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]

A shadow of the past – Haworthia arachnoidea again. (1999)

M.B.Bayer, 16 Hope St., Cape Town

In the welter of words that has arisen around the enigmatic enigma, it has occurred to me that this information may help bring some perspicacity to the way we think about Haworthia and names.  Somehow or other I have forgotten to examine how Col. Scott came to apply the name arachnoidea in the way he did.  It is really curious that the whole story is so intricately woven in the rise and fall of my own career, and shows how the greater wheels of politics and economics grind down the least of us.

Continue reading

Volume 1, Chapter 5:- The Haworthias of Kaboega

Introduction
Kaboega (also spelt Kabouga) is now an assemblage of farms (De Plaat, Wilgerfontein, Vygeboomfontein, Klipfontein) nestled against the north slopes of the Zuurberg mountains, north of Kirkwood. It is only about 15km away from Kirkwood as the crow flies, but 150km away by road. Oudekraal is about 20km east and it is the source of Haworthia angustifolia var. baylissii and Gasteria baylissiana. There are several records of Haworthia for the Kirkwood area, and von Poellnitz named H. stiemiei (Regarded as insufficiently known and not recognised by Col. C.L. Scott or myself) from there. He also identified plants from Kaboega and Uyepoort, both described as “at Kirkwood”) as H. altilinea var. denticulata (Haw.) v. Poelln. These plants are all in the melange that I attribute to H. cooperi var. gordoniana (the subject of another long essay). The Kaboega farm lies on the Kaboega river which drains an area of about 1m ha and then flows through the long Kaboegapoort into the Sundays River just north-west of Kirkwood. The terrain is very broken with the sandstone Zuurbergs themselves dominating the southern boundary at about 850 to 950m above sea level. The lowest point on the farm is at about 300m and the northern lesser shale or dolerite peaks reach 550 to 650m. The vegetation on the sandstones is Dry Mountain Fynbos. North of this is Karoo Valley Bushveld. Thus Kaboega is at an ecotone of the karoid veld, Eastern Cape grassland and the Noorsveld (Euphorbia thicket) of the Jansenville area.

The name Kaboega means ‘the Big Hole’, referring to the deep gorge which the Kaboega River cuts through the Zuurberg. This river joins the Sundays River where it skirts the eastern end of the Kleinwinterhoek Mountains. Thus Kaboega Gorge is about 20km east of the Sundays River Gorge and 20km west of Oudekraal where the Witrivier also cuts through the Zuurberg flowing southwards.

The only known Haworthia collections from Kaboega prior to this report are two collection by Gerhard Marx (JDV91/14-145, JDV91/15-146) from the easterly part of the farm (DePlaat, north and south aspects), and a similar collection by Peter Bruyns (PVB5002 in JDV92/33-147) from Kaboegapoort itself. Discounting the strange (expected) internal variation in the latter, these three collections are fairly similar. Plants with the brighter yellow-green of H. cymbiformis, but with more terete and slender sub-erect leaves. The plants are quite robust and in cultivation reach about 80mm diam. with leaves up to 90mm long. Look-alikes are found in the gracilis, cooperi and cymbiformis var. transiens complex of the Baviaanspoort, and I have generally referred these all to H. cooperi var. gordoniana.  However, that variety is actually quite a distinctive one from the Hankey Pass, north of Humansdorp and perhaps I should never have adopted it for general use in the way I have. Thus in my discussion about H. cooperi and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, I speculate that gracilis is an archetypal form which may lie at the root of the Eastern Cape species here being discussed.

The species H. aristata poses similar problem, and so does H. decipiens var. pringlei (Scott) Bayer as well as two collections which I and Bruyns made at Ripon station which is north-east of Kaboega. One of these latter collections is H. cooperi var. pilifera (-111) and the other is H. decipiens var. pringlei (-112). Largely because of that collection, I felt pressured into believing that the latter would best be coupled with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana rather than with H. decipiens, and I was contemplating a major change of this kind. This would also have involved subsuming that element in an enlarged H. cooperi var. cooperi. There are, however, some other collections from the greater Darlington Dam (Lake Mentz) area to the west, which are relevant to this problem. These include older ones which suggested the link of pringlei with decipiens which I was thus also predicting, and new ones which confirm that this does in fact happen.

Because of the extent and complexity of the problem, this report deals specifically with the Kaboega area. In conjunction with it, a manuscript regarding H. cymbiformis var. incurvula, was written to give another indication of the nature and scope of the problem of classification of Haworthia. However, the chief reason for the visit to Kaboega was somewhat fortuitous. I was intending visiting Pluto’s Vale again, also the farm Thornkloof where Col. R. Bayliss had collected; the place Aalwynpoort to check on an Ernst van Jaarsveld collection and also hoping to cast light on a collection from the Bosberg at Somerset East. Peter Bruyns was hoping I would recollect a Stapelia aff. kougabergensis which he had seen on the Zuurberg, and there are also some other Haworthia records in that general area which need verification. What also materialised was a visit by Steven Hammer to South Africa, and contact with Tony Dold of the Schonland Herbarium at Grahamstown. The best of all was contact by my wife Daphne, with the gracious managers of the Kaboega farming enterprise, Sandy and Ian Ritchie. Through their kindness and hospitality we came to spend four days on the farm and briefly explored what it has to offer. One day there was spent with Steven Hammer, and with Tony Dold and Dez Weekes of Grahamstown. My wife and I returned for a second visit in Sept. ’99, when we also went to Oudekraal via a direct farm road from Kaboega to the east.

Results
On our first visit we first explored the western side of the farm known as Wilgefontein.  Tony and Dez went up the slopes of the Spekboomberg on the north side of the valley, and the remainder of the party climbed to near the top of the Zuurberg. We climbed straight to the grassveld where the grass was very long and thick. We soon found a solitary-growing greyish-green plant in flower (MBB6904-148), and then higher and on vertical rocks, a less translucent clump-forming plant with a velvety texture – also in flower (MBB6905-149). The plants looked rather different and we were quite excited about it being something apparently out of the ordinary. It is possible in the context of later collections, that these two collections are ecotypes. Looking at similar rocks about 200m to the south-east, we found what at first was obviously H. coarctata var. adelaidensis (MBB6907). This turned out to be a big population of plants which can, as such, be collectively regarded as intermediate between H. glauca and H. coarctata. This is a very significant collection because of the occurrence of glauca in its typical form at Zuurberg Pass, and nearer at Oudekraal, both to the east. Var. coarctata itself is not known nearer than at Patterson 70km eastwards and var. adelaidensis from east of Riebeek East which is still further away. (see also ‘Haworthia Revisited’ p179). What we did hope to see was H. angustifolia known at its western limit from Oudekraal. It must be on Kaboega and we just have not seen it yet.

Across the valley Dez Weekes had collected three specimens from a south facing steep cliff (MBB6903-150). These had long stems with bright green terminal rosettes and I have identified these as H. cymbiformis (with reservations! as I think this could again be a local ecotypic adaptation) without seeing the plants in habitat myself. This species is also not known from nearer than Hell’s Gate 50km to the south, but – it almost certainly has affinities with the plants collected by Marx and Bruyns. Steven, Tony and Dez had to leave after the first day, but Daphne and I continued the exploration the second day with a long climb up the hill east of DePlaat. We soon found Gerhard Marx’ (MBB6909-151) plants at the base of the mountain and continued eastwards and upwards. We came across a very extensive and dense mass of H. glauca (MBB6908). The plants were variously tubercled and lacked the distinctive grey colouration of the species. Any affinity with “coarcata” was less obvious than at Wilgefontein. Another interesting plant there was a dwarf form of Aloe tenuior. We crossed over to the steep north slopes and on the way down came across three plants (MBB6910-152) of what appeared to be similar to the velvety plant of the previous day (-149). It was in the same rocky situation. We looked further for it, but failed to find it again probably only for lack of concerted effort. The terrain was very difficult and we were getting a little hot and tired. We came across the Marx plants again. These were further down the hill and looking rather bleached in the sun.

On the way home we were travelling across some very stony ground covered with scattered bush and a low-growing Felicia, probably filifolia. Underneath these, in algae and moss, and with Euphorbia stellata and Tylecodon reticulatus were single plants of a cryptic small blue-green species (MBB6917-142). This I relate to collections from Stonefountain and Verdun cited in my revision under H. aristata, again collected as MBB6852-126 and Dold in MBB6851-125 (Modderfontein).

The following day, accompanied by Sandy Ritchie, we ventured into the Kaboegapoort itself. We walked to the boundary with the Addo National Park. On the way we had seen inaccessible clumps of an Haworthia on a very steep cliff and we tried to reach these on the way back. We were lucky to be able to sample four clumps on the first of the rock faces where some plants had established themselves off the face (MBB6911-153). On the other cliff we could not reach anything. The plants were not cymbiformis but relate rather to the Marx plants except that they were clump-forming and bleached.  A better comparison is with (-148). They were also in flower.

Peter Bruyns collection (-147) is of six clones from this poort and each of these plants is different.  However, one clone (-147.1) resembles gracilis var. viridis from Perdepoort (-70) and also resembles a collection of Bruyns of cymbiformis var. transiens (-69) from the Langkloof. (This latter collection is involved in the issue of that species or gracilis var. picturata). Kobus Venter also has a collection of similar plants from south of Lake Mentz (-72.2). A second clone (-147.2) was an aberrant plant with very terete, abruptly mucronate leaves which were also unusually translucent. Another clone (-147.3) was of a plant identical to the big gracilis var. isabellae of the Krom River Estuary (Ripon, WRB1, recollected by myself -39), and comparable with a collection (MBB6855-154) from Waterford, east of Jansenville. That collection could be identifiable as H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla and perhaps hinting at a link of that element with H. decipiens var. minor. Two clones (147.4, 147,5) are the same as the DePlaat collections (-145, -146), resembling the Gladhurst (-116) and Glen Craig (-98,-99) forms of gracilis. Thus representing my view of an archetype.

On our last day, Ian Ritchie kindly took us on a drive to territory which had looked quite visitor friendly from the top of the Zuurberg. On closer contact they are anything but so.  On the Spitzkop, which is on the northern boundary of the farm, we found aristata (-141) growing on bluish shale in a situation favoured by H. cooperi var. cooperi. It was a little bigger than our previous collection, but smaller than plants we subsequently collected northwards on the road between Riebeek East and Jansenville (Paddafontain, MBB6899-155), which I refer to pringlei). Driving to the east of Spekboomberg we saw plants (MBB6914-156) similar to the Marx plants of DePlaat (-145) in profusion, some of them without the softer translucence of the Marx collection. The leaves were occasionally much flatter and ovate and distinctly reminiscent of cymbiformis. Daphne and I walked down the hill from that point seeing the plants for most of the descent. Ian in the meantime drove back and further to the south-east and then found very similar plants on a steep slope also facing south-east (MBB6915-157). These plants can also occur in large clusters.

Daphne and I drove to Somerset East to reconnoitre the Bosberg and on the way back saw aristata again about 10km north-east of Kaboega (-143).  We had looked at the Paddafontein (-155) plants on the way out and they quite obviously can be linked to aristata too.  Unlike the other collections of aristata, however, the Paddafontein plants have a large robust inflorescence with many flowers open (usual in decipiens) as opposed to say the Commadagga (-128), aristata, but with fewer and stumpier leaves) dwarfs with only 8-10 flowers per stalk and one open at a time (thus more pilifera-like).

During our second visit, we again went to the top of the mountain at Wilgefontein, after Ian had shown us H. glauca in the Kaboegapoort itself. This population was not typical of the species and also more like the De Plaat plants. We revisited the site of -148 and -149.  Both were in flower and on this occasion we found the grassy ecotype within about 75m of the stone-face plants. The latter had flowered but seed-set was very poor, as opposed to the grass element which had well-formed capsules. From there we went to the Dez Weekes’ slopes via a different route and collected (MBB6925-158) plants ranging from the same greenish cymbiformis-like plants of -156 to specimens which could be nothing else but typical of true cymbiformis. We saw the same plants again at the dam to the north-west of the homestead, and again on the south slopes (-159) behind the previous De Plaat collection (-151). We completed the stay with a visit to Soutkloof where we saw again the true aristata (-139), and also to the office of the Addo National Park on top of the Zuurberg. Here we saw specimens of H. cooperi var. pilifera from that vicinity, and similar to a collection by Ernst Van Jaarsveld from Oudekraal (I had seen these plants when I collected H. angustifolia var. baylissii there many years ago). On our visit to Oudekraal we stopped to the west of my previous visit and probably also west of where Ernst had collected. We found the cooperi-like plants (MBB6922-160) again growing among rocks in dense grassland. The plants had very pronounced reddish-lines in the leaves and this was evident in all the Kaboega collections.

Curiously a post-graduate botany student busy with a study of succulent endemism brought in a number of plants for identification. This is P. Desmett, and among his collections, two are relevant. One is PD2310-161 from Boplaas. This is north-east of Kirkwood where the Kaboega meets the Sundays River. The plant is a small spinose specimen which could relate to the arachnoidea-like (as von Poellnitz compared it) stiemiei. It could alternatively, and because of its colour and translucent patterning of the leaves, be more probably compared with H. decipiens var. minor represented by several MBB collections from Sapkamma (MBB6618-162, MBB6619-163, MBB6620-164) to the west. The other is PD2309-165 from the southern end of Kaboegapoort. It is the apparently puberulous-like element resembling -148, and also -153. Kobus Venter also collected and aristata-like plant from the Sundays River Poort (-73) which I think compares very favourably indeed with a large number of collections from afar afield as Redcliffe (north-east of Willowmore), the Baviaanskloof, Uniondale, down the Longkloof to Humansdorp and Hankey/Patensie. These are all collections which I have identified as H. cooperi var. gordoniana, and considered in the context of another paper.

Discussion
It is apparent to me that there are can be only two elements (species) of the sub-genus Haworthia present on Kaboega. These are from either of the geographical elements cymbiformis, aristata, gracilis and cooperi, and they are directly continuous. In cultivation it is apparent and obvious to me, that aristata from Spitzkop (-141) is mirrored by the gracilis-like -152, which is continuous with the more gracilis-like -151. This latter element leads through several collections to the cymbiformis-like plants in -150, -158 and -159. Similarly a very cooperi-like element in -148 is the apparent ecotype of the very gracilis-like -149. But -148 (and -165) must also be compared with -152 and to -153, which take us back to the gracilis-like archetypes. More significantly these seem to be the elements which best relate to the collections from Oudekraal, and with what occurs still further east at Zuurberg. These collections are considered to be H. cooperi var. pilifera.

There is no doubt that the Spitzkop aristata (-141) must be compared with -155 at Paddafontein and thus connecting aristata to the greater Jansenville area, and to the western elements of H. decipiens var. pringlei. There is the Waterford collection north of Lake Mentz (MBB6855-154) which is problematic as it does not have the opacity nor darker blue-green colouration of pringlei. It is better compared with xiphiophylla (or perhaps this is H. decipiens var. minor) in 72.2 south of Lake Mentz. It also bears a remarkable likeness to the Krom River collection of gracilis var. isabelllae (-39) as indicated above.

Conclusions
I conclude that at Kaboega we have a situation where cooperi is excluded by the fact that the archetypal gracilis is represented by an advanced version of gracilis from which aristata and cymbiformis are extended. This pattern of identifications and classification true for one area, are not true for another. Already fully aware of the complex interaction between species like H. bolusii, H. cooperi and H. decipiens, and fast becoming even more aware of the extension of this complexity to H. gracilis, H. cymbiformis, H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla and even H. marumiana, I have to express conclusions very guardedly. Any classification of Haworthia will undoubtedly have tensions within it. It has been long apparent to me that sophisticated technology is unlikely to prove of much value in dealing with the nuance of variation between populations. If it is, it has going to have to first take into account the kind of variation one sees at the scale covered by this article. My belief was, and is now confirmed, that this is indeed the scale at which observation is now required. It can still be a lot closer. We did not spend sufficient time at Kaboega to explore the area thoroughly, and neither have we yet made any permanent record of our observations other than this report and accompanying illustrations. The point may now have been passed at which casual generalisation from a memory bank of images is possible. Extensive photographic and herbarium records are going to be essential to create a physical record which can be studied and manipulated. There is a series of eight mountain ranges from near the coast, with the Zuurbergs being the last of these in the north-east. If I calculate how long it would take to explore that area on the scale of our limited survey of Kaboega, I reckon on at least three years of continual search.

At this point I realise that the expectations of “Haworthia Revisited” are not going to be met. There are already snivels and meuls because there is no “data” in my revision. My experience tells me that this is not because the average reader would in fact take any cognisance of such data – but it is part of the illogical and faulty paradigm of modern “science” (“materialism”, the Theosophist would say). My conviction is that I have in my revision presented there a very comprehensive picture of the genus. This can definitely meet the time-worn wishful thought of the platitudinous foreword that “this book will stimulate/encourage/direct/guide further research”. Classification of Haworthia is not simply sorting a few single specimens as they are represented in collections or on herbarium sheets. It is trying to understand a complex system of closely interrelated and similar looking elements, as populations, which do not fit a classic and static image of a genus and so-many discrete species. My contention is that this is not only the case for Haworthia, but for many other genera too. ♦

M. B. Bayer, Cape Town.
Ian Ritchie, Somerset East.

Volume 2, Chapter 9:- New Names and Combinations in Haworthia

This essay was published in Haworthiad 16:62, 2002.

Introduction

Subsequent to my revision Haworthia Revisited (1999), I have done much more fieldwork, particularly in the Eastern Cape. This has revealed even more striking evidence of the intense inter‑relatedness of the so‑called species in Haworthia. Classification and revisionary classification is a sampling process. As this progresses and more material is collected, so the classification firms up. A extensive discussion explaining the following combinations and two new varieties is provided in Haworthia Update Vol.1 and an insight into the taxonomic problems to be solved is provided by the illustrations with another article, “Small Hairy Things”.

My classification had some problem areas that were anticipated to a degree in Haworthia Revisited. The following sentence appears in the discussion of H. cymbiformis var. transiens: “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.” I also make repeated references to the nature of the relationship of species and variants. Many of those are specific to, or apply to, or are predictive of the following changes. The basis of the following combinations is thus laid in Haworthia Revisited.

Although collections are cited, these are not always now represented by herbarium specimens. The reason for this is simply one of resources: herbarium space, the impracticality of trying to represent all the variants in such herbarium state, and the effort required to manage living collections and their preservation as specimens. A photographic record is being maintained in lieu of dried specimens in herbaria, where the record extant is deemed to be otherwise inadequate.

The following new names and combinations are published below:

1. Re‑arrangement of Haworthia pringlei and H. xiphiophylla within H. bolusii and H. decipiens
H. bolusii var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. decipiens var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. decipiens var. virella M.B.Bayer var. nov.

2. Goodbye to Haworthia gracilis
H. cooperi var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. picturata (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. viridis (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. doldii M.B.Bayer var. nov.

3. A familiar new species, Haworthia transiens
H. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer stat. nov.

4. Where does Haworthia helmiae belong?
H. helmiae transferred to H. arachnoidea var. nigricans in synonymy .

1. Re‑arrangement of Haworthia pringlei and H. xiphiophylla within H.bolusii and H. decipiens

H. bolusii var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. pringlei C.L.Scott, Bradleya 12: 103 (1994). H. decipiens var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 67 (1999) in respect of the type only. Type: CAPE‑3224 (Graaff Reinet): Adelaide district (‑DD), Scott in PRE8970 (holotype).

Collections:

3224 (Graaff Reinet): Adelaide district (‑DD), Scott in PRE8970.

3225 (Somerset East): Baviaanskranz (‑DB), Bayer 6561; Ripon (‑BB), Bayer 6556; W. Ripon (‑BB), Bayer 6927.

All the other specimens and collections cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. decipiens var. pringlei are transferred to a new variety, H. decipiens var. virella.

My collection from east of Somerset East (Baviaanskranz) MBB6561 supported by the two Ripon collections above, and by several other collections pertaining to H. aristata, indicates that H. pringlei C.L. Scott is in fact better related to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. This is suggested by its interactions with H. cooperi var. dielsiana at Ripon, and complicated both by interaction with H. aristata south of that and extending to the new variety H. decipiens var. virella. This new combination is explained further in the discussion following var. virella.

H. decipiens var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

Haworthia xiphiophylla Baker, Fl.Cap. 6: 354 (1896). H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 36 (1999). Type: Cape-3325 (Port Elizabeth); near Uitenhage, Howlett s.n. cult. Kew (holotype): icon (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): N. Coega Station (‑DA), Mrs E.B. King (NBG).

My earlier transfer of the element xiphiophylla (Figs.1, MBB6604 2a, b & c MBB6616) to H. arachnoidea in Haworthia Revisited was done with some reluctance and based on two main collections by Venter (Fig.3 JDV91/122 and JDV91/117, both vicinity of Mentz Dam). (Note: I do not regard an earlier transfer by J.J. Halda to H. arachniodea as valid. Halda put forward many nomenclatural changes which are so ridiculous that I do not accept their publication as serious botanical work – Halda’s folly is summarised in Haworthiad 14:35, 2000. How decisions are made can be questionable at the best of times and mine are made from a deep instinctive response arising from wide experience. Mistakes are excusable in view of the inherent difficulty of making decisions in Haworthia, but not excusable if made in total ignorance).

This change now follows my own fieldwork and particularly the collection MBB7028 (Figs 4a & b). from Darlington Dam (Lake Mentz. Other recent collections by principally Philip Desmet of University of Cape Town, and by me, show that xiphiophylla must point in the direction of H. decipiens as H. arachnoidea is present as a very distinctive dark green entity with minimum translucence, in the Steytlerville area. On the other hand there are many collections from the Groot Winterberg linking the Uitenhage/Coega xiphiophylla with H. decipiens variants in the Jansenville and Steytlerville areas. This also impacts on the question/problem of the relationship of H. gracilis var. viridis (transferred to H. cooperi in this paper) and H. cooperi to H. decipiens. To facilitate communication and discussion, I thought at first that it would be advisable to widen the application of the name xiphiophylla to incorporate a wide range of collections from the vicinity of Pearston, extending to north‑west of Jansenville and southwards to Willowmore and back to Kirkwood. These are decipiens‑like plants. Instead, I have reluctantly described these as the new variety H. decipiens var. virella, with the var. xiphiophylla transferred from H. arachnoidea to H. decipiens.

H. decipiens var. virella M.B.Bayer var. nov.

Holotype: CAPE‑3224 (Graaff Reinet): Ebenezer (‑DB), Bayer 2070 (NBG) (Figs.5 JDV87-81, 6a & b MBB7023).

virella: greenish, somewhat green.

From var. decipiens, it differs with broader flatter leaves, incurved resembling H. arachnoidea and with inter‑veinal translucence. Includes populations transitional to H. decipiens var. minor M.B.Bayer and to H. cooperi var. viridis M.B.Bayer. (A var. decipiens differt foliis latioribus, planioribus, incurvis similis H. arachanoidea et interveniis translucidis. Includet populi transitionum ad H. decipiens var. minor M.B.Bayer et H. cooperi var. viridis M.B.Bayer.)

Collections:

3223 (Rietbron): S. Aberdeen (‑DC), Perry 659 (NBG).

3224 (Graaff Reinet): Aberdeen Road (‑CD), C.A. Smith 2806a (PRE); Oatlands (‑CD), G.G.Smith 907 (NBG); Ebenezer (‑DB), G.G.Smith 7245 (NBG), Bayer 2070 (NBG); Harefield (‑DB), G.G.Smith 7244 (NBG); Meerlust (‑DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6580; Welgelegen (‑DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6581 (-DC) (Fig.7) (NBG); Jansenville (‑DC), Stayner in KG 188/62 (NBG); Langollen (‑DD), Bayer 7043 (Figs.8a & b); DeRust, Lootskloof (‑DD), Bayer 7047 (Fig.9); Palmietfontein (‑DD), Bayer 7041 (Fig.10).

3225 (Somerset East): SE. Pearston (‑CC), Bayer 7022 (Figs.11a & b).

3324 (Steytlerville): Klipplaat (‑AB), Branch (NBG); SE. Mt. Stewart (‑AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6582 (Fig.12) (NBG); Waaipoort (‑AB), Bayer 6583.

3325 (Port Elizabeth): Lake Mentz (‑AA), Bayer 7028 (Figs.4a & b)

I have included Bayer & Bruyns 6580 from Meerlust, previously cited under H. decipiens var. decipiens and MBB6583 from Waaipoort, previously cited under H. decipiens var. minor. These changes may seem flippant and frivolous, but they should be seen as evidence of complex continuities that may not ever be resolved.

These plants have longer more attenuate leaves than H. decipiens, but with the brighter green of the typical var. xiphiophylla. The spination is generally coarser and firmer than H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. These are the plants I had in mind when I decided to absorb Scott’s H. pringlei in H. decipiens. I wish to stress that doing so was not as mindless as may be suggested, because there is still a greater inherent problem in this new arrangement. There are populations, particularly south of Cradock, of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, which cannot be distinguished from populations of H. decipiens var. virella. Ironically, such latter populations near Pearston, grow with and discrete from H. bolusii var. bolusii (Figs.11 a & b).  I also include illustrations of three collections from E. Steytlerville (Figs.13 JDV5-68, 14 JDV91-118 & 15 JDV93-40).

I do recognise that H. decipiens is a species that I do not know well enough; despite all the material I have seen. It perhaps occupies a geographical pivotal role in the interpretation of particularly H. cooperi, as I have now constituted that species. Pivotal in that it occupies the geographic centre stage between the south‑western Cape, the Karoo and the Eastern Cape; and is to some degree continuous with “species” in those areas. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that H. mucronata is actually directly involved with either H. cymbiformis or H. cooperi. There is no doubt that there is visual similarity, but I expect and regard the geographic association to be via H. decipiens.

2. Goodbye to Haworthia gracilis

It is difficult to reconcile recent field observations with my Haworthia Revisited concepts of H. cooperi and H. gracilis. However, there is a solution that can be offered for the classification problems, as discussed in depth in Haworthia Update (in press). If the concept of H. cooperi is enlarged to incorporate H. gracilis (a relatively recent von Poellnitz name), a more practical solution is presented.

This new concept of H. cooperi as a super‑species only excludes H. cymbiformis and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana with some difficulty. These are important issues, but which I think are largely addressed by the changes made in this paper. It should be recognised implicitly that H. bolusii var. pringlei and H. decipiens var. virella, in terms of their history and present treatment, point directly at a connection between H. cooperi, H. bolusii and H. decipiens, as well as at wider associations.

H. cooperi var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 27: 133 (1929). Idem 41: 201 (1937). Non C.L.Scott, The Genus Haworthia: 69 (1985). M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 75 (1999). Type: Graaff‑Reinet, Amalienstein, Willowmore, Stellenbosch. Not preserved. Lectotype (Breuer, World of Haworthias 1:150 (1998): unpublished photographic icon :H. gracilis v.P. in (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3326 (Grahamstown): Hellspoort (‑BA), Britten (PRE).

H. cooperi var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. isabellae v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44: 226 (1938). Non C.L.Scott: 76 (1985). H. gracilis var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 77 (1999). Type: Cape, near Port Elizabeth, Mrs I. King.  Not preserved.  Neotype: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Humansdorp, Gamtoos Bridge (‑CC), H. Hall in NBG  68799.

H. cooperi var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. tenera v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 31: 86 (1933). C.L.Scott: 76 (1985). H. gracilis var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 77 (1999). Type: Cape, Pluto’s Vale, Grahamstown, Miss Blackbeard 15. Not preserved. Neotype (Breuer & Metzing, Taxon 46(1):3 (1997): CAPE‑3326 (Grahamstown): Glenelg (BA), G.G.Smith 5416 (NBG).

H. cooperi var. picturata (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis var. picturata M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 78 (1999). Type: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Enon (‑BC), Thode 21507 (NBG, Holo.).

H. cooperi var. viridis (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis var. viridis M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 79 (1999). Type: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Perdepoort (‑AC), G.G.Smith 6867 (NBG, holotype).

H. cooperi var. doldii M.B.Bayer var. nov.

Holotype: CAPE‑3327 (East London): Chalumna (‑BA), Dold 3961 (GRA) (Figs.16a & b).

Rosettes small to 30mm diameter with 25‑30 slender, attenuate leaves to 50mm long, erect spreading, dark purplish green and with firm white marginal spines 2‑3mm long. (Rosulae parvae 30mm diametro, foliis 25‑30 gracilibus, attenuatis, 50mm longis, erecto‑expansis, atropurpureo‑virdibus et spinis marginalibus firmis albis 2‑3mm longis.)

Collections: Only known from type locality.

This new, small form of H. cooperi is in the geographical orbit of the var. leightonii at Kaiser’s Beach and the more graciloid forms of the latter at Payne’s Hill, also nearby. It is named for Tony Dold of the Schonland Herbarium, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, who first collected it. I am recognising it as a distinct variety because of its geographic separation from other isabellae‑like plants and because it also has coarser spination and a darker purplish‑colour than the other small varieties of H. cooperi.

3. A familiar new species, Haworthia transiens

H. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer stat. nov.

H. planifolia var. transiens v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45: 163 (1938). H. cymbiformis var. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Handbook: 162 (1976). M.B.Bayer, New Haworthia Handbook: 36 (1982). Type: Cape, Prince Alfred’s Pass, Archibald 327. Not preserved. Lectotype (Breuer & Metzing, Taxon 46(1):3 (1997): icon 5479 “H. planifolia var. transiens v.P.Typ.” (B).  H. cymbiformis var. translucens Triebner et v.Poelln. idem 45:166 (1938). C.L.Scott: 94 (1985). Type: Cape, Prince Alfred’s Pass, Lategan in Triebner 1137. Not preserved.  Neotype: CAPE‑3323 (Willowmore): Prince Alfred’s Pass, G.G.Smith 5709 (NBG).

Additional collections: (private photographic record, and living plants, not necessarily herbarium specimens):

3323 (Willowmore): Adamskraal (‑BC), Desmet 2077; Horee (‑DB), EvJ15548; Brandhoek (‑DD), MBB6726a.

3324 (Steytlerville): Geelhoutboskloof (‑CA), MBB6825; Diepriver (‑CB), EvJ15342.

The collection 3324 (Steytlerville): N Komdomo (‑DA), MBB 6789 includes plants which are this element, and the population intergrades to H. cooperi var. picturata and H. cooperi var. gordoniana. Similarly 3324 (Steytlerville): Grootriverpoort (‑DA), EvJ15927 is approximately transitional to H. cooperi var. isabellae. This intergradation is not only according to physical similarity but also geographic and ecotypic.

In raising this element to specific status, I am now suggesting that specimens cited in Haworthia Revisited as H. cymbiformis vars. brevifolia Triebner et v.Poelln. and multifolia Triebner from Uitenhage (Hellsgate) do indeed belong in H. cymbiformis.

All the variants of H. transiens that I am aware of, link this species with variants of H. cooperi as now constituted. That is where the continuity is. Thus I am recognising the fact that H. transiens is more directly connected to a broad concept of H. cooperi and less to any such one for H. cymbiformisH. transiens is most closely continuous with H. cooperi var. picturata, which can be shown to be also continuous with the vars. gordoniana and isabellae. This is said within the context of my report on the variation of Haworthia at Kaboega in Haworthia Update (in press), where H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis are also said to be continuous. The difference from the case of those ex‑gracilis varieties, is in the distribution and number of populations in the Baviaanskloof which can be reasonably identified as H. transiens.

4. Where does Haworthia helmiae belong?

In M.B. Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 117 (1999), both H. helmiae and H. integra were cited under H. mucronata, although the word ‘integra’ was erroneously omitted, and thus also omitted from the index. In a manuscript with Aloe (in press), I correct my citation of H. mucronata and let H. integra revert to the status of excluded names, because it was so poorly known and confused for so many years. I did however, leave the citation of H. helmiae under H. mucronata, which is a mistake ‑ especially as I cite the specimen and discuss the population as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans. My interpretation is still based on Scott’s statement that Mrs. Helm had collected this at a specific site in Schoemanspoort, near Oudtshoorn, where I subsequently collected. Had it not been for Scott, H. helmiae would also have been assigned to the ranks of the excluded and insufficiently known. The correct citation for H. helmiae v.Poelln. sensu Bayer is:

H. arachnoidea var. nigricans (Haw.) M.B.Bayer

Syn. Haworthia helmiae v.Poelln., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 41: 201 (1937).  C.L.Scott: 99 (1985). Type: Cape, Heidelberg, Smithers in Triebner 891, Great Brak River, Mrs Helm in Triebner 901. Not preserved. Lectotype: icon “H. helmiae v.P.”, Great Brak, Triebner 898 (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (‑AC), M.B.Bayer 171 (NBG).

I have to point out that formal nomenclature is not my forte and that I have little enthusiasm for it. One of the reasons is that, in my opinion, it spawns authors and spurious authority recklessly and needlessly. Breuer, World of Haworthias 2: xiii (2000), states that I do not demonstrate ambiguity when I have cited epitypes where lectotypes had been selected. The fact is that in Haworthia just about any type is self‑evidently ambiguous and it seems hardly worth repeating the entire literature to prove this obvious point.

In the case of H. helmiae, von Poellnitz cites four Triebner numbers for four different collections. These were cited as from Heidelberg, Great Brak, George and Brandwacht (Brandwacht could also be said to be Great Brak ‑ Mrs. Helm lived actually nearer Little Brak at Brandwacht). I said in Haworthia Handbook: 60 (1982), that there is one photograph for Triebner 898 (Great Brak!) that could be taken to agree with plants from Schoemanspoort. Breuer (Idem: 512) repeated this as lectotypification. The fact is that it could be taken for anything. Breuer (Idem: 511, Haworthiad 15(3): 84 (2001) and private communication) now suggests (apparently on the basis of a photograph of Fourcade 5407 and one by Brown in Cact. Succ. J. (US) 18: 39 (1946)) that my H. outeniquensis is in fact this species. This is not convincing evidence in the paradigm of the Haworthia literature, nor in the face of the Fourcade photographs. My contention is that it is misleading to attempt to rewrite literature and interpret types without an adequate understanding of biological diversity and the problems of variation and species delimitation.

Where next for Haworthia description?

It must again be stressed that these new combinations and varieties will facilitate discussion, but will not eliminate the intrinsic problem of continuity. Although H. cooperi here seems to become a huge unwieldy entity, this better expresses the field situation, while still falling short. The recognition of species often requires the extension of a concept, which is the nomenclatural one derived from a single plant or from limited sampling. This may or may not be really representative of anything. It is very destructive and confusing if this nomenclatural aspect overrides the functional way in which names come to be used and are meant to be used.

There are real problems in attempting to classify Haworthia. In Haworthia Revisited, I stated that I tried “to practically identify nodes in a complex interlinked web”. The definition of “node” in physics is “a point of minimum displacement in a standing wave” ‑ and this is the meaning I transfer to Haworthia. The species should be seen as a series of standing waves superimposed over one another and they generally do not separate. My names are intended to be used to identify the principal groups of plants and populations that may be meaningful for identification. These names also relate those plants to geographic factors and to other plant species and vegetation.

The element H. transiens has always been problematic for me, as it does merge into H. cooperi var. picturata. There is a similar mergence of H. cooperi var. gracilis to H. cymbiformis var. incurvula at Pluto’s Vale, but which is localised. At Kaboega, the mergence of H. cooperi with H. cymbiformis is similarly complex, but it is here where there is real benefit from incorporating H. gracilis into the former. Thus the brighter green forms of the continuum are thus equated with H. cooperi var. viridis, the smaller spined forms with H. cooperi var. isabellae, and others either with H. cooperi var. gordoniana or H. cooperi var. cooperi. The difficulty is at the departure from the tight geographical boundaries of those variants, as well as from the implied or actual concomitant genetic variation. It is impossible to find consistent degrees of difference.  There is a difficulty in explaining the relationship of all the Baviaanskloof elements and particularly the way H. cooperi var. gordoniana relates to H. decipiens from the Zuurberg in the east, to Uniondale in the west.

It is also not possible to find a classification solution that satisfactorily explains the extension of the relationships of H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis to H. decipiens and H. aristata. To do so would mean incorporating them within either species, and this would only lead to still further combinations and problems. I must personally resist any further proposals to combine the species that I regard as discrete. In the opposite direction, adding names for all the existing variants of already recognised elements will result in an unmanageable plethora, with the prospect of new names for further variants still to be found and this also cannot be supported.

In such a horticulturally popular group as Haworthia, there is an unfortunate pressure for classification which may have nothing to do with botanical realities. Often this has been done early in a learning process, rather than as a consequence of accumulated knowledge. Thus different opinions may be expressed with insufficient experience and sampled material. I think that it will be foolish in the extreme for anyone to make pronouncements or attempt to alter what has now been done without extensive additional field data and a greater understanding than my own.

I hope this discussion will drive other authors towards a more considered attitude to classification and the application of names.

Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed in one way or another to the above. Among them, I would like to express appreciation to J.D. Venter for ongoing support; to Mr. and Mrs. G. Hobson of Ebenezer for their kindness and hospitality; P.V. Bruyns and Gerhard Marx for locations; to Tony Dold for the Chalumna find and for other assistance and support. Also, to Alan Butler, Gretchen Loucka and Derek Tribble for assistance with this text. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 11:- Some of the interplay of H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata

If any two species present a particular problem for the taxonomist in terms of their perceived variation, it must be these two. I wrote a short article discussing this in respect of one particular population of Haworthia arachnoidea (Aloe 38:76, 2001). I also wrote on the same problem in my book Haworthia Update Vol.1 (Umdaus Press, 2002). Despite some of the things I said there, there is still some misunderstanding expressed in informal communication regarding my approach, not only to the recognition of varieties, but to the interplay between what have been perceived to be different species. One of the complaints is that if I do not recognise some of the new varieties described by other authors, my own varietal taxa should not be taken seriously. In my Aloe article I wrote… “I have used varieties simply as a communication and descriptive tool to suggest lesser nodes and connections between what I think may be species.” In my revision (Haworthia Revisited, 1999, Umdaus Press), I wrote…”Lesser ranks should not be taken too seriously.”

In about 1972 I was exploring west of Ladismith (Winkelplaas, MBB2716) when I for the first time came upon a problematic population which was neither H. arachnoidea nor H. mucronata. Subsequently the problem this presents for classification has grown with virtually every outing I have made into the Little Karoo. I now have a vast amount of material which is, however, still inadequate in terms of geographic coverage to form the basis of a fully comprehensive report. This short note simply arises out of a curious report kindly sent to me by Ingo Breuer who stated that H. arachnoidea grew together with H. mucronata at Grootrivier, west of Ladismith. I was very dubious about this statement because his locality is at Buffelsdrif which is virtually at east of Winkelplaas.

To explain that I first would like to briefly explain and illustrate my interpretation of what H. mucronata is. The name (note just the name) that designates the species is typified by an illustration in the Kew herbarium (Fig. 2) to which no exact origin is attached. In my earlier works I regarded the name as insufficiently typified and chose rather to use von Poellnitz’ name H. unicolor based on plants from south of Barrydale (see Figs.3a & b MBB7216). Scott preferred to uphold these Barrydale plants as the species H. mclarenii and use the name H. mucronata for a Dekenah collection from Calitzdorp. To accommodate Col. Scott I unwisely used his application of the name mucronata to the system of populations that I considered to be the same one species for which I applied the name unicolor. I should have stayed with the name H. unicolor based on a geographically designated collection and left the name H. mucronata as of doubtful origin and hence uncertain (see Endnote). This is now water under the bridge. I use the name H. mucronata for a system of populations which extends from west of Montagu to east of Oudtshoorn (see also endnote). I should designate an epitype which would be … Cape(3320DC): Barrydale, J. Dekenah 234 (NBG) = MBB7216, to make it quite clear from which field population it is derived and to which I attach the name. But this is also not so simply resolved. My plants in Figs.3a & b (MBB7216) are of large glabrous plants on a warm and dry north slope at Barrydale. There are smaller plants on the cool, wetter south slope only about 100 meters away (Fig.4 MBB7213). Fig.5 (MBB7212) shows two larger, spined plants from Tradouwshoek, a locality about 1.5km north-east of Barrydale on a moderate south slope. In the Tradouw pass a few kilometers away there are plants which could just as well be H. arachnoidea or extensions of these variable plants of H. mucronata from Barrydale itself.

Having said this, I must point out that this article does not seek to explain or illustrate the full extent of the variability of either species. H. arachnoidea is illustrated in Fig.6 (MBB7207). This is of a plant from the site at Buffelsdrif [2] presumed to be that indicated to me by I. Breuer. Had I seen this plant alone I would have said “Yes, this is clearly H. arachnoidea.” I would have been embarrassed to have to add “var. setata” which I use to denote the Little Karoo variants of this species, because there is really no good basis for such a varietal distinction and I never fully believed that there was. The problem is, that as Breuer suggested, there is something else present. This is a smaller fairly glabrous plant with some marginal translucence to the leaves (Fig.7, also MBB7207). Does this then mean that H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata are there growing sympatrically (co-occurring, growing together in one habitat)? Unfortunately the spot we explored was rather confined and time did not permit further exploration. I am not certain this is in fact the exact site referred to by Breuer, but there were no other options in terms of his referral. What does therefore motivate me to write is the information peripheral to the report and what we saw elsewhere on this particular excursion. My old Winkelplaas collection tells me that we have “hybridisation” of the two species. But other collections suggest to me that this “hybridisation” is so extensive throughout the Little Karoo that it cannot be dismissed so simply.

In Haworthia Update Vol.1, I indicated how intensively one has to explore to properly account for field variability. The Buffelsdrif/Winkelplaas area has many potential habitats that would have to be searched to fully explain what is there. Just on this one outing we stopped at several places. At Vensterkrans a short distance to the south-west, we explored four hillsides. Figs.8a & b(MBB7205) are of spinose and glabrous plants from west of Vensterkrans [3]. They are paler in colour than H. arachnoidea and they exhibit a degree of translucence. These are actually the two characters by which I would suggest the two species could be generally distinguished i.e. arachnoidea – very dark-green and with no translucence to the leaves, mucronata – paler green and with translucence especially to the leaf margins. The two illustrations by no means indicate the degree of variation at this one site. Fig.9(MBB7206) is of a plant from between Vensterkrans and the first noted Buffelsdrif locality [4]. It is mid-green, spination is reduced, there is no obvious translucence and the plant has very firm margins and keels to the leaves. This gives slightly greater rigidity in the rosette and is a common feature in plants from many populations in the greater area. Also the plant is but one from a highly varied assemblage – none of which resemble either H. mucronata or H. arachnoidea. It is for populations of this ilk that I adopted the varietal name H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, explaining that it was only a device to accommodate plants (largely as populations) that were neither H. arachnoidea nor H. mucronata, but something in-between. One could equally have applied the varietal epithet for these plants under H. mucronata. As proposed with H. cooperi/gracilis, this is once again a case where a series of intermediate populations (in this case called H. arachonidea var. nigricans) blur the distinction between the ‘core’ species (largely because of the vagaries of nomenclature and application of types), H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata, thus invalidating any neatly definable species boundaries.

Figs.10a & b (MBB7210) are of two smaller plants from east of Vensterkrans [5]. Plants from map site [6] are comparable with sites [3], [4] and [5]. These are similar to the preceding plants illustrated as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, but tend to be more compact, still less spinose, and on some plants there is no marginal translucence. When I first saw plants of this ilk from about 8 kilometres to the east, I speculated that maybe this is where H. marumiana had originated as judged from an old Luckhoff collection from Ladismith designated by Von Poellnitz as that species. The plants from east of Vensterkrans do in fact have some superficial resemblance to H. marumiana var. batesiana. Stressed young plants do suggest the typical variety of that species and I suggest that this accounts for Von Poellnitz’s erroneous reference (note the plant in Fig.7).

I conclude this note with Figs.11a & b (MBB7211) of plants from Springfontein some distance to the southeast and nearer to the Langeberg. The illustrations are of a spinose and a glabrous plant, neither of which have marginal translucence. I would identify them as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, and say that this is what I used to denote by the name H. unicolor var. venteri in my 1982 work, The New Haworthia Handbook, Kirstenbosch. I then wrote … “It is not in the least clear what the relationship is between H. unicolor (now H. mucronata) and H. arachnoidea. I make this point again and again to explain that it is pointless trying to name and describe an endless array of taxonomic varieties in the mistaken belief that a better grasp has been obtained of this incredible interplay of natural systems. I think it is fairly useless to suggest that some unfortunate taxonomist in the future will be saddled with the task of deciding the validity of such efforts, when the evidence here in the present is already indeterminate.

Endnote: It is perhaps useful to give Scott’s interpretation relating to the above:

1. He had H. mcclarenii in a section Loratae as a name specifically for Barrydale plants.

2. He he had H. mucronata in the section Denticulatae as a name for an array of specimens scattered across the landscape. Included in a wide array of “selected (herbarium) specimens are plants from:

Middelburg, Sterkstroom and Cradock, that are H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana),
Adelaide, Grahamstown, Uitenhage and Humansdorp, that are H. cooperi var. gracilis.

Napier, that is H. rossouwii.

Ladismith, Oudtshoorn, that are H. mucronata var. inconfluens.

3. He had ­H. aristata in a section Planifoliae on its own, also for plants from Barrydale and comingling with his distributions for H. mucronata.

4. He recognized two species viz. H. helmiae and H. integra from single localities in the Little Karoo, in a section Muticae.

All these five elements of Scott’s, in terms of names and origins, fall into the system/s to which I apply the names arachnoidea var. nigricans or mucronata. Nothing suggests to me that other writers have a better interpretation of very difficult problem in determining the degree of interfacing of this system with that of arachoidea, lockwoodii, decipiens and cooperi (the latter as discussed in Haworthia Update Vol.1).

Acknowledgement
I would like to record the credibility afforded to me by Western Cape Nature Conservation Board in extending permit approval for the limited collecting this kind of investigation requires. Mr. Johan Meyer of Barrydale was generous enough as to accommodate my wife and I, arrange landowner contact, add his own enthusiasm and interest, and accompany us on the excursion. I particularly would like to acknowledge the improvements and alterations to the manuscript suggested by Paul Forster of Queensland, Australia. It is clear that writing in the sphere of Haworthia now requires critical and informed comment before publication, and I appreciate this from Paul. ♦

Volume 4, Chapter 2:- A glimpse of the super-species Haworthia nortieri

Barry Phipps, in an article reprinted in Haworthiad 20:61, writes that “the term species is a concept”. Donald Levins in The Origin, Expansion and Demise of Plant Species devotes a chapter to “The premise and species concepts”. There is no dearth of literature and the entire subject is indeed, as Levins suggests, a subject of “heated debate”. Levins also quotes from the literature, “… the idea of  good species … an artifact of the procedures of taxonomy”, and “… our system of names appears to achieve a reality which it does not possess”. It is comforting for me to read his premise …”that the species is a dynamic entity that undergoes alterations in its gene pool, variation pattern and geographical distribution”, and his advice…”thus it is best to take a pluralistic approach to species’ passages in time, combining genetic and ecological perspectives”.

I myself am not sure if these and many similar statements really mean all that much. The range of living things is surely a reality of the human capacity to observe and rationalize to the limits of their experience and competence. They are phenomena spread in space and changing with time along with the rest of creation. We give them names in order to catalogue, describe and communicate about them. Those people, who make a point of collecting and studying study living objects, give those names and theorise and generalize about their relationships. We do not conceptualise these living things. They obviously are “kinds” and do surely have an objective reality. We may perhaps conceptualise a taxonomic system in which they are studied and classified according to some model or other. This has been an ongoing process since before Linnaeus and it is unfortunate that many writers seem to have become taxonomists with only the International Code of Nomenclature as reference. The result is a plethora of meaningless subjective names or names which can satisfy only the writer and readers who know as much or less. If we do take a pluralistic approach, recognise all the pitfalls, and base our observations on extensive observation, then surely the classification product will be satisfying to ourselves and have some value for others. This is what I have tried to achieve.

In seeking some kind of closure to my own long history as a pseudo-taxonomist and botanist writing about Haworthia, I am going to write about my observations on a number of populations which I attribute to the single species Haworthia nortieri. The newest trend seems to be to term these discrete, isolated, scattered populations as “metapopulations” and theorise about the interchange of genetic material among them and the effect this has on real differences; ultimately reflecting on evolutionary passage. Whatever is attempted or intended, an accurate account of one’s personal experience must surely be of value.

H. nortieri was first noted by Dr. Nortier of Clanwilliam and then collected at the old Doorn River Bridge 45km northwest of Clanwilliam in 1937 and described by G.G. Smith in 1946.  Smith also collected a similar plant on the Pakhuis Pass also in 1937, and described this as the var. montana only in 1946. In 1948 he again collected a similar element on the Gifberg Mountain near VanRhynsdorp, which he described in 1950 as var. gifbergensis. In his collecting record, Smith records, also in 1948, the collection of a plant from Doornbosch northeast of Clanwilliam, and described that as H. globosiflora. In the description the collection is attributed to J. Thudichum.

History         Thus in 1969 when I started the physical process of arranging the Compton Herbarium records, these four herbarium specimens virtually constituted the total record of the species. My views of the species and its taxonomic record in my 1982 synopsis and 1999 revision were as follows:-

“25. Haworthia nortieri Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 12:13(1946).  Bayer :141(1976).  Bayer :49(1982).  Scott :88(1985).  Type: Cape, Vanrhynsdorp, Smith 1676a (NBG):  H. nortieri var. montana idem. 16:6(1950).  Type: Cape, Clanwilliam, Smith 1678 (NBG):  H. nortieri var. gifbergensis idem. 16:7(1950).  Type: Cape, Vanrhynsdorp, Smith 7199 (NBG).

nortieri: for Dr. Nortier.

Rosette stemless, proliferous, 3-5cm φ.  Leaves 25-45, soft sub-erect, ovate-lanceolate to obovate, pale to purplish green, with translucent spots on the leaves, small spines on margins and keel.  Inflorescence slender, to 30cm.  Flowers greyish-white, yellowish in tube.

1982- “H. nortieri occurs in the area between Clanwilliam and Vanrhynsdorp, extending inland to the foot of VanRhyns Pass and on top of the plateau of the northern Cedarberg mountains.  The var. globosiflora occurs in the dryer Botterkloof area and is distinguished by the flower having a globose tube while the leaves are shorter and broader. However, the flowers are not always so inflated and plants in the VanRhyns Pass area have normal flowers while being vegetatively similar to the var. globosiflora. This is the basis for rejecting species status for the last-named. H. nortieri occupies the mid‑western geographic locale for the genus. The distribution southwards is not known and there is a big gap between this species at Pakhuis Pass (near Clanwilliam) and a form of H. archeri var. dimorpha in the Elandskloof area southeast of Citrusdal.  H. arachnoidea occurs to the north of VanRhynsdorp and also to the north and far west of VanRhyns Pass. It does not, however, seem to appear in the Botterkloof area. H. nortieri is distinguished largely by the opaque leaf surfaces with abrupt, ovoid, pellucid spots. The flowers, and particularly the buds, are greyish in colour but the colour inside the tube is variable.”

1999- “The range of H. nortieri has been extended considerably. The reference to H. archeri var. dimorpha at Elandskloof is quite erroneous and simply arises from the difficulty in relating that collection to the nearest known species. On the other hand, the Elandskloof plants are only known to me from herbarium record and from two living plants collected by Drs Muller-Doblies. These did not seem to unequivocally be H. nortieri.  P.V. Bruyns has collected H. nortieri from as far north as the Groenriver, to south as far as Krommeriver in the Cedarberg. The late Harry Hall also collected it in the northeastern Knersvlakte. The most southerly collection is from near Opdieberg, north of Ceres. These plants also resemble the var. globosiflora but the flowers are not globose. At both extremes the plants tend to resemble H. globosiflora vegetatively. The var. nortieri is probably best considered as the more slender-leaved and less robust sandstone ecotype of the species. The plants at Komkans tend to have globose florets, and this is also true of plants at Groenriver where the florets are short and squat. The decision to include H. pehlemanniae within this species is also on account of the flower which is identical to that of var. globosiflora. This is not only in shape, but in colour too. Although the flowers may be the usual white with greenish veins, brownish-green flowers have been observed in both elements. The reference in the original description to quadrantly as opposed to spirally arranged flowers defies plant growth principles. The distribution of the two elements is complementary and gives the species as a whole an extraordinary cosmopolitan character. The colour in the flowers of the typical variety can be remarkable and as if yellow paint had been daubed at the throat of the florets. Habitat ranges from the moist south slopes of the Cedarberg to the dry wastes of Namaqualand and the so-called Moordenaarskaroo.

a. var. nortieri

The typical variety occurs over a very wide area in the Table Mountain sandstones from south-east of Citrusdal to south-west of Nieuwoudtville. In addition it extends out into the Namaqualand lowlands, into very arid conditions. It is thus a very variable taxon in its own right.

Distribution

3017(Hondeklipbaai): Groenriver (-DD), Bruyns 6728 (NBG).  3118(VanRhynsdorp): Komkans (-AA), Bruyns 6146 (NBG); Klipdrif (-BB), Hall 3390 (NBG); Gifberg (-DA), Smith 7199 (BOL,NBG), Thomas in NBG626/69; Steenkampskop (-DB), Bruyns 6167 (NBG); Kobe Pass (-DB), Bruyns 6170 (NBG); Die Kom (-DC), Bayer in KG329/72 (NBG); Doornriver (-DC), Smith 1676 (NBG), Leighton (BOL); W. Doornriver (-DC), Bayer 3637 (NBG); SE. Klawer (-DC), Leipoldt 4146 (BOL), Herre in STE6695 (BOL); E. Doornriver (-DD), Smith 1676a (BOL), Smith 6212 (BOL,NBG), Esterhuysen 6008 (BOL).  3119(Calvinia): Uitkomst (-AC), Barker 10753 (NBG); Vanrhyns Pass (-AC), Smith 6211 (NBG), Hall in NBG656/60 (NBG), Ross-Frames in NBG1200/26 (BOL).  3218(Clanwilliam): S. Clanwilliam (-BD), Van Jaarsveld 8153 (NBG).  3219(Wuppertal): Pakhuis Pass (-AA), Smith 1678 (NBG), ex hort Whitehill NBG68397; Waboomsriver (-AC), Henderson 2212 (NBG); Diamond Drift (-AC), Leipoldt 3107 (BOL); N. Dwarsrivier (-AC), Bruyns in Bayer 6505 (NBG); E. Dwarsriver (-AD), Bruyns in Bayer 6506 (NBG); Heksberge (-CA), Smith 6116 (NBG), Muller-Doblies 79/015 (NBG), E. Elandskloof (-CA), Esterhuysen 3987 (BOL); Sandfontein (-CB), Esterhuysen 27199a (BOL); Cedarberg (-CB), Wagener in NBG11/43 (NBG); Nuwerus (-CB), Bruyns (NBG).  3319(Worcester): NW. Ceres (-AB), Aslander 645 (NBG).

b. var. globosiflora (Smith) Bayer :119(1976).  Bayer 49(1982).  H. globosiflora Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 16:11(1950).  Scott :87(1985).  Type: CAPE‑3119(Calvinia): Doornbosch, N. Doorn River Bridge (‑CD), Smith 7198 (NBG).

globosiflora: rounded flowers.

This variety is not known from only the Doornbosch area south of Botterkloof, which is also relatively unexplored. It has also been collected from as far east as the Ouberg Pass, southwest of Sutherland. The illustration in Scott (:88, 1985) is not of this variety at all and is probably of H. decipiens. Like the var. pehlemanniae, the florets are remarkably globose with a significantly shortened tube, and the two varieties cannot be separated on this score. The flowers of both may be uniformly greyish-green or brownish. Vegetatively, the leaves in the var. globosiflora are distinctively dotted with translucent spots which are absent in var. pehlemanniae.

Distribution

3119(Calvinia): Doornbosch, (‑CD), Smith 7198 (NBG); 50km N. Clanwilliam (-CD), Dyer 3750 (PRE); Botterkloof (-CD), Hall in NBG68414, Villet (BOL); Boontjiesrivier, Kansekraal (-CD), Leipoldt 4119 (BOL).  3220(Sutherland): Ouberg Pass (-AC), Venter 88/40 (NBG).

c. var pehlemanniae (Scott) Bayer comb.nov.  H. pehlemanniae Scott, Cact.Succ.J.(U.S.) 54:70(1982).  Scott :79(1085).  Type: CAPE-3320(Laingsburg): 5km W. of Laingsburg (-BB), Scott 7450 (PRE).

pehlemanniae: for Inge Pehlemann.

Since first collected, this variety has been found at several other localities in the close vicinity of Laingsburg, but also further north in the Moordenaarskaroo and north of Matjesfontein. It differs from the species in the absence of the translucent spots on the leaf, and the vegetative similarity to H. arachnoidea in the same area is deceptive. However, the leaves have a slightly more greyish character than in H. arachnoidea. It does appear to favour shales in relatively exposed situations as opposed to H. arachnoidea which generally prefers cooler south slopes. The two taxa grow in very close association.

Distribution

3221(Merweville): Klipfontein, N. Laingsburg (-CC), Aslander 801 (NBG).  3320(Montagu): 5km SW. Laingsburg (-BB), Scott 7450 (PRE), Bayer 3906 (NBG); N. Laingsburg (-BB), Venter (NBG).

Inadequately located: Matjiesfontein, Pillans 830 (BOL).”

Comment

During the last few years several names have been published which in my opinion belong in the context of the above  The first of these is H. agnis L. Battista, Alsterworthia International 2(2):8-9, the second H. devriesiiI. Breuer, Avonia21:3 (2003) and the third H. albispina M. Hayashi, Haworthia Study 9:2 (2002). These are all significant records and I do not question the fact that the populations are distinctive and important variants. I simply add that in terms of an objective view of an observer who wishes to understand these plants in the total context of the flora of the region and at another level in the context of the genus Haworthia and its three subgenera, they belong in the one species H. nortieri. For the collector I would suggest that someone make the formal taxonomic statement that these are varieties. The types are deposited who actually knows where, and being outside of the classic regional herbaria they have also not been assessed by the authors of the names, in terms of the total herbarium record.  This disregard for rational herbarium practise does, and will continue to, make it difficult to technically formalise a classification.

In referring to the regional flora, I want to explain my viewpoint that botanical classification belongs in the realm of true biology and must be meaningful in terms of all life forms and the conditions which gave rise to their origins and which sustain them. Thus my experience was that the botanical community were defining a Cape Flora based only on the machia-fynbos vegetation peculiar to the predominent sandstone geology of the area. My view was that  this was a misinterpretation and that whatever the origins of the fynbos was, there was in present time a Winter Rainfall Biome which included the karoid vegetation of the shales, tillites and igneous rock within and adjacent to the so-called Cape. Species systems, like H. nortieri, would only be understood is this massive impact of geology, skeletal soils and winter rainfall was properly acknowledged.

In a manuscript concerning H. pygmaea and a broader species concept for the genus, I have tried to explain that the reason that I have been drawn into the realm of formal taxonomy, is precisely because there are no reliable and infallible criteria or characters by which the species and the variants van be positively described and identified. The observer is totally dependent on imagery and by the experience garnered in the field and in cultivation. The classification thus can only be assessed in terms of comparable experience and motive.

I have avoided trying to rationalise the morphological differences between H. arachnoidea and H. nortieri because I have found them myself to be a bit obscure.  Generally the colour of the leaves in arachnoidea is a darker uniform green as opposed to a pale and often maculate condition in nortieri.  Where nortieri does seem to differ is that the mid- to end section of the upper leaf surface tends to be convex. This convexity of the upper leaf surface is reminiscent of the similar characteristic of the species of the southwestern Cape where a retuse truncated end-area often occurs, and may thus account for the truncation in the leaves that characterises some nortieri populations. I have observed this truncation as a response to growing conditions as well, notably in the specimen from the Blinkberg which Ernst van Jaarsveld grew in cultivation as compared with plants observed by myself in the field (see pictures). Similarly plants from Opdieberg collected and grown by Etwin Aslander seemed to have very truncated leaves under his growing conditions. Plants in the field at Arizona north of VanRhynsdorp were very retracted into the soil and the leaves also correspondingly truncated. Alternatively there are populations in which the leaves are attenuate, longer and pointed, bringing me back to an observation I would like to make that such morphological characters and differences are too often used to justify species differences when the variation is in fact an expression of the nature of the species. There are several populations in the greater Touws River area which are doubtful and a good deal of tough fieldwork will be necessary to get a better understanding of these disparate populations which could include both H. maculata as it occurs on and adjacent to the Audensberg at Worcester, as well as H. marumiana var. dimorpha east of Touws River

The variant agnis has been collected twice by Etwin Aslander both east of Nuwerus and at Middelpos near Bitterfontein. It has also been collected by Philip Desmet at Nuwerus. Both collectors observed the presence of H. arachnoidea at Nuwerus and Desmet submitted specimens of a putative hybrid. These plants are indeed small and Dr Ben Zonneveld (private communication) who has researched the mass of total nuclear DNA in many Haworthia specimens maintains that his figures suggest that it is a discrete species. I do not think that his argumentation or his methodology are substantial or convincing and that these kinds of peripheral data sets should be use in taxonomic decision making. In my opinion they could be used to describe variation within a species system more usefully than to support a rickety overburdened classification tree (cladogram). I should add that the Bruyns collection from Komkans, which is west of Nuwerus, is also of small plants and is actually a replication of a collection made by Rolf  Rawe in 1969 also at Komkans.  That collection was never formally deposited as a herbarium record but I remember it distinctly as there were many plants in the San Merino Nursery at Somerset West closely following the closure of the notable Bernard Carp nursery at Hout Bay.

The variant devriesii is indeed odd as it is from very far east for the species north of Prince Albert. I will show by the illustrations how it relates to H. nortieri by similar ecotypes from the karoid landscapes peripheral to the machia-fynbos of the sandstones where the species is better known. Like albispina, which is from Koup Station, it should simply be regarded as a variant of the existing var. pehlemanniae, although I do not believe that formalizing varieties really is very helpful in the botanical sense. The variation is, in my opinion, largely driven by the nature of skeletal substrate and is not conformable with any classification system that can account for the totality of variation in the species. Both the names as representing formal taxa, will be confounded by complete and true description of local variation within the actual populations the types were sampled from, and further so by samples from populations known to the authors of the names. Thus we have populations in among those cited in my revision as well as new records, particularly from northeast of Nieuwoudtville, and from N VanRhynsdorp, which need to be offset against these “new species”. There are also several new records of my own (Sneeuberg and Katbakkies) and by Ernst van Jaarsveld (Blinkberg, Cedarberg) and by Adam Harrower (Breekkranz, Cedarberg) that add to and extend the already wide variation of the sandstone components of the species. Bruyns (private communication) also reports the species from the Elandsberg in the Tanqua Karoo. Adding new names requires that one cast ones mind back to the situation prior to the revisions by either Col. Scott or myself and question whether these new names require the re-instatement of so many other names put into synonymy in those revisions. At the same time some note must be taken of the degree of exploration and how predictive any new name is likely to be.

Regarding flower characteristics and flowering time, my observation in other genera is that it often appears that variation between species samples is that the observed variation in selected characters, may within a species system exceed that observed between different species systems. I stress the word ‘observed’ because any opinion or judgement can only be made in terms of the sample and information available and utilized by the observer. Thus I concluded that the var. globosiflora belongs in the  nortieri system by virtue of populations apparently in the same geographic and floristic range in which the flowers are neither globose nor normal for nortieri. The variant agnis for example has smaller globose flowers, the flowers of pehlemanniae cannot be distinguished from those of globosiflora, while in devriesii the curious conclusion is drawn that the less globose flower suggests an affinity with H. decipiens var cyanea. G.G. Smith was struck by the golden yellow colour in the flower throats of his original nortieri collection, and noted the canary yellow flowers of his var giftbergensis and the yellow-green in the case of var montana. My observation generally is that throat colour is quite variable and cannot be used to rationally separate out lesser taxonomic ranks in the sense of a formal biological and meaningful classification.

Flowering time is often used as in defining species systems. Here again the irony seems to be that variation in flowering time of nortieri is, just as the case of variation in flower morphology, characteristic of the system. Generally flowering time for Haworthia populations covers approximately a minimum six-week window. Different species systems can be found to be in flower virtually throughout the year. In H. cooperi var gordoniana this is late spring to early summer and I have observed that annual climatic conditions may shift this window by as much as six weeks. In the case of the greater H. pygmaea system flowering has been observed to vacillate between an early spring and a late spring flowering. In the Subgenus Robustipedunculares, H. minima populations can differ in a flowering time of late spring or mid-summer. I observe that in nortieri, there are populations in the drier northwest (including agnis) that flower early in spring while in the Cedarberg, flowering maybe as late as summer (December).

Gerhard Marx wrote a good account of albispina and H. arachnoidea var. scabrispina growing together at Koup Station (Aloe 43:6, 2006) in which he notes that the flowering time of the former precedes that of the latter. This is what I also observed in the case of the same two elements growing in close association both north and southwest of Laingsburg. This is also the case at Nuweplaas northeast of Nieuwoudtville where a globosiflora-like element is in close association with H. arachnoidea. It had set and shed seed, while the latter was still flowering.

To be realistic one needs to now consider that we are discussing only about 42 records for an area extending from Groenriver and Bitterfontein in the northwest, down to east of Citrusdal in the south and then eastwards to as far as Prince Albert. This is an enormous area and the actual sample size must be very small in relation to actual occurrence of the species. However, it seems unlikely now that the range is likely to be extended, and that we have a fairly good representation of what the species looks like over its whole range. Further exploration will prove very time consuming especially in the northeastern Cedarberg which is rugged country and largely inaccessible.

Records, collections and illustrations

1.  PVB6728 Groenriver (left). Groenriver is in Namaqualandand and inland from Hondeklipbaai. It is northwest of any other known H. nortieri populations. I am not familiar with the area and have not seen the plants. H. arachnoidea is recorded from various places in N Namaqualand but I am also not knowledgeable about its true distribution in that area. There is also a collection  PV76745 (right) also from Groenriver that seems to be H. arachnoidea. It would be nice to know more about both these collections.

2.  EA1497 Middelpos, Bitterfontein. Inland from Hondeklipbaai and north of Nuwerus. These are small plants and I also have not seen the population. The flowers are small and tend to globose.

3.  PVB6146 Komkans. West of Nuwerus. Low lying area and the plants are in among white quartz pebbles. This was probably where Rolf Rawe collected this as a new species which was distributed by San Marino Nursery in 1969.

4. EA1442 and EA1443 Kareeberg Nuwerus. This is a low range of hills south of the Khamiesberg. Ewin Aslander also informed me that H. arachnoidea was present with nortieri, and both his collections are of very small plants. JDV95/11 and 95/12 ex EA H. nortieri ‘agnis’. Kareeberg, Nuwerus

5. IDC53 Nuwerus. This collection was sent to me as the putative hybrid H. nortieriXarachnoidea. These were two very small plants under 50mm diam. And differ very slightly from Etwin Aslander’s arachnoidea plants from the same area, except that they seem to be marked with a faint reticulation. I am not sure they are hybrids and in fact do not know if H. nortieri hybridizes with any other species.

6. MBB7522. Arizona. This locality is north of VanRhynsdorp on the Knersvlakte on the farm Arizona which now belongs to Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. This is south of Nuwerus and the substrate is shale. The species is also present on the adjacent Kwaggaskop farm belonging to Buys Wiese the well-known nurseryman. The plants are very truncated as the vegetation is sparse and low. The plants were recorded by Annelise leRoux and Steven Hammer who told me of it, and we were taken there by very kind favour of Kobus Kritzinger of Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. *** I have confused the true identity of H. agnis in the above 4 populations and it apparently is not the small plants in the Nuwerus area that I garnered from the place name given in the description, but simply the larger version at Arizona. That is an even stronger contender for inclusion in H. nortieri.

7. MBB7578. Nuweplaas P.V. Bruyns reported H. nortieri northeast of Nieuwoudtville. We visited the area in early summer and first found H. arachnoidea and then H. nortieri.  Nuweplaas is in the extreme southwestern Bushmanland and Aloe dichotoma is virtually at the extreme of its distribution here. The substrate is Dwyka Tillite and the vegetation is Succulent Karoo. There are species like Aloe krapholiana and Euphorbia cylindrical on the farm as well so there is an unusual element in the vegetation. The plants were extremely well-hidden and the plants must be able to tolerate very dry and hot conditions here.

8. PVB7167. Steenkampskop. This is the mountain between VanRhynsdorp and VanRhyns’ Pass. The plants are very similar to those at the foot of the pass and generally fairly similar to var. globosiflora, as indeed are those at Arizona and Nuweplaas. The flowers, however, are not globose.

9. MBB7523. Gifberg. This is the first higher altitude record southward from VanRhynsdorp at nearly 650m. The substrate is sandstone on the northwestern corner of this geological formation. The plants are smaller and with more lanceolate leaves than other records. The species has been recorded at Sandfontein a little to the southeast and also at the Koebee Pass to the east.

10. MBB7524. N. Clanwilliam. The var. montana was described from the Pakhuis Pass and it is not clear exactly where this is on the Pass. The eastern part of the Pass is dry Renosterveld and there is no confirmed record of the species from there to Doringbos at the northern foot of the Pass where var. globosiflora occurs. Derek Tribble described this locality on the western end of the pass, just north of Clanwilliam. At about 300m above sea level it is not really high in respect of the Cedarberg. The plants occur rather sparsely and are fairly solitary. Leaf shape varies from relatively abbreviated to more lanceolate and one plant particularly had leaves with linear translucent markings rather than rounded. It is generally difficult to make these observations under field conditions as the plants are well hidden and often withdrawn into the soil.

11. MBB7579.  EA1441 (top two). JDV99-11. Trawal Bridge. The species was first described from a collection made near the Bulkshoek Barage between Clawilliam and Klawer. I have seen it there, at the Doorn River Bridge and also on the northern rocky banks of the Olifant’s River near there. At the Trawal Bridge the plants are on a low lying very exposed and hot sandstone ridge. Note the flower photographed and how short the free parts of the petals are.

12. MBB7525. S. Clanwilliam.  Whereas the other habitats have been out of or marginal to Fynbos Vegetation, this is true Fynbos at this site. It is west facing and very dry in summer. As the lichen growth shows, the winter conditions will be quite moist. There are several records south of this towards and southeast of Citrusdal which I have not been able to confirm. JDV99-11 H. nortieri. Trawal.

13. MBB6505 and 7595. N. Dwarsrivier. This is in the Central Cedarberg at about 800m. The plants are on large loose boulders lying in the valley floor. When I first saw the plants I was very impressed with the number of leaves in the rosettes and their attenuation. These impressions can be very unreliable. I still have a large specimen in cultivation but revisited the site recently to establish that the plants are within “the normal range of variation of the species”. I write this rather facetiously because it is actually very difficult to obtain a true impression and my long experience of plant descriptions and identifications suggests to me that taxonomy is characterised by such subjective judgements.

14. MBB6506. East Dwarsrivier. This collection first came to my notice as a plant said to have  been collected by Clive McDowell at the Wolfberg Cracks in the Cedarberg. The plant was H. reticulata and hugely improbable. Fortunately I was able to vist the area. The plants are on a steep south facing riverine rockface and are H. nortieri. They are proliferous and the leaves are shorter and broader than is normally the case.

15. ADH2514. Breekkranz. This is a little further south. There is a hiking trail from east of Citrusdal towards Kromrivier. The collector was Adam Harrower and the single plant in cultivation seemed rather robust and thick-leaved. We visited the area and while not reaching the place along the Breekkranz trail indicated by Adam Harrower, we found the plants in the rocks around the Bakkamerfontein ruin.  They were abundant and well hidden in rock crevices at about 800m.

16.  MBB7580. Bakkamerfontein. The nortieri plants are just at the small distant upper notch on the skyline.

Blinkberg EvJ19550 is taken from just below and looking about 30km to the Sneeuberg (not Sneeukop) in the distance. Only four other populations were recorded in the scanned landscape! The view is just as impressive southwards where three populations would be covered. It is all Table Mountain sandstone – except the Blinkberg itself. Seen in that context, the pygmaea issue is just a small blob in a much more diverse landscape. Photos take at about 10:00am.

17a. EvJ19550. Blinkberg. Ernst van Jaarsveld has been very helpful in recording interesting populations from inaccessible places. The plant he showed me was also very robust and similar to Adam Harrower’s Beekkranz specimen and I felt it was necessary to visit the site and the plants in habitat.

The locality is nearly 30km southeast of Kromriver and moving out of the Cedarberg into a mountaineous area refrred to as the Swartruggens. The geology of the area is fascinating.  The north/south road between ceres and Wupperthal runs along the intersection of table Mountain Sandstone to the west and the younger Bokkeveld Shale to the east. The layered rocks is tilted up in the west and down in the east . Because there are harder quartzitic bands in the Bokkeveld formation, the terrain is stepped and one climbs a series on near switchbacks to get to the steep upper more quartzitic Witteberg sandstone which caps the mountain. The Bokkevelf shale here is not rich in succulents and the Haworthia was in a lower band of Dry Mountain Renosterveld at about 850m. The plants were small, well hidden under grass and small bushes and unlike the specimen in cultivation. Again it is impossible to gain an overview of the variability, but I photographed three specimens to show that the leaves can vary from spotted with the translucent dots typical of H. nortieri, or none. The plants here are non-proliferous. The landscape scene among the pictures is a view towards the Central Cedarberg and the pointed peak in the middle distance is Cedarberg Sneeuberg at 2027m. It is equally impressive looking south. It is a rockbound landscape which is difficult to move through and it would require a most remarkable effort to get a better idea of the occurrence and distribution of the plants in that whole area. As it is, we have no records for a huge area extending from Blinkberg in the south to the Pakhuis pass in the northwest, and to the Ouberg Pass in the east near Sutherland. Mrs. J. Marais of Mount Ceder Resort (Blinkberg) reports the plants at a place east of Matjesrivier to the north. H. arachnoidea is not known in the area at all but it does occur as a small densely white spinose form at the SkitteryKloof to the southeast. Curiously the only other record of Haworthia for this area is of a plant like H. venosa var. granulata collected by Elsie Esterhuyzen on top of the Skurweberg Sneekop to the south of Blinkberg. I did climb that peak in 1973 in the hopes of finding the plant, but was unsuccessful.

17b. MBB7597 & 7599. Kunje, SE Citrusdal. The German team Muller-Doblies showed me a plant from  this area. There are other herbarium records from the Waboomsberg further north, but also from the Elandskloof slightly to the west and from the Heksberg to the near south west. The plants are abundant on flat rock sheets where there are small pockets of soil and sparse vegetation. This gets extremely dry in summer while in winter it can be very wet. The plants can be proliferous and there were some very dense localized aggregations of individuals. Size varied quite considerably from small exposed specimens 30mm in diameter, to shade protected plants to 100mm diameter. Flowering seemed to have occurred in late November to December.

18. MBB6158 Skurweberg, Sneeukop. We found these plants in grass in cracks in massive sandstone slabs at the foot of the higher peaks. We also saw them in similar but dryer conditions in the Witteberg formation east of the Katbakkies Pass and west of Skittery Kloof. The whole area seems to provide endless suitable looking habitat and it is surprising that there are not more records, except that people who move around these mountaineous areas are seldom focused on small succulents.

19. JDV96-56. EA801. Nevertheless, it is really strange that we have to move nearly 30km south to OpdieBerg to where Etwin Aslander found H. nortieri again. Grown by Etwin, the plants were extraordinarily beautiful being highly colourful and well spotted and very reminiscent of the var. globosiflora except again for the flowers. Again the area is very awesomely rugged and even here one wonders what could have motivated Etwin to have even searched there.

20. MBB6815 Audensberg and 7526 Die Nekkies (bottom left). I include these two collections in the discussion because they reflect the greater problem in Haworthia, which is to establish the relationship of the different species systems. H. maculata is essentially linked to H. herbacea and H. reticulata, in the Worcester vicinity and well south of OpdieBerg. The two collections illustrated here are from two different biogeographic zones on either side of the karoid zone occupied by H. herbacea. They could thus be as genetically distant from one another as they are from that species. The Die nekkies plant has a browner colouration  than the Audensberg plants which can have the purplish colouration of H.nortieri. The flower seems convincing in that the Audensberg plant has the typical fish-tail buds of the southern Haworthia.

21. EA1508 Hex River Pass. This is again a notable collection in an inauspicious looking area. It is in the eastern leg of the Cape fold-mountains in the eastern end of the Hex River valley. The plants have to be considered in the same light as the previous comment. H. arachnoidea is present to the southwest as a very spotted form which could suggest nortieri-like character as well as confounding the situation with regard to H. marumianai var dimorpha. There are two other questionable populations. One is at Sandhills to the west which is a weakly spinose form of H. arachnoidea and then one in the Rabiesberg to the southwest which suggests an affinity with H. herbacea. What this exposes is the paucity of information. There simply are not enough known populations to help any analysis of either the morphology (as non-decisive as this could be) or the biogeography of the species, which is the main ground on which I base my classification. The nearest known H. nortieri population is that at OpdieBerg in the west, Sneeuberg in the north and then var. pehlemanniae at Matjesfontein in the east.

22. MBB7070. Laingsburg. My few illustrations of H. nortieri var pehlemanniae reflect how little is actually known about the real distribution of many of the species. I have no doubts about the continuity of this element with var. globosiflora in the northwest. It is known at the OubergPass near Sutherland in close proximity to H. arachnoidea. There is the unconfirmed Bruyns’ record from the Elandsberg, Etwin Aslander’s at Klipfontein in the Moordenaarskaroo north of Laingsburg, this collection from just north of Laingsburg, records from just north of Matjesfonein and the original location southwest of Laingsburg on the Agter-Witteberg road.

23. MBB7594 Koup. Hayashi must perhaps be commended for recognizing this as different from H. arachnoideai var scabrispina which grows adjacently in very karoid conditions.  Both species of course also grow in proximity at Laingsburg. Superficially they could be taken to be the same when in fact the spination and colouration is really different as should be noticable from the illustrations where the origins of the name “albispina” is obvious.  Gerhard Marx has written of these populations in Aloe 43:6 (2006) and also illustrates “albispina” from a little further west.

24. MBB7385. Prince Albert. In the company of Sue and Richard Dean I quite fortuitously found this population discovered by V. DeVries at Prince Albert. It is very far east for the species, but my contention is that species have range and variation. They need to be considered as systems not as single specimens which look a bit different from one another in some sort of directly or indirectly descriptive way. These plants do indeed look a little different, but to make it clear, only one plant is illustrated. The landscape is very similar to that at Arizona north of VanRhynsdorp. The plants have to be retracted into the soil and one cannot form a good opinion without destructive sampling.

Conclusion
This account is by no means is absolute. I have only illustrated about a half of the known populations and wonder just how many there are which have not been recorded in anyway at all. Of course it can be imagined that in some way more information will better indicate taxonomic entities. My experience persuades me that just the opposite will occur. As my knowledge of the plants in the field has grown, so has my conviction that we are dealing with highly integrated and variable systems. Our taxonomic systems and our understanding of them, especially in the learned ranks where we would expect to find it, are simply inadequate. Our system of classification is based on a belief system that there are simple diagnostic keys which can be derived from simple morphological characters. I think that this is because classification has been built on a slowly growing but still inadequate sampling base. The International Code for Botanical Nomenclature dominates taxonomic thinking which means that nomenclature and the management of names, overrides the knowledge that these names should convey. More attention needs to be paid to explaining different plants as systems that relate to geographic factors and other similar systems.

In terms of the general taxonomic paradigm, it may be reasonable to suppose that the “nortieri” system is composed of discrete taxa. I seriously question that this is so. As the record grows, so does the pattern of increasing variability of otherwise recognizable systems. As regards var pehlemanniae (“albispina”, “devriesii” included) I am quite convinced that even growing these plants in mass from seed cannot produce anything which alters the fact that they belong in this single system which I have discussed in this article. Given the time, the opportunity and the youth, I would try to explore and illustrate these eastern populations in greater depth as well as try and build substantially on the known record. There are huge areas that offer suitable habitats, and similarly huge areas that do not. These areas are largely inaccessible by virtue of the limits of the road network and then the problem of gaining access via land ownership. ♦

Volume 6, Chapter 8:- A fleeting look at Haworthia arachnoidea

How did this start? Is it possible to see anything with such a quick peek? Somewhere in my memory bank is my stated opinion that understanding H. arachnoidea would assist any botanist towards a better understanding of classification. This was long before I came to see that this is a lot more necessary than I thought then. It is not just botanists who seem dumbed down to the reality of a diversity that is necessary for response to change and largely denied by the nomenclatural code and how it is practiced. We have not understood change or what changes can occur. During perhaps only the last 15 to 20 years has it become apparent that changes are cataclysmic and frequent. I will skip the fact that the violence of catastrophe, or the drivers of catastrophe, may also induce change at even a cellular level.

I usually go into the field with a specific goal while also carrying a host of peripheral questions in my mind. While exploring the problem of H. schoemanii, I was thus also thinking of Conophytum. After photographing a species seen at Laingsburg, I mentioned to Steven Hammer that I had also seen it in the southeastern Tanqua Karoo (Bakoven). This was news to him and so in my wish to re-establish the reality of H. venosa subsp. granulata recorded at Patasriver (actually Patatsriver road and that is another story that will be told) as well as the Conophytum for Steven, I undertook an expedition to the Tanqua.

It was co-incidence and luck that brought us into contact with Dr. De Ville Wickens, who is an expert on the geology of the Gondwanaland connection to the Tanqua mountains and who now owns Bizaansgat to the northwest of the farms Droogekloof and Bakoven. Dr. Wickens facilitated our expedition by offering us accommodation at Bizaansgat and we were thus able to spend more time there than otherwise.

Derek Tribble did alert me to a small Haworthia in the Skitterykloof about 20km to the west of Bizaansgat. I had myself seen the plant and concluded that it was H. arachnoidea. Fairly recently Adam Harrower gave me a small plant from the vicinity of Skitterykloof and I confess that I was a bit confounded because it did implicate H. nortieri (See ADH3140, figs 1 & 2) particularly because the leaves were so spotted. Why I say this is because the combined presences of the look-alikes H. arachnoidea and H. nortieri ‘Albispina’ at Koup and elsewhere, as well as their often superficial resemblances, now make me a little wary of snap decisions. I later concluded from the flower that Adam’s plant was in fact H. arachnoidea, and not because I am convinced I could separate the two on the basis of the flower only. So this report covertly deals with the reality of a massive variation within H. nortieri and also H. arachnoidea and hope that readers will generate their own open mindedness to realize that I am drawing conclusions here that could or should be better substantiated. I also hope that this does not mean that a whole new set of Latin names is required to try and do so.

Because my initial field work was to obtain an overview of the genus, I soon stopped paying much attention to H. arachnoidea, because it seemed to be so ubiquitous. A big mistake! Unfortunately digital cameras were then not available and space in the herbarium (contrary to what my learned friend has to say) was and still is at a premium. The consequence is that I do not have a proper physical or mental record of all the plants and populations that I might have seen. In fact I cannot even fully remember how or why I linked H. arachnoidea to H. decipiens the way I did in my Handbook.

What happened on this expedition is that at Droogekloof we were surprised to find a very small Haworthia that I take to be H. arachnoidea (see MBB7644a, figs 3a–j). It is important to note the differences in colour, spination and leaf-spotting and/or reticulation. These plants were single and scattered over a fairly wide area. They varied in size from as little as 20mm to an average of about 30mm diam and become extremely cryptic in the dry summer.

We continued to Bakoven and found it again (see MBB7644, figs 4a-e). Fig. 4c. is a view from a mountain top at Bakoven looking NNW towards Droogekloof and then Bizaansgat in the distance. Fig. 4b illustrates the weak inflourescence with few flowers generally true for many of the populations we observed.  We the retraced our steps and saw similar plants approximately midway back to the Droogekloof population (MBBsn see fig. 5). The next day at Bizaansgat we saw exactly the same thing at our first three stops and then came across an absolute field of them at a fourth. Again at several more stops on Bizaansgat (MBB7646 see figs 6a-h) and yet again on another farm 5km to the east.

The next week took us on the road, the Patatsriver road, from the southern Tanqua to Matjesfontein east of Laingsburg. We stopped on the advice of Gerhard Marx at a well known spot at Perdekraal where Lithops, Didymaotus and Tanquana occur. We saw the same small H. arachnoidea there (MBB7658 see figs 7a-c).

From there we turned north to Bantamsfontein for H. venosa subsp. granulata and we were surprised to find again the same H. arachnoidea at every place we stopped on the farm (MBB 7660 see figs 8a-e).

We travelled on in the direction of Matjiesfontein to Patatsriver and again found it ubiquitous (MBB7666 see fig  9).

9. MBB7666 H. arachnoidea Patatsrivier

We went on to Keurkloof just northwest of Matjesfontein, and found it on the two hillsides we searched (MBB7670 fig.10).

From there we went to Bulhouer, which is north Matjesfontein, and found it at four places (MBB7671 & 7672 see figs. 11a-d  and 12a-e).

It is very important to note that Emil Heunis recorded the form ‘scabrispina’ on this farm Bulhouer and this is what I was expecting to find. However, my four samples were observed at regular intervals of about 1km from south to north. The southern populations were indistinguishable from any we had seen from Perdekraal in the west, but the last population, (MBB7672 figs 12a-e), were as close to as must be possible. My contention is that we thus observed continuity from the west to the east.

On northwards to Dwarsindieweg some 15km further and we found the small forms (MBB7677 see figs 13a-b) en route as well as commonly at Josephkraal another 16km east (MBB7678 see fig. 14). We found it again the next day north of Dwarsindieweg (MBB7686 see figs 15a-d) on the high upper slopes of Klein Tafelkop (MBB7688 see 16 fig 54). Heading for home we stopped on a backroad on the way to the Patatsriver road at Witrantjies  and found it yet again (see figs 17a-c). We had been very cautious all the time to be sure we were dealing with one thing and not two. On this last stop we were confronted with the first drama when it seemed fairly certain that we had also found H. nortieri and this turned out to be false. We did return later to climb a high mountain at Volstruisfontein west of Dwarsindieweg hoping to find H. marumiana. Instead we again found small H. arachnoidea (MBB7802).

It was not flowering time. The pictures that should have accompanied this article will show that the arachnoidea we found were often still accompanied by an odd old inflorescence.  A weak spindly thing with evidence of seldom more than three old capsules.

Generally the plants were very small and we very often came across seemingly mature plants that were down to 20mm in diameter, and seldom exceeding 35mm. Invariably we could find the odd bigger plant in any single population array. The spination was fairly variable in respect of size, spacing and arrangement. The leaves could be short and squat or narrow and elongate. Colour was usually on the bright green side and I do not know what the summer colour would be. Leaf markings were interesting because often there was a slight reticulate pattern to the leaves and translucent dots and stripes and margins could be observed. This seemed to diminish in a cline from west to east. We did conclude, because this is what we also wanted to observe, that there was some evidence for continuity with H. arachnoidea var. scabrispina. There was the one population, however, north of Bulhouer where the plants were indeed bigger (50-60mm diam) and there was a definite tendency to form overarching brown spination so characteristic of scabrispina. There were of course the odd variants elsewhere and one group of four plants east of Dwarsindieweg could have come from the very confounded interface of H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata that is covered in the Latin H. arachnoidea var. nigricans. Readers should recognize that there is no way in which the nomenclatural code can be used to account for this diversity and variation, and it is time that more space and recognition is given to this very common phenomenon in the general context of writing, speech and communication.

The pictures will include one of ‘candida’, an epithet conveniently supplied by M. Hayashi for a variant of H. arachnoidea that occurs very close to Ladismith (KG16/72 see figs 18a-c). The spines in these plants often are black at the tips and the same phenomenon can be observed in massive plants that occur near Worcester in the “typical” variety arachnoidea. But I would like to break away from this usage. The epithet arachnoidea is applied to every single plant of that species wherever it occurs. Varietal names of any kind may be attached and I especially recommend the form and the formalization that Gordon Rowley advocates too; this is the format example…H. arachnoideascabrispina’.  For more precision a whole host of abbreviated prefixes could adorn the label e.g. cf ‘scabrispina’ meaning “compare with” or v ‘Scabrispina’ as a cultivar or var. scabrispina as a generalisation.

There are a set of varietal names in H. arachnoidea already, and the proper address for these small Tanqua plants discussed in this article is in terms of my own Revision H. arachnoidea v. namaquensis.  I do not think that my dispensation is adequate or good enough for the scale of our present knowledge, but neither do I think formalization is going to do much more than arouse an egocentric mass of still more Latin epithets. So I strongly suggest that we as a community simply accept something like H. arachnoidea ‘tanqua’  or ‘minuta’ and drop any pretension that Latinization adds any lustre or glamour to plants that are already fascinating and attractive. One of my objections to what I find a really irksome process of formalization (typification, full citation of basionym and all that stuff), almost senseless, because unless a microchip is also implanted it is unlikely that there will be any chance of associating any plant out of habitat back to its origins.

I am not going to write any further about H. nortieri cf ‘pehlemanniae’ here because I need to know more as well as confirm something about the flowers and flowering times of both sets discussed here. There were the occasional dark coloured plants in the arachnoidea (and excuse me dropping the ‘H’ – it really is not necessary in this informal environment), but I doubt very much that anything further will support the suspicion that arachnoidea will now always be confusable with nortieri. It turns out that what I though might be H. nortieri because of the very grey colour tone of the leaves was in fact also H. arachnoidea. A specimen flowering in cultivation produced non-globose flowers.

Acknowledgement:
Dr. De Ville Wickens, Bizaansgat;  Mr. P Schietekat, Stellenbosch; Mr. M. Jan duToit,  Remhoogte Boerdery;  Mr. Pieter de Graaf,  Patatsriver;  Mr. C.K. Francois, Bulhouer;  Mr. Wynand Theron, Dwarsindieweg; Mr. Johan Kriel, Citruspoort (Volstruisfontein); Messrs. Stephen and Gail Louw, Keurkloof.  Hospitality and access to properties is deeply appreciated and valued. ♦

Volume 6, Chapter 9:- Interesting nursery plants

I have become increasingly concerned about the poor relations that exist between collectors and the authority of Nature Conservation. The argument that collectors threaten and despoil natural populations is very real and I do not dispute at all that Conservation authorities have a very valid complaint. They have a function to perform. On the other hand there is an interaction between human beings and nature in all its forms that should be fostered to the benefit of both sides.

Nurseries, traders and collectors are as much of the picture as are conservationists, institutions, researchers and landowners. It is unfortunate that there is no non-government party that lobbies for the rights and activities of the former group, but it is not my intention nor within my competence to argue all the aspects of the case.

I strongly believe that people have the right of access to nature in all its forms and the issue is one of individual responsibility and proper consideration of consequences. An appreciation of and sensitivity to nature should be reflected in whatever we do in our lives. My own collecting impulses led me to institutional employment where I could exercise my interest to what I thought were efforts more worthy than my personal interests. From that position I also did try to share and extend privileges to a wider circle. It is  in this way that I became involved with Sheilam Nursery. It was not my wish or intention that my collection should have come to be housed there. However, Sheilam has succeeded over a period of nearly 40 years to maintain a fairly true record of my collections obtained as propagated material from the Karoo Garden at Worcester. My offer of permitted collections dating from my revision of Haworthia in 1966 to the Karoo Garden was rejected and for a while resided with Etwin Aslander at Brackenfell. It has since passed to Garth Schwegman at Sheilam who has taken a particular interest in the maintenance and propagation of that collection.

Hand pollination of haworthia has become the norm and Sheilam has made a massive effort to generate plants from this. Of course growing plants from seed is a lengthy process, but is richly rewarded with an astonishing array of variants and beautiful plants.

Need I say how important this activity can be for an understanding of the plants and the way this is expressed in a classification?  A good example is of the hybridization found between H. lockwoodii and H. arachnoideascabrispina’ at the Floriskraal Dam east of Laingsburg (see figs 1-3). The hybrid is very reminiscent of plants that I have seen from between there and Prince Albert; and also southeast of the Rooinek Pass through the Witteberg, and again northeast of Calitzdorp. Roy Mottram underscored the issue of hybridization in Haworthia classification. I have not ignored the issue, but rather viewed it as an imponderable in the continuum between populations that seems to have pattern.

Figures 4 and 5 are seedlings of a collection of mine from north east of Nieuwoudtville of H. nortieri. They could be related to ‘globosiflora’ and it will be interesting to see the flowers. However, it may be foolish to draw any conclusion from whatever flower shape emerges in the broader nature of the variation already observed although not adequately documented, both in H. nortieri and in other species complexes. Plants with these stubby deeply mottled leaves can be the consequence of growing conditions just as much as of genetic variation intrinsic to a ’species’.

Figs 6-12 are seedlings of another collection of mine (MBB7608) from Melkhoutrivier south of the lower Breede River and north of the Potberg Mountain. This collection is reported in Chapter 7 of Update 4, I think very aptly entitled “The brutality of reality in Haworthia”. It is one of 12-15 populations in the greater area that support my suggestion of H. mirabilis as including H. maraisii, H. magnifica and H. heidelbergensis. I suspect that H. mutica is also involved to some degree or other, while it is not difficult to extend comparisons to as far afield as Riversdale and further to H. emelyae in the Little Karoo.

Collectors will no doubt always have a problem with plants that do not match the perceptions they attach to names. Kobus Venter has always expressed anathema for anything but random selection when collecting specimen plants. This is in some degree correct because the specimens are supposed to represent a population. However, the opinion on a population is largely based on field observation. Subsequent cultivation and observation do not greatly influence that, while oddities and unusual forms may help mould opinion. While Nature Conservation may object to the introduction of permitted collections eventually into the collecting arena, I see no ethical grounds for this. I insist that it is an undeniable right that people have right of access to a natural resource with the proviso that there is no pressure on sustainability. ♦

A myth corrected – part 5

Set 10.  Map point 18.  H. herbacea ‘submaculata’.  Brickfield, Brandvlei Dam.
Figs. 10.1 to 10.20 MBB7995 H. herbacea, S Brandvlei Brickfield.
Figs. 10.21 to 10.53 MBB7996 H. herbacea, E Brandvlei Brickfield.

I have associated this locality with von Poellnitz H. submaculata and treated it as a synonym of H. herbacea. However, here I first illustrate a population about 600m south of that where the plants are in the usual size range for the species ie.30-40mm diam.  At the locality east of the Brickfield and next to the Breede River, the plants are 1/3 to 1/2 as large again and can form huge clumps. North-west from this is a population of H. maculata at the extreme end of Die Nekkies and only about 300m distant, and this population I have always regarded as somewhat intermediate. What is interesting to note is the huge variation in leaf shape and armature within each population. In both cases the plants are in Witteberg Sandstones and at the first site this is both in a very shale-like stratum as well as in a highly quartzitic one. This is unusual for H. herbacea. Both populations wedge in geographically between H. maculata populations and in no known case do both occur.

Set 11.  Map point 19.  H. mirabilis.  Droogerivierberg.
Figs. 11.1 to 11.11 MBB7984 H. mriabilis, Droogerivierberg.
Figs. 11.12 to 11.24 MBB7985 H. mirabilis, Sandberg S.
Figs. 11.25 to 11.31 MBB7988 H. mirabilis, Trappieskraalkloof.

In this area H. herbacea is common in the Dwyka Tillite but not in the Witteberg Sandstone.  But instead of H. maculata, H. mirabilis is present there and commonly so.  Where at one time I considered that H. pubescens was very probably an extension of H. mirabilis  to a western and northern limit, this does not seem to be the case as it is so closely linked to H. maculata and H. herbacea. On the other hand I have wondered about the similarity of the Moddergat H. maculata to H. mirabilisH. mirabilis is in the eastern areas of the Ouhangsberg and now we know that H. maculata occurs not far away on the western slopes. The centre area remains unexplored and this needs to be done as it may also help understand the idea of two principle role players viz. H. retusa and H. mirabilis as precursors of a very complex Southern Cape assemblage.

Set 12.  Map points 20.  Unknowns.
Figs. 12.1 to 12.7 MBB7865 H. cf. arachnoidea. Keurkloof, SE Dedoorns.
Figs. 12.9 to 12.15 EA1441 unknown, Hex Pass.

I have only two sets of pictures for this set. These are…(a) MBB7865 that Ernst van Jaarsveld drew to my attention at Keurkloof, south east of De Doorns in the Hex River Valley. There is a continuum of suitable habitat between there and Sandhills/Kanetvlei; (b) EA1441 and this number may be incorrect, but it is at the near-base of the Hex River Pass still further east than Keurkloof. In between is Osplaas Station where there are dramatic forms of H. arachnoidea with very spotted leaves, not to forget the nortieri-like form of H. arachnoidea at Kanetvlei about 200m north of MBB7994 H. maculata.

Conclusion
The nature of the populations of H. maculata on Die Nekkies varies quite considerably in that there is an area east of the Resort where the plants form huge clumps. Individual rosettes can be quite large. But there are also points where the plants tend to be solitary, hidden in rock cracks or even truncated into the soil. The plants in the Southern populations are smaller and tend to be solitary. There may be differences in flowers and flowering time but this will really be significant in relation to H. mirabilis rather than between the populations recorded here or to H. herbacea. Attention must be paid to the way in which H. herbacea is geographically wedged in between populations of H. maculata. Equally significant is the character of H. pubescens southwest of Sandberg (Dewetsberg) where the plants have less spinuliferous leaf surfaces and also spotting (maculation). This is one of the best pieces of evidence I have for the geographic continuities that exist throughout the genus both in respect of species of how I think species can be recognized and of how difficult decision making is. In essence this report only dismisses the idea that the Lemoenpoort population can be assigned to H. pubescens. I doubt if it is rational to even formally recognize it as different to H. maculata as “variety” itself is a mythical statusFragmentation by names is a rather archaic approach to classification that serves hardly anything but a semi-commercial need.

Acknowledgement
Many people contributed in one way or another to this report … Mr Hentie deWet of Moddergat, Messrs Poffie and Hettie Conradie of Sandberg (South), Mr Pieter Naude of Vreesnicht,  Mr Johan and Marie Fourie of Buitenstekloof,  Mr Nico Marais of Worcester (Brandvlei) Brickfield,  Mr A. Groenewald of Cilmor Cellar and Stefan Hugo of River Farm. Messrs PD and Anso leRoux provided much logistic support, interest and company as did Kobus Venter, Etwin Aslander and Werner Voigt. Lawrence Loucka has managed and facilitated the archiving of publications and pictures.