In trying to achieve some sort of closure to my writing about Haworthia, I need to try and say a little more about the problems of communication between taxonomist/authority and non-authority. Mrs. Doreen Court as an author, botanist and taxonomist expressed some doubt about the correctness of regarding H. maughanii as a variety of H. truncata. Recently Stirling Baker, a grower and enthusiast, expressed similar views. This is a good example of the kind of problem that one encounters when the taxonomist has to make the decisions for an entire group based on his/her entire experience. It is in fact the sad burden and sorry lot of the taxonomist to have to field and bear valid comments of this nature, and opinions views and dissent, from those who are free of that responsibility. In my experience of co-operating with other taxonomists, I experience their frustration when I use names which have no authority. In fact in writing about species it is actually a problem to decide how to refer to collections when the conclusion will involve a change in how names are commonly used and will have been used in the text.

The question of actual knowledge is also relevant. The taxonomist has to organize and deal with a substantial body of information which often includes an array of herbarium specimens including those of doubtful origin and quality. He/she has to work with an array of images which may be quite conflicting whereas the casual observer may rely on a single image from either good or bad source. The taxonomist also has the problem of validity and chronological order of alternative names to deal with. Over and above these difficulties are the problems of definition and the reality of taxonomic ranks. Up to the present time, the evolutionary basis of speciation is pictured in the form of a two-dimensional branching tree. All the branching points are clearly indicated and the suggestion is that the end-points of the branches are the species with equal degrees of difference. It should be asked if this is a good model. There is evidence that taxonomists are questioning the reality of the species themselves, and certainly this should be extended to genera.

The tendency in South African botany is to jettison genera which are represented by only one species. This does have a lot of merit in the sense of the meaning of the word “genus”, but it only moves the problem of degree of difference to a different level. This problem of “level” is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to agreement in Haworthia. From my point of view the evidence is that the species differ enormously in their degree of differentiation and variability. There are vast complex systems of populations for which no simple nomenclatural solution is possible, as opposed to other simple systems which can be readily identified and referred to by a name. In the final chapters of this volume I discuss a series of populations from the lower Breede River drainage system. However, it is not the final word on Haworthia as it occurs there. I have since explored the area further and encountered other variants which I feel I almost dare not discuss in view of the further nomenclatural problems and identifications these populations raise.

I am extremely conscious of the fact that there is a vast area still to be explored, but I hold no optimistic ideas that such exploration is going to produce solutions. Other Haworthia taxonomists (and such an arrangement is fairly restricted to Haworthia) are content with the belief that an endless array of new names is as good a solution as any. Certainly this can be understood and followed by casual growers and observers where a name is useful in terms of what is commonly known and shared. My opinion is that this is acceptable within such closed communities, but quite useless in the process of building real and valuable information, and in trying to understand the world around us.

~ Bruce Bayer

Editor’s Note
Update 3 brings up-to-date the results of Bruce Bayer’s field research, but as he is constantly in search of haworthias in habitat it will not be surprising if he eventually brings to light further populations, which have an impact on classification. We can all look forward to hearing about his further field work in due course.

It is by no means uncommon for Haworthia enthusiasts to visit South Africa for the purpose of seeing haworthias in habitat. Such visits do give an indication of the variability of plants, but it is probably only extensive field research which reveals the true extent of variability and the difficulties it poses for classification. Living in South Africa, Bruce is in a fortunate position to undertake such work. We cannot visit South Africa with a frequency which will allow us first hand experience of the full extent of variability and its implications for classification, but we can read Haworthia Revisited and Updates 1 – 3 and study the many photographs, excellent as herbarium specimens, in order to gain a better appreciation and understanding of the genus and its associated problems. The results of Bruce’s field work are now available for everyone to take into account when assessing the genus. This does not guarantee that everyone will come to the same taxonomic conclusions, but it does mean they will have the information at hand for consideration in arriving at their own conclusions.

Bruce mentions the different objective in classification perceived by different groups, from the professional taxonomist to traders and purchasers, all of whom want names to have meaning. Alas, there is no agreement on what that meaning should be. For one professional it may be a group of variable plants which he considers to be related – one name covers the lot. Another may see a number of different groups and give them different names, though there may be variability within a group. Sellers and purchasers on the other hand may want a name to indicate a group of plants which have very similar form so that a name will enable a purchaser to buy exactly what he wants – purchasers do not want a name to indicate a lottery. How these problems are solved is a matter for current debate. I am always interested in receiving contributions for publication in our journal Alsterworthia International.

It is, of course, possible to give plants cultivar names under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, but this is another source of names which is not without its problems. At the present time Alsterworthia International is attempting to assemble information on hybrids and cultivars for publication as reference material. Further details will be announced when sufficient information has been assembled for publication.

~ Harry Mays

Acknowledgements
I would like to re-iterate what I wrote in the acknowledgements for Update Vol. 2. Since completing the manuscripts I have been into the field many times and reflected on just how much good will, of so many people, is associated with the whole process. Landowner permission is the first requirement and this often means a lengthy inquiry process as one tries to establish who actually owns the property one wants to explore and who can be contacted and where. Then one has to justify oneself and also establish credibility. It simply is not sensible to even try and list these persons to whom one then is eventually indebted and so grateful to Steven Hammer has been kind enough to proofread Update 3, after also doing so for Update 2. I am grateful to have been able to stress his goodwill in this way and I trust that he will not suffer any backlash from an intolerant taxonomically minded community. My impressions seem to be constantly under review and my present opinion is that taxonomy is overlaid with pedagogic and pedantic activity which is assumed to be for science. It has to be asked if species do in fact have any objective reality and would it not be far better just to recognise that a system based on consensus would be desirable? While I seek closure on my contribution to the unhappy state of names for haworthias, I must say that I have some further writing to do.

~ Bruce Bayer.

♦