), Stayner in KG 232/62, (NBG), Ryder in NBG3152/34 (NBG); Bayer 2022, 2072 (NBG); Adendorp (-BC), Stayner in KG284/62 (NBG); Lootskloof (-DD), Bayer 2071 (NBG).  3225 (Somerset East): NE. Ashbourne (-AC), Bayer & Bruyns 6566 (NBG); NE. Pearston (-CA); Bayer 173 (NBG).  3323 (Willowmore): NE. Fullarton (-BB), Bayer 4160 (NBG); Eensaam (-BB), Marx 56 (NBG).

b.  var. blackbeardiana (V.Poelln.) Bayer
Bayer :103(1976). Bayer :31(1982):  H. blackbeardiana V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 31:82(1932).  Type: Cape, Bowes Farm near Queenstown, Miss G. Blackbeard.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): ex cult. V.Poelln. 1932 (B):  H. blackbeardiana var. major V.Poelln. 41:196(1937).  Type: Cape, Halesowen, Cradock, R. James in Parks 1483/36. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3225 (Somerset East): beyond Halesowen station (-BA), Smith 2301 (NBG):  H. inermis idem. 31:85(1932):  H. altilinea var. inermis idem. 41:194(1937).  H. altilinea var. limpida fa inermis idem. 49:29(1940).  Type: Cape, Halesowen, Cradock (-BA), Stell. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3225(Cradock): Halesowen (-BA), Smith 2289 (NBG):  H. batteniae Scott, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.). 51:268(1979).  Type: CAPE-3225(Cradock):, 35km west of Cradock (-AA), C.L. Scott 5272 (PRE):  H. cooperi Bak. pp. Scott ibid 53:70(1981) as to Cradock and Thomas River.  Scott :104(1985):  H. mucronata Haw. pp. Scott ibid. :80(1986) as to Cradock specimen.

blackbeardiana: in honour of Miss G. Blackbeard.

This variety is generally larger than the typical form and the spination is sparser.  However it is more densely spined than is H. cooperi, and the spines are longer, exceeding 2mm.  The definition is otherwise geographic and the interface with H. cooperi is from south of Cathcart in a southwesterly direction to at least Jansenville.  In the general Rippon Station area there are two adjacent populations, one of which is attributable to this species and the other to H. cooperi.  The Patryshoogte/Baviaanskranz collection is also this species growing in the same general area of H. cooperi var. dielsiana.  The interpretation in this work of H. pringlei Scott as a variety of H. decipiens may be erroneous as it may perhaps be better placed with var. blackbeardiana.  This is also suggested by the Patryshoogte specimens.

There are forms of var. blackbeardiana from the Queenstown area which have very few or sparse short spines, and similarly on the Hogsback mountain.  It has been reported that var. blackbeardiana has been collected in the southern Orange Free State and that its distribution extends considerably westward from Middelburg.  I have no confirmation of this.  There are also reports that it intergrades with H. semiviva in the far west of its range, and the sparse herbarium record suggests that this may be true.

Distribution:
3023 (Britstown): Die Puts (DD), Fuller 193 (BOL).  3024 (Philipstown): Hanover to De Aar (-CD), Stayner in KG307/70 (NBG); 3026 (Aliwal North): Elandshoek (-DA), Smith 6828 (NBG); SE. Aliwal North (-DD), Smith 7471 (NBG).  3123 (Richmond): Richmond (-AC), Stayner in KG591/69 (NBG); Richmond (-BD), Wohlman in KG581/69 (NBG).  3124 (Hanover): Cypherwater (-AD), Bruyns 3010 (NBG); Bethesda Road to Goliadskraal (-BA), Smith 3640 (NBG).  3125(Steynsberg): Thebus (-BC), Smith 3635 (NBG); 8km E. Steynberg (-BD), Smith 3634 (NBG); Tafelberg (-CA), Smith 3828 (NBG), Stayner in KG693/71 (NBG).  3126 (Queenstown): Bowes’ farm (-DD), Britten 160 (BOL), Bayer in KG 312/70 (NBG); Finchams Nek (-DD), Smith 7212 (NBG); Nonesses Nek (-DD), Smith 7216, 7217 (NBG); Longhill (-DD), Bursey in KG393/70 (NBG).  3127 (Molteno): Cofimvaba (-CD), Bruyns 4385 (BOL).  3224 (Graaff Reinet): Kendrew (-DA), Rossouw 183 (NBG).  3225 (Somerset East): 35km west of Cradock (-AA), C.L. Scott 5272 (PRE); Doornberg (-AA), Herre STE6632 (BOL); Denmark (-AB), Bruyns 1769 (NBG); Post Chalmers (-AB), Smith 7444 (NBG); 24km SE. Fish River Stn. (-BA), Smith 5791 (NBG); beyond Halesowen station (-BA), Smith 2301 (NBG); Halesowen (-BA), Smith 2289, 2301, 5340 (NBG), Herre STE6668 (BOL); Cradock (-BA), Smith 2263, 2289 (NBG), Britten (BOL); Swagershoek Pass (-BC), James 474 (BOL), Fourcade 40 (NBG), Bruyns 1627 (NBG); Daggaboer (-BC), James (BOL); Baviaanskranz, Patryshoogte (-DB), Bayer & Bruyns 6561 (NBG); NW. Rippon Stn. (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6556 (NBG).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): Huntley Glen (-AC), Smith 7493 (NBG); Austrey (-AD), Branch 370 (NBG); Katberg (-BC), Luckhoff in NBG407/34 (NBG); Waterdown Dam (-BD), Bayer & Bruyns 6569 (NBG); S. Estrelle (-BD), Bayer & Bruyns 6570 (NBG); Hogsback (-DB), Smith 375 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Imvani (-AA), Bayer in KG311/70 (NBG); 24km N. Cathcart (-AA), Smith 3633 (NBG); N. Waku (-AA), Smith 5718 (NBG); 2km N Goshen (-AA), Branch 20 (NBG); Turnstream (-AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6571 (NBG); New Haven (-AB), Branch 18 (NBG); W. Cathcart (-AC), Smith 5744 (NBG); 16km W. Cathcart (-AC), Smith 38, 358 (NBG); SW. Cathcart (-AC), Barker 3427 (NBG), Bayer in KG310/70, KG393/70 (NBG); Inverbolo (-BC), Bruyns (NBG).

Inadequately located: Winterberg, Tarkastad, Armstrong (BOL); Queenstown, Ingram 1509 (BOL), Galpin 263 (BOL), Dyer 8 (BOL).

Haworthia Revisited – 7. Haworthia chloracantha

7. Haworthia chloracantha Haw., Revis. :57(1821).  Bayer :106(1976).  Bayer :32(1982).  Scott :52(1985).  Aloe chlorocantha Roem. et Schultes, Syst.Veg. 7:641(1929).  Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 13:f1(1836).  Type: Not preserved.  Neotype: icon, 13:f1 Salm-Dyck, Monogr.  Epitype (ex B&M, designated here): N. of Herbertsdale, Bayer in KG411/75 (NBG).

chloracantha: green-thorned.

Rosette from 25-40mm φ, proliferous.  Leaves: erect spreading, firm to slightly scabrid, triangular in cross-section, spines on margins and keel.  Inflorescence simple raceme, lax.  Flowers small.

1982 – H. chloracantha is a fairly localised species occurring in the Herbertsdale, Mossel Bay and Great Brak area.  It occurs as three main varieties.  Firstly the variety chloracantha from north and west of Herbertsdale which is a relatively robust light green form.  The var. denticulifera is a smaller, usually purplish-green form found in and around Mossel Bay, while var. subglauca is a more robust waxygreen form from the granitic soils at Great Brak.  Von Poellnitz, particularly, confused this species with H. angustifolia but it is slightly more scabrid and the marginal teeth are larger and wider apart.  Although more robust, the var. subglauca may reach up to 60-70 mm tall with leaves up to 10 mm broad at their widest.  The var. denticulifera may be as small as 30 mm tall with leaves less than 3 mm broad at their widest.  The relationship between H. chloracantha and H. floribunda to the west is obscure.  The Gouritz River valley effectively divides the two species but there are dubious populations north and south-east of Albertina which may suggest a relationship between these two species (see H. floribunda).  However, it is unlikely that either H. floribunda, H. divergens or H. variegata will be confused with H. chloracantha.

1999 – This species was related to H. angustifolia even prior to the recognition of H. monticola ( H. divergens Bayer, 1982).  H. chloracantha is more probably more directly related to H. floribunda and H. variegata, but it is also possible that the relationship of the varieties given here is incorrect and that the typical variety has weaker links with the southern Cape than the other two varieties.  The new H. monticola var. asema from Calitzdorp, as well as the discovery of H. outeniquensis, also need to be taken into consideration.

It appears that the dark-green erect plants from southeast and east of Albertinia (Cooper Siding) should be regarded as H. chloracantha and not as H. floribunda.  The population at Draaihoek to the north, includes plants which resemble H. parksiana and it may best be related to H. floribunda.  Plants with erect leaves growing with H. parksiana at Groot Brak have been regarded as H. floribunda and it is more probable that they are in fact also H. chloracantha.  It seems improbable that three similar species, in which the affinities with one another are in question, can co-occur.

M-07-chloracantha

a. var.chloracantha.
The typical variety is taken to be the very proliferous green forms around Herbertsdale and along the Gouritz River as it passes through the Langeberg mountains.  While Breuer and Metzing do not use the Salm Dyck illustration to typify this name, that illustration and the icon in Bergers revision in Fas Pflanzenreich, are really the main sources for the application of the name.

Distribution:
3321 (Ladismith): Gouritz Gorge (-DC), Burgers 2317 (NBG) N. Herbertsdale (-DD), Bayer 411/75 (NBG).  3421 (Riversdale): Herbertsdale (-BB), Smith 5053, 5156 (NBG).

b. var. denticulifera (V.Poelln.) Bayer
:112(1976).  Bayer :32(1982).  H. angustifolia var. denticulifera V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:194(1937), ibid. 44:228(1938).  Type: Cape, Montagu, Mrs Helm. Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): icon (B).:  H. angustifolia var. lilliputana Uitew. Sukkulenta 43(1953).  Type:  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3422 (Mossel Bay): Hill above Mossel Bay (-AA), Courtenay-Latimer in Smith 5223 (NBG).

denticulifera: bearing small teeth.

This variety is dark-green and occurs around Little Brak and Mossel Bay.  It also occurs along the lower Gouritz Valley where it has been previously assigned to H. floribunda.  Von Poelnitz (1938) cited a number of improbable localities for this element as a variety of H. angustifolia.  These included Montagu, Calitzdorp, Riversdale and Great Brak.  It is generally concluded that the plants originated from the greater Great Brak area.  Uitewaal’s smaller plants – var. lilliputana – are comparable with the population which occurs within the town of Mossel Bay itself.  The specimen cited from the Duiwenhoeks causeway is also one with erect pointed leaves which draws the relation with H. floribunda into the discussion.

Distribution:
3420 (Bredasdorp): Duiwenhoks Causeway (-BD), Muller-Doblies 82/098 (NBG).  3421 (Riversdale): Cooper Siding (-BB), Bayer 3586 (NBG); 3km N Gouritzmond (-BD), Smith 7519 (NBG), Bayer 3586 (NBG).  3422 (Mossel Bay): 2km N. Mossel Bay (-AA), Smith 2896 (NBG); 1km N. Mossel Bay (-AA), Smith 3958 (NBG); Mossel Bay (-AA), Smith 5223, 5750 (NBG); Little Brak (-AA), Smith 5751 (NBG); Great Brak (-AA), Bouwer (NBG).

Inadequately located: ex hort. Armstrong in Smith 2830 (NBG).

c. var. subglauca V.Poelln.,
Kakteenkunde 9:135(1937).  Bayer :106(1976).  Bayer:32(1982).  Type: Cape, Great Brak, Mrs Helm.  Not preserved.  Neotype (B&M): Great Brak, Hurling & Neil (BOL).

subglauca: nearly glaucous.

As stated above, this variety differs in coloration from the other two varieties and in the larger sparser spines.  There is a specimen cited rather vaguely as from near Zebra which could perhaps be H. outeniquensis.

Distribution:
3422 (Mossel Bay): Great Brak (-AA), Fourcade 18 (NBG), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Ferguson 1 (BOL), Smith 2889 (NBG); E. Great Brak (-AA), Smith 2885, 3957 (NBG); Bayer in KG(98/71 (NBG); George (-AA), Malherbe in NBG304/40 (NBG), Fourcade in NBG2617/34 (NBG).

Inadequately located: ex hort, Pillans (BOL). Heyn’s farm near Zebra, van der Bijl 474 (BOL).

Haworthia Revisited – 8. Haworthia cooperi

8. Haworthia cooperi Baker, Saund.Ref.Bot. 4:t.233(1871).  Bayer :109(1976).  Bayer :33(1982).  pp. Scott :103(1985) as to Adelaide.  H. arachnoidea (Haw.) Duv. sensu Pole-Evans, Flow.Pl.S.Afr. 7:t.248(1927).  Type (B&M): Cape, Cooper (K):  H. vittata Baker, loc.cit. :t.263.  Type: Not preserved.  Lectotype: icon t.234, Saund.Ref.Bot. cooperi: for Thomas Cooper.

Rosette to 120mm φ, often proliferous, stemless. Leaves 20-40, fleshy, swollen, oblong-lanceolate, quickly tapering, acuminate or truncating, marginal spines <2mm long if present.  Bluish-green in colour, slightly translucent, with veins usually reddening and leaves developing purplish hues in exposed situations.  Inflorescence compact, firm peduncle with many closely arranged flowers, to 20cm long.  Flowers 20-30, perianth white.

1982 – This species is beautifully illustrated in Refugium Botanicum and two other species, H. pilifera and H. vittata, were also described and illustrated here.  The name H. pilifera has been most commonly used for plants with relatively blunt leaves which occur in the Eastern Cape particularly around King Williamstown.  The name H. vittata was similarly applied to the longer-leaved forms in the Thomas River and Cathcart areas which probably intergrade with H. bolusii.  However, the name H. cooperi can equally be applied and has page preference over the other two names.  H. cooperi is very common widespread and variable as the synonymy suggests.  It is logical to suppose that in this case Haworth must have received specimens at some time or another.  Uitewaal attempted to apply the name H. obtusa Haw. which has since been refuted by Bayer and Pilbeam (1974).  Scott similarly implemented H. altilinea Haw. but uses the name in a restricted sense to exclude all three of Baker’s names, as well as names such as H. limpida and H. mucronata.  The writer’s contention is that the name H. altilinea is a source of confusion and should for the present at least, be rejected. There are thus the four species with translucent bluish-, or greyish-green leaves as indicated in the key.  H. cooperi is distinguished by its generally less hairy or shortly haired leaves.  The leaves are obtuse to obtuse-ovate although forms with longer, more acuminate leaves also occur.  These usually have thicker leaves than corresponding forms in H. bolusii and the leaves are also less hairy.  Scott comments on the withdrawal of plants into the ground, and the question of exposure and soil substrate are responsible for much of the variability in the species.  In ‘stayneri’ collected at Bethelsdorp near Port Elizabeth, and in several other populations, the leaf veins actually become necrotic and the leaf-ends truncated.  In ‘gordoniana’ from Hankey this does not occur.

H. cooperi is a species of the dry grassveld areas of the Eastern Cape and occurs in the high-lying sourveld of the Zuurberg to the dry Valley Bushveld of the Fish River.  Size varies enormously from small glabrous plants less than 40 mm in diameter southwest of Grahamstown, to enormous hairy specimens over 100 mm in diameter at Keiskamma.  The variety leightonii is exceptional in that it occurs on the edges of exposed granite slabs west of East London.  This variety is very proliferous and is characterised by the persistence of reddish coloration in the leaf veins.

1999 – One of the difficulties with this species is in its relationship with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, and here the typical variety is applied to that intermediate element in the Thomas River area.  This does not represent the main body of the species at all, which is a product of the nomenclatural system.  Also the previous Handbooks do not present any idea of the variation in this species.  There is an additional problem in the association with H. cymbiformis.  Uitewaal really exposed the problem with his recognition of the name ‘obtusa’ of Haworth for this species.  Bayer and Pilbeam refuted this by suggesting that Uitewaal had misinterpreted Haworth’s description and the illustration associated with it.  Scott similarly refuted Uitewaal and also applied the name as a variety of H. cymbiformis.  However, he illustrated a blue-green variant which we regard as H. cooperi var. obtusata, a new name, in this work.  There is clearly a problem in finding a point of origin for ‘obtusa’ as variant of H. cymbiformis rather than of H. cooperi, and that is answered under the former species.  However, herbarium records indicate a problem in the broader Alicedale/Adelaide areas where truncation and abbreviation of the leaves of both species seems to be evident, together with the problem of green versus blue coloration.  The essential difference between the two species – which generally have the same distribution range and very often co-occur – is that H. cooperi is an open ground species, whereas H. cymbiformis occurs on rocky shelves and cliffs. It is interesting that even a variety like leightonii has a tendency to resemble H. cymbiformis, by acquiring an opaque yellowish-green coloration as opposed to the required blue-green for the species cooperi.  This is a common problem in trying to absolutely circumscribe the species.  But even outside of that, there has been a massive problem in the plethora of names attached to either species.  Both extend into the mountains north and west of Port Elizabeth and it is not clear just how this relates to other species which do the same.  The following varieties are recognised.

M-08-cooperi

a. var. cooperi.
The typical variety occurs in the Thomas River area and is along the transition zone to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana.  The distinction is that the leaves are slightly more acuminate and the venation tends to acquire reddish tints, while general coloration tends to a purplish hue.  The leaf spines are also generally less than 2mm long.

Distribution:
3225 (Somerset East): 30km S. Cradock (-BD), Smith 5194 (NBG); Bruintjieshoogte (-CB), Britten in PRE 34923, Bayer 2024 (NBG); 11km S. Somerset East (-DC), Smith 2841 (NBG).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): Bobbejaanrivier, Bedford (-CA), Smith 2244 (NBG); Koonap Bridge (-CD), Bayer & Bruyns 6563 (NBG); Elandskop, Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2687, 2797, 2799 (NBG); Adelaide (-CD), Krynauw in NBG270/43; Katberg (-DA), Herre in STE6607 (BOL), Read in BOL71291, Smith 2773 (NBG); Warfield (-DB), Venter 91/82 (NBG); Woburn (-DB), Smith 578 (NBG); Alice, Stewart Memorial (-DD), Smith 5211 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Thorn River near Cathcart (-AC), Acocks 11003; W. Cathcart (-AC), Bayer in KG 392/70 (NBG); Thomas River (-AD), Smith 3631 (NBG), Scott 1720 (NBG), Stayner in KG402/61 (NBG); Tsomo (-BB), Branch 13 (NBG).

Inadequately located: ex hort. Stanford (BOL).

b. var. dielsiana (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb. nov. 
H. dielsiana V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 28:103(1930).  H. pilifera var. dielsiana idem. 49:27(1940).  H. obtusa var. dielsiana (V.Poelln.) Uitew., Succ. 29:50(1948).  Type: Cape, Sheldon, H.H. Hutton 489. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325(Somerset East): Sheldon (-BB), A.J. van der Merwe in Smith 1140 (NBG).  H. joeyae Scott, Bradleya 13:80(1995).  Type: CAPE-3225( Somerset East): a few kilometers NE. of Cookhouse (-BD), Scott (GRA).

dielsiana: in honour of Prof. Diels of Berlin, Dahlem.

There appear to be two elements within the species with very truncated leaf ends.  The first is this variety from the western area in which the leaves are variously truncated and obtuse. Smith records a wide range of forms with or without leaf spines and some with very rounded leaf-ends.  Sometimes the leaf-margins are almost ridge-like. The leaf-tips do not appear to become necrotic as happens in the var. pilifera. The leaf awn is virtually absent and the leaves tend to have marked venation.  The keel and margins tend to be rounded.

Distribution:
3225 (Somerset East): Sheldon (-BB), Smith 1140 (NBG), Hutton in Herre 489 (BOL); 5km E. Somerset East (-DA), Bayer & Bruyns 6565 (NBG); Glen Avon (-DA), Smith 5790 (NBG); Merantes Kloof (-DB), Smith 3492 (NBG); Eastpoort (-DB), Smith 3491, 3493 (NBG), Reynolds (BOL), Bayer & Bruyns 6558, 6559, 6560 (NBG); Little Fish (-DC), Smith 5550 (NBG).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): 10km N. Adelaide (-CB) Krynauw in NBG267/43, Krynauw in NBG687/41; 19km NE. Adelaide (-CB), Krynauw in NBG269/43 (NBG); Chancery Hall (-CB), Bayer & Bruyns 6564 (NBG); Kagasmond (-CC), Krynauw in NBG273/43; Paardefontein, SE. Adelaide (-CD); Brakfontein, Kroomie (-CD), Smith 5112 (NBG); Koonap (-CD), Smith 7131 (NBG); Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2687 (NBG); 30km S. Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2240 (NBG); Somerset East (-DA), Fouche in PRE 34919; Woburn; Tyumie river (-DB), Acocks 13575 (PRE); W. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6592 (NBG); S. Fort Beaufort (-DC),  Bayer & Bruyns 6591 (NBG); E. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Smith 3489 (NBG); 16km N. Cradock road (-DC), Britten in PRE 34918.

Inadequately located: Ross’ Mission, Smith 7492 (NBG); Zaysdorp NBG1019/25; ex hort Whitehill (NBG), Ross-Frames (NBG), Stanford (BOL).

c. var. gordoniana (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb. nov. 
pp H. cooperi (Bak.) Bayer :119(1972).  pp. Bayer :33(1982).  H. gordoniana V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 42:269(1937).  H. pilifera var. gordoniana V.Poelln. idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. gordoniana (V.Poelln.) Uitew., Succulenta 29:50(1948).  Type: Zuurbron, Hankey, Long 814. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3324 (Steytlerville): Patensie (-DD), Smith 3028 (NBG).

gordoniana: in honour of Gordon King.

There are many variations of small glabrous and spined plants in the Hankey/Patensie area and it is rather problematic to decide to which species they really belong.  Von Poellnitz associated his species with H. cooperi as recognised in this work and it is thus the small blue-green element which is nearly identical to his H. stayneri.  Unlike the latter which is made synonymous with H. cooperi var. pilifera the leaf tips do not truncate on exposure to direct sun.  It differs from similar plants which are regarded as H. gracilis, in that the outer leaves stay incurved and are sparsely spined.  Also the leaves are usually more thickly turgid than in that species.  The plants are less proliferous and tend to be withdrawn into the soil.

Distribution:
3323 (Willowmore): Redcliffe (-BA), Bruyns 7062 (BOL); Uniondale Poort (-CA), Bayer 4404 (NBG); Damse Drif (-CA), Bruyns 1651, 1652 (NBG); Nuwekloof (-CA), Bruyns 1840 (NBG); Saptou (-CB), Bruyns 7079 (BOL); Studtjes (-DB), Bruyns 2190 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Enkeldoorn (-CB), Perry 1427 (NBG), Bean (NBG); Holgat Kloof (-CC), van Jaarsveld 6885 (NBG); Moordenaarskloof (-CD), Stayner in KG673/71 (NBG);  Grootriver Poort (-DA), Bruyns 2202 (NBG); Quagga to Cambria (-DA), Smith 2912 (NBG); Cambria (-DA), Smith 2904 (NBG); Ouplaas (-DB), Bruyns 7043 (BOL); 2km E. Hankey (-DD), Rossouw 141 (NBG); Patensie (-DD), Smith 3025 (NBG); E. Patensie (-DD), Smith 2908 (NBG); S. Hankey (-DD), Smith 3186 (NBG); Hankey (-DD), Smith 2905 (NBG); 5km N. Hankey (-DD), Bayer in KG193/73 (NBG); N. Hankey (-DD), Smith 2883, 3687 (NBG); NE. Hankey (-DD), Bayer 4474 (NBG), Stayner in KG180/71 (NBG); E. Hankey (-DD), Smith 2597, 2893, 2980 (NBG); Stayner in KG180/71 (NBG); 7km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Smith 3671 (NBG); 5km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6553 (NBG); 8km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6554 (NBG); N. Joubertina (-DD), Venter 91/64 (NBG).  3325DC Coega Kop(-DC), Long 1132 (PRE).  3424 (Humansdorp): Jeffrey’s Bay (-BB), Bayer & Venter 6597 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Herre STE6609 (BOL).

d. var. leightonii (Smith) Bayer
:128(1976).  Bayer :34(1982).  H. leightonii Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 16:10(1950).  Scott :107(1985).  pp. H. cooperi Bak., Scott, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 53:70(1981).  Type: CAPE-3327 (Peddie): Kayser’s Beach (-BA), Smith 6938 (NBG).

leightonii: for I. Leighton.

There are several populations of this variety and the circumscription is enlarged to include those from further to the northwest in which the leaves are also more lanceolate and untruncated.  It is almost certainly an ecotype associated with the granitic slabs of the coastal area near Kayser’s Beach, where the plants are very proliferous indeed.  This, and the strong purplish coloration, characterise the variety.

Distribution:
3327 (Peddie): Kaysers Beach (-BA), I.H. Leighton in NBG 68362, Smith 6938 (NBG), Bayer in KG6/72 (NBG), Venter 91/105 (NBG); SW. Paynes Hill (-BA), Smith 514 (NBG); Bayer 1621 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Kingwilliamstown, Taylor 3039 (NBG), Leighton in NBG662/34.

e. var. pilifera (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb.nov. 
H. pilifera Baker, Saund.Ref.Bot. 4:t.234(1871).  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:236(1938).  Scott :104(1985).  H. obtusa var. pilifera (Baker) Uitew., Succulenta 29:50(1948).  Type: Not preserved.  Lectotype (here designated): icon, :t.234, Saund.Ref.Bot.:  H. stayneri V.Poelln. loc.cit. 42:270(1937).  H. pilifera var. stayneri idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. stayneri (V.Poelln.) Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: 14m Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage, F.J.Stayner. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): 13.8m Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage (-DD), F.J.Stayner in KG 2/70 (NBG):  H. stayneri var. salina V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 42:271(1937).  H. pilifera var. salina idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. salina (V.Poelln.)Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: Cape, Bethelsdorp Salt Pan, Mrs King. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): Bethelsdorp salt pan (-DD), Smith 5817 (NBG):  H. pilifera var. dielsiana fa acuminata V.Poelln. loc.cit. 49:27(1940).  H. obtusa var. dielsiana fa acuminata (V.Poelln.) Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: 4m from Kingwilliamstown, F.A.Fouche.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3227(Kingwilliamstown): 5km Kingwilliamstown to Pirie Dam (-CC), Smith 3913 (NBG):  H. altilinea Haw. sensu Scott, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 34:53(1979).  Scott :84(1985).

pilifera: with hairs.

This variety constitutes the main body of the species which is centred about Kingwilliamstown and Grahamstown.  It is characterised by the obtuse acuminate end-area with a pronounced point to the leaf.  The margins and keel are sharply angled.  It is very closely drawn into the soil surface and, on exposure to direct sunlight truncates to form a necrotic end-area.

Distribution:
3128 (Umtata): Viedgesville (-DA), Rush in KG87/80 (NBG).  3225(Somerset East): Little Fish (-DA), Smith 5551 (NBG); Cookhouse, Patryshoogte (-DD), Long 1462 (PRE).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): 24km S. Bedford (-AC), Bursey in KG335/70 (NBG); Good Hope, Alice (-DD), Smith 5496 (NBG); Fort Hare, Cressey in NBG2132/26 BOL); Alice (-DD), Smith 5210 (NBG); Middledrift (-DD), Smith 5342 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Peddie (-AA), Smith 5654 (NBG); Fort Murray Bridge (-BD), Bayer (NBG); E. Kieskammahoek (-CA), Smith 6065 (NBG); Kieskammahoek (-CA), Smith 5309, 7350 (NBG); Stayner (NBG); 5km Kingwilliamstown to Pirie Dam (-CC), Smith 3110, 3913 (NBG): (-CC), Dyer 2079 (PRE); Golf course (-CD), Scott 1980 (PRE), Crampton in NBG1096/28 (NBG), Taylor in NBG250/34 (NBG); Line Drift (-CD), Smith 5434 (NBG); Balazi (-CD), Smith 3574 (NBG); St Johns Drift (-DA), Bayer 1623 (NBG); Near Komgha (-DB), Flanagan 1116 (BOL, PRE); Brigadoon (-DC), Bayer 4460 (NBG); Buffalo River (-DC), Smith in NBG343/35 (NBG); Bridal Drift (-DC), Smith 386 (NBG); Cambridge (-DD), Grenfell in NBG872/35.  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Cookhouse to Zuurberg (-BA), Smith 3494 (NBG); Shenfield (-BB), Blackburn in BOL71305; Kommadagga (-BB), Bruyns 1651 (NBG); 18km N. Zuurberg Inn (-BC), Stayner in PRE 57676; Enon (-BC), Dyer 498a (PRE); Zuurberg (-BC), Stayner in KG685/71 (NBG); Addo Park (-BD), Branch 31 (NBG); Bauerskraal (-CB), Bayer & Venter 6559 (NBG); Despatch (-CD), Muir 13133 (PRE). 1km W. Uitenhage (-CD), Smith 5818 (NBG), Britten (BOL); 22km Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage (-DC), F.J.Stayner in KG 2/70 (NBG); E. Uitenhage (-DC), Smith 3582 (NBG); Bethelsdorp salt pan (-DC), Smith 5817 (NBG), Stayner in KG2/70; Redhouse (-DC), Paterson 431 (BOL).  3326(Grahamstown): E. Riebeek East (-AA), Smith 5219 (NBG); Willowfountain (-AA), Bayer 1622 (NBG); Blaauwkrantz (-AC), Dyer 2306 (PRE); NW. Salem (-AD), Bayer 4450 (NBG); 8km N. Grahamstown (-AD), Smith 5628 (NBG), Britten in BOL71290;  The Fort (-BA), Smith 5065 (NBG); Keiskamma near Breakfast Vlei (-BB), Acocks 11871 (PRE); Debe Nek (-BB), Smith 3545 (NBG); N. Committees (-BB), Smith 5435 (NBG); E. Committees (-BB), Smith 5430 (NBG); Committees (-BB), Smith 2428, 5352, 5353, 5366 (NBG), 16km N. Cradock road (-BC), Marloth 12607 (PRE); Grahamstown (-BC), Whitmore in NBG1238/24 (NBG), Erens in PRE 34929; Bothas Hill (-BC), Smith 5355 (NBG);  Frazers Camp (-BD), Smith 5215, 7413 (NBG); Peninsula (-DA), Bayer in KG383/70 (NBG); Brigadoon (-DC), Bayer in KG382/70 (NBG).  3327(East London): S. Kingwilliamstown (-AB), Krynauw in NBG684/41 (NBG); E. Chalumna (-BA), Smith 5773 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Cape ex hort, Marloth 5861 (PRE); Grahamstown, Dyer 1 (BOL), Britten in BOL71289; Leighton in NBG662/34, in BOL71301 (BOL); Kingwilliamstown, Sim 1030 (BOL), Herre in STE6619 (BOL); Mquakwebe, Leighton in BOL20734-6, in Smith 6938 (BOL).

e. var. truncata (Jacobs.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov. 
H,. obtusa var. truncata Jacobs., Nat. Catt. Succ. J. 10: 81 (1955). Type: Not preserved. Neotype: (B&M in ms.): icon in Jacobsen, Handbuch der Sukk. Pfl. 724, f644 (1956). Epitype: CAPE-3227 (Stutterheim): Runlets, Mgwali (-DA), Smith 5295 (NBG).

truncata: with obtuse leaves.

Rosette proliferous, to 70mm φ, Leaves 20-25, 20-25 x 8mm wide, pale blue-green, erect, truncated, translucent and lightly veined above.  (A var. cooperi foliis parvioribus truncatis differt).

I am grateful to I. Breuer for drawing attention to the possible correct application of this name. The important arbiter would actually be colour, which Jacobsen does not stipulate.  However, Breier suggests the plants from the Bolo Reserve distributed under I.S.I. No. 1762 represent Jacobsen’s variety; otherwise I would have incorporated it with H. cymbiformis var. obtusa. This is a smaller variety than the western var. dielsiana with similarly truncated leaves, and the distinction is largely on geographical grounds.  Other differences are the smaller size, the rapid off-setting, and the almost unlined leaves of the var. truncata as opposed to var. dielsiana.   The var. truncata is at the northeast of the distribution range of the species where it extends into the Transkei.  Both Bayer and Pilbeam, and Scott have attempted to refute Uitewaal’s interpretation of H. obtusa Haw. as an earlier synonym for H. cooperi.  This is a case in which the option is entirely an open one.  How and why Uitewaal chose to depart from the general application of the name seems to be the norm for Haworthia.

Distribution:
3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Hunts Drift (-AC), Smith 5175 (NBG); Inerbolo (-BC), Bruyns (NBG); Mgwali (-BC), Smith 5193 (NBG); Runlets, Mgwali (-DA), Smith 5295 (NBG).

g. var. venusta (Scott) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. venusta Scott, Bradleya 14:87(1996).  Type: CAPE-3226 (Grahamstown): NE. Alexandria (-DA), Britten 781 (GRA).

venusta: charming, and for Miss Grace Britten. Her excellent herbarium sheet led to the recent rediscovery by Gerhard Marx.

This very handsome variety is, surprisingly, coarse white-haired, exaggerating the slightly hairy tendency foundin the other varieties. It offsets sparsely if at all, and remains quite small.

Distribution:
3326 (Grahamstown): NE. Alexandria (-DA), Britten 781 (GHS, NBG), Britten and Archibald 781 (BOL, PRE).

Haworthia Revisited – 9. Haworthia cymbiformis

9. Haworthia cymbiformis (Haw.) Duv., Pl.Succ.Hort.Alenc. :7(1809).  Bayer :110(1976).  Bayer :35(1982).  Scott :91(1985).  H. concava Haw. Revis. :58(1821).  Aloe cymbiformis Haw., Trans.Linn.Soc. 7:8(1804).  Sims, Bot.Mag. 1:21,t.802(1805).  Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 11:t.1(1840). Type: Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): icon, t.802, Bot.Mag..  Epitype (ex B&M): Walmer, Port Elizabeth, Smith 2844 (NBG):  H. planifolia Haw., Phil.Mag. 44:282(1825).  H. cymbiformis var. planifolia (Haw.) Baker JLinn.Soc. 18:209(1880).  Aloe planifolia (Haw.) Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 11:t.2(1840).  Type: icon. t2, Salm-Dyck, Monogr. 1840:  H. cymbiformis var. angustata V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:166(1938).  Type:  Discovery region unknown, T.Foster.  Not preserved:  H. cymbiformis var. angustata fa subarmata idem. 45:166(1938).  Type: Rocklands, Adelaide, W.E.Armstrong in Triebn. 1187.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3226 (Fort Beaufort): Rocklands, W.E.Armstrong in Smith 2801 (NBG):  H. cymbiformis var. compacta Triebn. idem. Type: Cape, west of Peddie, Mrs G. McLaren in Triebn. 1148.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3327 (Peddie): W Woolridge, Peddie (-AB), Bayer 4648 (NBG).  H. planifolia var. exulata V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 43:93(1938).  idem. 45:162(1938).  Type: Cape, Ubi?, C.H.Woolley in Long 392.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): Photogr. H.G.Fourcade of Long 392 (NBG):  H. planifolia var. planifolia fa agavoides Triebn. et V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:162(1938).  Type: Cape, Fort Beaufort, W.E.Armstrong in Triebn. 1169.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3226 (Fort Beaufort): Sulphur Baths (-DC), Bayer 4655 (NBG):  et fa alta ibid. Type: Cape, Grahamstown, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 851.  Not preserved:  et fa olivacea ibid.  Type: Cape, Quagga West, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 853.  Not preserved:  et fa robusta ibid.  Type: Cape, Baakens Valley, Mrs I.King 100 in Triebn. 1066.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325(Port Elizabeth): Baakens Valley (-DC), Smith 3894 (NBG):  et var. incrassata V.Poell. idem. 45:163(1938).  Type: Cape, Kowie River, Mrs Archibald 335 in Long 446.  Not preserved:  et var. sublaevis V.Poelln., Kakteenk. 6:67(1938).  idem., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:163(1938).  Type: Albany district, Mrs Britten in Triebn. 940.  Not preserved:  et var. longifolia Triebn. et V.Poelln. idem.  Type: Cape, Grahamstown, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 864.  Not preserved:  et var. longifolia fa calochlora ibid.  Type: Cape, Port Elizabeth, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 941.  Not preserved:  H. planifolia var. poellnitziana Res. ibid. 48:133(1940).  Type: ex Hort., Hamburg.  Not preserved:  H. lepida Smith JS.Afr.Bot. 10:21(1944).  Type: Cape, Albany district, between Carlisle Bridge and Fort Brown, Smith 5066 (NBG).

cymbiformis: boat-shaped.

Rosette to 130mm φ, partially stemmed, proliferous.  Leaves broad ovate to lanceolate, flat to slightly concave, generally <1/3 as thick as wide, usually opaque, green turning yellowish to pink hued on exposure.  Inflorescence to 250mm, 10-15 flowers, lax.  Flowers white.

1982 – This name has been used interchangeably with H. planifolia for a very widespread and variable species growing in the Eastern Cape.  This species has practically the same distribution range as H. cooperi but unlike that species is an opaque, truer green colour.  It forms dense mats with a fairly superficial root system and grows on rocky slopes and krantzes along rivers and streams.  H. planifolia Haw. was only described in 1825 and was stated to be less proliferous and with distinctly flatter leaves.  Baker placed the two species together and a study of Von Poellnitz’s and Smith’s records plainly show that neither could clearly distinguish these two species.  Von Poellnitz in fact described H. planifolia var. transiens and H. cymbiformis var. translucens from the same locality, and even stated that he did not know how to clearly separate the two species.  Von Poellnitz in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 41:199(1937) records H. cymbiformis from Graaff Reinett (Triebner 861) but in 1938 (ibid. 45:163) describes H. planifolia var. incrassata from the same collection.  Berger, in a masterly piece of irrationality, justified separate sections for the two species.  Smith transferred H. incurvula V.Poelln. from the section Muticae to the section Obtusatae, on the basis of observed continuity with H. cymbiformis.  In Flowering Plants of Southern Africa (pl. 356, 1929) a plant identical to H. incurvula is illustrated under the name H. cymbiformis var. planifolia (Haw.) Baker.  It can only be concluded that one name be retained for the entire complex and this is H. cymbiformis.

Uitewaal (1948) put forward the view that H. obtusa was not related to H. cymbiformis at all, but that is was an earlier name for H. pilifera (here a synonym of H. cooperi).  He based his observation on a colour plate in the Kew herbarium, and goes as far as to say that Haworth’s original description is faulty.  The strongest argument in favour of Uitewaal’s contention is the historical one.  None of Haworth’s species can be referred to Baker’s H. cooperi and this is hard to concede knowing how widespread and variable that species is.  The name H. obtusa is here considered to be probably synonymous with H. cymbiformis and should probably be rejected as superfluous and as a source of confusion.  The distribution range extends from the Bashee River in Transkei, to Prince Alfred’s Pass in the west, and northwards to Fort Beaufort.  Variation within individual populations is small but no two populations are quite the same.  Thus there is scope for a good many more varieties than previously recognised.  However, to stay within manageable limits, only the one really different form viz. fa ramosa with the elongated stem, and varieties not limited to single populations, are upheld.  The var. incurvula is apparently restricted to Plutosvale which is a contradiction, but, because Smith discusses continuity with H. cymbiformis (atypical for Smith and not borne out by his field records), because of the possibility of a relationship with H. translucens subsp. tenera, and because of similar forms occurring in the Humansdorp area, it is maintained.  The var. transiens is really only more translucent, and at the type locality also larger, than incurvula, otherwise they may have been considered synonymous.  The var. umbraticola is a distinctive variety from the Swartwaterpoort west of Alicedale and northeastwards to Fort Beaufort. The leaves are very obtuse and round in cross‑section.  The fenestrate blunt tips with shining pellucid areas separated by dark green lines, make it a most attractive variety.  H. cymbiformis occurs primarily in the summer rainfall area and is very easy to grow in cultivation.  It proliferates to an rapidly and should be exposed to at least some direct sunlight to prevent bloating and excessive softening of the plants.  This species is also particularly prone to losing its roots with overwatering so it is also essentially a winter‑growing species which likes at least some resting period during the summer.

1999 – Sims in 1805 commented on the name H. cymbiformis, saying ‘Its name (with too much latitude by the way) is taken from its leaves’, which prompted Haworth to change the name to H. concava.  Von Poellnitz repeatedly exclaimed at the poor coloration of these plants in Europe as opposed to the colours which the plants develop under good light, when they are indeed very attractive.  The two illustrations in Salm Dyck’s Monograph of Aloe cymbiformis and Aloe planifolia are really very similar in relation to the variation within this one species.  One would think thus that a more sensible and conservative approach to species would have been achieved a great deal earlier than it has.  It is not obvious to which species H. cymbiformis is most closely allied, but it does seem to be closely associated with H. cooperi.  Bayer and Pilbeam may have been in error in their treatment of Uitewaal’s re-appraisal of H. obtusa Haw. as it is not easy to find the obvious field counterpart.  The solution suggested below may not be the most appropriate.  Col Scott also regarded obtusa as a variety of H. cymbiformis but unfortunately seems to have illustrated the H. cooperi variant.  A population on the Kat River near Fort Beaufort sampled by Scott, supports his argument and the decision taken here.  The explanation regarding the var. incurvula in the 1982 Handbook is poorly constructed.  What was meant, was the recognition of the variety despite its limited distribution, because of the evidence claimed by G.G. Smith, and because of its possible transitional nature towards H. gracilis.  H. lepida is regarded as a variant of H. cymbiformis because it could not be re-located despite a detailed description of the one locality where it was recorded.  A collection further to the east does not appear to differ dramatically from an already wide range of forms.

Breuer and Metzing nominate a specimen as a neotype when the early illustrations are excellent and are really the basis for the correct and historical application of the name. Haworth cited and accepted the illustrations in Botanical Magazine as well.

M-09-cymbiformis

a. var. cymbiformis.
The typical species is considered to comprise the main body of the species which occurs from Port Elizabeth, eastwards to East London and inland to Adelaide and Committees on the Fish River.  Plants in this area tend to have broad, flat smooth leaves without spines.

Distribution: 3226 (Fort Beaufort): Near Alice (-DB), Smith 5635 (NBG); Kat River, W. Alice (-DB), Smith 105 (NBG); 13km S. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Smith 5617, 5617a (NBG); Rocklands (-DC), W.E.Armstrong in Smith 2801 (NBG); Sulphur Baths (-DC), Smith 2795, 3826, 7371 (NBG), Bayer 4655 (NBG); W. Sulphur Baths (-DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6593 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Debe Nek (-CC), Britten in PRE 39472; Fort Murray Bridge (-CD), Smith 3111, 3317, 3576 (NBG); Bridal Drift (-DC), Smith 2806 (NBG); Umdanzini (-DD), Smith 5336, 5337 (NBG).  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Kranspoort, W. Patterson (-BC), Bayer 4549 (NBG); Slagboom Dam (-BC), Branch 37 (NBG); Below old Fort (-DC), Smith 5040 (NBG); Walmer (-DC), Smith 2790, 2844 (NBG); Baakens Valley (-DC), Smith 3894 (NBG), Paterson 155 (BOL).  3326 (Grahamstown): Fish River valley (-AA), Dyer 4549 (PRE); Carlisle Bridge (-AA), Smith 5567, 5597 (NBG); Cloudlands (-AB), Britten in BOL71308; Howiesonspoort (-AD), Smith 105a, 439, 909, 2843b, 5302, 5305 (NBG); The Fort (-BA), Courtenay-Latimer in Smith 5066 (BOL, PRE), Smith 5066 (NBG, PRE); Between Carlisle Bridge and Fort Brown (-BA), Smith 5066 (NBG); E. Fort Brown (-BA), Bayer 1620 (NBG); Ballinafad (-BB), Smith 3365, 5404a, 5405a (NBG), Bayer 4652 (NBG); Horseshoe (-BB), Smith 2765, 3124, 5311, 5312 (NBG); Committees (-BB), Compton 17834 (NBG), Smith 5071, 5404 (NBG); 3km W. Committees (-BB), Smith 3382 (NBG); S. Committees (-BB), Smith in NBG322/40; Giffords Bush (-BB), Smith 1997 (NBG); 30km E. Peddie (-BB), Smith 3515 (NBG); Grahamstown (-BC), Britten 218 (PRE); Grahamstown (-BC), Britten in PRE 34903; Grahamstown (-BC), Britten in PRE 39480; Grahamstown (-BC), Curator PRE Bot. Garden in PRE 26300; 24km S. Grahamstown (-BC); Stayner in KG254/70; Blaaukranz (-BC), Smith 5544 (NBG); Fernkloof (-BC), Smith 5629 (NBG); Mt. Drive (-BC), Britten (NBG), Dyer 6 (BOL); Kowie (-BC), Dyer 7 (BOL); Kariega (-DA), Branch 43 (NBG); Bussock Farm (-DA), Smith 768 (NBG).  3327 (East London): Peddie (-AA), Smith 3112 (NBG); Paradise, Wooldridge (-AA), Smith 2800, 5602, 5671 (NBG); Gqora (-AA), Smith 5777 (NBG); W Woolridge, Peddie (-AB), Smith 3113, 3115 (NBG), Bayer 4648 (NBG); Kapp-Fish confluence (-AC), Bayer 4654 (NBG); Kaffirdrift (-AC), Smith 655, 5255, 5261, 5262, 5263, 5274 (NBG); E. Fish River (-AC), Smith 5256 (NBG); Wesley to Falloden (-AD), Smith 3157 (NBG); Chalumna (-BB), Smith 571, 2786, 3089, 3391, 3392, 5131, 5313, 5400, 6199 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Cape, Marloth 6284 (PRE), Long in Smith 3892 (NBG), Smith 398, 2804, 3112 (NBG), Stellenbosch 3889, 5560; ex hort, Ross-Frames in NBG76/48; Zaysdorp, NBG101825, Warden (BOL); ex hort, Whitehill (NBG); Albany, Dyer in NBG1806/30, Britten in NBG 734/31, Luyt in NBG309/45.

b. var. incurvula (V.Poelln.) Bayer
:124(1976).  Bayer :36(1982).  Scott :94(1985).  H. incurvula V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 31:85(1932).  H. cymbiformis var. planifolia Flow.Pl.S.Afr. 9:t356(1929).  Type: Grahamstown, Plutosvale, Mrs E. Ferguson.  Not preserved.  Neotype (B&M): Plutosvale, Britten (BOL71307).

incurvula: curved inwards.

As stated above, there is not very much substance to this variety either.  It is smaller than the norm and relatively narrow-leaved.  It has been collected many times from the same locality.  The flower is very similar to that of H. gracilis var. minima, but Smith nevertheless maintained that it is continuous with H. cymbiformis.  What he said was this “At the type locality near the top of the slope of a very deep valley, this plant is hardly variable, but as one descends, the plant changes, and at a point in the valley about a mile from the type locality, they are in appearance approaching H. cymbiformis.” The correct way to establish this is with physical evidence, and this is absent.

Distribution: 3326 (Grahamstown): Fish River Ridge (-AB), Britten in PRE 34959; Plutosvale (‑BA), Smith in NBG340/35 (BOL), Smith 5402 (NBG), Britten 11 (BOL), Britten in PRE 34909, in PRE 39477, Long 1029 (PRE), Dyer 3 (BOL), Dyer 2082 (PRE), Fourcade 99 (NBG), Smith 915 (NBG); Road to Plutosvale (-BA), Reynolds 2948 (PRE); 16km from Grahamstown (-BA), Erens in PRE 34910; S. Plutosvale (-BA), Smith 5402, 5403 (NBG); S. Hunts Drift (-BB), Smith 5741, 6508 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Albany, Dyer in NBG1803/30 (NBG), Smith 1123 (NBG), Luckhoff in NBG 404/34, Smith in NBG340/35, Britten in NBG740/31 (BOL); ex hort, NBG705/30, NBG1110/36, Luyt in NBG302/45, in NBG306/45, Whitehill (NBG).

c. var. obtusa (Haw.) Baker
JLinn.Soc. 18:209(1880).  Bayer and Pilbeam, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.)46:166(1974).  Scott idem. 48:260(1976).  Scott :93(1985).  H. obtusa Haw., Phil.Mag. 46:282(1825).  Type: Cape ex hort Kew.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): Icon Kew library:  H. umbraticola V.Poelln., Kakteenkunde 9:134(1937).  H. cymbiformis  var. umbraticola (V.Poelln.) Bayer :164(1976).  Bayer :36(1982).  Type: Swartwaterpoort, near Adelaide, W.E. Armstrong.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): icon (B):  H. hilliana V.Poelln., Desert Pl.Life 9:103(1937).  H. umbraticola var. hilliana  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:234(1938).  Type: Cape, ex hort Kew.  Not preserved:  H. obtusa var. pilifera fa truncata Jacobs., Handb.Succ.Pl. 2:574(1960).  Type: ?.  Not preserved.

obtusa: with obtuse leaves.

As discussed under H. cooperi, there is a real problem in understanding the situation concerning the blunt leaved forms of that species and of H. cymbiformis.  I have seen very dark green forms with brown venation in cultivation which I would not relate to H. cooperi.  The highly translucent forms from Fort Beaufort are greener and seem to be continuous with H. cymbiformis through the Swartwaterpoort.  Certainly the plant mentioned above from the Kat River, are very close indeed in appearance to H. cooperi var. obtusata except for the brownish-green coloration.  It has been noted that plants of that variety from Inverbolo (Upper Kei River) tend to become greener under lower light intensities.  The herbarium record shows that the typical form of H. cymbiformis also occurs along the Kat River.  Very robust forms in fact occur 10km S. Fort Beaufort.  H. cooperi var. pilifera is also present in very close proximity.  At Kagasmond and probably at Olifantsbeen nearby, the plants are very similar to the rather longer leaved forms, still with obtuse tips, which are found in Swartwaterpoort near Alicedale.  A Kagasmond collection is also cited under var. dielsiana, which is indicative of the difficulty in using dry herbarium material to make indisputable identifications.  G. Marx has made a collection from Swartwaterpoort in which the plants have the coloration of H. cooperi but the boat-shaped leaves of H. cymbiformis.

Distribution: 3226 (Fort Beaufort): Kagasmond (-CD), Bayer & Bruyns 6562 (NBG); Olifantsbeen (-CD), Krynauw in NBG268/43 (NBG); S. Adelaide (‑CD), Krynauw in NBG 67996; Blinkwater (-DA), Smith 6195 (NBG). Scott 600 (PRE), Bayer 4651 (NBG); Kat River, 10km SE. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Scott 1065 (PRE); Rocklands, Adelaide (-DC), Smith 2801 (NBG).  3325(Port Elizabeth (-BB), Bayer 4653 (NBG).  3326(Grahamstown): Thornkloof (-AA), Bayliss in KG382/76; S. Alicedale (-AC), Bayer 4650 (NBG); Alicedale (-AC), Britten in PRE 34905.

d. var. ramosa (Smith) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. cymbiformis fa ramosa (Smith) Bayer :149(1976).  Bayer :34(1982).  H. ramosa Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 10:22(1940).  Type: CAPE-3427 (Peddie): Wooldridge (-AB), Smith 3168 (NBG).

ramosa: branched.

Consistency is a difficult ideal and this variety does not  conform well with the principle of substance.  It is only known from a long crescent-like rock-face north of Woolridge where plants vary from the normal stemless to increasingly stemmed plants on a gradient from west to east.

Distribution: 3327 (Peddie): Wooldridge (-AB), Smith 3168 (NBG, PRE), Smith 3105 (NBG), Bayer 4648 (NBG); NW. Wooldridge (-AB), Smith 3168, 3169 (NBG).

e. var. reddii (Scott) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. reddii Scott, Cactus Succ.J(US) 66:182(1994).  Type: CAPE-3226( Fort Beaufort): Waterdown Dam, Cathcart(-BB), Scott 8968 (PRE).

reddii: for Dr V.B. Reddi.

Plants from this population at Waterdown Dam have been known for a long time and identified (Bayer,1982) as possibly intermediate between H. cymbiformis and H. batesiana.  Col Scott similarly mentions both species names in his discussion and the matter appears rather problematic.  The population was portrayed as a depauperate one, at least in my perception, with quite considerable variation between the few odd plants at the site.  The few clones sampled in 1982 were not as robust as the one described by Scott, who also thought the population to consist of but a few individuals.  A re-visit to the site by Bayer and Bruyns in 1996 revealed that the south-facing cliff alongside the dam is clothed with huge numbers of plants.  The huge clumps are just like those of H. cymbiformis.  Some of the plants have very distinctive translucent dots and lines, others unmarked and uniformly opaque.  The floral characters mentioned by Scott are not definitive but the flowers do appear to have strongly colored veins.  At the time (Bayer :30, 1982) the species batesiana was still upheld, although not positively associated with field populations.  Since then the range of H. marumiana  has been shown to extend to at least Queenstown and further north.  The Cathcart population does not seem to belong there although the block patterning in the leaves does suggest this.

At the same time the known range of H. cymbiformis has been extended by P.V. Bruyns to the upper reaches of the Black Kei much nearer to Queenstown.  This is on a south-facing cliff at the farm Turnstream.   Here there are small forms which distantly resemble H. lepida as described and illustrated by Smith, and also suggesting the same possible link with H. marumiana and certainly with reddii.  This is particularly so because the Waterdown Dam is on the upper reach of the Black Kei.  A little to the southeast is also a population of larger plants on a very high west-facing cliff which are however with spined margins, and thus apparently belonging to the var. setulifera.  The block-patterning in the leaves of these two populations is not as marked as the Waterdown plants.  There is an old Galpin collection from even nearer to Queenstown.  Col. Scott was not correct in his opinions about H. marumiana var. batesiana and it is evident from his book that H. marumiana was unfamiliar to him too.  The population at the Waterdown Dam does not seem substantial enough in terms of viability nor range, to justify species rank.  What is needed is cognitive exploration of potential new localities to substantiate already expressed opinions.  In this case there are new records for var. batesiana as well as for H. marumiana and H. cymbiformis.

Distribution: 3226 (Fort Beaufort): Waterdown Dam, Cathcart(-BB), Scott 8968 (PRE); Klipplaat Dam (-BB), Bayer 4649 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Gwatyn farm (-AB), Galpin 8280 (PRE); Turnstream (-AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6572 (NBG).

f. var. setulifera (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. planifolia var. setulifera V.Poelln., Kakteenkunde 5:54(1938). idem., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:163(1938).  Type: East London, Stellenbosch 3332.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3228(East London): Kwelegha bridge (-CC), Smith 5257 (NBG):  H. cymbiformis var. obesa V.Poelln. idem. 45:166(1938).  Type: Idutywa, Bashee River (-BA), G.W. Reynolds.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3228(Butterworth): Xobo River, E. Idutywa (-BA), Smith 7796 (NBG).

setulifera: bearing small bristles.

In the earlier handbooks, the representative specimen for the species was poorly chosen from a Nahoon River specimen. It is apparent from Haworth’s acceptance of the Bot. Mag. illustration that the more western forms such as those at Baakens River or Howiesons Poort, would have been more in keeping with the original circumscription of either the typical species or H. planifolia. East and north of East London, H. cymbiformis begins to develop a thicker and shorter, more deltoid leaf and the teeth become markedly spined and von Poellnitz’ name is re-instated for this variety.

Distribution: 3128 (Umtata): Mquanduli (-DC), Walker in NBG2271/27 (BOL).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Highclere (AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6573 (NBG);  Inverbolo (-BC), Bruyns (NBG); Bluewater (-DA), Smith 676 (NBG); Near Komgha (-DB), Marloth 6510 (PRE); Tangla River (-DC), Smith 3881, 3882a (NBG); Newlands Location (-DD), Smith 3510 (NBG); Pump Stn. (-DD), Smith 611, 2785, 3096 (NBG); Kings Farm (-DD), Smith 3071 (NBG); McCleantown (-DD), Smith 3126, 3127, 2883, 2884, 2885, 3882 (NBG); Slippery Drift (-DD), Smith 3122, 3125, 3134, 3134a (NBG); below Horseshoe (-DD), Smith 3097 (NBG); Fort Jackson (-DD), Smith 3133, 3388, 3389, 3389a (NBG).  3228 (Butterworth): Willowvale (-AD), Luyt in NBG180/42, in NBG17/46, in NBG57/46, NBG341/38; Xobo River, E. Idutywa (-BA), Smith 7796 (NBG), Smith in NBG341/35 (BOL), Reynolds 2850 (PRE), Reynolds 146 (BOL); Xobo (-BA), Reynolds in PRE 39470, in NBG660/38, Smith 2760, 2796 (NBG); S. Mooiplaas (-CC), Bayer 1706 (NBG); Gonubie (-CC), Smith 6826 (NBG); Kwelegha bridge (-CC), Smith 5257 (NBG); Kwelegha (-CC), Smith 5251, 7183 (NBG); Kei River (-CC), Holmes (BOL).

g. var. transiens (V.Poelln.) Bayer
:162(1976).  Bayer :36(1982).  H. planifolia var. transiens V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov.45:163 (1938).  Type: Cape, Prince Alfred Pass, Archibald 327.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): icon (B):  H. cymbiformis var. translucens Triebn. et V.Poelln. idem. 45:166(1938).  Scott :94(1985).  Type: Cape, Prince Alfred Pass, Lategan in Triebn.1137.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3323(Willowmore): Prince Alfred Pass, Smith 5709 (NBG):  H. cymbiformis var. multifolia Triebn. idem. 45:166(1938).  Type: Uitenhage, W.E. Armstrong.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): Hellsgate, UItenhage (-CB), Smith 2794 (NBG):  H. cymbiformis var. brevifolia Triebn. et V.Poelln. idem.: 165(1938).  Type: Cape, Hellsgate, Uitenhage, Mrs I. King in Treibn. 1068.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth: Hellsgate, Mrs I. King in Smith 2756 (NBG).

transiens: changing into.

In the publication where Von Poellnitz published his two varieties, he actually expresses doubt about identifying three parent species. Yet he states that H. planifolia var transiens is between H. planifolia and H. cymbiformis, but nearer to the former ‘to look at’. Two pages further he describes a var. translucens of H. cymbiformis from the same locality. In this work the circumscription of var. transiens is widened to include the Uitenhage elements at Hellsgate.  There are variants in the Gamtoos Valley (eg. Andrieskraal) which are reminiscent of this highly translucent form, and it is not certain just how these variants relate to either H. cymbiformis or H. gracilis. The element H. gracilis var. picturata is applied to those forms of that species which are very similar to H. cymbiformis variants. The ‘clear’ way (a comment made by Dr M. Hayashi) in which var. transiens is related to H. mucronata is symptomatic of the alternative solutions available in classifying Haworthias, which are not always clear.  It is generally understood that the Little Karoo species are continuous with the Eastern Cape species and this is commonly expressed in Von Poellnitz identifications, and also a feature of Col. Scott’s species distributions.

Thus H. mucronata can be allied with equal facility to either H. cymbiformis or H. cooperi, when in fact in the field it is more intimately related to H. decipiens. The location of this note is a powerful reminder that distinctions between species are highly blurred and that alternative solutions are possible.

Distribution: 3323 (Willowmore): Prince Alfred Pass (-CC), Smith 5624a, 5709, 5624, 5624a (NBG), Taute (BOL), Fourcade 3490 (BOL); Oskloof (-DA), Bruyns 7077 (BOL); Luiskraal (-DA), Forrester 399 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Scholtzberg (-CA), Van Jaarsveld 7804 (NBG); Andrieskraal (-DA), Fourcade 176 (NBG).  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Hellsgate, Uitenhage (-CB), Smith 2794 (NBG); Hellsgate, Mrs I. King in Smith 2756 (NBG); Kemachs (-CB), Smith 905 (NBG); Near Port Elizabeth (-DC), Smith 3892 (NBG); Stayner in NBG46/56, Stayner in KG80/70 (NBG), Taute in NBG1283/36, in NBG468/37, Taute .

Inadequately located: ex hort, NBG486/30.

H. cymbiformis - Curtis’s Botanical Magazine, vol. 21 t. 802 (1805) [S.T. Edwards]8067
 H. cuspida - Addisonia, vol. 23 t. 741 (1954-1959) [M.E. Eaton] 162903
Haworthia cymbiformis (Haw.) Duval
[as Aloe cymbiformis Haw.]
Curtis’s Botanical Magazine,
vol. 21: t. 802 (1805) [S.T. Edwards]
Haworthia cymbiformis (Haw.) Duval
[as Haworthia cuspidata Haw.]
Addisonia, vol. 23: t. 741
(1954-1959) [M.E. Eaton]

Haworthia Revisited – 10. Haworthia decipiens

10. Haworthia decipiens V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 28:103(1930).  Bayer :111(1976).  Bayer :37(1976).  H. pearsonii Wright sensu C.L. Scott, Aloe 18:7(1980).  Scott :44(1985).  Type: Cape, near Zwartberg mountains, Mrs van der Bijl.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3322 (Oudtshoorn): Kleinsleutelfontein, E. Prince Albert (-AB), Bayer 5157 (NBG).

decipiens: deceiving.

Rosette stemless, slowly proliferous, to 20cm φ.  Leaves broadly ovate sometimes acuminate, relatively thin, marginal spines sparse but broad at the base, bright green in colour.  Inflorescence robust, simple.  Flowers many, densely arranged, broad and flat across top.

1982 – Von Poellnitz recorded this species only once from the Zwartberg Mountain in the Prince Albert district and derived the name from the similarity to H. arachnoidea.  As pointed out in the discussion on H. arachnoidea, there may be a close relationship between these species.  Available distribution information indicates that they may be geographically complementary.  However, at its most westerly point (Klaarstroom), H. decipiens has the broad flat yellowish‑green leaves of H. Iockwoodii but with sparse, short broad marginal spines.  The leaf tips do not die back.  H. decipiens may grow up to 120mm in diameter but it occurs in smaller forms too, only 30‑40mm in diameter.  From Klaarstroom it extends eastward to Springbokvlakte in the south.  Northwards it is found from Klipplaat to Pearston.  However, in this area there is some deviation from the typical form and the plants tend to have translucent areas in the leaf with a tendency to be bluish‑green.  There is thus a suggestion of intergradation with H. bolusii and H. cooperi on the grounds of both superficial similarities and distribution.  The picture in the west is similarly obscure and the forms regarded as H . decipiens east of Uniondale also have leaf translucence, but tend to be a darker purplish‑green.  In the Groot River area west of Campherpoort,  H. decipiens occurs as a dwarfed form with notably incurved leaves.

1999 – Although von Poellnitz described this species in 1930, by 1938 he had still recorded only this single collection.  However, in the absence of a preserved specimen and adequate locality data, there can be no certainty that the original description is correctly interpreted.  In all its guises it is a very common species as recognised here; and the type, as selected here seems to represents the species as it is more generally known.  The type selected by Breuer and Metzing is unfortunate as it is not geographically correct and is better related to the blue-green var. cyanea.

Col Scott has taken the view that H. decipiens is synonymous with H. pearsonii Wright but unfortunately does not consider or refer to H. decipiens sensu Bayer anywhere in his revision.  It is as difficult to relate the Kew illustration (presumably the chosen lectotype) of H. pearsonii to a natural population.  It apparently does not have translucent leaf faces.  H. decipiens of von Poellnitz was a relatively small plant and if indeed it came from north of the Zwartberg mountains as the reference to the Prince Albert district suggests, then it could probably be only as interpreted here, or as a variant of H. marumiana.  Von Poellnitz did not relate his H. decipiens to pearsonii so it is an improbable option.  Scott’s illustration is not representative of either of these interpretations and, without reference to locality, could be of the var. cyanea here described (the blue-green form).  It seems to compare very poorly with the Kew illustration.  The species as recognised here is a very complex one with connections to H. bolusii, H. lockwoodii, H. mucronata, H. cooperi and also H. gracilis.

M-10-decipiens

a. var. decipiens.
It is concluded that von Poellnitz’ species did in fact come from the Prince Albert area where the species transposes to H. lockwoodii.  The var. cyanea is also found in the same general area and it is smaller and with more incurved leaves.  The species is most strongly represented in the Willowmore, Steytlerville area where the plants are large and robust.  The leaves may recurve and are heavily spined with large spines, rather broad and flat at the base.  Interspersed over the same area, and extending to the east, is a smaller form which tends to develop reddish venation.

 Distribution: 3221 (Merweville), Prince Albert (-DC), Bolus 11657 (BOL, PRE).  3224 (Graaff Reinet): near Jansenville (-DC), Smith 3642 (NBG).  3322(Oudtshoorn): W. Prince Albert (-AA), Bayer 5182 (NBG); Kleinsleutelfontein, E. Prince Albert (-AB), Bayer 5157 (NBG); W. Klaarstroom (-BC), Bruyns in KG124/77 (NBG); S. Prince Albert (-CA), Bayer 5261 (NBG).  3323 (Willowmore): Skerpkop, E. Willowmore (-AD), Bayer in KG231/70 (NBG); Constantia (-BB), Bayer in KG140/72 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Campherpoort (-AA), Smith 3649, 3657 (NBG); Steytlerville (-AD), Rossouw 453 (NBG); Kleinpoort (-BD), Smith 7065 (NBG); Dam se Drif (-CA), Rossouw 478 (NBG), Bruyns 1842 (NBG); S. Steytlerville (-CA), Stayner in KG637/61 (NBG); 3325 (Port Elizabeth): 20km N. Glenconnor (-AC), Long (BOL).

Inadequately located: Kleinswartberg, Wood (BOL).

b. var. cyanea var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3324 (Steytlerville): Fairview, W. Jansenville (-CD), Bayer 4180 (NBG, Holo.).

cyanea: blue.

Differs in being smaller with incurving leaves and in the bluish-green coloration.  (A var. decipiens foliis venetis incurvatis differt).

This variety occurs north of the mountains between Jansenville and occurs as far to the northwest as Merweville.  It is distinguished from H. arachnoidea by its translucence in the upper leaf and by the more robust spines.  Herbarium specimens will be even more difficult to separate and two specimens cited under H. arachnoidea from the Jansenville area, may in fact be specimens of H. decipiens var. cynaea  It generally differs from H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana also on account of the robust spines but also for the broader and shorter leaves.

Distribution: 3221 (Merweville): De List, Merweville (-CB), Bayer 2377 (NBG).  3222 (Beaufort West): Trakas Kuilen (-DC), Bayer sn.  (NBG).  3224 (Graaff Reinet): Fairview, west of Jansenville (-CD), Bayer 4180 (NBG); Meerlust (-DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6580 (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): E. Klaarstroom (-BC), Bayer 4440 (NBG).  3323 (Willowmore): S. Rietbron (-AB), Bruyns in KG 439/75 (NBG); Beervlei (-AB), Latti in KG56/78 (NBG); Georgida (-AD), Bayer in KG436/75 (NBG); Zuurberg near Georgida (-AD); Fourcade 4637 (NBG); Nahoogte (-BC), Van Jaarsveld 7865 (NBG); N. Uniondale (-CA), Bayer 2083 (NBG), Bruyns 2241b (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Hanekam (-BD), Bayer 4657 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Georgida, Fourcade 4637 (BOL); Uniondale, Van Blerk (BOL).

c. var. minor var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3324 (Steytlerville): Kleinpoort, Smith 3588 (NBG, Holo.).

minor: smaller.

Differs in being much smaller, to 6cm φ, with broad incurved leaves, and light green in colour.  (A var. decipiens foliis valde parvioribus incurvatis et subviridibus differt).

Occurs in the Groot River valley between the ranges.  It may be directly related to H. gracilis var. viridis, and the transition to that species can be followed southward through the Zeekoeinek Pass near Baroe.  Northwards the transition is to the var. pringlei.  A similar transition to H. translucens var. viridis occurs in the Perdepoort north of Sapkamma.

Distribution: 3225 (Somerset East):In valley behind Bosberg (-DA), Van Der Westhuizen 287 (PRE).  3323 (Willowmore): Redcliffe (-BA), Bruyns 7052 (BOL).  3324 (Steytlerville): Campherpoort (-AB), Smith 7061 (NBG); Campherpoort (-AA), Barker 5009 (NBG), Bayer in KG 315/70 (NBG); Grootriver, Mara (-AA), Bayer 2076 (NBG); Tuinskloof (-AC), Bruyns 3125 (NBG); NE. Steytlerville (-AD), Smith 3591 (NBG); Waaipoort (-AD), Bayer & Bruyns 6583 (NBG); NW. Die Bordjie (-BC), Bayer & Bruyns 6587 (NBG); Two Waters (-BC), Smith 7244 (NBG); Kleinpoort (-BD), Smith 3588 (NBG); Baviaanskloof (-CA), Wisura 1837 (NBG); Ouplaas (-DB), Bruyns 7040 (BOL).  3325(Port Elizabeth): Sapkamma to Perdepoort (-AC), Bayer & Venter 6618, 6619 (NBG).

d. var. pringlei (Scott) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. pringlei Scott, Bradleya 12:103(1994).  Type: 3224 (Graaff Reinet): Adelaide district (-DD), Scott in PRE8970.

pringlei: for Victor Pringle.

This bright green plant with contrasting white spines has been known for a long time and is represented by many collections from the general area of Jansenville, Klipplaat, Aberdeen, and Pearston.  These are well represented in the Compton Herbarium.  The leaves are incurved and erect to sub-erect and not as broad and ovate-deltoid as in the typical variety.  The connection to Adelaide is by no means clear and there is very little to substantiate this as a discrete element in that area.  This is because H. cooperi, H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, H. gracilis and H. cymbiformis all present problems of their own there.  I have a collection from Baviaanskrans which I have placed with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana and it is to a degree very similar to this element.

Distribution: 3223 (Rietbron): S. Aberdeen (-DC), Perry 659 (NBG).  3224 (Graaff Reinet): Aberdeen Road (-CD), C.A. Smith 2806a (PRE); Oatlands (-CD), Smith 907 (NBG); Ebenezer (-DB), Smith 7245 (NBG), Bayer 2070 (NBG); Harefield (-DB), Smith 7244 (NBG); Welgelegen (-DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6581 (NBG); Jansenville (-DC), Stayner in KG188/62 (NBG); Adelaide district (-DD), Scott in PRE 8970.  3324(Steytlerville): Klipplaat (-AB), Branch (NBG); SE. Mt.Stewart (-AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6582 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 11. Haworthia emelyae

11. Haworthia emelyae V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 42:271(1937).  Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 34:28(1979).  Bayer :115(1976).  Bayer :38(1982).  Type: Cape, locality unknown, Mrs E. Ferguson in Long 322.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): icon (B):  H. blackburniae V.Poelln., Kakteenk. 9:132(1937). Nom. illegit. non Barker 1937.  H. correcta V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 43:103(1938).  Type: Cape, Calitzdorp, Mrs E. Blackburn in Triebn. 978.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3321(Ladismith): Rooiberg, E. Vanwyksdorp(-DA), Mrs Schnettler in KG 335/71 (NBG):  H. picta idem. 44:133(1938).  V.Poelln., Desert.Pl.Life :126(1939).  Type: Cape, Moeras River, Mrs S. Blackburn in Triebn. 1062.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): icon, Fourcade 72 (NBG).

emelyae: for Emely Ferguson.

Rosette to 10cm φ, seldom proliferous.  Leaves 15-20, distinctly retused, pointed, barely translucent, with scattered elongate small flecks, with obscure raised tubercles, lined, reddish-brown hued.  Inflorescence simple.  Flowers 15-20, white.

1982 – H. emelyae is a widely distributed species occurring from Uniondale through the Little Karoo to west of Ladismith.  It occurs in a variety of different geological formations and varies accordingly.  The plants have very short recurved leaves with convex end areas usually flecked with pinkish markings.  The forms east of Oudtshoorn usually have rounded end areas and are scabrid on the upper leaf faces.  Westwards the leaves become pointed and smoother.  However, there are clear signs of intergradation with H. magnifica in the Muiskraal area of Riversdale.  Doubt has been cast on the origin of Mrs Ferguson’s plants but G.G. Smith’s records clearly indicate that they came from Van Wyksdorp and that they were collected there by a Mrs Le Roux.  The var. multifolia has up to 60, more slender, suberect leaves; and was compared in the original description with H. serrata.  Other forms of H. emelyae where the few leaves are shortly recurved and round‑tipped can similarly be compared with H. magnifica var. atrofusca.  The eastern forms with the flatter, rounded leaf tips can be compared to H. bruynsii and H. springbokvlakensis.  H. emelyae is generally non‑proliferous.

1999 – The 1982 discussion is fraught with error as two species are actually involved.  The scabrid element referred to above has since been excerpted as H. bayeri and it is fairly obvious that there can be no extension to H. bruynsii which belongs in the Hexangulares.  The problem is compounded by the fact that von Poellnitz described three species all of which are synonymous, and yet may have cited H. bayeri among these.  The integration with H. magnifica was through the var. major which is now transferred to H. emelyae because of the intermediate populations mentioned above which occur just east of, and in the closer vicinity of, Muiskraal.

M-11-emelyae

a. var. emelyae.
The typical variety is rather strongly flecked and the leaves are always retused to horizontal and close to ground level.  The neotype cited above is a specimen originating from near Vanwyksdorp and sent by the original collector (Mrs Le Roux) to G.G. Smith.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): 20km W. Ladismith (-BD), NBG144768; Springfontein (-CC), Smith 5787 (NBG); 42km Calitzdorp to Vanwyksdorp (‑DA), Mrs Le Roux in Smith 5437 (NBG); Vanwyksdorp (-DA), Joubert (BOL);Rooiberg, E. Vanwyksdorp (-DA), Mrs Schnettler in KG 335/71 (NBG); SE. Vanwyksdorp (-DC), Bayer in KG257/77 (NBG).  3322 (Oudtshoorn): Mt Hope (-CA), Schnettler in KG582/69 (NBG); Moeras River (-CC), Smith 2447 (NBG); N. Robinson Pass (-CC), Bruyns in KG434/75 (NBG); Zebra (-CD), Smith 2905 (NBG); Erfpacht (-DD), Smith 5808, 6106 (NBG); 3323 (Willowmore): Uniondale to Avontuur (-CA), Smith 2935 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Ladismith, Pillans 858 (BOL); Oudtshoorn, Taylor (BOL).

b. var. comptoniana (Smith) Venter & Hammer
Cact.Succ.J(US) 69:77(1997).  H. comptoniana Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 11:76(1945).  Bayer 108(1976).  Bayer :33(1982).  Scott :128(1985).  Type: CAPE-3323 (Willowmore): Georgida (-AD), M. Malherbe in Smith 3433 (NBG).

comptoniana: in honour of Prof.R.H. Compton.

1982 – The species with the flattened ends to the leaves are the most sought after, and H. comptoniana is particularly attractive.  It occurs in quartz patches and the plants are often well hidden under the stones.  The plants are bigger than in H. emelyae (the nearest relative), growing up to 120 mm in diameter in cultivation.  The growth form parallels that of H. emelyae exactly and the difference is that it is a bigger and entirely smooth species.  The leaf end area is slightly pellucid and reticulated.  Where H. emelyae is generally tinted purplish-brown, H. comptoniana is green.  Distribution and abundance is not fully known and H. comptoniana is considered very rare in the field.  It has proved very easy in cultivation and good seed is easily produced by cross-pollination.

1999 – This variety grows in very close association with H. bayeri but it is not known if other populations exist other than at the type locality.  Some forms which are pale coloured and in which there is little contrast between the reticulation and the background colour and translucence of the leaf, are very plain.  Other plants are darker coloured or with more conspicuous specks and marked reticulation, and they are are much more attractive.

Distribution: 3323 (Willowmore): Georgida (-AD), M. Malherbe in Smith 3433 (NBG), Smith 3433 (NBG), Bayer in KG114/72 (NBG).

c. var. major (Smith) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. schuldtiana var. major Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 12:1(1946).  H. maraisii var. major (Smith) Bayer :132(1976).  H. magnifica var. major (Smith) Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977).  Bayer :44(1982).  Type: CAPE‑3321 (Ladismith): Garcias Pass (‑CC), Smith 5370 (NBG).

major: greater.

1982 – The var. major has an unusually large flower similar to that of H. emelyae and there is evidence of intergradation of these two taxa.

1999 – Although in this variety the leaf tubercles are armed with a spine, the general form of the plants is that of H. emelyae, and populations east of Muiskraal confirm this relationship.  The change in relationship forged here has its roots in the new collections of H. magnifica around Riversdale and in the new arrangement regarding H. maraisii.  Another consideration is the position of var. paradoxa, mentioned in 1976, and that is its relationship with H. mirabilis.  Similarly the following variety and its position need also to be considered.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): Garcia’s Pass (‑CC), Smith 5370 (NBG), Garcia’s Pass (-CC), Dekenah 9 (PRE); Muiskraal (-CC), Smith 3458 (NBG), Bayer in KG118/71 (NBG); Riversdale (-CC), Muir in NBG164/25 (BOL); Sandvlakte (-CD), Bayer in KG138/72 (NBG).

d. var. multifolia Bayer
Natn.Cact.Succ.J 34:31(1979).  Bayer :39(1982).  Type: CAPE‑3321(Ladismith): Springfontein, Riversdale (‑CC), Bayer 1558 (NBG).

multifolia: many leaved.

When this variety was described it was associated and compared with H. serrata.  A new population is now known a little further to the west and collections by J. Dekenah suggest that it is possibly a little more widely represented in that general area.  The plants have many more upright leaves and the relationship with H. serrata through H. heidelbergensis, which is also now better understood, becomes real.  There is a strong suggestion that these links all also involve H. mirabilis and this is perhaps supported by von Poellnitz’ interpretation and citations of varieties of that species.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): Springfontein, Riversdale (‑CC), Bayer 1558 (NBG); W. Springfontein (-CC), Smith 5769 (NBG); E. Springfontein (-CC), Smith 5768 (NBG), Smith 5389 (NBG, PRE), Bayer 1558 (NBG); Muiskraal (-CC).

Haworthia Revisited – 12. Haworthia floribunda

12. Haworthia floribunda V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 40:149(1936).  idem. 44:228(1938).  Bayer :117(1976).  Bayer :39(1982).  Scott :58(1985).  Type: Cape, Heidelberg, Mrs E. Ferguson.  Not preserved.  Lectotype: icon (B).  Epitype (B&M): Blackdown, N Heidelberg, Bayer 158 (NBG).

floribunda: many flowered.

Rosette stemless, up to 3cm φ, slowly proliferous.  Leaves 20-30 dark green opaque, upto ovate-lanceolate, spreading, twisted with flattened, rounded tip, margins scabrid to dentate.  Inflorescence simple, to 250mm.  Flowers 10-15, greenish-white, few open together.

1982 – This is a very interesting small species with twisted lanceolate leaves with blunt rounded tips.  It was described from plants collected north of Heidelberg (Cape) where they are all glabrous and where hybridisation with H. turgida also occurs.  It has not been collected further west although there is a very old collection in the Botanical Research Institute (PRE) from Swellendam.  Around Riversdale the plants may have scabrous leaves with denticulate leaf margins.  There is a known population north of Albertinia in which the plants have more and shorter leaves, as well as another similar population near Gouritzmond.  These two populations may suggest an affinity with H. chloracantha, as put forward by A.E. Speechley (unpublished).  There may be such a relationship, but it seems likely that H. floribunda and H. parksiana are in fact related.  They both tend to grow well‑shaded and in moss and lichen.  Further exploration of the Gouritz River tributaries may produce an answer to this puzzle.

1999 – The Gouritz valley has provided no answers to the above puzzle but there have been a number of other significant collections.  There is a population south of Swellendam of which specimens in cultivation have been very robust.  They are relatively light green in cultivation and also individual plants are smooth as was the original type.  Odd specimens have pointed leaves.  Northwest of Swellendam is a similar but darker green plant also with pointed leaves and this is taken to be H. variegata.  Further south from Swellendam, H. floribunda assumes the same form as around Riversdale.  At Great Brak there is a population of plants growing with H. pygmaea which were assumed to be H. floribunda, but they are probably simply H. chloracantha var. denticulifera.  This is true also of the populations south of Albertinia and also of one population south of Heidelberg which has pointed leaves.  The flattened leaf-tip is not confined to this species, and appears in H. magnifica and H. maraisii.  A relationship with H. variegata is probable through the two populations in the vicinity of Swellendam.

M-12-floribunda

a. var. floribunda.
The typical variety is not typical of the species at all and this glabrous variety is only known from the type locality at Heidelberg where it is very scarce.  Hybrids with H. turgida are also present.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): 6km N. Heidelberg (-BB), Smith 5545 (NBG, PRE), Bayer 158 (NBG); Heidelberg commonage (-BB), Ferguson in BOL20507.

b. var. dentata  var. nov. 
Type: CAPE-3421 (Riversdale): W. Riversdale, Dekenah 90 in Smith 5502 (NBG, Holo.).

dentata: toothed.

Differs in being smaller, to 4cmφ, the leaves very dark green, slightly scabrid and with spined margins.  (A var. floribunda foliis subtiliter scabridis et denti-marginatis differt).

This variety describes the smaller form which has distinct and widely spaced marginal spines.  The leaves are very dark green and also slightly scabrid.  It occurs from the Bontebok Park at Swellendam to northwest of Riversdale, and includes larger forms east of Riversdale also with pronounced marginal spines.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): Bontebok Park (-BA), Bayer 3439 (NBG); E. Buffeljachts (-BA), Viviers 156 (NBG).  3421(Riversdale): W. Riversdale (-AA), Dekenah 90 in Smith 5502 (NBG): 5km N. Riversdale (-AB), Smith 5381 (NBG, PRE); 15km E. Riversdale (-AB), Smith 5758 (NBG); Dassieklip (-AC), Venter 92/31 (NBG); Wydersrivier (-BA), Smith 5491, 6781 (NBG), Bayer 2311.

c. var. viridescens var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3420 (Swellendam): S. Swellendam (-AB), De Kok (NBG, Holo.).

viridescens: becoming green.

Very green plants with darker coloration at the basal leaf margins.  Relatively glabrous and more robust in cultivation.  (A var. floribunda habitu robusto et colore viridi vivido ad margines basales foliorum atranti differt).

This is a large robust plant in cultivation and includes two forms, one of which has pointed leaves.  The coloration is greener than normal for even cultivated plants of the species.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): Below Swellendam Stn. (-AB)., C.A. Smith 2724a (PRE); S. Swellendam (-AB), D.De Kok (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 13. Haworthia gracilis

13. H. gracilis V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 27:133(1929).  idem. 41:201(1937).  idem., Des.Pl.Life 9:90(1937).  idem., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov.  H. translucens sensu Bayer :162(1976).  Bayer ::56(1982).  non Scott :69(1985).  Type: Graaff-Reinet, Amalienstein, Willowmore, Stellenbosch.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3326 (Grahamstown): Hellspoort (-BA), Britten (PRE).

gracilis: graceful.

Rosette stemless. to 6cm φ, proliferous.  Leaves 30-40, lanceolate acuminate, incurved with slender short marginal spines, pale greyish-green, upper surface translucent between lines.  Inflorescence simple to 200mm.  Flowers white.

1982 – Reflection on the first edition of the Handbook showed that there were two main areas of uncertainty.  The first of these was the relation of the blue‑green species, i.e. H. semiviva, H. bolusii, H. blackbeardiana and H. cooperi.  The second was H. translucens.  In the introduction it is stated that H. bolusii, H. cooperi, H. cymbiformis, H. habdomadis and H. decipiens diffuse into the mountains between Uniondale and Port Elizabeth.  To these can still be added H. zantneriana, H. xyphiophylla and perhaps even H. arachnoidea, so that forms of each of these species may contribute to this concept of H. translucens.  To the present day the composition of H. translucens is thus still very unclear.  There are a considerable number of unlikely elements which can only be thrown together until more understanding of this complex problem can be gained.  The ssp. tenera occurs in the middle Fish River valley east of Grahamstown.  In Von Poellnitz’s type locality, Plutos Vale, both glabrous and haired forms occur in populations within 75 metres of one another.  H. cymbiformis var. incurvula is only a little further away.  H. gracilis was collected north‑east of Grahamstown at Hellskloof and here the leaves of the plants are longer, more erect, and glabrous.  The flower is essentially the same.  However, the home of H. translucens is really the Gamtoos Valley and in the first edition it was pointed out how difficult it was to reconcile such a disjunct population.  Although not providing an entirely satisfactory explanation, the discovery of the small forms of H. bolusii in the Jansenville area do suggest how this occurs.  Small translucent and fairly hairy forms occur in the conglomerates west of Uitenhage.  Darker more opaque and less hairy forms occur at Dead Man’s Gulch and Coega to the east.  Dr W.R. Branch has collected very large forms from the lower Krom River near Humansdorp. Many different collections are recorded from Loerie in the lower Gamtoos valley to as far west as Uniondale.  H. cymbiformis is also distributed across the area and the var. transiens is found at Prince Alfred’s Pass in the extreme west of the distribution range.  The similarity of some collections of this species (e.g. at Andrieskraal) to H. cymbiformis var. incurvula are further evidence of some relationship between the Gamtoos and the Fish River species.

1999 – Here some attempt is made to cast a little more light on a confused situation and it has to be admitted that this solution may be inadequate.  In the first place it is apparent that the name ‘translucens’ as typified by the illustration in Curtis’ Bot. Mag., is applicable to Haworthia herbacea and not available for this species.  In the second place the small dark more opaque forms referred to above are now regarded in this work as the missing H. aristata of Haworth.  The name H. gracilis as used here now, is to refer to a wide range of populations extending from Grahamstown westwards to at least Uniondale.  Considerable local knowledge will be required to properly evaluate the species as presented here.  The recognition of varieties will hopefully present a realistic view of the variables involved and hopefully facilitate communication about these plants.  The fact that the var. minima appears to re-occur around Uitenhage is curious.  The var. picturata, which has been collected in the Baakens River Valley together with H. cymbiformis, is also odd.  Its relationship with H. cymbiformis var. transiens needs to be explored.  The var. viridis is also a poorly known entity with an improbable distribution.  It is inextricably linked with H. decipiens var. minor.  The distributions for the varieties are not very convincing at all, and as is the case elsewhere, they provide only the skeleton of an hypothesis which should be examined in the field.  It seems that there is some interaction with both H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi, if not also with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana.  There is strong interaction with H. decipiens.  It appears that there is often a transformation H. gracilis var. viridis to H. decipiens var. minor from steep, perhaps shady south-facing cliff to lower lying more horizontal and exposed sites.   It will also be obvious from the specimens cited that in two case there is co-occurrence with H. decipiens.  There are three major river valleys which need to be better explored.  These are the Gamtoos, Swartkops and Sundays.  The intervening mountain ranges are a formidable challenge and this is one species in which the varieties are not closely tied to geographical distribution.

M-13-gracilis

a. var. gracilis.
This variety is mostly known from northwest of Grahamstown and it is not certain how widely it may occur or with which species it may interact.  There are a number of collections from the Eastern Cape which have the same narrow elongate and relatively blunt leaf-tip and the Gladhurst (Adelaide) citation is very close geographically to H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, and to H. cooperi.  In the Hankey/Patensie area these are usually somewhat bluish-green and associated therefore with H. cooperi var. gordoniana.  It is a difficult distinction to make as the latter may then be an ecotype associated with low-lying level areas where the plants tend to be single, are less proliferous and are withdrawn into the soil.  Gerhard Marx collected a larger form from northeast of Grahamstown which is very similar to H. cooperi var. leightonii.  At Jeffrey’s Bay it is difficult to decide if the small element there represents H. cooperi var. gordoniana or H. gracilis.  Similarly towards Middleton there is a population which contains two elements, one is H. cooperi and the other could be either H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana or H. gracilis.  This is an interesting comparison because it raises the possibility that the latter two are continuous.

Distribution: 3226 (Fort Beaufort): Gladhurst, Adelaide (-AC), Krynauw in NBG272/43 (NBG), Venter & Bayer (NBG).  3324(Steytlerville): Paul Sauer Dam (-DA), Swart (NBG); Mistkraal (-DA), Smith 7062 (NBG); Ferndale (-DB), Smith 3672, 3675, 3677, 3678, 6204, 7185 (NBG); 2km E. Hankey (-DD), Bayer 4476 (NBG); Hankey (-DD), Paterson 24 (BOL), Fourcade 3329 (BOL); Gamtoos Heights (-DD), King 90 (BOL); Longmore (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6855 (NBG).  3325(Port Elizabeth): Loerie (-CC), Britten (BOL).   3326(Grahamstown): Hellspoort (-AB), Dyer 4 (BOL), Long (BOL), Blackburn in BOL71332, Britten in PRE 34922, in PRE 34929, Smith in NBG326/34, Bayer in KG336/70 (NBG); 5km N. Grahamstown (-AB), Smith in NBG332/34; Howiesonspoort (-AC), James 549 (BOL); 7km NE. Grahamstown (-BA), Bayer & Venter 6603 (NBG); Brakkloof (-BA), Acocks 12046 (PRE); Fish River (-BA), Dyer 580 (PRE).

Inadequately located: Albany, Dyer in NBG1804/30.

b. var. isabellae (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb.nov.
H. isabellae  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:226(1938).  non Scott :76(1985).  Type: Cape, near Port Elizabeth, Mrs I King.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Humansdorp, Gamtoos bridge (‑CC), H. Hall in NBG 68799.

isabellae: for Mrs Isabella King.

This variety is recognised as the more traditional form of the species in which the outer leaves are spreading and the inner leaves more erect.  It is very proliferous.  The leaves are not as bluish-green, nor as swollen towards the tip as in  H. cooperi variants which have often been assigned to this species.  The marginal spines are quite dense and relatively long for the narrow-leaves, as compared to H. cooperi var gordoniana which also occurs in the Gamtoos Valley.

Distribution: 3324 (Steytlerville): Dam se Drif (-CA), Rossouw 483 (NBG); Moordenaarskloof (-CD), Stayner (NBG); Ferndale (-DB), Smith 3674 (NBG); Gamtoos (-DD), Stayner in KG367/62 (NBG); Hankey to Humansdorp (-DD), Smith 7267 (NBG); Gamtoos River (-DD), Smith 7439 (NBG); NE. Hankey (-DD), Bayer 4475 (NBG), Stayner (NBG).  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Loerie (-CC), Britten in PRE 34924; Gamtoos Ferry (-CC), Stayner in KG341/62; Vanstaadens to Loerie (-CC), Smith 3112 (NBG); Gamtoos bridge (‑CC), King 92 (BOL), H. Hall in NBG 68799, Smith 7266 (NBG); Longmore Forest (-CC), Bayer & Bruyns 6555 (NBG).  3424 (Humansdorp): Woodlands (-BA), Marais in NBG8/66, Krom River Estuary, Rippon (-BB), Branch 1 (NBG).

c. var. tenera (V.Pielln.) M.B.Bayer. 
H. tenera V.Repert. Spec. Nov. 31: 86(1932). Scott: 76 (1985). H. translucens ssp. tenera (V.Poelln.) Bayer :161(1976).  Bayer :56 (1982).  Type: Cape, Plutosvale, Grahamstown, Miss Blackbeard 15.  Not preserved.  Neotype (B&M): Glenelg, Smith 5416 (NBG). H. minima Baker, J. Linn. Soc. 18: 215 (1880). Nom. illeg. ype: Cape, imported by Tuck, in hort Kew.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon (K).

tenera: tender or delicate.

This variety passed without comment in the early editions and Scott is justified in regarding it as discrete against the ill-defined view of the species then presented.  It is well-represented in the area northeast and east of Grahamstown and is quite variable.  Entirely glabrous forms occur and Smith’s collection from north of the type locality is also markedly less greyish green, and also less prominently spined.  Breuer and Metzing have unfortunately chosen this specimen as the type for H. tenera when many specimens from Plutosvale were available.

An additional and important consideration in including this distinct element with H. gracilis, is a range of collections from the Uitenhage area (Groendal in particular) where very similar growth forms occur.  These differs from the typical variety in respect of the more compact incurved rosettes and off course, spination.  There are forms of var. isabellae which are practically identical.  To complicate the issue, it should be noted that H. gracilis var. gracilis also occurs near to Plutosvale, and its relation there with H. cymbiformia var. incurvula is not clear.

Distribution: 3323 (Willowmore): Spreeugat (-DB), Bruyns 1650 (NBG).  3324(Steytlerville): Wilgekloof (-CA), Branch 36 (NBG); Groot Kommando Kloof (-CB), van Jaarsveld 7704 (NBG); Ziewefontein (-CB), Fourcade 5471 (BOL); Kouga (-CB), Esterhuysen 7119 (BOL); Scholtzberg (-CB), van Jaarsveld 7792a (NBG); Ashoek (-DA), Smith 3679, 3680 (NBG); Kaan (-DD), Smith 3686 (NBG); 3325 (Port Elizabeth): Groendal wilderness, Nounek (-CA), Scharf 1061 (PRE); Groendal Dam (-CB), Bayer 1404a, Bruyns 1822 (NBG).  3326 (Grahamstown): Plutosvale (-BA), Britten in PRE 34942, Britten 12 (BOL), Smith 9, 5419 (NBG), Bayer in KG47/72, in KG47/72a (NBG), Dyer in NBG 802/30 (BOL), Dyer 2173 (PRE), Erens 435 (PRE), Hutchinson 1577 (BOL); Top Plutosvale (-BA), Smith 5417; Glenelg (-BA), Smith 5416 (NBG); Near Fletchers Farm (-BA), Smith 5418, 5420 (NBG); S. Hunts Drift (-BB), Smith 5679 (NBG); S. Committees (-BB), Smith 6509 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Uitenhage, Long in NBG1456/35, Britten in NBG741/31, Cook (BOL); Albany, Luyt in NBG305/45; Hankey, Coates in NBG369/39, NBG355/39; Patensie, Smith 3025 (NBG); Port Elizabeth, Arnold (BOL).

d. var. picturata var.nov. 
Type: 3325(Port Elizabeth): Enon (-BC), Thode 21507 (NBG, Holo.).

picturata: variegated.

Differs from the type in having glabrous, bright green leaves, in which the translucent areas of the leaves contrast strongly with the dark green opaque reticulation.  (A var. gracilis foliis glabris et bene notatis differt).

This variety has generally been overlooked as intermediate between typical H. cymbiformis and the var. transiens.  However, there are localities where this variant reportedly grows together with H. cymbiformis, and it appears to be derived primarily from the gracilis element in the greater Baviaanskloof.  The leaf-tips are either normally pointed, and thus very similar to the var. isabellae, or may be blunt and incurved.  The main distinction is the distinct translucent reticulation contrasting with the opaque lower leaf surfaces.

Distribution: 3323 (Willowmore): 9km E. Haarlem (-CB), Smith 3669 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Geelhoutboskloof (-CA), Viviers 879 (NBG); Diepriver (-CD), Van Jaarsveld 15342 (NBG); N. Andrieskraal (-DA), Fourcade 176 ((NBG); Kleinwaterkloof (-DA), Smith 7102 (NBG); Grootwaterkloof (-DA), Smith 7103 (NBG); 3.5km W. Hankey (-DD), Stayner (NBG); Kleinrivier road (-DD), Smith 2931 (NBG).  3325(Port Elizabeth): Enon (-BC), Thode A2774 (PRE), Thode 21507, 26090 (NBG); Longmore Forest (-CC), Branch 369 (NBG).

e. var. viridis M.B.Bayer var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): Perdepoort (-AC), Smith 6867 (NBG, Holo.).

viridis: green.

Differs from the type in the brighter green coloration and in its more northwesterly geographic distribution.  (A var. gracilis foliiis viridibus vividuis et distributione geographica septentionali-occidentali differt).

Occurs to the northwest in the Winterhoek mountains and may have the form typical of the species, with longish, erect and glabrous incurving leaves, or be somewhat squatter with broader incurving leaves.  One record from east of Hankey is attributed to this variety, and there are two records from the Steytlerville area where the small form of H. decipiens is also recorded.  Field observations show a transition directly to H. decipiens var. minor and also to H. decipiens var. pringlei.  As stated earlier, it is very difficult to detect any geographical patterns in the variation of the species and it is probably over-ridden by ecotypic variation in a topographically diverse region.

Distribution: 3324 (Steytlerville): Oulande, Steytlerville (-AA), Schoeman in KG22/84 (NBG); Campherpoort (-AA), Smith 3594, 3646 (NBG), Bruyns 1629 (NBG), Bayer 2074 (NBG); Die Poort (-AD), Branch 353 (NBG); Dorschfontein (-BC), Bayer 3375 (NBG), Bayer & Bruyns 6589 (NBG); Diepnekkloof (-CA), Branch 35 (NBG); Kouga Dam (-DA), Stayner in KG343/62 (NBG); Witrivier (-DA), Bayliss in KG376/75 (NBG); Ouplaas (-DB), Bruyns 7040b (BOL); Hankey to Patensie (-DD), Bosch in KG73/70 (NBG).  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Brakfontein (-AC), Bayer 4198 (NBG); Perdepoort (-AC), Smith 6867 (NBG), Branch 10 (NBG), Schoeman (NBG); E. Perdepoort (-AC), Smith 7337 (NBG), Bayer & Venter 6600 (NBG); Sapkamma (-AC), Bayer & Venter 6620 (NBG); Perdepoort Mt.(-CA), Swart in Bayer 970 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Baviaanskloof, Bayliss in KG379/76 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 14. Haworthia heidelbergensis

14. Haworthia heidelbergensis Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 14:42(1948).  Bayer :121(1976).  Bayer :41(1982).  Scott :131(1985).  Esterhuizen, Aloe 29:64(1992).  idem. 33:15(1996).  Type: CAPE‑3420 (Bredasdorp): W. Heidelberg (‑BB), J. Dekenah 230 in Smith 6566 (NBG).

heidelbergensis: from Heidelberg, Cape.

Rosette stemless, proliferous, to 8cm φ.  Leaves many, erect to recurved, generally with small marginal and keel spines, usually dark green with reddish hues, end-area of leaf slightly translucent.  Inflorescence simple.  Flowers 10-15, white with brownish veins.

1982 – This is a small species occurring immediately east of Heidelberg.  It grows deeply imbedded in moss and lichen and although the leaves have a distinct end area they are markedly acuminate.  Known only from one locality, there is a related population at Matjestoon to the southwest in which the plants have longer recurving leaves, and another at Bredasdorp similar to the last.  Together these three populations have no obvious affinities with any other species in the complex.  Heidelberg is a very significant area for haworthias, as species such as H. turgida, H. magnifica, H. floribunda and H. retusa all occur nearby.  H. heidelbergensis is not continuously variable with any of these.  It is a winter‑growing species, invariably non‑proliferous and difficult in cultivation.  The occurrence in moss and lichen suggests that it requires more shade than usual, as well as a distinct summer resting period.

1999 – This has proved to be the most surprising species among all the collections of the last ten years.  Many collections have been made including at all the compass points immediately around Heidelberg, although those north are really considered hybrid with H. turgida.  As Esterhuysen (1992) pointed out, the type locality is probably west of Heidelberg as recorded in Smith’s collecting records and on his type specimen.  This is cited in the published description simply as ‘Swellendam District’.  It extends further east towards Riversdale,  westwards to Bonnievale and is common east and north of Bredasdorp.  It has proved to be a major role player among the species in that area apart from its association with H. emelyae already dealt with.  The populations around Heidelberg show evidence of direct introgression with H. turgida and cast new light on the relationship of that species with H. retusa.  H. heidelbergensis is apparently the eastern counterpart of H. mirabilis and these two species never co-occur.  H. serrata also cannot be excluded from discussion of this species (see H. serrata).  At its westernmost limit at Bonnievale, it is confounded with H. maraisii var. meiringii.  At the type locality it is rather atypical, an oxymoronic statement.  Here the leaves are erect, but with a distinct end-area and there are not many leaves.  Characteristic of the species is, however, the abundance of individuals at each site and their density in colonies usually on slightly southern slopes and in thick moss.  The leaves may be smoothish and cloudily translucent or with translucence between veins on the upper leaf surfaces.  The leaves tend to spread and recurve rather than being distinctly retused or with a swollen end-area as in the type.  This is also one of the main feature separating H. mirabilis from H. maraisii, although it is by no means an absolute discriminant.  The colour is also usually a reddish tinted greenish-brown.  At Bredasdorp the population is greener than normal and the plants are like miniaturised H. mirabilis.  Several varieties are distinguished to facilitate perception of this species.

M-14-heidelbergensis

a. var. heidelbergensis
Resende in Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 48:114(1940) suggested a change in the rules of nomenclature so that if a name proved not to be the true stem form (in other words not central to the circumscription of the species) the type should be changed for one that was.  This is a case where that rule would prove quite useful.  A manuscript concerning the pivotal role this species plays in the Southern Cape has been submitted to ALOE.  Despite the major role this species plays in relation to all the species in the Southern Cape, not one of the illustrations in Bayer (1980), ‘The story of Haworthia nitidula’ depicts this.  Larger plants occurs around Heidelberg and mid-way to Riversdale.  The actual locality of the collection is rather odd, as Dekenah pointed out the locality to the author as east of the town, whereas there are two collection of Smiths received from Dekenah, one east and one west.  They are virtually identical and Esterhuizen (1992) confirms this.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): W. Heidelberg (‑BB), J. Dekenah 230 in Smith 6566 (NBG); E. Heidelberg (-BB), Smith 5756 (NBG), Bayer 2550 (NBG); Koppie opposite sports grounds (-BB), Smith 5044 (NBG); S. Heidelberg (-BB), Smith 6989 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Heidelberg, Joubert 180 (BOL).

b. var. minor var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3420( Bredasdorp): Rooivlei (-CA), Bayer in KG 36/70 (NBG, Holo.).

minor: smaller.

Differs in being small, to 3cm φ, and in being light yellowish-green and well spined.  (A var. heidelbergensis foliis parvioribus flavo-virentibus pallidis et spinosis differt).

North of Bredasdorp the plants resemble miniaturised forms of H. mirabilis var. sublineata and have the same plain green colour.  The leaf-tips are also notably translucent.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): Rooivlei (-CA), Bayer in KG 36/70 (NBG), Smith 3903 (NBG).

c. var. scabra var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3420 (Bredasdorp): Leeurivier (-AB), Bayer 1700 (NBG, Holo.).

scabra: rough.

Differs in being small, to 3cm φ and as tall.  The colour is usually very dark green.  The leaves erect or sub-erect, slightly scabrid especially along the margins and keel.  (A var. heidelbergensis foliis recurvatioribus cum fenestra apicali distincta differt).

This is the commonest variety in terms of population distribution.  The plants are quite small and very easily mistaken for erect-leaved forms of H. maraisii despite the general absence of ‘cloudy’ translucent windows in the leaves of the latter species.  Although populations are often small, they are usually very dense.

Distribution: 3320 (Montagu): Drew (-CC), Fouche in PRE 34945; W. Bonnievale (-CC), Bayer 6509 (NBG), Lewis in NBG2457/33 (BOL).  CAPE-3420 (Bredasdorp): Kliphoogte (-AA), Bayer 4677 (NBG); Leeurivier (-AB), Bayer 1700 (NBG); Brakfontein (-AC), Bayer 2547 (NBG); Beyersdal (-AD), Bayer 2556 (NBG); Haarwegskloof (-AD), Bayer 5101 (NBG); W. Kathoek (-AD), Bayer & Bruyns 6566 (NBG), Burgers 2581 (NBG); E. Kathoek (-AD), Bayer & Bruyns 6561 (NBG); N. Potberg (-BC), Bayer & Bruyns 6544 (NBG), Bayer & Bruyns 6545 (NBG).

d. var. toonensis var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3420 (Bredasdorp): Matjestoon (-BB), Smith 6797 (NBG, Holo.).

toonensis: abbreviation for origin at Matjestoon.

Differs in the more recurved leaves with a distinct transparent end-area to the leaves.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): Matjestoon (-BB), Smith 156, 6797 (NBG), Bayer 1698 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 15. Haworthia herbacea

15. Haworthia herbacea (Mill.) Stearn, Cactus J. 7:40(1938).  Bayer, Nat.Cact.Succ.J 27:51(1972).  Bayer :122(1976).  Bayer :42(1982).  Aloe herbacea Mill., Gardeners Dictionary :n18(1768).  Type: icon, 130:t131 Boerhaave Index Alter Pl. (1720).  Epitype (B&M): CAPE-3319(Worcester): N. Ribbokkop (-DC), Bayer 161 (NBG):  A. atrovirens D.C., Pl.Gras. :f81(1799).  H. atrovirens (D.C.) Haw., Revis. :57(1821).  Type: as above:  A. arachnoidea var. pumila Aiton, Hort.Kewensis 1:468(1789).  Willd., Spec.Pl. 2:188(1799).  A. pumila (Willd.) Haw., Trans.Linn.Soc. 7:10(1804).  H. pumila (Willd.) Duval, Pl.Succ.Hort.Alenc. :7(1809).  Haworth, Syn.Pl.Succ. :95(1811).  Type: as above (Linnaeus, Aloe pumila var. E):  Aloe translucens Haw., Trans.Linn.Soc. 7:10(1804).  H. pellucens Haw., Syn.Pl.Succ. :96(1812).  Aloe arachnoidea var. translucens (Haw.) Ker-G., Curtis’ Bot.Mag. t.1417(1811).  H. translucens Haw., Suppl.Pl.Succ. :52(1819).  H. arachnoidea (L.) Duv. sensu Scott, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 49:205(1977).  Scott, Aloe 16:41(1978).  Scott :39(1985).  Type: Cape, Masson.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon. :t.1417 Curtis’ Bot. Mag.:  H. pallida Haw., Revis.:56(1821).  Type: Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon (K):  H. aegrota V.Poelln., Desert Pl.Life 11:193(1939).  Type: Cape, Worcester, Swellendam etc. H. Venter.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon (B):  H. submaculata idem.  Type: Cape, Worcester, etc. H. Venter 5.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): icon (B):  H. luteorosea Uitew., Cact.en Vetpl. 5:88(1939).  Type: ex Hort, Holland.  Not preserved.H. arachnoidea (L.) Duval sensu Scott, Cact. Succ. J. (US) 49:205 (1977).

herbacea: yellow-green.

Rosette stemless, proliferating, to 8cm φ.  Leaves erect, incurved, scabrid, margins and keel with firm spines, greenish yellow in colour, reticulate patterning with translucent interstices.  Inflorescence simple, to 300mm.  Flowers large, beige, pinkish tips, buds bi-arcuate.

1982 – The choice of the name herbacea is possibly a poor one as this name is associated with a number of perhaps incompatible early illustrations.  Scott’s selection of the name arachnoidea is equally dubious particularly as it also ignores the flower character.  H. herbacea occurs only in the Worcester area extending in the southeast to east of McGregor, south into the mountains at Villiersdorp where a large flowered form occurs and to just northwest of Worcester itself.  It is very close to H. reticulata and southwest of Robertson it is often difficult to know with which species one is dealing.  However, H. herbacea usually has beige flowers, the plants are usually solitary, more deeply sunk in the ground, less proliferous and more hairy than H. reticulata.  At De Wet the two species grow together and there are distinct hybrids.  There are at least two other localities where both species grow in close association without hybridisation.  H. herbacea flowers in late winter (September‑October) and has an unusually large flower.  The Villiersdorp mountain form collected by E. Esterhuysen, has a particularly impressive flower but has not been introduced into cultivation.  H. herbacea has a direct connection with H. maculata at the Brandvlei Dam south of Worcester.  The size of the plant varies from 80mm in diameter to as little as 35mm near McGregor where the flowers may also be pinkish.

1999 – Nomenclature is indeed a slippery slope and this is a case in point.  The name pumila which Duval applied in Haworthia, was based on Boerhaave’s early illustration as can be traced through a tortuous synonymy.  It is in my opinion now invalid in the genus Haworthia, because the same type is used for the name herbacea.  (see also Haworthia margaritifera).  Apart from this nomenclatural tangle, the application of the name to a naturally occurring element is a problem.  The Boerhaave illustration can perhaps be better related to Haworthia maraisii than to the species for which I have used the name.  The earlier epithet atrovirens would have been a far better choice for that species had it been available.  Rather than make this unfortunate change, and then also using the name translucens for this species, I am following a principle of conservation and letting sleeping dogs lie.  It is enough that Col Scott has unfortunately confounded the issue by his use of the name H. arachnoidea for this species, without the acknowledgment in synonymy that may have clarified the issue.

The type nominated by Breuer and Metzing for H. translucens is based on the 1982 Handbook interpretation, where the name was applied incorrectly.  It is apparent that H. translucens Haw. as perceived in 1819, includes the Botanical Magazine illustration cited above.  This must be related to H. herbacea as understood here now.

M-15-herbacea

a. var. herbacea.
The typical variety is widespread and relatively homogeneous throughout its range.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): Karoo Garden (-CB), Dobay 62 (NBG), Barker 8766 (NBG); Veld Reserve (-CB)., Olivier 129 (NBG, PRE), Pamphlet 44 (NBG); W. Worcester (-CB), Searle in NBG162/84 (NBG), Bayer 2421 (NBG); Brandwacht (-CB), Bayer in KG166/70 (NBG); SE. Brandvlei Dam (-CB), Bayer 2422 (NBG); W. Doornrivier (-CD), Bayer 1995 (NBG), Leipoldt (BOL); Lemoenpoort (-CD), Bayer 1996(NBG); N. Lemoenpoort (-CD), Bayer 4439 (NBG); Patryskloof, Mauve & Oliver 243 (NBG); De Wet (-DA), van Heerden 1024 (NBG); Rabiesberg (-DA), Esterhuysen & Lewis in NBG2689/35 (NBG); Ribbokkop (-DC), Bayer 161 (NBG); Keerweerder, Jonaskop (-DC), Bayer 2697 (NBG); Nuy (-DC), Hurling & Neil (BOL); Mowers (-DC), Bayer in KG218/70 (NBG); Wansbek (-DC), Bayer 1997 (NBG), Moffett in KG181/70; Rabiesdal (-DD), Heunis 1 (NBG); Koningsrivier (-DD), Bayer in KG 329/70 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Marloth 8912 (PRE); Worcester, Smith 3910 (NBG), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Venter 4 (BOL), Joubert 1 (BOL); Worcester to Robertson, Venter 5, 7 (BOL); ex hort, Leipoldt (BOL), Logan (BOL), Starke in BOL24591, Venter in NBG215/39, Aryer’s nursery (BOL); Ross-Frames in NBG78/44; Bonnievale, Malherbe in NBG297/40, van der Merwe 174 (BOL); Riversdale, Ferguson (BOL).

b. var. flaccida var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3319 (Worcester): Rooiberg (-DD), P.V.Bruyns 7114 (NBG, Holo.).

flaccidus: weak, soft.

Differs from the species in being small and delicate.  There is considerable variation among the plants in habitat.  (A var. herbacea foliis parvioribus et virellis differt).

The habitat of this variety is on steep north-facing rocks where the plants occur in small very dense clusters.  They co-occur with H. maraisii and with H. reticulata.  The former is on the same rock face but not as exposed, while the latter occurs on slopes both lower down and higher up on the mountainh.  The locality is outside the known northeast distribution of the species.  There are very few plants and the habitat is uncharacteristic of any of the species in the Southern Cape.  The flower is outwardly identical to that of H. herbacea as is also that of H. pubescens.  The flowering time co-incides with that of the latter but there is very little vegetative similarity.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): Rooiberg (-DD), P.V. Bruyns 7114 (NBG).

c. var. lupula var.nov. 
Type: CAPE-3319 (Worcester): Boscheveld Mt., Wolfkloof, Villiersdorp (-CD), E. Esterhuysen (NBG, Holo.).

lupula: small wolf as reference to origin.

Distinctive for the larger pink flower, and for the broader, shorter leaves which are more finely flecked and slightly less scabrid than the typical.

This variety was first collected by Elsie Esterhuysen who specialised in the flora of the Cape mountains.  It occurs in sandstones, which is not unique for this species as it is also in sandstones south of McGregor.  The occurrence is at the southwestern limits of the species.  This is one of the elements which  recurs through the Cape mountains and which suggest a common ancestry from here for at least the subgenus Haworthia.  The similarities to H. vlokii, H. mirabilis var. consanguinea, H. maculata, H. variegata var. modesta (on the Potberg Mountain) and to H. turgida at high altitude are notable.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): Boscheveld Mt., Villiersdorp (-CD), E. Esterhuysen (NBG); Wolfkloof, Villiersdorp (-CD), Bayer 2579 (NBG).

d. var. paynei (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. paynei  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:206(1937).  H. pallida var. paynei V.Poelln., Cactus J 6:19(1937).  Type: Cape, McGregor district, G. Payne.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3319 (Worcester): Olifantsdoorn, McGregor (-DD), Bayer 4430 (NBG).

paynei: for G. Payne.

Mr George Payne accumulated an extraordinary collection of plants prior to the war and subsequently lost interest. This variety named after him is indeed different for its small size and for the bi-coloured flower which is pink above and white below.  It is on the southeastern limits of the species and a still smaller proliferous form has been reported in the area.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): McGregor (-DD), Payne in PRE 27254, in PRE 34948, Bayer 695/69 (NBG); 1km S. McGregor (-DD), Bayer (NBG); Near McGregor (-DD), Smith 3978, 7196 (NBG); 3km E. McGregor (-DD), Scott 2203 (PRE); Olifantsdoorn, McGregor (-DD) Bayer 4430 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 16. Haworthia lockwoodii

16. Haworthia lockwoodii Archibald, Flower.Pl.Afr. 20:f792(1940).  Bayer :129(1976).  Bayer : 43(1982).  Scott :86(1985).  Type: Cape, near Laingsburg (-BC), S. Lockwood-Hill 215 (GRA).

lockwoodii: after S. Lockwood‑Hill.

Rosette stemless, to 10cm φ, slowly proliferous, withdrawn into soil.  Leaves many, incurved, broad, smooth, usually spineless and dying back at the tips, pale green and translucent above.  Inflorescence simple, robust.  Flowers many, large adpressed to stem and broad across upper surface.

1982 – This species is at its most attractive in the field when the dead, whitened leaf tips are closed in a tight umbrella‑like canopy over the plant.  The plants then resemble dried‑off onions.  They grow usually very well hidden by stones or under bushes.  H. lockwoodii is relatively restricted to the area south of Laingsburg and its affinity lies most probably with H. decipiens.  It differs in that the leaf margins are entirely smooth and in that the leaf tips die back so characteristically.  A relationship with H. habdomadis is frequently suggested but H. lockwoodii always has a thinner and broader leaf.  In cultivation it tends to etiolate and the leaves can be seen to be a clear pale‑green with the leaf tips without veins or chlorophyll.  The Laingsburg area is in the summer rainfall zone but H. lockwoodii should receive very little water and preferably in the winter.

1999 – The alliance of this species is with H. decipiens as tentatively stated above.  At Prince Albert this is confirmed by several populations which are intermediate.  However, southeast of Laingsburg both species apparently interact with H. mucronata.  This is at a farm Rouxpos.  H. lockwoodii and H mucronata co-occur discretely in the Rooinek Pass, but to the south-west at Anysberg, seem to hybridise in an extensive population. This interaction should be seen in the light of the newer discussion concerning species concepts.  These interactions are not in the context of ‘new’ contact, which is a notion the previous handbooks attempted to reject.  In the application of chaos theory to species recognition, it is entirely to be expected that transitional or undifferentiated populations should occur.  The Rouxpos populations seems to show that there is simply a continuum of the major elements such as H. lockwoodii and H. mucronata in the west to H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis in the east.

Distribution: 3320 (Montagu): W. Klein Riet River, Waterford (-BB), Wilmot & Hill 215 (PRE); Laingsburg (-BB), Wilmot in PRE 34946 (PRE); near Laingsburg (-BB), S. Lockwood-Hill 215 (BOL,GRA), Fourcade in Archibald 1459 (NBG), Otzen in Smith 3538 (NBG), Smith 3406 (NBG), Malherbe in NBG653/41; Ezelsfontein (-BB), Bayer 2425 (NBG); Floriskraal (-BB), Bayer 155 (NBG); 16km S. Laingsburg (-BB), Minnaar (BOL).  3321(Ladismith): W. Rouxpos (-AC), Venter 31 (NBG), Venter 86/96 (NBG).

Inadequately located: ex hort Whitehill NBG 68384; James (BOL), Archer (BOL).

M-16-lockwoodii

Haworthia Revisited – 17. Haworthia maculata

17. Haworthia maculata (V.Poelln.) Bayer :130(1976).  Bayer :43(1982).  H. schuldtiana var. maculata V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov.49:25(1940).  Type: Cape, Worcester, Swellendam etc. H. Venter 6a.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): Worcester, Venter 6 (BOL).

maculata: spotted.

Rosette stemless, proliferous, to 8cm φ.  Leaves many, sub-erect to spreading, purplish-green, spotted, short spines on margins and keel.  Inflorescence simple, slender.  Flowers 15-20, few open, white, yellowish in throat, green veined.

1982 – The original locality for this species was not accurately recorded but it was collected by Major H. Venter, and so it is possible from Smith’s and Long’s records to trace it to the Brandvlei Dam south of Worcester.  H. maculata flowers in October/November and the form of the flower is like that of H. herbacea and H. reticulata, rather than like that of H. magnifica (H. schuldtiana).  There is a clear intergradation with H. herbacea in the area, and the plants are very similar to H. herbacea except that there are fewer and more turgid leaves.  H. maculata also occurs further south in a similar quartzitic rock formation to that at Brandvlei Dam.  A problem is the occurrence of populations apparently of H. maculata in the mountains to the north of Worcester (both high altitude ‑ Audenberg Peak, and low altitude ‑ at Sandhills).  A similar element occurs eastward towards Robertson at Buitenstekloof, distinguished again from H. magnifica by an earlier flowering time and the wide spread of the tips of the upper perianth lobes.

1999 – It is difficult to know just what is present on the higher mountains.  Few succulentophiles are also mountaineers, and besides the plants could be expected to be on rocky north faces which may not attract the conventional high altitude botanist.  H. nortieri bears some resemblance to H. maculata and that species is found as far south as Opdieberg (Ceres).  It is quite probable that populations may occur elsewhere in the area between Worcester and Citrusdal.

M-17-maculata

a. var. maculata
This variety seems to be linked to H. herbacea with possible ties to H. nortieri.  The similarity to other high mountain forms (eg H. vlokii and H. turgida) cannot be overlooked and this has been repeated at several places in this book.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): Brandvlei Dam (‑CB), Bayer 164 (NBG), Smith 3912 (NBG); Bayer in KG669/69 (NBG); NE. Brandvlei Dam (-CB), Bayer 2591 (NBG); Audensberg Peak (-CB), Esterhuysen 16706 (BOL), Bayer 1119 (NBG); Moddergat (-CD), Bayer 1145 (NBG); Keeromsberg, Boskloof (-DA), BOL28719; S. Sandhills (-DA), Bayer 1120 (NBG).

b. var. intermedia (V.Poelln.) Bayer stat.nov. 
H. intermedia V.Poelln., Kakteenkunde 9:133(1937).  V.Poell., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:233(1938).  Type: Cape, Robertson, McGregor, G.J. Payne  Not preserved.  Lectotype (designated here): Epitype (designated here): CAPE-3319 (Worcester): Buitenstekloof (-DC), Bayer 4461 (NBG).

intermedia: between.

In the case of this variety, Payne (priv. comm.) did indicate the actual origin at Buitenstekloof west of Robertson.  Von Poellnitz’ later citation for Scottburgh, Port Elizabeth, as well, is indicative of the close resemblance of even very different species and the difficulties which arise in trying to identify them consistently and correctly.  In his discussion von Poellnitz concluded that while the plants had the long end-awn of H. mucronata, the reticulated patterning of the leaves was that of the H. reticulata group.  The name suggests the difficulty in deciding just what to do with this element.  It co-occurs with H. reticulata and with H. arachnoidea and bears a very close resemblance to the shale form of H. maraisii var. notabilis.  As already noted it has a different flower and flowering time to that variety.  Nevertheless it may be correct to place them together in one species as there is also a population recorded mid-way between the two at Agtervink.  Possibly a more direct link with H. turgida should be sought as the plants do bear a close resemblance to the montane forms of that species.  Certainly it is possible that there may be a connection somewhere in the mountains between Robertson and Swellendam.

Distribution: 3319 (Worcester): Buitenstekloof (-DC), Bayer 4461 (NBG).

Haworthia Revisited – 18. Haworthia magnifica

18. Haworthia magnifica V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 33:239(1933).  Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977).  Bayer :44(1982).  H. maraisii var. magnifica (V.Poelln.) Bayer :131(1976).  Type: Cape, Riversdale commonage, Mrs E. Ferguson.  Not preserved.  Lectotype (B&M): Riversdale, Ferguson (BOL).

magnifica: magnificent.

Rosette stemless, slowly proliferous, to 8 cm φ.  Leaves spreading, retused to ground level, dark green to purplish, scabrid to finely spined margins, end-area slightly translucent between the veins, surfaces with small slightly raised tubercles.  Inflorescence slender, to 40cm.  Flowers brownish veined, few open, upper lobes pinched at tips.

1982 – Haworthia magnifica is an incredibly variable species and it will not be possible to gain any insight into probable affinities with H. turgida, H. retusa, H. emelyae and H. mirabilis without in‑depth study.  It is characterized by its dark‑green colour, small size, short green‑lined buds and flowers, and ‘fish‑tail’ bud tips.  It flowers in March ‑ April although this varies and only serves as a character to distinguish the species from H. mirabilis.  Only the more notable and widely spread forms are recognized as varieties here.  There are several other populations which could justly be named as varieties.  The variety major has an unusually large flower similar to that of H. emelyae and there is evidence of intergradation of these two taxa.  The var. paradoxa may constitute a south‑eastern link between H. magnifica and H. mirabilis, except that truer forms of H. magnifica var. maraisii intercede along the Breede River and at Bredasdorp.  The var. maraisii at its type locality at Stormsvlei is quite a robust form which adopts many guises in the Robertson/Worcester area.  South of Stormsvlei there is an aberrant population which appears intermediate between the var maraisii and H. mirabilis.  However, just north of Stormsvlei, H. mirabilis occurs in a small, many‑leaved form.  The var. meiringii appears vegetatively very like a smaller, darker green version of H. herbacea, until it flowers.  Also to the west it intergrades into the more characteristic retuse‑leaved var. maraisii.  The var. notabilis also has erect leaves which are darker green and more turgid than in the case of H. herbacea.  The var. atrofusca was originally collected from west of Riversdale and is characterized by its rounded leaf tips.  The var. magnifica has unusually long acuminate leaf tips and is restricted to a small area southeast of Riversdale, recurring again just west of Heidelberg.  H. magnifica has been recorded north of both Montagu and Barrydale and as far south as Cape Infanta and westwards to Bredasdorp.  Consideration of the variability of this species and distribution of variants is very helpful towards understanding variability in the genus as a whole.

1996 – The comment ‘in-depth study’ is quite inappropriate in the Haworthia literature which generally suffers from any formal objective study.  What has happened since 1982 is much further collecting which has brought some new perceptions.  The problems with this species are exemplified by Scott’s circumscription and synonymy of H. asperula where it is barely possible to separate all the diverse elements included in it.  Esterhuizen wrote in ALOE (1996) that it was easier for him to separate the var. atrofusca from var. maraisii, than from magnifica.  This perspicacious observation is all the more so for the new collections from east of Riversdale, and also for the changed view of H. heidelbergensis.  It has been decided to separate the elements maraisii and magnifica because it appears that they relate to each other as H. heidelbergensis does to H. mirabilis.  It is also more realistic that some of the varieties that were with magnifica are rather variants of H. maraisii.  Thus H. magnifica is applied to the eastern populations which are rather more robust and in which the end-area of the leaf is longer and more pointed.  If the end-area is shortened it is also rounded.  H. magnifica is usually more greenish than the nearly black H. maraisii.  Where previously  considering H. retusa as a major element has led to problems, the perception that H. turgida and H. magnifica are the main role players makes it easier to understand what the different populations may represent.  This should be apparent from the varieties recognised here, and in the corresponding discussion.

M-18-magnifica

a. var. magnifica.
Originally from only south of Riversdale.  The name is now also applied to the population from south of the Tradouw Pass, and to that just east of Riversdale.  These are quite robust plants with rather scabrid, sub-tuberculate leaves with denticulation of the margins at least.  The surfaces may also be slightly scabrid with the tubercles bearing small spines.  The plants are lighter green in colour than H. maraisii.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): Tradouw Pass (-BA), Smith 6788 (NBG).  3421 (Riversdale): S. Riversdale at beacon (-AA), Smith 5372 (NBG), Bayer in KG83/71 (NBG); Reserve (‑AB), J. Dekenah 16 (NBG); E. Riversdale (-AB), Smith 5376, 5376a, 5748 (NBG), Bayer in KG92/71 (NBG); Riversdale (-AB), Dekenah 6a (PRE); (-AB), Smith 5372 (PRE); Riversdale (-AB), Muir 3553 (PRE).

Inadequately located: Riversdale, Smith 3900, 5057 (NBG).

b. var. acuminata comb.nov. 
H. retusa forma acuminata Bayer :94(1976).  H. retusa var. acuminata Bayer :53(1982).  Type: CAPE‑3421 (Riversdale): N. of Gouritzmond (‑BD), Bayer in KG 311/7 (NBG).

acuminata: sharp pointed.

Previously under H. retusa, this variety has been transferred here because of the now restricted view of that species, and the new concept of H. magnifica.  It is only known from the one locality as the original nearby locality appears to have been destroyed.

Distribution: 3421(Riversdale): N. of Gouritzmond (‑BD), Bayer in KG 311/7 (NBG), Bayer 2423 (NBG); S. Gouritz Bridge (-BD), Smith 5047 (NBG); 9.5km Gouritz to Albertskraal (-BD), Smith 3946 (NBG).

c.var. atrofusca (Smith) Bayer
Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977).  Bayer :44(1982).  H. atrofusca Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 14:41(1948).  Bayer :100(1976).  Scott :130(1985).  Type: CAPE‑3421 (Riversdale): (‑AA), J. Dekenah 225 in Smith 6169 (NBG).

atrofusca: very dark brown.

This variety was represented by a single small population to the west of Riversdale and characterised by the blunt rounded leaf-tips.  This is in effect a single character which occurs in other populations and other species.  The scope of the variety is widened to include the large element to the north and west of Riversdale collected mostly by C. Craib (unpublished).  These are large brownish-green to blackish plants which are densely and finely tubercled against a scarcely translucent background.  The original variety and populations to the west include forms with sharply pointed leaves.  There is a very interesting population in the Potberg area to the west of the Breede River.  The habitat is identical to that of the type locality.  It is very unusual to encounter such a vicariant distribution record in the genus where isolated plants so closely resemble the type.

Distribution: 3420 (Bredasdorp): NW. Kathoek (-AD), Bayer & Bruyns 6549 (NBG).  3421(Riversdale): (‑AA), J. Dekenah 225 in Smith 6169 (NBG), Bayer in KG202/70 (NBG); Droerivier (-AA), Bayer 2665 (NBG).

d. var. dekenahii (Smith) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. dekenahii Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 10:140(1944).  H. retusa var. dekenahii (Smith) Bayer :53(1982).  Type: Cape, on farm Draaihoek (-BA), J. Dekenah 86 in Smith 5489 (NBG).

dekenahii: for Japie Dekenah, a born naturalist.

This element as a species was completely discarded in the 1976 handbook and resurrected as a variety of H. retusa in 1982.  Col. Scott upholds it as a species but illustrates H. turgida var. pallidifolia which co-occurs with it.  The significant things about this variety are the raised tubercles on the leaves, the silver flecks, and the blunt rounded leaf-tips.

Distribution: 3421 (Riversdale): Draaihoek (-BA), J. Dekenah 86 in Smith 5489 (BOL,NBG,PRE).

e. var. splendens Hammer and Venter
Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) in ms.  Type: W. Albertinia (-BA), Venter (NBG).

splendens: splendid.

The name is indeed apt.  I first saw this plant in about 1970 in a visit to Dr Hans Herre.  I simply assumed the unlabelled pinkish-red plant with the shiny black raised tubercles was an unusual specimen of H. emelyae which itself was practically unknown to me at that time.  The full story of this variety is better told by the authors whose persistence and tenacity led to its rediscovery at what is presumed to be a second locality – the first apparently having been destroyed.  Strangely enough a further population was discovered fatefully, and perhaps fortuitously, by Mary Parisi and Ed Dunne to the east of Albertinia.  The word fatefully are used with some deliberation because these two people deliberately avoided the contamination of plans aforethought in wanting to do their own exploration and discovery.  This eastern population flowers earlier together with the var. acuminata and also with H. emelyae.  There is obviously some significance to this which implies some cross-mountain connection and throws some doubt on the relation of the H. emelyae varieties.

Distribution: 3421 (Riversdale): E. Albertinia (-BA), Marx sn. (NBG); W. Albertinia (-BA), Venter (NBG).