Author Archives: Bruce Bayer

Righting some misconceptions

Posted on by
Reply

The article by Gerhard Marx in Haworthiad 26.2:41 is really excellent. There is however some behind the scenes innuendo as well as repeated use of words like ”ignored” and “neglected” that need attention. There are furthermore comments on “substantially different and unique characters”, “forcing” elements into synonymy and use of words like “truthfully” and “knowledge of the genus” that distorts a reality that is historically under stress. This is totally unnecessary in an article that otherwise contributes so much in the real area of interest and information.

What we first could deal with is this vexing question of what science is and who is a scientist?  In the issue of Haworthiad the editor feels it necessary to state that he is not a scientists and both Al Laius and Stirling Baker imply that there are things that the uninformed dare not comment on. Let me make it clear that most of the writing and classification of Haworthia has been done by authors with no formal training in biology whatsoever. I could fill the whole of an issue with detail of how trained and experienced botanists (scientists) have made mistakes in their small contribution to our “knowledge of the genus”, or simply confounded it.

What the Gerhard Marx’s article actually does is ignore history and written knowledge of the genus. He does profile himself on Facebook as a “succulent botanist” but I doubt if this meets the South African Association of Botanists requirements for membership. Many taxonomists have not been scientists at all, and one cannot fault the enormous contribution that most ordinary people (education-wise) have made to botany. So who am I then? With an MSc and a thesis on morphology and taxonomy, am I a scientist? Does training and a formal qualification mean anything at all?  Am I really just another writer?  Perhaps not.  But…

My first bone of contention is the use of the word “ignored”. This is because it is combined with the notion of unknown transitional elements. This is plainly misleading and incorrect. von Poellnitz described H. mirabilis ‘beukmannii’ as a variety of H. emelyae probably as the first clue to some sort of transition between elements south and north of the Langeberg and Outeniquaberg. von Poellnitz cites several specimens from north of the Langeberg that he confused with H. pygmaea and what I later recognize as the totality of H. mirabilis. As long ago as 1976 I published a map in Excelsa, replicated in my Updates, to speculate on the transition of the southern retusoids into the Little Karoo as far as Steytlerville. In a recent treatise available to all I explained the remarkable similarity that I perceived in H. pygmaea  in the Herbertsdale area to H. emelyae a relatively short distance away north of the Gouritz Gorge. Many years ago and lost in my writing is the extraordinary similarity of H. emelyae ‘major’ and H. mirabilis ‘paradoxa’. While surely there must be a record there too of the extraordinary similarities that I observed of H. emelyae ‘multifolia’ to H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’ as well as to H. mirabilis ‘heidelbergensis’ and even to H. rossouwii.

As an aside I must just draw attention to Al Laius’s comments on what he refers to as H. heidelbergensis and H. magnifica. This is because Marx also uses names like átrofusca’, ‘magnifica’ and ‘mirabilis’ with no appreciation of the realities of these names. This brings me to the second bone of contention – the one of “neglect”. One can only do so much, and if Marx can concede that then he can approach this from a more objective angle. I have been fairly limited by opportunity and finance apart from the enormity of the task, but I can and have pointed to a multitude of situations that are no different from the area in the Little Karoo that Marx has easy access to. I have not felt it necessary to venture there where activities of collectors and others have made it too often to ask the indulgence of landowners. Also, when there is just so much else to do. But one of the situations I must refer to is that of the “species” H. groenewaldii, the description of which was also instigated by Marx. The explanation of this taxonomic deviant occupies almost all of Haworthia Update 7 that is available in hardcopy and also on the internet. This explains some of the aberrations that filter through to Marx’s article.

Does that bring us to the question of “substantially different and unique characters”? My MSc thesis had as the subject the nature and significance of complex morphological structure – albeit in entomology. So I actually do know a little bit about characters. I also know a little bit about the use of DNA strings as character sources. More practically is the work that I have done in respect of characters in Asclepiads, in Drosanthemum, especially in Oxalis and even in chameleons. A scientist unfortunately cannot restrict him- or her-self to what they think are the realities in one small area. There is far more to life than Haworthia and it does not have any special problems. There are any number of substantially differences and unique characters even in individual plants. Marx throws this all away with a rather mixed final sentence and reference at the end of it to a “very consistent set of measurements”. Stephen Gould once said that the strongest statement that one could make in biology was “hardly ever”. A consistent set of measurements in biology is spelled out in the science of statistics viz. biometry. Perhaps that article by Loucka and myself dealing with the statistics of H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’  needs to be unearthed. Some variation in Haworthia mirabilis var. sublineata

So this takes me to the other bones of contention viz. “forcing” “truthfully” and “knowledge of the genus”. I have written elsewhere that the taxonomic system is at fault, and I will not even try to defend that simple statement. It is. One of the difficulties is that things that are neither here nor there have to be unequivocally assigned to a taxon. If this is coercion as Marx implies, then he is unaware of a very self-evident truth. There is no place for the chemical equilibrium equation or the subtle variants that Marx even describes. The sorry fact is that formal botany and the ICBN does not actually provide for “aggregates” and this is just a ploy to evade the issue of the definition of “species” and what it truly means. Manning as a professional botanist needs more than ordinary opinion, in a very small field of interest, on which to base a formal list of names for a national catalogue of 23000 names. To treat each genus in that list on the basis that Breuer and Hayashi have done would be unthinkable.

In closing we have this fudging statement… ”Haworthia will remain a taxonomical argument problem for many years to come”. It surely will when writers, editors and readers prefer the mileage they get from disagreement instead of properly informing themselves and working actively towards a common goal with “truth” as a commitment rather than as a word to discount what is already suggested. ♦

Comments on H. marxii

Posted on by
Reply

In An honorary Ariocarpus in Africa – Notes and updated information regarding Haworthia marxii (Alsterworthia Intenational Volume 12, Issue 2) Gerhard Marx and S.D. Gildehuys respond to the inclusion of H. marxii under H. emelyae  by Manning and Bayer in the Rationalized List of Names.

The reason for my dumping H. marxi was purely political as I explained elsewhere. It is just my opinion that there were and are shortcomings in the author’s whole approach to names in Haworthia. So I expected some attempt at vindicating themselves like this. I have no problems with considering H. marxii as a species. I would simply prefer that it remains an element that desperately requires an explanation.

My problem is with statements like this …”Typical H. archeri can be found only … at Viskuil (JDV89/62)”. I described this species and from where it occurs at Ghaapkop and at Baviaans Station just east of there (and Viskuil is just a few miles further east). I later placed it with H. marumiana because of several other oddities widespread and also because of the very wide distribution and variability of H. marumiana. I have since found it also at Lospersberg. Marx has previously been on at me about the relation of H. archeri to H. marumiana. I did not realize that he was unaware of what actually constituted the knowledge of either species.

There is also mention of a collection of PVB1405 as from 20km SE of Rooiberg Pass. This is a bit of a mystery to me as I thought I had noted this collection of PVB from east of the Floriskraal Dam and was for a long time the only possessor of the single plant in cultivation. This collection is cited in my Revision as are the two “archeri” collections noted above. I am sure I noted this collection 40km ESE Laingsburg. It is a mystery because it is north of the Witteberg and Swartberg and is tied in with another population that Bruyns recorded at Baviaanskloof. Every indication is that it is connected to a population of mine at Scholtzkloof, Prince Albert; and so with things that I pondered may be a marumiana connection i.e. ‘var. viridis, or even connected to monticola or more probably, H. vlokii.

Another statement I must make is about the significance of flowering time, as the evidence is that it is not as meaningful as the authors imply. There are hybrids and population evidently arising from hybrids in these interactions – retusa/mirabilis, mutica/mirabilis, floribunda/pygmaea, floribunda/retusa,and herbacea/reticulata. The latter is not across a seasonal flowering difference but the others are.

The large gap between Montagu and Rooinek Pass is reduced somewhat by the old populations of H. mirabilis northeast of Montagu at Dobbelaarskloof and by the new population recorded near the Pienaarskloof Dam. Also relevant is the distribution of H. pumila. So maybe exploration has simply been inadequate. I was and am fully aware of the distance issue.

Regarding flower morphology. Similarities in the flowers of otherwise very different things, is just as significant as differences in the flowers of things that may in fact be very similar. So these small differences should not be punted without far more attention been given to what actually constitutes difference. The few pictures of the flowers that are provided are hopelessly inadequate to base any opinion on. The ultimate issue is that the authors are using idiom, method and logic that have been in service since before von Poellnitz, Smith, Scott and the rest of us. It has not worked. It is not going to resolve the complications we can find in situations like between say H. mirabilis and H. retusa, or H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata, or H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis, or H. cooperi and H. bolusii var.blackbeardiana. To name some of the more obvious interacting species or elements if we do not know what species are. ♦

Still another view of Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis

Posted on by
Reply

I recently wrote an essay on the situation between Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis at Komserante east of Riversdale. The essay was entitled “My view of names” and is posted on the HaworthiaUpdates.org web site. Etwin Aslander posted some pictures from what he called Kruisrivier. These caught my eye because they did not look like the plants I know from a place of the same name. My known population is JDV95/62 and generally these plants have the dark colour and rough surface texture of H. mirabilis. The issue is that they are spring flowering whereas H. mirabilis is generally considered and observed to be late summer flowering. Etwin indicated to me where he had found his plants and I duly went to look.

In the process I incidentally called on a well known H. retusa population at the Skietbaan locality south of Riversdale. There has been a dramatic turnabout in the appearances of these plants since I last looked there 2 years ago. Whereas there were then huge clones well above ground level, the plants were now again smaller and drawn into the ground. I experienced this dramatic shift in plant appearances just west of the Frehse Reserve many years ago when there were giant size plants as opposed to my first visit when the plants were really small and withdrawn.

Kobus accompanied Daphne and I to Kruisrivier where the owners Wilhelm and Mandi Zietsman were extremely helpful. They told us also of a neighbor, Gert van Rensburg, who had also seen the same plants on his farm to the west. Mandi accompanied us on a jaunt to find that farmer and failing that we explored north of the original Kruisrivier locality. There we found another population of plants as well as H. floribunda (see Set 1 MBB7998). These two species H. retusa and H. floribunda were occupying different habitat and spaced about 100m apart. The H. floribunda was numerous and rather smooth leaved as well as paler green in colour than I expect from that species. The H. retusa-like plants were much smoother in surface texture than the original known population and they were in bud (see Set 2 MBB7999). We went back to the older population just to confirm that they were in bud too as we expected. Just so and the buds were just emerging from the rosettes. The plants were generally smaller than they were at a previous visit (see set 3 JDV95/62).

We parted company with Mandi Zietsman, and went off westwards intended to explore the Klein Kruisrivier area that seemed to better fit Etwin’s site indicator. By good fortune we ran into Gert van Rensburg of Wegwysersrivier. He eyed us very suspiciously indeed and obviously very reluctant to show anyone the plants. However, he very kindly relented, took us to the spot and left us to freely photograph and explore (see set 4 MBB8000). The plants can be described as midway between the generally rougher surfaces of JDV95-62 and the smooth surfaces of MBB7999. What was more dramatic is that there were six flower spikes so that flowering is possible as early as July 6th.

We returned via another route regretting leaving distant habitat unexplored. But we did find another population of H. floribunda, a little more toothed and perhaps brighter green than at Kruisrivier.

I also note that I long ago confirmed Smith’s record for H. retusa ‘turgida’ at Klein Kruisrivier in the upper Wegwysersrivier Gorge. This is the small spinose proliferous version known elsewhere from the Langeberg Mts.

Digesting this new information is a bit difficult in view of the very opposed views of what names mean and how they should be applied. Taking all the populations that I have explored and written about, my perspective is further to a view expressed in Haworthia Update 7. This is that H. retusa and H. mirabilis are uncomfortably close. The only thing that appears to separate them is the yellowish green and smooth tendency in H. retusa and the darkish green and surface rough tendency in H. mirabilis. Further to that is of course the question of spring flowering versus late summer flowering. But I have already reported several case of hybridization across this divide as well as the Komserante situation. Here we now have plants in three populations that occupy middle ground and one of these populations has a significant degree of a winter flowering capacity. The identification should perhaps utilize the chemical equilibrium symbol. This is not quite it “↔” as the better symbol comprises halved arrows pointing in opposite directions.

I wish to add that in the case of plants I attribute to H. ‘turgida’ at Towerlands, I commented on the very real possibility of a close connection to H. emelyae. There is also evidence for this elsewhere. I use the name ‘turgida’ like this because of the uncertainty of it really being H. retusa var. turgida or perhaps H. pygmaea.

My experience in other situations viz. H. limifolia, H. herbacea/H. reticulata, H. arachnoidea/H. mucronata, H. cymbiformis/H. cooperi, Kiewietsvlakte etc. all suggests to me that the view of species is grossly distorted in the splitter direction. It is clear to me, if to no one else, that H. retusa and H. mirabilis form a very cohesive entity with ramifying oddities the length and breadth of the distribution range. I do not cover this issue here, but there is the added complication of the involvement of H. floribunda. It seems to be very discrete in most places, whereas at others it seems to get lost mainly (only?) in H. mirabilis. This may be because the introgression is favoured by the same flowering season. H. retusa and H. mirabilis are drifted apart by the difference in flowering season but it is by no means anything more than a general observation.

I have added the images of the available flowers as well as that of a bud to show the flared fishtail bud-tip that the southern Cape species tend to have. The flowers are variable and it is difficult to make a statement that characterizes them i.e. no composite image forms.

Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge Etwin Aslander’s input. Wilhelm and Mandi Zietsman were extremely helpful. Gert van Rensburg was surprisingly well informed about the plants too and very generous in his attitude to us. Part of the pleasure of field work is meeting people like this.

Set 1. MBB7998 H. floribunda Kruisrivier

Set 2. MBB7999 H. retusa Kruisrivier

Set 3. JDV92/65 H. retusa Kruisrivier

Set 4. MBB8000 H. retusa Wegwyserivier

MBB8000 flower faces

MBB8000 flower profiles

MBB8000 flower bud

8000 H. retusa, Wegwysersrivier. Flower bud.

Addendum
To demonstrate the problem of similar looking plants that appear in different populations, I take 3 plants from the original Kruisrivier population (JDV92/65) see figs 1 to 3. Fig. 1 is obviously a mirabiloid plant and if this population flowered in late summer it would probably be identified as H. mirabilis. The figs 2 and 3 are more retusoid. I leave out plants from the newer Kruisrivier population (MBB7999) because none of the plants have the rougher mirabiloid leaf surfaces. I add a Wegwysersrivier (fig. 4 MBB8000) plant that is again mirabiloid and like Fig. 1 except that it appears to be a spring flowering population with a significant number of plants in flower in early July. From there I take a plant from Komserante (MBB7779) that flowers in late summer but is apparently generally hybrid with H. retusa. Moving eastwards from Riversdale and impinging on H. mirabilis splendens, I show a plant MBB7762 from Platkop (fig. 6) where both H. mirabilis and H. retusa occur with occasional hybrids. Fig. 7 is MBB7818 H. mirabilis Windsor SE Riversdale, where the plants frequently have a frosted appearance because of minute surface spines.

There is a significant geographic jump with fig. 8 MBB7850 H. emelyae north of the Langeberg at Aasvoelvallei. This is a population that I have noted elsewhere that highlights the probable relationship of H. emelyae with the H. retusa turgida and pymaeaoid elements from Herbertsdale eastwards. Fig. 9 is a plant of MBB6666 Tradouw Pass that I recognize as a hybrid population H. mirabilisXretusa. Inland from there are several populations, MBB7899 is H. mirabilis, Heuningklip (fig. 10) and MBB7896 H. retusa nigra also Heuningklip (fig. 11). East of that are three populations of H. mirabilis, MBB7912 and MBB7913 Rietkuil and MBB7919 Van Reenens Crest (figs 12 to 14).

As only single plant comparisons, it seems fairly safe to say that, bar flowering time and figs 2 and 3, they are all similar. However, the variability in each of these populations is great and this has been reported elsewhere in the Update volumes. If one had to now take figs 2 and 3 and look for similarities in other populations, it would be very easy to demonstrate a complete gradation from what could be construed as typical H. mirabilis through to typical H. retusa through a large array of populations.

Fig. 1. JDV95-62.9 H. retusa, Kruisrivier
Fig. 2. JDV92-65 H. retusa, Kruisrivier
Fig. 3. JDV92-65 H. retusa, Kruisrivier
Fig. 4. MBB8000.5 H. retusa, Wegwysersrivier
Fig. 5. MBB7779 H. mirabilis. Komserante
Fig. 6. MBB7762, H. mirabilis, W Platkop 4616
Fig. 7. MBB7818, H. retusa, Windsor
Fig. 8. MBB7850, H. emelyae, Aasvoelvallei
Fig. 9. MBB6666 H. mirabilisX retusa, Tradouw
Fig. 10. MBB7899 H. mirabilis, Heuningklip
Fig. 11. MBB7896 H. retusa nigra, Heuningklip
Fig. 12. MBB7919 H. mirabilis, Van Reenens Crest
Fig. 13. MBB7912, H. mirabilis, Rietkuil
Fig. 14. MBB7913 H. mirabilis, Rietkuil

♦

A sequel … Still another view of Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis

Posted on by
Reply

It has long been my contention that there is no separation between Haworthia retusa and Haworthia turgida. It is one very variable system viz H. retusa, with a larger fairly non-proliferous plants tending to level areas and then smaller proliferous plants on steeper habitats. There is huge variability among members of any one population and of course much more between populations. Over and above this is the relationship of this apparently one single system, with H. mirabilis that is probably even more complex and varied. If one takes all the known populations and variants into consideration it become necessary to ask if H. retusa and H. mirabilis are also not just elements of one system, and one species. If all the considerations are summed and referral is made to vegetation and speciation drivers; what constitutes an area of endemism, then I am sure the answer will be “Yes”! What seems to have happened is a natural sequence. As sampling has progressed so has there been recognition of differences. The logical outcome is that sampling progression should lead to understanding and synthesis by reduction. Unfortunately there will be diehards that stay with the differences syndrome and cannot see the similarities.

There is surely no longer any doubt that Haworthia classification has been confounded. There are several factors. One is the historical one of sampling and naming. Sampling dates from the seventeenth century and description based on a few words and weak illustration. The second problem has been a nomenclatural system that revolves around the single types and assumes that departures from that still allow comfortable accommodation of all other departures (variants) under the primary name. The third problem is the absence of a species definition deriving from a lack of knowledge and hence understanding of what species are. The fourth problem is enthusiasts, writers, collectors, editors, reader etc. who generate and propagate within the confines of their own needs, limitations, knowledge and understanding. Too often they are not adequately informed to undertake something that really should be the task of professional botanists. Of course it is also true that professionals have not proved to be faultless either, as simply the lack of a species definition alone indicates.

From my personal point of view, I consider the sampling history and the nomenclatural constrictions of priority and automatic creation of type elements, among the main obstacles to a classification solution. Perhaps it is only secondary to the human factor where writers become anxious to establish their own opinions, based on who knows what, crowing from the top of a metaphorical farm dungheap. I have paid a lot of attention to an element that I name as H. retusa ‘nigra’. It is based on a very unrepresentative specimen from Kransriviermond where it seems as if it is a product of hybridization between H. retusa and H. mirabilis. But this situation, and the name, is inextricably involved in a series of populations grouped in areas like Van Reenens Crest (Swellendam), Klip River (W Heidelberg) and Kiewietsvlakte (W Riversdale). These populations do not seem to figure in any earlier exploration and if looked at objectively may now perhaps be seen as the mother lode from which H. retusa, H. mirabilis, H. pygmaea, H. mutica and even H. emelyae as species may emerge. The reality is that all these may not in fact even be discrete species.

In the forerunning article I discussed some new populations at Kruisrivier northeast of Riversdale and where they occur along the Kruis River. This river partially follows the interface of the Cape Sandstone Fold Mountains in an east/west direction and the situation is replicated to some measure elsewhere between Worcester and George. Most relevant is the similarity of the Kruis River valley and its south banks to the situation along the Klipriver west of Heidelberg. But it is not in the scope of this discussion to cover that now and I would in any case need to research the geology of both areas to do so. I will just present images to cover firstly the area, then to allow creation of a composite image of what the small sandstone H. retusa looks like, then images from just two populations of H. retusa to show how shadowy our image of this species is; and then I will show the images of plants from five points down a distance of about 4km along the south bank of the Kruis River to a point south and west of the better known Kruisrivier plants.

Setting the scene.
The Kruis River Valley is slightly east of north from Riversdale and the Kruis River is a headwater of the Goukou River that enters the sea at Stilbay. The views I have (figs. 1-4) are of a satellite image of the Valley from where the Kruis River exits the Langeberg Range to where it joins the Goukou. Three images are from the south bank looking northwest and northeast. The area is very heavily impacted by alien vegetation. The grazing animals are mainly cattle (beed and dairy) and hoof impact on the slopes is severe. The underlying shale along the south bank is not exposed and there is both boulder deposit, river alluvium and even some marine terrace in evidence. Nevertheless the area is not so dramatically varied geologically as is the area around Heidelberg to the west. Hence the transitions and interactions between species and their variants are both similar but very different. The initial conditions will be very different too.

Fig. 1 An overview of the Kruis River Valley.
Fig. 2 Some indication of the topography of the south bank.
Fig. 3 View northwest from a central position.
Fig. 4 View to the northwest across the flood plain.

The populations.
The first three sets are to briefly review H. retusa. The general perception of H. retusa is very restrictive and similarly the case with what was H. turgida. I consider them together. Nevertheless I have to sympathize with the splitter approach because I have to make a concession for the sake of discussion. Thus…

Set 1 MBB7895 H. retusa ‘caespitosa’, Diepkloof, Heidelberg (figs 5-9).
I explored the upper Kruis River in early 1970 and found the small sandstone version of what was then recognised as H. caespitosa. Later seen as H. turgida, it is known at many places from the Tradouw Pass, north of Heidelberg, Garcia Pass and Kok’s peak. Small and very proliferous, its leaves are also quite spinose on margins and keel and also flecked with reticulate and longitudinal translucence. The summer coloration tends to reds and yellows. I do not have images of this actual form but show five from a population south of Heidelberg that is very similar. But it should not be assumed that the transitional flow in the Heideberg area equates that at Kruis River. The variants down the length of the Klip and Duiwenhoks Rivers is another profound story.

Set 2 MBB7758 H. retusa,  Skietbaan, S Riversdale (figs 10-19 ).
I show images of this species very recently taken. This is because I do not think that as a species H. retusa is properly appreciated for all its variants. It is this reality that we are confronted with when considering populations as at Komserante and now Kruisrivier where there is an evidence that it cannot any longer be seen as completely removed from H. mirabilis.

If images 10a and b appear to be different from the rest of this wet, they should. They are plants from the same locality but they were taken 4 years ago when most of the plants were very much larger. They illustrate a very useful point – the plants do NOT necessarily look the same all of the time.

Set 3 MBB8010 H. retusa, 8km S Riversdale (figs 20-28 ).
Primarily one should consider surface roughness and colouration as main separators from H. mirabilis. Flowering time is the prime differentiator and this is what is now to be seen in another light.

Set 4 MBB8004 H. retusa↔mirabilis, Bloekombos, Kruisriver (figs 29-42).
Reference can perhaps be made to the three sets illustrated in the preceding article. Here is will just re-capitulate to say that there is some doubt in respect of plant appearance and colouration, to examine the view that the represent H. retusa or H. mirabilis. (I dismiss totally and absolutely the notion that a third species needs to be fabricated to accommodate differences impossible to itemize or catalogue across the range of variants within and between populations.) I do not think that the similarity of surface roughness to that of the H. mirabilis ‘atrofuscoids’ should be overlooked – even some of the leaves show the tendency to roundness at the ends. This particular population was in full flower at the end of July.

Subset 4 The flowers (figs 43-45). I do not see anything to distinguish these flowers from those photographed for the Wegwysersrivier population and given in the preceding article. It is difficult to imagine that the flowers may offer any distinctive features in the direction of difference that are not already offered by vegetative and geographic considerations. There may of course be direction towards similarity.

Set 4 H. retusa-mirabilis, MBB 8004 Bloekombos, Kruisriver – Subset 4a Flower profiles

Set 4 H. retusa-mirabilis, MBB8004 Bloekombos, Kruisriver – 45. Subset 4b Flower faces

Set 4 H. retusa-mirabilis, MBB8004 Bloekombos, Kruisriver – 45. Subset 4c

Set 5 MBB8003 H. retusa↔mirabilis, W Bloekombos, Kruisriver (figs 46-73).
Curiously this population was only in early bud although only a few hundred meters away from the preceding. I do think there is significant difference in the appearances of the plants with more translucence of narrower leaves. However, plants from this and the preceding population could very easily be said to identify with those in any of the H. mirabilis populations southeast, south and west of Riversdale. It is also obvious that there is a degree of similarity to the rougher plants of H. retusa illustrated in sets 2 and 3, and also to the Komserante H. retusa↔mirabilis plants.

Set 6 MBB8007 H. retusa↔mirabilis, 600m W Bloekombos, Kruisriver (figs 74-81).
The banks west of set 5 are less steep and the terrain not clearly differentiated into discrete habitats. Heavy cattle trampling would severely impact on plants. Nevertheless we did find a small colony and are confident more would be found if more time was spent searching. The area is quite extensive and we did not consider several north/south valleys that could well harbor plants. The same is true for quite large hinterland to the Kruis River Valley and Etwin Aslander’s plants, similar to the ones we saw, are surely present back there. This small colony reflects further transition to H. retusa ‘turgida’. The leaves are smoother and more translucent. There are some floral differences muted by the small sample and by the fact that these features such as the absence of frilled base to the bract and the presence of a short pedicel, are variations observed within populations elsewhere.

Set 7 MBB8008 H. retusa↔mirabilis, 1km W Bloekombos, Kruisriver (figs 82-83).
Also barely, registering as a population, these odd plants support the predicted presence of a direct transition from the Kruisriver mirabiloid-like H. retusa to the known sandstone forms of H. retusa ‘turgida’. Hoof action has severely impacted this area and it sems very probable that there was a larger population at some time or another. The slope militates against the solitary ground-level growth form of the more usual H. retusa but not steep or rocky enough to be home to the turgidoid cliff growing forms.

Set 8 MBB8005 H. retusa ‘turgida’, S Wegwysersrivier (figs 84-98).
The use of the equilibrium sign for the preceding is more informative than accurate. It reflects the problem of decision making where it is not clear if H. mirabilis is even in the area. This of course impacts on the situation further east when the reality of H. pygmaea and all its associated variants are brought into the picture. I am sure it is inarguable that we are now confronted with plants that are truly similar to H. retusa ‘turgida’. Curiously the flower is much the same as in MBB8003 and 8004 to the east but there is a difference in that the peduncles were softer and shorter than of plants to the east and suggesting the shorter lax habit of the cliff dwellers. The habitat is unlike the preceding in that the Tertiary deposit is more alluvial and the rock is more boulder-like. Trampling is still a severe problem. Note the two pictures of a H. retusaXfloribunda hybrid.

Set 9 MBB8006 H. floribunda, S Wegwysersrivier (figs 99-107).
The presence of this species is no surprise. It was quite abundant although slightly separated from where we found the H. retusa ‘turgida’. It depends on rocks for protection from trampling. This species of course generally flowers in late summer but once again here is a hybrid present with the other parent flowering a good 6 months later. This has been observed in several other places where these same two species occur in close association. [photo file names are mistakenly named MBB8005, they are in fact MBB8006 – ed.]

Conclusion
The product of this exploration was based on prediction and I would wish that cognizance was taken of the fact that this could and can be done. Using an aggregate or group category and a host of Latin binomials is not botany and obfuscates things. Perhaps to the benefit of traders, but certainly confusing to the collector who make wish to know more about plants than simply having a label.

Acknowledgement
I have already acknowledged the help of Wilhelm and Mandi Zietsman; and Gert and Lynette van Rensburg. We were now also assisted by Wessie Wessels, a retired airline pilot who owns the Bloekomsbos Farm. Kobus Venter came to see my pictures and I really value his interest and useful comment. I wish there was more similar interested and informed comment.   ♦

Die Nekkies Haworthia – A further visit and updated information

Posted on by
1

Bruce Bayer has now been back to Die Nekkies and returns with more detail to add to the broader Haworthia maculata picture, and considerable detail for H. maculata at its home range located north of the Brandvlei Dam on a low range of hills named Die Nekkies. (See Haworthia Updates Volume 9, A myth corrected to – Haworthia maculata var. livida (Bayer) Bayer – and flowers ignored). These low hills extend for 10-12km east to west along the north shore of the Dam. They are geologically Witteberg Sandstone and H. maculata is not known off this formation except in the lower Hex River Pass where it is found in Table Mountain Sandstone. H. herbacea (and H. reticulata) are more abundant on the Dwyka Tillite, and on Bokkeveld and Ecca shales. The Wiiteberg is sandwiched between Bokkeveld Shale and Dwyka Tillite, and Ecca Shale of the Karoo System overlies Dwyka Tillite. Because of considerable faulting and folding the Cape Terrain is geologically and topographically very broken and there are a multitude of skeletal rocky habitats – the raw rock is very exposed and the surfaces are erosional. Haworthia are rarely found on depositional sites. The fact that there is also a stable and dependable winter rainfall also contributes greatly to the success of small succulents in situations that cannot maintain high biomass levels. This all drives home the fact that Darwin’s dictum that distribution is the lintel to understanding species is doubly true for Haworthia where morphological differences are minimal.

In Die Nekkies and Biomes and Haworthia maculata Haworthia Updates Volume 6, Chapter 6 Bruce Bayer explained and presented data in connection with the variation and distribution of what he considers to be the species Haworthia maculata over the whole range of its distribution. He long ago wrote explanations like this for H. reticulata and H. herbacea that are related species. Bayer has already shown that in genera like this within the very diverse Southern African system, simply do not resolve on the basis of simplified morphological characterization. The new data presented here, especially with the observations on the varied flowering time of H. maculata, shows that the view expressed, that H. retusa and H. mirabilis really form one integrated system, is true. This further underscores the view long ago held by Bayer that H. herbacea, H. reticulata and H. maculata are further extensions of that single system. Even the floral morphology points to this.

– Lawrence Loucka
[photographs and map by Bruce Bayer]

Populations:

Haworthia maculata – 7526, 8019, 8020, 8021, 8022, 8023, 8024, 8025, 8026, 8027.
Haworthia herbacea – 7995, 7996, 8012, 8014, 8015.
Transition Haworthia herbacea to Haworthia maculata 7996
Haworthia pubescens – 8011.
Weak transition Haworthia maculata to Haworthia pubescens – 7997.
Strong transition Haworthia maculata to Haworthia pubescens – 8002.

7996 as H. herbacea is very close to 8020 that is H. maculata and the nature of the plants at 8020 is that the population is transitional to herbacea too. In fact the same is almost true for 7996.

Haworthia maculata MBB7526, Die Nekkies

What a difference a few weeks can make … above photos taken November 1, 2012.
Below were taken December 8th.

And an interesting variant…

MBB8019 – Haworthia maculata, Yacht Club Gate, Brandvlei

This is a picture taken from a very late flowering population of H. maculata near Die Nekkies resort south of Worcester. Looking north to where H. maculata grows at about 4000ft on the Audenberg peak, and to the right at about 1000ft in the lower Hex River pass. That is where it occurs close to H. aff nortieri.

Haworthia maculata MBB8020, Die Nekkies, east end

Haworthia maculata MBB8021, Die Nekkies, west end

 

Haworthia pumila also near by.

Haworthia maculata MBB8022, Die Nekkies

Habitat of Haworthia maculata at Die Nekkies, Brandvlei, south of Worcester.

 

Haworthia maculata MBB8023, Die Nekkies

Haworthia maculata MBB8024, Die Nekkies

Haworthia maculata MBB8025, Die Nekkies

Long thin leaves.

Haworthia maculata MBB8026, Die Nekkies

    

View west from 8026.

Haworthia maculata MBB8027, Die Nekkies

 

♦

Haworthia maculata leaf tips, faces and backs

Posted on by
Reply

Die Nekkies – a selection of Haworthia maculata plants with their leaf faces and backs showing variability over this extensive area.

I took the following photographs originally just to show how much the leaves varied in the species. The only locality data record was Die Nekkies with no differentiation into populations. The variability was firmly established and became apparent even within populations where the degree of variation surprised even me. It was also extrapolated across the genus.

As an afterthought, this turned my mind to Farden and Smith’s observation about the idiocy of trying to make varieties in Haworthia attenuata on the basis of leaf characters where the individual leaves varied so much that several varieties could be detected from the same plant. This is exactly what Breuer, Marx and Hayashi are actually doing when they get carried away by their justification for new species, drawing conclusions from single plants because of the inability of the mind to hold many images. This is exactly the way in which “H. magnifica” is maintained as a species when the imagery is based on the original single plant originally described. There can be no such thing as “H. magnifica” because the variation across the range of populations from Riversdale to Riviersonderend is so immense and complex.

The following photographs show a random selection of plants and their leaf faces and backs from Die Nekkies. These were taken some time ago when I did not record actual populations. They do record the variability of plants and leaves over this wide area which I classify as Haworthia maculata. For subsequently photographed plants I have recorded my population collection numbers which are indicated on the map found in Die Nekkies Haworthia – A further visit and updated information.

Continue reading →

A further report on Haworthia mirabilis in the Greyton area.

Posted on by
Reply

Appendix 11 to Haworthia Update Vol. 8.

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

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

The 8055 Hammanskraal population is about 5km due south of Leeukop and is quite new to me. We were attracted in passing to a very promising looking northwest facing shale ridge and were not surprised to find plants there. However, it does consolidate the western limits of the species. A paradox is that here the plants seem to be only in little pockets of soil in the shale ridges. There are none in the more friable and developed soil between the exposed unweathered shale. The plants were in seed and there were still a few flowers indicative of a flowering time a good two months behind populations to the north and east. The plant 8055.17 could very easily be mistaken for similar clones in populations northwest of Napier (‘subtuberculata’).

8055.17 H. mirabilis, Hammanskraal
8055.17 H. mirabilis, Hammanskraal

8056 is a population that Kobus Venter drew my attention to. We only looked along the road and did not spend much time there. This is similar habitat to Leeukop where the var. rubrodentata originated. That original description and name is associated with a variant with relatively long narrow leaves with well developed and very red spination. Of course the colour is associated with the northern aspect. Red spination is quite common elsewhere in H. mirabilis and is evident on the 8055 plants too. I include a view of a nearby site as evidence of road building vandalism. For some reason or other the road builders seem to have thought it necessary to scrape and ravage a wide strip of countryside between where the road eventually was established and a wonderful riverside steep slope full of Aloe glauca. It is really curious that there are several aloe populations like this at the H. mirabilis sites, but the two species seem to be exclusive with the Haworthia on the lightly less weathered and more sparsely vegetated area.

Aloe glauca Genadendal
Engineering vandalism

We called at the population 8040 east of Greyton because I wanted to obtain a sample to see if the colour was maintained in cultivation. I include a picture 8040.9 to show the offset which has no tubercles, spots, or spines on the underside of the leaves so commonly associated with H. mirabilis. I said of the var consanguinea (southwest of McGregor) that plants could be mistaken for H. mirabilis ‘notabilis’ from Robertson. It is true of this clone too.

The last thing we did was explore the start of the 15km Boesmansrivier hiking trail from Greyton to McGregor. It is along a traverse through the Riviersonderend Mountains. The Grobos River originates deep in the mountain about 5km southwest of McGregor and runs in a deep gorge toward Greyton. From Greyton the hiking trail voids the deep river valley and ascends a high ridge running parallel to the south of the river. Then there is a second deep valley again south of that. So the path is along the top of a high ridge from where it eventually does drop to a waterfall on the river. We never got that far but I assume the trail then follows the river and then climbs out again at the north eastern end. There were no accessible and likely habitats along the first portion of the trail. We did explore very promising looking habitat south of the trail start, but found nothing. This is curious because it is only about 1km north of the ZigZag path where the plants are abundant. Of course we know that plants occur along the trail northeast of the waterfall and had hoped to chance on suitable accessible habitat on the way there. I have included some pictures of the scenery to show how steep and rugged the terrain is. It is almost certain that there are more populations in the area. Given the adaptation to the Uitkyk habitat contrasted with both Leeukop and Hammanskraal one cannot rule out any possibility of more populations in these mountains. I include a photograph looking southwestwards to show the territory with populations known on those distant ridges both in the extreme west and again extreme east. Plants have been reported in the higher areas. There are also low mountains to the west behind and west of Leeukop unexplored. Hammanskraal would be discernible in the picture in the distance to the far right.

View 1 over Greyton from the northeast
View 1 over Greyton from the northeast
View 2 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 2 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 3 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 3 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 4 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 4 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 5 looking northeast from within hiking trail
View 5 looking northeast from within hiking trail

Acknowledgement
Mr. Willie Smal for access to Hammanskraal. My son Warwick for transporting and accompanying us. Kobus Venter for alerting me to the plants east of Leeukop. ♦

Thoughts on Haworthia – Foreward and Introduction

Posted on by
Reply

THOUGHTS ON HAWORTHIA

M.B.BAYER (MSc.Agric.)

A philosophical dissertation.

Truth = N+(N+1):  Non-existent in the singularity of plant classification.  (By restricting itself to only that which can be quantified, measured and observed by the physical senses, science confines itself to a black hole from which scientists will never escape.. (see also Fritjhof Capra, The Turning Point, and other writers who seem to be free) … aspirant and practising plant taxonomists do not seem to class even as scientists.

CONTENTS

Foreword
Introduction
Minus 1
Enigma   1. Another open letter.
Enigma   2. The real enigma in Haworthia.
Enigma   3. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea
Enigma   4. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Della Sea
Enigma   5. Cabbages and kings.
Enigma   6. A change of title – Predictiveness in science.
Enigma   7. ICBN vs. Larry Leach and Col.C.L. Scott.
Enigma   8. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done
Enigma   9. Ditto 8.
Enigma  10. Ditto 9.
Enigma  11. Titles of talks mutate.
Enigma  12. N+(N+1) As the title of a presentation.
Addendum 1. Haworthia – where do we go from here?
Addendum 2. Notes of talk – Omaha June 1988.
Addendum 3. Gist of talks – USA June 1988.
Addendum 4. A paper on Oxalis.
Addendum 5. A letter to a prospective taxonomist.
Addendum 6. A review of “The World of Haworthias. Vol.1”
Addendum 7. A manuscript for the Journal Asklepios.

Continue reading →

Enigma N-1. The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea

Posted on by
Reply

(Having received a belated invitation to make a presentation at the I.O.S. Congress being held in Cape Town, I hurriedly faxed the following to the organiser..)

Fax to Craig Hilton-Taylor

Congress organiser.

Sorry I am late with this but I had a crisis in connection with this very topic and had to see that through first.  This is my abstract for the congress.  Please ring me if there is any doubt in your mind about its suitability for the programme.

“The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea

M B Bayer

I get a perverse delight in the picture of Adolph Hitler the megalomaniac, whose CV resume is highlighted by his simple beginnings as a house painter, and my career ending as a paying house painter.

The talk will deal with the special nature of species in the subgenus Haworthia as it may relate to the quote  ‘the ship of many a taxonomist has been wrecked on the rocks of the Liliaceae’.  It will present a definition of a species which the author feels is totally adequate for taxonomy at any level.  A definition that is simple, intellectually unpretentious and meeting the needs of both layman and scientist, as indeed it has to do.  It is based on the authors extensive experience in recognising pattern in biological systems.

Enigma 1. Another open letter

Posted on by
Reply

A letter to the Editor of Haworthiad, Mr Harry Mays.

 

Dear Harry,

Thank you for the recent Haworthiad and your letter.

I have also just been asked to speak at the IOS congress (20 Min) so it will be nice to see you there.  No, you said Borgman and Breuer had asked for their manuscript not to be released prior to publication.  I have glanced at it now and initially thought it really may be quite good.   There were some critical comments which I was going to make thinking arrogantly perhaps that I could maybe help the authors to greater heights.  There did not seem to be anything new here and it looked if these two were promising to keep you in manuscript for the next millennium.

I did think you might not like to publish my comments but as I progressed I found myself getting more and more irritated and my writing more aggressive.  In the closing paragraph you will see that I say ‘Someone has lied’.  This was intentionally or otherwise, but it remains a lie.  Much as I appreciate the way you have accommodated my writing, the comment below does not seem suited to Haworthiad based on your support for Breuer and on the comments you convey to me from your readership.  I doubt if your readership would have any appreciation of the subtleties of the argument nor the revulsion I feel at this piece of work.  I am therefore contemplating a sort of private mailing list for this comment and possibly also launching it out into cyberspace as a loud thought.  I would like an early answer as I am contemplating simply giving it to the internet as my last last word.

Thank you for the WWW page.  Harry my time is very precious to me at the moment and I did write something for the special Haworthia issue of the CSSA Jl – influenced by Colin Walker’s letter.  I actually want to go and see the E. Cape complex later this year and feel really torn between my inner wish for ‘rest’ and the outer wish to ‘know’.  Time is wasted on endless refutation and takes me right away from wanting to write anything new.  Did you get my notes on Resende, Uitewaal and Smith – 30th June? :-

Continue reading →

Enigma 2. The real enigma in Haworthia.

Posted on by
Reply

Harry Mays kindly explained that I have been not very well balanced since too much time at computing, and this is perhaps one reason for the aggressive note in my writing which offends many readers.  During the last few years Kobus Venter has been a great friend and tried to nurse me through a tough time.  I was avoiding even seeing Haworthiad outside of those surreptitious loans from Kobus.  I wanted to see my manuscript published and then get out altogether because the mental stimulation of working with Haworthia is excessive.  I know that for some reason that readers are not really cogniscent of the import of what is written and all I have been doing is undermining my own credibility by attempting to defend myself.  As the book drags on and in consequence of a really enjoyable visit to the USA thanks to their Succulent Society, I began to be more positive.  So much so that I asked for Haworthiad to be addressed to me again.  I expected an anticipated article by Metzing and Breuer to maybe give me some problems because I had already advised Harry Mays not to publish a poor manuscript which Ingo Breuer had submitted on the arachnoidea/herbacea enigma.  Harry informed me that a revised version was on its way which, he said they had asked not to be released prior to publication.  I assumed from Harry’s letter that Metzing would be senior author.  Assessing Breuer’s capabilities from the Taxon article for which Metzing was the senior author, I was anticipating something really solid and meaningful but dreading a paper driving me into a desperate mode.  I honestly and truly did not anticipate that a paper on the so-called enigma could do anything but go back to a 1986 paper of mine where I pointed out that there was a simple problem of application.  There was no enigma at all.  Another problem for me has been the fact that I have given a copy of the manuscript of my book to Breuer.  I did it in trusting and helpful mode thinking that the book would appear before Breuer’s.  I did it like this thinking I could pre-empt the problems that arose and persisted for so long because of the difference between Scott’s book and my own.

Continue reading →

Enigma 3. The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea

Posted on by
Reply

When a rabbit is pulled out of a hat during a stage show, it is not required to then give a learned discourse on the theory and practise of illusion.

This is the very strange position I find myself in.  If I ask myself why I am here I have to reply ‘I do not know, I did not intend coming,, but I am here because I knew I would be here.

Why I was not going to be here is because the only subject I could talk about, the one I would want to talk about, would be about a species definition in relation to the actual meaning of life.

I would talk about consciousness, the creative event, development of physical form, the distribution of phenomenon in space changing with time, the significance to the individual consciousness, and species evolution and definition.

Continue reading →

Enigma 4. The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Della Sea

Posted on by
Reply

Obviously I have struggled a bit to make up this presentation.  Some of the struggle has produced some interesting ideas for which evidence is available separately.

The problem arises around the fact that I have two things to talk about.  The one is what I have the perceived authority to talk about – viz.

1.) Species definition as it is arrived at from my experience with Haworthia and biological systems in general, which has implications for Asphodelaceae and Aloideae.  This is what I see as the organisers requirement from me and hence I feel they give me credibility.

2.) Nomenclature and taxonomy as it has affected me and hence the classification required for 1 above.  Which is what I also have the apparent authority for, but not the perceived credibility. (It is generally stated that there is confusion regarding the nomenclature and classification of Haworthia).

Continue reading →

Enigma 5. Cabbages and kings

Posted on by
2

I try again

I do not know how Galileo and Copernicus were really treated in the Dark Ages or of the persecution they were subjected to for their beliefs.  But I know how they suffered.  I feel exactly the same fear in trying to explain to any single person never mind a group (and never mind a group of scientists), how my belief system, based on all my life’s experience and knowledge, influences me as a scientist.  Why, in explaining how I try to understand what a Haworthia species is and arrive at a classification, cannot I say that the simple creative event which scientists hypothesise is fundamental to the problem.

The reason for my fear is that I am hounded by religion on the one hand and by orthodoxy of science on the other.  These two aspects are embodied in my two closest friends.  As a free thinker I feel terrorised by society to a point where he cannot remotely feel allowed to say why my system of classification gets what little recognition that it does.

What I have here before me is the masterpiece, the piece de resistance of my entire life, the summum bonum of efforts to be a scientist and a writer.  It is all these prepared talks of mine reduced to a single paragraph:-

You have repeatedly invalidated me as a science writer and denied me the role of a taxonomist on your insistence that classification and taxonomy is a matter of opinion and therefore an art form and not science.  You do so also through the binding power of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature which in effect says “The value of your scientific classification hypothesis is equivalent to saying that I am an artist commissioned to paint the same picture that some unknown artist is going to paint in the future.”

Continue reading →

Enigma 6. A change of title – predictiveness in science.

Posted on by
Reply

I get nowhere.

I started my talks in a recent visit to the USA with an amusing aside from Stephen Hammer.  I had asked him what the advertised title of my talks would be.  He said it did not matter because the titles of talks tend to mutate.  This new title and my old one viz. “The Haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea” are however, one and the same through six different versions of this presentation.

John Rourke quoted to me  “The ship of many a taxonomist has been wrecked on the rocks of the Liliaceae”.  The thrust of my every presentation is that there is another sea which is incredibly and indescribably more turbulent and fraught with rocks, and shoals and perils of unbelievable magnitude.  This is the sea of human existence.  To quote some unknown philosopher “We are born in ignorance, we live in ignorance and we die in ignorance”.  The sea of human existence is a vast cradle of ignorance.

Continue reading →

Enigma 7. ICBN vs Larry C. Leach and Col. C.L. Scott.

Posted on by
Reply

No progress.

Abstract:
The presentation is intended to show that trial by the international botanical community has sentenced these two innocent people to death because they are INNOCENT of witchcraft (NOT guilty – to show this is clear and unambiguous as the ICBN may require).  M.B. Bayer is exempted only because he drew attention to this likely result in the case of Col. Scott, but simply stood aside and watched Leach trying to exonerate himself, and did nothing.

Continue reading →

Enigma 8. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done?

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:
This presentation gives the answer to a rhetorical question asked as the title of a paper presented by Dr A. Cronquist (New York, 1988) to a conference of this august body:-

The question was ‘Do we know what we are doing?’
The answer is:-  ‘No.  Absolutely not.’  Because – To achieve nomenclatural stability, the strict implementation of the code requires a prophetic element beyond the reach of scientific prediction.  The code should be changed.

Continue reading →

Enigma 9. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done?

Posted on by
Reply

The text for this version is the same as for Version 8 with the addition of the following text:-

Literature cited:- The literature is practically that in:-
1998 Borgmann and Breuer, 12.3(79).

Add: 1986 Bayer, British Cactus and Succulent Journal 4.8:45.
1997 Smith, Bothalia 27.1:27.

The actual words to which I wish you to refer are:-

‘In later years Larry spent ‘far too much’ time on nomenclatural disputes………  Convinced that the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature could be improved, a number of proposals for amendation of parts of the code were unsuccessfully submitted.’
1997 Williamson, Aloe 34.1&2:30.

The actual first quotation from the work I use is this:-

‘Towards the last years of his life, he became bogged down in what APPEARED to be insoluble taxonomic problems.  His personal interpretation of the code led him into dark waters and he devoted much valuable time, that could have been more used more productively, to prolonged, stubborn argument.’

Enigma 10. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done?

Posted on by
Reply

The text for this version is the same as for Version 9 with the addition of the following text:-

MY CONTENTION IS:-
How ever real true professional do view and interpret the code, and the flexibility that it provides, this is not how it is seen and used by non-professional whether qualified academically or not.

Larry Leach was a perfectionist and hated being criticised rightly or wrongly for any mistake that he might have made – the code allows him to be criticised also for mistakes he did not make.  IS THAT FAIR?

Would he appreciate what these two friends of his who wrote his obituaries, have said there ?

I do not want this presentation on my behalf, but on behalf of these people whom I would like to see happy, alive or now gone.

Enigma 11. Titles of talks mutate – N+1

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:
This presentation is to show that life is an everchanging mosaic (just like species), and if you are cast into the role of speaker at 2 weeks notice it may give you some problems.

Presentation:
The first title for my talk (i.e. Enigma N-1) was the “The Haworthiod rocks of the Liliaceae”.  This is based on what I thought my talk should be about, in terms of what the organisers would expect me to talk about, in terms of what the organisers would expect me to talk about.  It is what I might have talked about had I indicated my intention of attending the congress when it was mooted as far back as 1996.  I had no intention of being here, but by witchcraft or scientific prediction, I knew I would be.

Therefore I have a dilemma.  I have good reason not to give the talk expected of me and hence why I did not intend presenting one.  Therefore I have had to discover in my own mind, what are the pressures from within and without that bring me here.

I have come to know almost exactly what that pressure is through two weeks of blood, sweat and tears.  I accumulated some material for talks, which I think you as delegates should see, but I have already written or edited 10 versions of a presentation.

When I spoke recently in the USA, I was not sure what title I had submitted to the convention organisers at Omaha.  I asked Steven Hammer, and he said “Not to worry, the titles of talks tend to mutate”.  The title of my talk was given as “Haworthia – why controversy”.  I discovered in the 7 times I gave my talk, that it changed each time, but the title remained the same.  My talk about Haworthia and controversy could have been either the words of Steven’s advice, or my submitted title.  I discovered that both of them were equally relevant and apt.

In this case also I find I have given you a title for a talk and I would like to list other apt titles which I considered during preparation and after.  The following titles were considered on material available to me:-

1. Haworthia why controversy.
2. Astroloba corrugata – name game?

The following titles were a result of active preparation:-

1. Another open letter
2. The real enigma in Haworthia
3. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Delay Sea
4. The haworthioid rocks of the Aspho Della Sea
5. Cabbages and Kings
6. Predictiveness in science
7. ICBN vs Larry C. Leach and Col. C.L. Scott
8. Does the ruling body of the ICBN know what it has done?
9. Do. plus cited literature
10. Do. plus cited literature and postscript
N + 1. Titles of talks mutate – N+1
N + 2. (The presentation as on 31st August – unwritten)

At this point I now know that I should not give my talk at all

My talk is that I have nothing to say.

I have realised that I can now write what I must say.

I know why the congress organisers have invited me – they are people I respect and admire – I cannot say no to them.

BUT

I feel that there is a distinct body of delegates who do not know who I am, why I am here nor what is expected of me by the organiser.  I respect every one of those delegates too, known or unknown to me.

So I have come here to say nothing….BUT..PLEASE

SEE MY PAPER N + (N+1)

Enigma 12. N+(N+1) as the title of a presentation

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:
In preparing for this talk in the short time allotted to me, I have tried to understand my own scientifically (intellectually) based prediction on why I am here, when I had no intention of being here.  In trying to write a presentation for you – out of my respect and liking for every single one of you – I have produced 11 (N) written versions.  In addition to this I have a presentation 12 (N+1).  In that final written version I will show that I have nothing to say, and that it may be pointles even saying it.  In reaching that point where I justify saying nothing, I see that I will never reach the end of N, and hence my title N+(N+1).

Continue reading →

Addendum 1. Haworthia – Where do we go from here?

Posted on by
Reply

(Written January 1986)

Col. C.L. Scott’s revision of Haworthia has recently appeared and I have seen three reviews of this book.  Both David Hardy (Aloe 23:52, 1986) and Michael Kimberley (Excelsa 12:107, 1986) quote Dr L.E. Codd’s introductory remarks to the book on Haworthia being a ‘complex and baffling genus’.  Infinitely more baffling is that, notwithstanding all the many words already written about Haworthia, we still remain so confused by them.  I did write a reply to Gordon Rowley’s Review (British.Cact.Succ.J. 3:?,1985) published in that same journal (4:45, 1986).  There is also an article in Excelsa (12:91, 1986) in which I touched on some of the attitudes that can be presented, and also complained that it is now barely possible to write about these plants without suggesting that someone is unsound.  Certainly that is not my intention and neither do I enjoy the suggestion that I am.

Continue reading →

Addendum 2. Notes of talk. Conference of the Mid-West Cactus and Succulent Society. Omaha June 1998.

Posted on by
Reply

I have not been very visible since 1983 and I need to try and explain why I am here.

It is by your invitation and at your expense, and frankly I wonder at my arrogance at assuming that I can meet the implications of this invitation.  I felt uncomfortable here (in USA) in 1981, especially at Albuquerque where my impression was that the audience wanted an entertainer and a performer.
I cannot fill that role.

Nevertheless, I am deeply conscious that I have some kind of debt and responsibility to you.  I am anxious to hold your respect and your affection – and to have some credibility when it comes to the real subject of my talk, hoping of course that it will impress itself upon your minds.

My role in Haworthia is this.  I grew up with J.R. Brown’s Succulents for the Amateur as my picture book.  I have been familiar with Haworthia since 1940 when I first started to grow them.  I tried to collect them seriously when I lived in Natal, but what I could obtain all looked very alike to me.  It is only when I landed up at the Karoo Botanic Garden that I began to understand the problem.

Continue reading →

Addendum 3. Haworthia – an approximation of a series of seven presentations given during the course of a short visit to USA June 1998, beginning at Omaha, Nebraska.

Posted on by
Reply

The title of the talk(s) was given as:-
Haworthia – why controversy.

As I was not sure if this title appeared on the Congress programme, I asked Steven Hammer prior to my departure for the States what title was advertised for my talk.  His reply was that I should not worry as the titles for talks of this kind tend to mutate.  In relation to my jaundiced view of Haworthia literature, I thought that this itself would make an equally good title for the subject of the talk.

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

Continue reading →

Addendum 4. Salter’s revision of South African Oxalis (Oxalidaceae) and some new combinations from Herbertia 48 (1&2) – 1992

Posted on by
Reply

M.B. BAYER
Department of Agricultural Development
Winter Rainfall Region, Elsenburg (RSA).

ABSTRACT
The genus Oxalis, as it occurs in South Africa, is discussed generally in relation to the revision by T.M. Salter (1944).  A brief account is given of Salter’s collecting activities, the distribution and variability of the species, and the problems of classification.  Some new combinations are made.  Particular attention is paid to the section Pardales Salter, and all the 11 species recognised by Salter (many described by him) are combined in one species, namely Oxalis pardalis Jacq.  Two species, Oxalis dentata Jacq. and Oxalis lateriflora Jacq., are reduced under O. livida Jacq.  Similarly Oxalis urbaniana Schltr. and Oxalis callimarginata Weintr. are reduced under Oxalis goniorrhiza Eckl. & Zey.

Keywords: Oxalis, taxonomy, speciation.

Oxalis is particularly well represented in South America, and the species are also a very prominent component of the flora of the Mediterranean region of South Africa.  This region extends from Luderitz in Namibia, southeastwards to near East London on the southeast coast (Bayer, 1974).  Annual precipitation over this area varies enormously from as little as 100 to over 1400mm/annum.  The area is divided by Rutherford and Westfall (1986) into four distinct biomes on the basis of summer aridity, seasonal distribution of rainfall and on plant growth forms.  Both geology and topography vary enormously so that landscape heterogeneity and soil forms provide great habitat contrasts over short distances.  These factors, together with historical events, probably account for the richness of the Cape flora.  Despite the potential and realised weediness (for example: O. pes-caprae L. and O. caprina L.), many species are spectacularly colourful in autumn and winter and are useful and interesting as horticultural subjects.  T.M. Salter (1944) revised the genus on the basis of his own intensive collecting.  His interest in fact started in 1931, and, although he collected until 1957, serious attention to Oxalis continued only until 1942.

Continue reading →