A paper, “Infrageneric classification of Haworthia (Aloaceae): perspectives from nectar sugar analysis”, concerning the analysis of such sugars in Haworthia, Astroloba and Chortolirion was presented at the XV!th AETFAT Congress in Belgium in 2000, by G F Smith. B-E van Wyk, E M A Steyn and I Breuer. The proceedings of this Congress were published in Syst. Geogr. Pl. 71:391-397 (2001) and the particular paper by Smith et al was reprinted in Alsterworthia International 3(3)9-12 (2003). [link] These authors comment on the taxonomic difficulties in trying to determine true generic limits in the tribe Alooideae of the Asphodelaceae and presented analyses of a limited number of taxa from the tribe. I, in turn, want to use that paper to show why the difficulty persists.

Smith et al cite my paper of 1972 where the main message was that the genera in this group would never be resolved while the main elements within the genus Haworthia were not recognized to be discrete. Uitewaal’s attempt to subdivide Haworthia was a much labored effort. He was clearly a victim of his time trying to establish a hierarchical classification and it is a distortion of the facts to say that he divided Haworthia into two main groups. There is no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that he identified and recognized THREE, and not the two claimed by Smith et al. Uitewaal recognized two groups; Triangulares and Hexangulares based primarily on the shape of the flower base, and then he split Hexangulares into Robustipedunculatae and Gracilipedunculatae, primarily on the robustness of the peduncle. As an interested observer of Haworthia, I added the additional facts of geographic distribution and capsule and seed morphology to implement those three groupings as sub-genera.

I have always argued that the relationship of Haworthia and Astroloba would never be understood until it was recognized that the differences within Haworthia exceeded those between this genus and Astroloba.

It is significant, and this is the one great merit of the Smith et al  paper, that the results show that Haworthia subgenus Haworthia does differ significantly from both the other two subgenera in respect of quite a fundamental property, viz. characteristics of the nectar sugars. Where the paper is weak is in respect of other detail.  The problems are:-

1. the question of whose classification was used
2. the discussion in respect of sections within subg. Haworthia
3. the provenance of the material used [this needs to be expanded on later].
4. failure to provide a statistical parameter for the figures given.

With regard to 1 and 2, the authors seem to have used my classification in respect only of sub-genera and this is only evident in the way they order their derived data. In respect of the species they appear to have used their own expertise. I made it clear that there was no basis for the recognition of sections within the subg. Haworthia as presented by either Pilbeam or Breuer.

Provenance (3) is a problem for me because I know that identification without locality data is mostly not possible within that subgenus. It is thus imperative that a better vouchering of specimens is needed than this “trust me” approach. This is particularly true of the material cited for H. arachnoidea. Here it is important to know that the species is confounded with H. mucronata, and thus the listing also of H. habdomadis and H. unicolor. Similarly this is also true for the relationship of H. emelyae and H. comptoniana, or H. truncata and H. maughanii. Furthermore, there is no sense at all in listing H. mcmurtryi under “miscellaneous” taxa when surely any observer with some knowledge of the plants would know that it belongs in the Hexangulares with H. koelmaniorum.

With regards to 4, the failure to provide a statistical measure of variation of the sugar concentration levels is also a problem. Beyond the obvious group differences, there is no way in which any meaningful statement can be made about the figures for the subg. Haworthia. Where the authors do comment that the sugar ratios vary for plants taken from different localities, there is no guide as to how much these ratios may vary within, say, one population or even one individual plant. The comparisons they make for H. bolusii, H. cooperi and H. habdomadis var. morrisiae (6:39:55, 5:39:56 & 2:48:50), described as similar, and then for H. decipiens and H. semiviva (7:51:42 & 16:52:32) as different, in relation to some obscure classification into (sections ?) subsections or series, is simply confusing, and this is not only because I would disagree with that suggested relationship.  I find it much more remarkable to see that the figures for H. arachnoidea (sample 2) is similar to H. unicolor (5:50:45 & 5:45:50), which is a probable truth if these two entities are considered as closely related, and to see that H. divergens and H. semiviva have exact similarity (both 16:52:32), which is a very probable untruth on geographical and morphological grounds. One could perhaps conclude that the sugars information demonstrates that there are no significant differences within the subg. Haworthia to support the author’s intitial contention, that there are.  It is rather unlikely that, within a particular alooid group (e.g. subg. Haworthia), each species will have a unique nectar sugar profile. Rather it is more likely that similar (or dissimilar) profiles will have arisen many times, both between species, within species, or even within populations.

There is a further claim by the authors that they find  “the correlation of nectar in Astroloba and members of the subg. Robustipedunculares with the sucrose-rich Hexangulares type”, surprising. For some quite undisclosed reason “floral and other morphological features” suggest to them that “these two units” (which two?) would be nearer to Aloe. In other words an element is introduced at the close of the paper suggesting a generic solution not broached in the preceding discussion. This could have been avoided had there been a properly ordered hypothesis that the exercise was set out to test. An answer to my question “which two?”, is irrelevant given the pointlessness of their statement. It is curious that Manning and Smith (Bothalia 30:53, 2000) dismiss hexose dominance in the nectar of Poellnitzia when they include that species in Astroloba.

Listing the species, H. glauca, under the subg. Haworthia as Smith et al have done is an obvious typing error as the species belongs in the subg. Hexangulares. The usage of the phrase “obsolescently zygomorphic” to describe the flowers of Haworthia adds a quaint dimension to an old problem of definition of the term zygomorphic.

My conclusion, also based on the analysis of several other papers which have appeared in peer-reviewed technical journals, is that often the writers do not in fact know the subject, nor are they properly familiar with the literature.

Some very puzzling papers have been written in recent time that seem to dumb-down classification (of Haworthia, at least) to the levels of perception of the early 20^th century. These include a paper on the cladistics of the Alooideae, one on the cytology of Gasteria, another on the small Madagascan aloes, a paper on Poellnitzia, a paper on the DNA of the lesser genera of the Alooideae, and now this one on nectar sugars. These papers are all peripheral to the energies of six or more aspirant taxonomists who pontificate on the species and varieties of Haworthia, and the seemingly numberless hordes of enthusiasts who seemingly heedlessly, and often namelessly, express their views on the subject. Behind all this is my own effort to understand, and through written communication, comprehend what the elements are of Haworthia – what names are needed to effectively circumscribe the different “species” and to describe them.

My attempts to generate a key to species and some kind of hypothetical (evolutionary) tree simply failed. Intuitively, and I have to say intuitively because my intellectual and academic skills limit my capacity to do it better any other way, I recognized that we have been indoctrinated to think in terms of the logical rules of points, lines and symmetrical curves. I myself entered the fray by writing an article that discussed classification as art versus science, and have subsequently thought that perhaps I should have included politics as a third candidate. However, that discussion solved no problems and that of the classification of Haworthia still remains.

It was in reading a book by James Glieck entitled “Chaos, Making a new Science” that I felt I began to see the reason for our inability to agree on classification. In that book Glieck presented a diagram (see fig. 1) that he described as a bifurcation diagram and for which he did not give the algebraic function. The diagram appealed to me as a visual image of the problem of species and their recognition. In the book “Fractal Vision” by Dick Oliver, the same diagram appears together with the mathematical function that describes it. It is the non-linear function p2 = rp(1-p) and it was derived by an ecologist Robert May to describe population (p) growth with time (r)..

What the diagram suggests to me is that species and their individual variations can be described mathematically. It suggests to me that it is possible for species to be confounded by variation where the difference between two individuals or elements of one species is greater than the difference between two species.

Where I do have a problem is with the subject of cladistics. In my understanding this technique is simply an arithmetical way of dealing with many variables in such a way that it appears to be wholly objective. The problem for me is that it clearly is not because the character states and their evaluations remain subjective. Furthermore, it is entrenched in linearity giving truth to the quotation “the certainties of one age are the problems of the next”.  Thus also my contention that botanists are at the trailing edge of science and largely lost in the Laplacean view that prediction and control of the universe was possible and simply a question of time while scientists unraveled a few remaining unknowns.

Coming back to figure 1, I need to say that I cannot state what the elements are of the function which depicts a classification tree (viz. cladogram, phylogenetic tree) instead of that of population growth.  Perhaps g2 = rg(1-g) could be appropriate – where g is a group of “species” and r is (rate of) change. The value 1 would represent space and when fully occupied there would be only species? This raises an important issue and this is the significance of the planar or two-dimensional figure we use to illustrate relationships as a “tree”. Anyone would surely agree that species are phenomena distributed in space and that they change with time – an axiom. Therefore the planar model is inadequate as in effect it means that time is one axis and that space is also a single axis. It would be far more realistic to try to model species for what they are and thus introduce the third dimension as a minimum requirement. A secondary problem to that of the cladistic tree is that it is always drawn as a standing tree whereas mathematical convention is that the determining variable is plotted on the horizontal and not on the vertical axis. Is this simply because taxonomists have never made the true connection between their “trees” and space/time?

Putting that aside, it is obvious that the function only provides a conceptual shell. I once used the analogy of the denial by scientists of continental drift on the grounds that there was no explanation for it, when my contention is that it would have been more reasonable and fruitful to have to have rather sought the mechanism. The graph is what I see and I am sure that other taxonomists, of whatever academic stature and truly familiar with their plants, must see it too. Thus someone with the competence needs to search for the mathematical expression of the evolutionary and selection realities by which such a graph can be generated.

I contend that it could be useful to consider that the starting point of the graph need not be zero and neither that it moves forward in arithmetical progression. One can imagine that the undifferentiated cloud at point r = 4 as the starting point – the individuals of an ancestral widely distributed species. Imagine further the slowing down of change (r) and a breaking up of the distribution to restricted areas of space and the generation of isolated populations. Once so isolated there is the opportunity for “evolution” of population character and difference between populations. Speed up change again and expand the distribution area and the process is reversed. This is the equivalent of “pulsed” evolution remembering that a primary corollary of phylogeny is that it is irreversible. A particular point of interest is the change of pattern – that where one sees a systematic build-up from one to two, to four to eight; the system can collapse again to three or just one.

The point then to consider is now what function is truly appropriate for the modeling of a classification?  Molecular biology and the use of DNA analysis is now in fashion. It is said that the difference between a mouse and an elephant amounts to 3% of their DNA – the difference between man and a chimpanzee even less. The sequence of the nucleotide bases on the chromosomal DNA is known to be indicative of similarity and it is used to identify even individuals. Therefore it is evident that if the DNA sequences were known that characterized any discrete group, the arrangement of the bases in that sequence, or set of sequences, would be what to look at to determine subgroups.

All very well – if we assume that there are subgroups and that they can be represented in a hierarchical classification.

Oliver quotes Christopher Alexander “We cannot produce order on the world-wide scale of everyday life without first having a clear picture of order itself, in the realm of ordinary objects.  And this requires a completely new view of geometry… Space must be considered an almost living entity… a kind of stuff which, according to the recursive structures that are built up in it, becomes progressively more and more alive”.

There is a paper by Verne Grant in American Journal of Botany 90:1263-1270 (2003) entitled “Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems” which suggests that these are two rival schools in plant classification with different conceptual frameworks.  The thrust of this paper of mine, and many others which I have authored, is that no two taxonomists seem to have the same concepts. Verne makes the unverifiable claim that “taxonomists… routinely study their plants in the field and garden, where feasible, as well as in the herbarium.  These contacts build up a body of background knowledge and perceptions about the plants, which is hard to quantify but which contributes to sound taxonomic decisions”.

Grant’s paper is simply another which will never produce an answer. The perception is that a taxonomic opinion, however it is derived, must be expressed in the nomenclature of the group concerned. The sad truth is that taxonomists are not making sound decisions and if they are, these are not measurable except by the same subtleties that lead to good judgment. This is the fundamental weakness in classification. It is thus not empirical science but the generation of information which may require more intuitive wisdom and practical common sense than intellect to organize.

Acknowledgement
This paper was written in two parts and various persons have commented on either or both. These are Messrs. Harry Mays, Paul Forster, Andrew Wilson and Steven Hammer.  I am grateful for their input.

Footnote:
In considering the formula p2 = rp(1-p) which generates this diagram resembling a “species tree”, I think the variables can perhaps be identified as follows…

P = individual realised variation?
R = a space, time, genetic, morphological and behavioral value?
1 = the sum total of potential individual variation?

Perhaps it should also be noted that particle physicists speculate on the number of dimensions that are required to adequately explain creation. ♦

The following list follows the order in which specimens should be housed in the Compton Herbarium, National Botanical Institute, Kirstenbosch. This list has a few amendments to that published in Haworthia Update 2 ca2006. Gordon Rowley published a list of cultivar names in Alsterworthia to more formally recognise so many names that are useful or informative to collectors. The object of classification is really to synthesise and generalise about plants. As Dr Eggli stated, he feels he can attach little weight to any classification except in terms of the understanding he gains for the plants he has seen and knows. So this list of mine is the product of my understanding of the plants I have seen and grown and conveys this information in respect of natural populations. Among the many new names that have appeared subsequent to my 1999 revision, most simply precipitate collectors back into the good old days when the correctness of any name depended on its source i.e. one was sure of a correct identification only if the plant came from the author of the name or a very close source. There are of course many plants in cultivation that do still carry their original and correct names and Gordon Rowley has listed many of them. They do convey an understanding of the history of Haworthia collecting but largely they are simply labels in the format of two Latin names and seldom convey any information that such a scientific label suggests. Gordon Rowley in private communication also humorously commented on the fact that MBB changes his mind. I cannot apologise for this because the fact is that I cannot even to pretend to understand the complexity that I see.  It has been difficult to write some of the preceding chapters for that very reason and I am very dubious that readers will necessarily be able to relate to what I have produced. Certainly the authors of recent new names do not take my work serious and the attitude is quite mutual. Many of the names are attached to my own records and are an essential part of the process whereby I arrived at my list. In respect of virtually every new name I have seen, I am able to include it in this formal summary and account of species that have some rational reality.

A.SUB-GENUS HAWORTHIA

1.         Haworthia angustifolia Haw.
var. angustifolia
var. altissima Bayer
var. baylissii (Scott) Bayer.
var. paucifolia Smith.

2.         Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval.
var. arachnoidea.
var. aranea (Berger) Bayer.
var. namaquensis Bayer.
var. nigricans (Haw.) Bayer.
var. scabrispina Bayer.
var. setata (Haw.) Bayer.

3.         Haworthia aristata Haw.

4.         Haworthia bayeri Venter & Hammer.

5.         Haworthia blackburniae Barker.
var. blackburniae
var. derustensis Bayer.
var. graminifolia (Smith) Bayer.

6.         Haworthia bolusii Baker.
var. bolusii.
var. blackbeardiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. pringlei (Scott) Bayer.

7.         Haworthia chloracantha Haw.
var. chloracantha.
var. denticulifera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. subglauca v.Poelln.

8.         Haworthia cooperi Baker.
var. cooperi.
var. dielsiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. doldii Bayer.
var. gordoniana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. leightonii (Smith) Bayer.
var. picturata Bayer.
var. pilifera (Baker) Bayer.
var. puberula Bayer (nom. nud.)
var. tenera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. truncata (Jacobs.) Bayer.
var. venusta (Scott) Bayer.
var. viridis Bayer.

9.         Haworthia cymbiformis (Haw.) Duv.
var. cymbiformis.
var. incurvula (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. obtusa (Haw.) Baker.
var. ramosa (Smith) Bayer.
var. setulifera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

10.        Haworthia decipiens v.Poelln.
var. decipiens.
var. cyanea Bayer.
var. minor Bayer.
var. virella Bayer.
var. xiphiophylla (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

11.        Haworthia emelyae v.Poelln.
var. emelyae.
var. comptoniana (Smith) Venter & Hammer.
var. major (Smith) Bayer.
var. multifolia Bayer.

12.        Haworthia floribunda v.Poelln.
var. floribunda.
var. dentata Bayer
var. major Bayer.

13.        Haworthia heidelbergensis Smith.
var. heidelbergensis
var. scabra Bayer.
var. toonensis Bayer.

14.        Haworthia herbacea (Mill.) Stearn.
var. herbacea.
var. flaccida Bayer.
var. lupula Bayer.
var. paynei (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

15.        Haworthia lockwoodii Archibald.

16.        Haworthia maculata (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

17.        Haworthia magnifica v.Poelln.
var. magnifica.
var. atrofusca (Smith) Bayer.

18.        Haworthia maraisii v.Poelln.
var. maraisii.
var. meiringii Bayer.
var. notabilis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

20.        Haworthia marumiana Uitew.
var. marumiana.
var. archeri Bayer.
var. batesiana (Uitew.) Bayer.
var. dimorpha Bayer.
var. reddii (Scott) Bayer.
var. viridis Bayer.

21.        Haworthia marxii Gildenhuys

22.        Haworthia mirabilis Haw.
var. mirabilis.
var. badia (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. beukmannii (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. consanguinea Bayer.
var. paradoxa (v.Poelln.) Bayer
var. pilosa Bayer (nom.nud.)
var. sublineata (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. triebneriana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

23.        Haworthia monticola Fourc.
var. monticola.
var. asema Bayer.

24.        Haworthia mucronata Haw.
var. mucronata.
var. habdomadis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. inconfluens (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. morrisiae  v.Poelln.
var. rycroftiana Bayer.

25.        Haworthia mutica Haw.
var. mutica.
var. nigra Bayer.

26.        Haworthia nortieri Smith.
var. nortieri.
var. globosiflora (Smith) Bayer.
var. pehlemanniae (Scott) Bayer.

27.        Haworthia outeniquensis Bayer.

28.        Haworthia parksiana v.Poelln.

29.        Haworthia pubescens Bayer.
var. pubescens.
var. livida Bayer.

30.        Haworthia pulchella Bayer.
var. pulchella.
var. globifera Bayer.

31.        Haworthia pygmaea v.Poelln.
var. pygmaea.
var. acuminata Bayer.
var. argenteo-maculosa (Smith) Bayer                .
var. dekenahii (Smith) Bayer.
var. splendens Venter and Hammer

32.        Haworthia reticulata Haw.
var. reticulata.
var. attenuata Bayer.
var. hurlingii (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. subregularis (Bak.) Bayer.

33.        Haworthia retusa (L.) Duval
var. retusa
var. turgida (Haw.)Bayer.
var. longibracteata (Smith) Bayer.
var. suberecta v.Poelln.

34.        Haworthia rossouwii (v.Poelln.).
var. rossouwii.
var. calcarea Bayer.
var. elizeae (Breuer)Bayer
var. minor Bayer
var. petrophila Bayer.

35.        Haworthia semiviva (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

36.        Haworthia springbokvlakensis Scott.

37.        Haworthia truncata Schonland.
var. truncata.
var. maughanii (v.Poelln.) Fearn.

38.        Haworthia transiens (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

39.        Haworthia variegata Bolus.
var. variegata.
var. hemicrypta Bayer.
var. modesta Bayer.

40.        Haworthia vlokii Bayer.

41.        Haworthia wittebergensis Barker.

42.        Haworthia zantneriana v.Poelln.
var. zantneriana.
var. minor Bayer.

B. SUB-GENUS HEXANGULARES

43.        Haworthia attenuata Haw.
var. attenuata.
var. glabrata
var. radula (Jacq.) Bayer.

44.        Haworthia bruynsii Bayer.

45.        Haworthia coarctata Haw.
var. coarctata.
fa greenii (Baker) Bayer.
var. adelaidensis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. tenuis (Smith) Bayer.

46.        Haworthia fasciata (Willd.) Haw.

47.        Haworthia glauca Baker.
var. glauca.
var. herrei (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

48.        Haworthia koelmaniorum Oberm. & Hardy.
var. koelmaniorum.
var. mcmurtryi (Scott) Bayer.

49.        Haworthia limifolia Marl.
var. limifolia.
var. arcana Smith & Crouch.
var. gigantea Bayer.
var. glaucophylla Bayer
var. ubomboensis (Verdoorn) Smith.

50.        Haworthia longiana v.Poelln.

51.        Haworthia nigra (Haw.) Baker.
var. nigra.
var. diversifolia (v.Poelln.) Uitew.

52         Haworthia pungens Bayer.

53.        Haworthia reinwardtii (Salm-Dyck) Haw.
var. reinwardtii.
fa chalumnensis (Smith) Bayer.
fa kaffirdriftensis (Smith) Bayer.
fa olivacea (Smith) Bayer.
fa zebrina (Smith) Bayer.
var. brevicula Smith.

54.        Haworthia scabra Haw.
var. scabra.
var. lateganiae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. morrisiae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. starkiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

55.        Haworthia sordida Haw.
var. sordida.
var. lavrani Scott.

56.        Haworthia venosa (Lam.) Haw.
ssp. venosa.
ssp. granulata (Marl.) Bayer.
ssp. tessellata (Haw.) Bayer.
ssp. woolleyi (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

57.        Haworthia viscosa (L.) Haw.

C. SUB-GENUS ROBUSTIPEDUNCULARES

58.        Haworthia kingiana v.Poelln.

59.        Haworthia marginata (Lam.) Stearn.

60.        Haworthia minima (Ait.) Haw.
var. minima.
var. poellnitziana (Uitew.) Bayer.

61.        Haworthia pumila (L.) Bayer.

♦

Bayer Accessions
A plant classification is essentially based on herbarium record, which is the prime means of verification. However, it is not practicable for such a record to embrace all records nor record all the variation that has been observed. In recent time, I have not deposited new material and the only record of accessions other than living specimens, is a photographic one.

This record of my collections is in four parts:-

1. Un-numbered herbarium specimens.
2. Collections under Karoo Botanic garden numbers (KG).
3. Collections in a personal register (MBB).
4. A record of J.D.Venter numbers for MBB collections

1. Un-numbered collections.

The following collections of mine exist as herbarium specimens in the Compton herbarium, and which have no Karoo Botanic Garden nor a personal accession number:-

–                 decipiens var. cyanea                                               3222     DC  Trakaskuilen.

The original collection of two plants was made in about 1988, which I later accessioned as 6885; and I collected seed again in 2000 under the number 7025.

–                 mucronata var inconfluens                                        3321     AC   8km W Ladismith.

This is a collection I often refer to when I discuss ecotypes.  This collection refers to one on shales at Dwarsrivier, whereas a very short distance away in the wetter sandstone gorge, there is the var. habdomadis.

–                 mirabilis var. consanguinea                                       3419     BA   Die Galg.

Also an old collection to which George Payne directed me in 1971.  I named it to include a collection by J.D.Venter lower down the Gobos River (Boesmanpad), a collection by Dawn Schwegmann along that gorge, a collection by P.V.Bruyns from the upper Dwarsriverkloof, and one by the two of us lower down that stream.

–                 limifolia var. limifolia                                                 2631     BD  Mbuluzi gorge, Blue Jay Ranch, Stegi.

Collected in about 1962 in the company of my friend M.G.Murdoch.  The plants were very abundant and may have been one very stoloniferous clone!  Plants were widely distributed and are still in cultivation.

–                 mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3321     CA   9km SW Ladismith.

The only collection I can recall is one I made near the road junction to Garcia Pass, and the plants were small marumiana-like.  I would have difficulty classifying that collection again and would probably consider it to be better placed under arachnoidea var. nigricans!

–                 marginata                                                                 3320     CC   NE Ashton.

From the site where pumila and marginata co-occur.

–                 heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  W Kathoek.

When I first saw this population I thought it to be a form of maraisii as I then did not have material to suggest that heidelbergensis was such a strong element.

–                 cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3227     BD  Fort Murray Bridge.

A collection probably still in cultivation and I saw very similar plants both west and north of Kingwilliamstown.

–                 reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DB  Buitenstekloof.

George Payne explained to me that this was the site of H. intermedia of Von Poellnitz, and a full explanation is given in my essay on that name.

–                 parksiana                                                                 3422     AA   Botteliersberg.

There is a back road from Little Brak to Great Brak and there used to be a sheet of rock projecting into the road.  It was on this sheet of rock where parksiana grew like a weed.  Unfortunately the rock slab fell prey to road straightening and few plants survive there now.

–                 pygmaea var. argenteomaculata                                3421     BB   Cooper Siding.

From the site of Smith’s original accession and there are still many plants there.

–                 mutica var. mutica                                                    3419     DB  Klipdale.

An accession never brought into cultivation.

–                 pumila                                                                      3319     CD  Lemoenpoort.

An unusual population from which plants are in cultivation.  The plants tend to have a very purple colour and the tubercles are sparser than normal.

–                 sordida var. sordida                                                 3325     AC   Brakfontein.

The significance of this collection is the co-occurrence with the then little known Aloe bowiea.  The collection is not in cultivation.

–                 pulchella var. pulchella                                              3320     CA   Nougaspoort.

A species which is not very variable and there is nothing exceptional about this population.

–                 reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  Dublin.

Very abundant between its westernmost occurrence at Ribbokop, to the west of this population, and Robertson to the east.

–                 herbacea var. paynei                                                 3319 DD 1km S McGregor.

I do not recall making such a collection although I have seen plants to the south-east and also north of the town.

–                 pygmaea var. argenteomaculata                                3421     BB   Humor.

My early collecting was really aimed at getting an overview of the genus and familiarising myself with Smith’s material.  So when I first saw plants at Humor I was satisfied that they were similar to the Cooper Siding plants and I did not make a record.  Now of course every population has a significance and I could not re-locate my original sighting east of this one.  The Humor plants generally are more marked than the Cooper Siding ones.

–                 marginata                                                                 3420     AC   Adoonskop.

I also saw the species here early in my collecting and made no record.  The plants were grazed to ground level and were much smaller than elsewhere.  I have since collected it and grown it from seed as 6633, and D.M.Cumming has collected a smaller version from nearby there.  I think I noted an Otzen record as east of Napier, when in fact the record was for west of the town.  It has not, to my knowledge, been found there again.

–                 pulchella var. pulchella                                              3320     CB   SW Anysberg.

The significance of this collection is that the plants are small, very proliferous, and very green.

–                 pumila                                                                      3319     BC   Osplaas, DeDoorns.

The distribution is odd because it is outside the Worcester-Robertson Karoo, but there are of course collections from as far afield as Matjesfontein near Laingburg, and the Anysberg Nature reserve.

–                 kingiana                                                                   3422     AA   Little Brak, Barswel.

A strange population which may still be exemplified in cultivation at the Karoo Botanic garden.  Some of the plants were without tubercles at all.

–                 semiviva                                                                  3120     CD  SE Middelpos.

The plants were unusually robust for the species and this is also the furthest west the species is known to me.

–                 mutica var. mutica                                                    3420 AB Crodini.

I do not recall this locality.  On one trip I made to Bredasdorp I saw many different populations of mutica which I did not record.  This may be one of them, or it may be specifically one from south of Napky which I have grown from seed as 7029.

1404a           cooperi var. tenera                                                    3325     CB   Groendal Dam.

I was actually exploring asclepiads when I saw this plant.  The remote and rugged terrain there needs better exploration.

2.  Karoo Garden (KG) Collections.

The following are only the collections which were reduced to herbarium record and which do not, in the main, replicate other earlier records.  Some of these collections were made in the company of others company and I regret that this is not better conveyed:-

623/69         mutica var. mutica                                                     3420     AC   Soesriver.

627/69         retusa                                                                        3421    AB   Near, Riversdale.

628/69          mirabilis var. badia                                                   3419     BD  Napier.

630/69         maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3319     DD  W Robertson.

631/69         turgida var. suberecta                                               3422     AA   Brandwacht.

640/69         arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     CB   NE. Worcester.

662/69         reticulata var. reticulata                                              3319     DA  Keeromskloof.

669/69         maculata var. maculata                                              3319     CB   Brandvlei Dam.

681/69         mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BD  Mierkraal, Napier.

682/69         mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     AB   Uitkyk.

688/69         maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3319     DD  SW Robertson.

692/69         mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BA   Near Genadendal.

695/69         herbacea var. paynei                                                 3319     DD  McGregor.

26/70          mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           342O    AA   Stormsvlei.

28/70          mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     AB   N Uitkyk.

30/70          mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BA   near Greyton.

31/70          mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BA   near Greyton.

32/70          mirabilis var. beukmannii                                           3419     BA   Skuitsberg.

34/70          turgida var. longibracteata                                         3420     AC   N Bredasdorp.

35/70          maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3420     AC   N Bredasdorp.

36/70          heidelbergensis var. minor                                         3420     CA   Rooivlei.

46/70          maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3319     DD  Roberts.to Bonnievale.

118/70         arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                  3319     DA  Effata.

163/70         maraisii var. maraisii                                                3319     DD  S Goudmyn.

166/70         herbacea var. herbacea                                            3319     CB   Brandwacht.

175/70         reticulata var. reticulata                                              3319     DC  Rooiberg.

200/70         retusa                                                                        3421     AA        W Riversdale.

202/70         magnifica var. atrofusca                                         3421    AA   Spitzkop, W Riversdal.

218/70         herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DC  Mowers.

224/70         maraisii var. meiringii                                                 3320     CC   E Bonnievale.

231/70         decipiens var. decipiens                                            3323     AD  Skerpkop, E Willowmore.

310/70         bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3227     AC   SW Cathcart.

311/70         bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3227     AA   Imvani.

312/70         bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3126     DD  Bowes’ farm.

315/70         decipiens var. virella                                                 3324     AA   Campherpoort.

323/70         mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3321     BC   Bergplaas.

329/70         herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DD  Koningsrivier.

336/70         cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Hellspoort.

382/70         cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3326     DC  Brigadoon.

383/70         cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3326     DA  Peninsula.

392/70         cooperi var. cooperi                                                  3227     AC   W Cathcart.

393/70         bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3227     AC   SW Cathcart.

402/70         springbokvlakensis                                                   3324     BD  Springbokvlakte.

806/70         longiana  ‑                                                                 ‑           SE Hankey.

2/71         maraisii var. meiringii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

7/71         maraisii var. meiringii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

9/71         maraisii var. meiringii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

36/71         arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     BD  Tonnel Stn.

77/71         mucronata var. rycroftiana                                         3321     DD  23km E Ladismith.

83/71         magnifica var. magnifica                                           3421     AA   S Riversdale.

86/71         turgida var. longibracteata                                         3421     AD  Stilbay.

91/91         retusa     3421                                                           AB        E Riversdale.

92/71         magnifica var. magnifica                                           3420     BA   S Tradouw Pass.

93/71         variegata var. variegata                                             3421     AB   Hoekraal.

94/71         turgida var. longibracteata                                         3421     AC   Brakfontein.

98/71         chloracantha var. subglauca                                      3422     AA   E Great Brak.

115/71         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     DB  Warmwaterbron.

118/71         emelyae var. major                                                    3321     CC   Muiskraal.

120/71         mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3322     CB   Hazenjacht.

156/71         retusa                                                                       3421      AB        Blinkbonnie, E Riversdale.

166/71         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CC   Springfontein.

167/71         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CC   W Springfontein.

209/71         mutica var. nitida                                                      3420     BB   Kransriviermond.

275/71         retusa

311/71         magnifica var. acuminata                                           3421     BD  N Gouritzmond.

324/71         reticulata var. subregularis                                         3319     DA  Boskloof.

326/71         maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3420     AA   Rondeheuwel.

327/71         mutica var. mutica                                                     3420     AC   N Kykoedie.

388/71         arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DA  E Vanwyksdorp.

345/71         maraisii var. maraisii                                                  3319     DD  W Robertson.

535/71         arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     CB   W Vanwyksdorp.

567/71         mucronata var. inconfluens                                        3321     AC   Dwarsrivier.

568/71         mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3321     CB   W Vanwyksdorp.

573/71         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CB   Ladismith to Vanwyksd.

593/71         arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     CB   E Ladismith.

6/72           cooperi var. leightonii                                                3327     BA   Kaysers Beach.

47/72          cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   Plutosvale.

47/72a         cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   Plutosvale.

85/72          mutica var. mutica                                                     3420     AC   Badjieskraal.

111/72         bayeri                                                                        3322     CA        S Oudtshoorn.

114/72         emelyae var. comptoniana                                         3323     AD  Georgida.

119/72         scabra var. morrisiae                                                 3322     AD  Schoemanspoort.

126/72         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3320     DD  E Lemoenshoek.

138/72         emelyae var. major                                                    3321     CD  Sandkraal.

140/72         decipiens var. decipiens                                            3323     BB   Constantia.

146/72         bayeri                                                                        3322    CB    Doringkloof.

151/72         mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3322     CB   Kamanassie Dam.

160/72         arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     CB   S Ladismith.

160/72         arachnoidea var. setata                                             3322     BC   Meiringspoort.

240/72         turgida var. turgida                                                    3420     BB   N Heidelberg.

241/72         turgida var. turgida                                                    3420     BB   N Heidelberg.

329/72         nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3118     DC  Die Kom.

125/73         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     DA  S Calitzdorp.

155/73         fasciata                                                                    3325     CB   Hillwacht.

193/73         cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  N Hankey.

311/73         magnifica var. acuminata                                           3421     AD  N Gouritzmond.

100/74         blackburniae var. blackburniae                                   3321     AC   W Ladismith.

107/74         magnifica var. magnifica                                           3420     BB   SW Heidelberg.

109/74         mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3322     CA   Volmoed.

100/740        blackburniae var. blackburniae                                   3321     DB  Warmbaths.

411/75         chloracantha var. chloracantha                                   3321     DD  N Herbertsdale.

436/75         decipiens var. cyanea                                               3323     AD  Georgida.

441/75         arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     BC   N Calitzdorp.

89/76         reticulata var. hurlingii                                                3320     CC   Goudmyn.

90/76         reticulata var. reticulata                                              3319     DC  Rooiberg.

83/77         mutica var. mutica                                                     3420     AC   Kykoedie.

257/77         emelyae var. emelyae                                                3321     DC  SE Vanwyksdorp.

3. M.B.Bayer personal numbers.

112    limifolia var. gigantea                                                2731     DA  Nongoma.

121    maraisii var. notabilis                                                3319     DD  Vinkrivier.

153    arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DB  Buitenstekloof.

154    minima var. poellnitziana                                           3320     CC   W Drew.

155    lockwoodii                                                               3320     BB   Floriskraal.

157    parksiana                                                                 3422     AA   Dumbie Dykes.

158    floribunda var. floribunda                                          3420     BB   N Heidelberg.

159    mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3321     BC   Die Berg.

160    reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  Ribbokkop.

161    herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DC  Ribbokkop.

163    pulchella var. pulchella                                             3320    AC   Avondrust, Touws River.

163    pubescens var. pubescens                                       3319     CB   Sandberg.

164    maculata var. maculata                                             3319     CB   Brandvlei Dam.

166    rossouwii var. rossouwii                                            3420     BA   Oudekraalkop.

167    venosa ssp. woolleyi                                                3324     BD  Kleinpoort

168    venosa ssp. venosa                                                 3420     AB   Swellendam.

169    attenuata                                                                  ‑           ‑      ‑

170    glabrata                                                                   ‑           ‑      ‑

171    arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3322     AC   Schoemanspoort.

171    mucronata var. mucronata                                         3322     AD  Schoemanspoort.

172    marumiana var. marumiana                                        3226     AB   Spring Valley.

173    bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3225     CA   NE Pearston.

174    marginata                                                                 3421     AB   S Heidelberg.

175    monticola var. monticola                                           3322     DD  Molen River.

886    fasciata                                                                    3325     CB   Spring Range.

887    fasciata                                                                    3325     CC   E Hankey.

1119   maculata var. maculata                                             3319     CB   Audensberg.

1120   maculata var. maculata                                             3319     DA  S Sandhills.

1128   pubescens var. livida                                                3319     CD  S Lemoenpoort.

1145   maculata var. maculata                                             3319     CD  Moddergat.

1194   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     DB  Fairfax.

1208   maraisii var. notabilis                                                3319     DD  Wolfkloof.

1209   maraisii var. notabilis                                                3319     DD  Wolfkloof.

1210   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DC  Trappieskraalkloof.

1211   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  W Robertson.

1213   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AA   N Stormsvlei.

1214   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

1215   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DC  Langkloof.

1216   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Goudmyn.

1217   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

1218   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

1219   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   N Drew.

1220   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Klaasvoogds.

1221   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AD  Juliusfontein.

1221   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Skurweberg.

1222   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  S McGregor.

1351   coarctata var. adelaidensis                                        3326     AB   Hellspoort.

1352   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     AB   Hellspoort.

1354   coarctata var. adelaidensis                                        3326     BC   NW Grahamstown.

1355   coarctata var. adelaidensis                                        3326     AA   Willowfountain.

1357   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     BC   Brooklands.

1358   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     BC   Manley Flats.

1359   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     DA  Kowie.

1360   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     BC   Vaalvlei.

1361   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     DA  S Vaalvlei.

1363   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     CB   Salem to Alexandria.

1364   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     DA  Hopewell, W Port Alfred.

1366   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     DA  Hopewell, W Port Alfred.

1367   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     BA   Rooidrift.

1368   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     BA   E Plutosvale.

1370   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     CA   Woodbury.

1371   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3325     DB  Orlando.

1372   coarctata var. coarctata                                            3326     AD  Yellowwoods.

1381   reinwardtii var. brevicula                                            3326     BD  Frazer’s Camp.

1391   reinwardtii var. reinwardtii                                          3327     AA   W Peddie.

1438   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  Rooikleigat.

1539   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  S Gemsbokkop.

1543   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DD  Wolfkloof, Robertson.

1558   emelyae var. multifolia                                              3321     CC   Springfontein.

1615   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CA   SW Ladismith.

1616   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     DB  Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp.

1617   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CA   Adamskraal.

1618   mucronata var. habdomadis                                      3321     AC   Dwarsrivier.

1619   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  3219     DD  Ceres Karoo.

1620   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3326     BA   E Fort Brown

1621   cooperi var. leightonii                                               3327     BA   SW Paynes Hill.

1621   mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3321     DB  Warmbron.

1622   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3326     AA   Willowfountain.

1623   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3227     DA  St Johns Drift.

1624   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CA   W Ladismith.

1628   mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3321     CA   S Ladismith.

1652   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  2817     CD  Kliphoogte.

1661   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              2817     CD  Kouefontein.

1674   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  2917     AB   Karrachabpoort.

1698   heidelbergensis var. toonensis                                  3420     BB   Matjestoon.

1700   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AB   Leeurivier.

1701   mucronata var. rycroftiana                                         3321     DC  VanWyksdorp to Herbertsdale.

1702   zantneriana var. minor                                               3323     BB   near Miller Stn.

1703   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  W Robertson.

1704   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3320     DD  Warmwaterberg.

1706   cymbiformis var. setulifera                                        3228     BA   S Mooiplaas.

1707   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Muiskraalkop.

1708   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   N Ashton.

1963   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     CA   Nougaspoort.

1986   mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3320     DA  Anysberg Pass.

1995   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     CD  W Doornrivier.

1996   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     CD  Lemoenpoort.

1997   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DC  Wansbek.

2011   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3124     CC   Murraysburg.

2022   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3224     BA   Graaff‑Reinet.

2024   bolussii var pringlei                                                   3225     CB   Bruintjieshoogte.

2038   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3126     BD  N Tarkastad.

2052   angustifolia var. baylissii                                           3325     BC   Oudekraal.

2070   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DB  Ebenezer.

2071   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3224     DD  Lootskloof.

2072   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3224     BA   Graaff‑Reinet.

2074   decipiens var. virella                                                 3324     AA   Campherpoort.

2076   decipiens var. minor                                                 3324     AA   Grootriver.

2083   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3323     CA   N Uniondale.

2086   arachnoidea var. aranea                                            3322     DC  Ganskraal.

2093   pulchella var. pulchella                                              3320     AB   SE Konstabel Stn.

2099   mucronata var. morrisiae                                           3322     CA   S Oudtshoorn.

2105   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     BA   N Baviaans Stn.

2117   viscosa                                                                    3220     DD N Laingsburg.

2124   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3220     DC  N Laingsburg.

2131   viscosa                                                                    3220     DD  N Laingsburg.

2177   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   Goedverwacht.

2187   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DD  Wolfkloof, Robertson.

2241   pygmaea var. pygmaea                                            3422     AA   Great Brak.

2271   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Houtbaaikloof.

2287   pygmaea var. pygmaea                                            3422     AA   W Great Brak.

2289   pygmaea var. pygmaea                                            3422     AA   Dumbie Dykes.

2311   floribunda var. dentata                                              3421     BA   Wydersrivier.

2347   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3224     AB   Valley of Desolation.

2350   nigra var. nigra                                                         3224     AB   St Olives.

2356   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3124     DC  Aasvoelkrans.

2372   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3222     BC   E Molteno Pass.

2373   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3222     BA   Molteno Pass.

2377   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3221     CB   W Merweville.

2380   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3124     CC   W Graaff‑Reinet.

2385   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3223     AA   Nelspoort.

2389   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3123     DD  E Murraysberg.

2406   semiviva                                                                  3222     BC   S Beaufort West.

2418   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CD  W Vanwyksdorp.

2419   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CD  S Vanwyksdorp.

2420   turgida var. longibracteata                                         3420     AB   SW Swellendam.

2421   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     CB   W Worcester.

2422   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     CB   SE Brandvlei Dam.

2423   magnifica var. acuminata                                          3421     BD  N Gouritzmond.

2424   wittebergensis                                                          3320     BC   SW Laingsburg.

2425   lockwoodii                                                               3320     BB   Ezelsfontein.

2453   marumiana var. archeri                                              3221     CA   Langberg.

2453   mirabilis var. beukmannii                                           3419     BA   Skuitsberg.

2453   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BA   Dagbreek.

2469a nigra var. diversifolia                                                3221     CB   W Merweville.

2526   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AA   Rietfontein.

2533   turgida var. longibracteata                                         3420     BC   Diepkloof, S Malgas.

2547   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AC   Brakfontein.

2550   heidelbergensis var. heidelberg                                 3420     BB   E Heidelberg.

2551   variegata var. modesta                                             3420     AD  SW Kathoek.

2556   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  Beyersdal.

2564   variegata var. hemicrypta                                          3420     BC   NE Potberg.

2574   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  3219     DC  Skitterykloof.

2579   herbacea var. lupula                                                  3319     CD  Wolfkloof, Villiersdorp.

2582   pulchella var. pulchella                                              3319     BD  W Touws River.

2591   maculata var. maculata                                             3319     CB   NE Brandvlei Dam.

2665   magnifica var. atrofusca                                           3421     AA   Droerivier.

2670   venosa ssp. venosa                                                 3420     BC   Malgas.

2672   turgida var. longibracteata                                         3421     AC   Duiwenhoksriver.

2697   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DC  Keerweerder, Jonaskop.

2716   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CA   Winkelplaas.

3363   monticola var. monticola                                           3323     AD  Georgida.

3375   cooperi var. viridis                                                    3324     BC   Dorschfontein.

3384   monticola var. monticola                                           3323     CA   E Uniondale.

3398   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  3119     AB   Koringberg.

3423   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  3119     BC   Beeswater.

3439   floribunda var. dentata                                              3420     BA   Bontebok Park.

3453   venosa ssp. venosa                                                 3420     AB   Bontebok Park.

3586   chloracantha var. denticulifera                                   3421     BB   Cooper Siding.

3586   chloracantha var. denticulifera                                   3421     BD  N Gouritzmond.

3612   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3320     AB   Jagerskraal.

3620   marumiana var. viridis                                               3322     AC   S Prince Albert.

3637   nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3118     DC  W Doornriver.

3670   marumiana var. viridis                                               3322     AC   Prince Albert.

3906   nortieri var. pehlemanniae                                          3320     BB   SW Laingsburg.

4160   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3323     BB   NE Fullarton.

4168b glauca var. glauca                                                    3324     AA   E Humefield.

4179   glauca var. glauca                                                    3224     CD  Fairview.

4180   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3224     CD  Fairview, W Jansenville.

4198   cooperi var. viridis                                                    3325     AC   Brakfontein.

4294   nigra var. diversifolia                                                3222     AC   Wolwehoek.

4320   arachnoidea var. namaquensis                                  3220     DA  Verlatenkloof.

4404   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3323     CA   Uniondale Poort.

4428   blackburniae var. blackburniae                                  3321     DA  Rooiberg.

4429   blackburniae var. blackburniae                                  3321     DA  Assegaaibos.

4430   herbacea var. paynei                                                 3319     DD  Olifantsdoorn.

4432   minima var. minima                                                   3420     AB   Bontebok Park.

4437   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  W McGregor.

4438   mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3320     DA  Jakkalsfontein.

4439   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     CD  N Lemoenpoort.

4440   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3322     BC   E Klaarstroom.

4450   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3326     AD  NW Salem.

4460   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3227     DC  Brigadoon.

4461   maculata var. intermedia                                           3319     DC  Buitenstekloof.

4462   arachnodea var. aranea                                             3322     AC   S Cango Caves.

4462   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     CA   20km W Ladismith.

4471   turgida var. suberecta                                               3421     BA   Weltevrede.

4473   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AC   Soesriver.

4474   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  NE Hankey.

4475   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     DD  NE Hankey.

4476   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     DD  E Hankey.

4476   turgida var. suberecta                                               3421     BA   Draaihoek.

4477   turgida var. suberecta                                               3421     BA   E Valsch River.

4478   turgida var. suberecta                                               3421     BB   Gouritz River.

4479   mutica var. mutica                                                    3419     BB   E Riviersonderend.

4479   turgida var. longibracteata                                         3421     AB   Kafferkuils Bridge.

4499   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3322     AC   N Oudtshoorn.

4549   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3325     BC   Kranspoort, W Patterson.

4575   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3320     DD  W Warmwaterberg.

4642   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BD  Skietpad.

4647   arachnoidea var. aranea                                            3322     AD  Raubenheimer Dam.

4648   cymbiformis var. ramosa                                          3327     AB   Wooldridge.

4648   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3327     AB   W Woolridge.

4649   cymbiformis var. reddii                                            3226      BB        Klipplaat Dam.

4650   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3326     AC   S Alicedale.

4651   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3226     DA  Blinkwater.

4652   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3326     BB   Ballinafad.

4653   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3325     BB   Swartwaterpoort.

4654   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3327     AC   Kapp‑Fish.

4655   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                     3226     DC  Sulphur Baths.

4656   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3322     CA   Volmoed.

4657   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3324     BD  Hanekam.

4659   reticulata var. hurlingii                                               3320     CC   Goudmyn.

4665   reticulata var. attenuata                                             3320     CC   SE Bonnievale.

4665   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DD  Wolfkloof, Robertson.

4667   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3225     BA   Halesowen.

4668   venosa ssp. granulata                                               3320     AC   Avondrus.

4669   venosa ssp granulata                                                3219     DC  Skitterykloof.

4671   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3320     DC  E Barrydale.

4677   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3123     CD  Nuwerus.

4677   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AA   Kliphoogte.

4901   marginata                                                                 3420     BA   Koppies.

4902   serrata                                                                     3420     BA   Koppies.

4941   sordida var. sordida                                                 3325     AD  SE Kirkwood.

5086   semiviva                                                                  3120     DB  S Williston.

5096   semiviva                                                                  3120     DC  S Williston.

5101   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  Haarwegskloof.

5157   decipiens var. decipiens                                           3322     AB   Kleinsleutelftn.

5182   decipiens var. decipiens                                           3322     AA   W Prince Albert.

5209   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3221     DD  Tierberg.

5225   scabra var. scabra                                                    3322     AC   Cango.

5226   scabra var. scabra                                                    3322     AC   Cango.

5261   decipiens var. decipiens                                           3322     CA   S Prince Albert.

5296   mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3320     CB   Touwsfontein.

5750   venosa ssp. granulata                                               3220     CC   Bantamsfontein.

5753   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DA  E Vanwyksdorp.

6486   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     BB   SW Laingsburg.

6488   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3120     BC   Beaufort West Dam.

6488   semiviva                                                                  3120     BC   Beaufort West.

6490   venosa ssp. tessellata                                              3222     BA   Karoo Nat.Pk.

6495   nigra var. nigra                                                         3221     CB   E Merweville.

6496   nigra var. nigra                                                         3221     CA   W Merweville.

6497   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3221     CB   15km Merweville to Koup.

6498   marumiana var. marumiana                                        3222     BA   Molteno Pass.

6501   semiviva                                                                  3221     CA   Langberg.

6502   nigra var. nigra                                                         3221     CA   Langberg.

6505   nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3219     AC   N Dwarsrivier.

6506   nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3219     AD  Dwarsrivier.

6509   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

6510   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

6511   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Olifantskrans.

6512   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AA   SE Drew.

6512a maraisii var.. maraisii                                                3420     AA   SE Drew.

6513   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3420     BD  SW Swellendam.

6514   maculata var. intermedia                                           3319     DD  Buitenstekloof.

6515   reticulata var. acuminata                                            3320     CC   Aurora.

6516   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3319     DD  Rooiberg, Goudmyn.

6518   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Lower N Slopes, Rooiberg.

6519   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Agter Vink.

6520   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Die Nekkie, W Robertson.

6521   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AA   N Stormsvlei.

6522   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DD  Buitenstekloof.

6523   venosa ssp. venosa                                                 3420     AB   Swellendam.

6524   limifolia var. limifolia                                                 –           –      Komatipoort.

6525   rossouwii var. calcarea                                              3420     AD  De Hoop.

6527   variegata var. hemicrypta                                          3420     AB   NW Swellendam.

6528   floribunda var. floribunda                                          3420     AB   SW Swellendam.

6533   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AB   N Napky.

6534   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AA   SE Drew.

6535   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3320     CC   N slopes Rooiberg.

6536   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AB   S Napky.

6537   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BC   NE Goudini.

6538   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BD  10km W Napier.

6539   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AD  Tarentaal.

6540   minima var. minima                                                   3420     AD  Tarentaal.

6541   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  NE Kathoek.

6542   variegata var. modesta                                             3420     BC   E Potberg reidence.

6544   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     BC   NN Potberg.

6545   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     BC   N Potberg.

6546   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  NW Kathoek

6548   reticulata                                                                  3319     DD  Bosfontein.

6551   floribundaXpygmaea                                                3421     BB   NE Cooper siding.

6552   fasciata                                                                    3324     DD  NE Zuurbron.

6553   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  N Zuurbron.

6554   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  N Zuurbron.

6555   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3325     CC   Longmore Forest.

6556   bolusii var. pringlei                                                   3225     DD  NW Rippon Stn.

6557   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3325     BB   NW Ripppon Stn.

6558   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3225     DB  N Eastpoort.

6559   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3225     DB  SE Eastpoort.

6560   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3225     DB  S Eastpoort.

6561   bolusii var. pringlei                                                   3225     DB  Baviaanskranz, Patryshoogte.

6562   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3226     CD  Kagasmond.

6563   cooperi var. cooperi                                                 3226     CD  Koonap Bridge.

6564   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3226     CB   Chancery Hall.

6565   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3225     DA  W Somerset East.

6566   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3225     AC   NE Ashbourne.

6567   cymbiformis var. reddii                                             3226     BB   Waterdown Dam.

6568   nigra var. nigra                                                         3225     BD  Waterdown Dam.

6569   bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3226     BD  Waterdown Dam.

6570   bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3226     BD  S Estrelle.

6571   bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3227     AB   Turnstream.

6572   cymbiformis var. reddii                                             3227     AB   Turnstream.

6573   cymbiformis var. setulifera                                        3227     AB   Highclere.

6574   nigra var. nigra                                                         3224     DA  5km ENE Kendrew.

6575   nigra var. nigra                                                         3226     CB   Adelaide.

6580   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DC  Meerlust.

6581   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DC  Welgelegen.

6582   decipiens var. virella                                                 3324     AB   SW Mt Steward.

6583   decipiens var. virella                                                 3324     AB   NW Waaipoort.

6584   glauca var. herrei                                                      3324     AD  Waaipoort.

6584a glaucaXviscosa                                                        3324     AD  Waaipoort.

6585   zantneriana var. zantneriana                                       3324     AD  Waaipoort.

6586   glauca var. herrei                                                      3324     BC   Zeekoeisnek.

6587   decipiens var. minor                                                 3324     BC   NW Die Bordjie.

6588   sordida var. lavranii                                                  3324     BC   NE DieBordjie.

6589   cooperi var. viridis                                                    3324     BC   NE Dorschfontein.

6591   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3226     DC  S The Tower.

6592   cooperi var. dielsiana                                                3226     DC  W Fort Beaufort.

6593   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3226     DC  E The Tower.

6596   kingiana                                                                   3322     CC   Moeras River.

6597   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3424     BB   Jeffrey’s Bay.

6598   glauca var. glauca                                                    3325     CB   Bauerskraal.

6599   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3325     CB   Bauerskraal.

6600   cooperi var. viridis                                                    3325     AC   N Perdepoort.

6601   arachnoidea var. aranea                                            3322     CC   Moeras River.

6602   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3326     BC   Glen Craig.

6603   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     BA   NE Grahamstown.

6604   decipiens var. xiphiophylla                                        3325     DC  Coega.

6608   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3322     CB   N Dysselsdorp.

6609   truncata                                                                    3322     CB   N Dysseldorp.

6610   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3324     AC   N Steytlerville.

6611   sordida var. sordida                                                 3325     DA  Soutkloof.

6612   aristata                                                                     3325     DA  Soutkloof.

6613   sordida var. sordida                                                 3325     BC   Bluecliff Stn.

6614   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Hellspoort.

6615   glauca var. glauca                                                    3325     AC   Paardepoort.

6616   decipiens var. xiphiophylla                                        3325     CA   Bauerskraal.

6618   decipiens var. minor                                                 3325     AC   Sapkamma/Perdepoort.

6619   decipiens var. minor                                                 3325     AC   Sapkamma/Perdepoort.

6620   decipiens var. minor                                                 3325     AC   Sapkamma.

6621   outeniquensis                                                           3322     CC   Moerasriver.

6622   pumila                                                                      3319     DA  Mowers.

6623   pumila                                                                      3319     DC  W Rooiberg.

6624   minima var. poellnitziana                                           3320     CC   W Sanddrift.

6625   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   Sanddrift.

6626   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   N Sanddrift.

6627   marginata                                                                 3320     CC   N Sanddrift.

6628   minima var. poellnitziana                                           3320     CC   Sanddrift.

6629   marginataXminima                                                    3320     CC   E Sanddrift.

6630   minima var. minima                                                   3419     DB  W Moddervlei, Elim.

6631   mirabilis var. mirabilis                                               3419     DB  Mierkraal.

6632   rossouwii var. calcarea                                              3420     CA   Renosterfontein.

6633   marginata                                                                 3420     AC   Adoonskop.

6634   marginata                                                                 3420     AC   Adoonskop.

6635   mirabilis var. badia                                                   3419     BD  Napier.

6636   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BA   S Greyton.

6637   minima var. minima                                                   3419     DB  Mierkraal.

6638   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AC   Rooivlei, Bredasdorp.

6639   mirabilis var. sublineata                                             3420     CA   S Bredasdorp.

6640   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AC   Adoonskop.

6641   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AC   Hasiesdrift.

6642   pumila                                                                      3419     DD  Vinkrivier.

6643   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BD  Fairfield.

6644   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3420     BD  SW Swellendam.

6645   pumila                                                                      3319     CB   Worcester airfield.

6646   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  N Macgregor.

6647   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Agter Vink.

6648   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  SW Robertson.

6649   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3320     CC   E Montagu.

6650   mutica var. nitida                                                      3420     BB   SE Heidelberg.

6651   magnifica var. magnifica                                           3421     AA   S Riversdale.

6653   emelyae var. emelyae                                               3321     CD  N Sandkraal.

6654   emelyae var. emelyae                                               3321     CD  N Sandkraal.

6655   emelyae var. emelyae                                               3321     CD  N Sandkraal.

6658   arachnoidea var. aranea                                            3321     CD  E Sandkraal.

6659   emelyae var. emelyae                                               3321     CD  SE Vanwyksdorp.

6660   emelyae var. multifolia                                              3321     CC   W Muiskraal.

6661   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CC   W Muiskraal.

6662   magnifica var. atrofusca                                           3421     AA   Kweekkraal.

6663   magnifica var. magnifica                                           3420     BB   SW Heidelberg.

6666   magnifica var. magnifica                                           3420     BA   S Tradouw Pass.

6667   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     DC  SW Barrydale.

6668   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   N Ashton.

6670   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  W Robertson.

6672   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Koningsriver.

6673   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Kranz Reserve.

6674   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  Kranz Reserve.

6676   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   E Goudmyn.

6678   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Grootrivier.

6680   herbacea var. paynei                                                 3319     DD  Koningsriverberg.

6681   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Koningriver Dam.

6682   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  N Koningriver Dam.

6683   maraisii var. notabilis                                                3319     DD  N Klaasvoogds.

6684   reticulata var. attenuata                                             3320     CC   E Dankbaar.

6685   mirabilis var. diversicolor                                          3320     BB   Olifantsdoornkloof.

6686   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3320     BB   E Olifantsdoornkloof.

6687   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  SE McGregor.

6688   herbacea var. herbacea                                             3319     DA  Mowers.

6690   arachnoidea/mucronata                                             3320     CA   Watervalkloof.

6691   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DC  NW Boschfontein.

6692   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  NW Boschfontein.

6693   reticulata var. subregularis                                         3319     DC  Uitvlug.

6694   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DA  Kanetvlei.

6696   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     BD  W Osplaas.

6697   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     BD  E Osplaas.

6698   venosa ssp. granulata                                               3319     BA   Karoopoort.

6700   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3320     CA   Soutkuil.

6702   pulchella var. pulchella                                              3320     CA   Soutkuil.

6703   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3320     DA  Bellair Dam.

6704   arachnoidea/mucronata                                             3320     CB   Ouberg.

6705   arachnoidea/mucronata                                             3320     CB Ouberg.

6706   arachnoidea/mucronata                                             3320     CB   Ouberg.

6710   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3420     BB   Boesmansrivier.

6711   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3420     BB   Boesmansrivier.

6712   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3420     BB   Boesmansrivier.

6713   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3420     BB   Boesmansrivier.

6714   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3319     DC  Koeniesriver.

6719   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  Dassiehoek.

6720   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3319     DC  Rietvleikloof.

6721   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DD  W Robertson.

6722   pumila                                                                      3319     DC  Boschfontein.

6723   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3319     DC  Takkap.

6724   emelyae var. emelyae                                               3322     CD  Klipdrif.

6725   pungens                                                                   3323     DD  W Braamrivier.

6727   outeniquensis                                                           3322     CD  Herold.

6727   scabra var. scabra                                                    3323     DB  Braamrivier.

6728   scabra var. scabra                                                    3323     CC   W DeVlugt.

6729   transiens                                                                  3323     CC   N De Vlugt.

6730   mucronata var. habdomadis                                      3321     AD  Seweweekspoort.

6732   scabra var. starkiana                                                 3322     AD  Lentelus.

6737   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DC  N Mowers Stn.

6738   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DC  N Mowers Stn.

6739   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     CC   W Springfontein.

6740   arachnoidea var. aranea                                            3320     DD  Kleindoringrivier.

6741   emelyae var. major                                                   3320     DD  Kleindoringrivier.

6743   mucronata var. mucronata                                         3320     DD  SSE Barrydale.

6744   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3320     DC  Tradouw Pass.

6745   floribunda var. floribunda                                          3421     AB   RoseInnis Drive.

6746   chloracantha var. denticulifera                                   3321     BB   NW Herbertsdale.

6747   magnifica var. acuminata                                          3421     BD  Vleesbaai.

6749   turgida var. suberecta                                               3421     BB   Die Hoek, Gouritz.

6750   minima var. minima                                                   3421     BD  Melkhoutfontein.

6751   magnifica var. splendens                                          3421     AB   Soutpan, W Albertinia.

6756   herbacea var. paynei                                                 3319     DD  S Olifantsdoorn.

6757   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3419     BB   Hoeksrivierkloof.

6758   nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3219     CD  5km SE Sneeukop.

6759   nortieri var. nortieri                                                    3219     CD  10km SE Sneeukop.

6760   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Houtbaaiskloof.

6761   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3319     DD  Top Bakenskop.

6762   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3320     DB  Kuitfontein, NE Plathuis.

6763   pulchella var. globifera                                              3320     DB  Wolwefontein, Plathuis.

6764   blackburniae var. blackburiae                                    3320     DB  Wolwefontein.

6767   outeniquensis                                                           3322     CC   Herold.

6768   fasciata                                                                    3324     CD  Moordenaarskloof.

6769   viscosa                                                                    3324     CD  Moordenaarskloof.

6770   viscosaXfasciata                                                      3324     CD  Moordenaarskloof.

6771   transiens                                                                  3324     CD  Moordenaarskloof.

6772   pungens                                                                   3324     CC   Joubertskraal.

6773   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     CC   Joubertskraal.

6774   scabra var. scabra                                                    3323     DD  Braamrivier.

6775   scabraXpungens                                                      3323     DD  Braamrivier.

6776   cooperi var. cooperi                                                 3225     DA  SW Glen Avon.

6777   nigra var. nigra                                                         3225     DA  N Slagtersnek.

6778   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3225     DD  New Slagtersnek.

6780   pungens                                                                   3323     DD  W Braamrivier.

6781   maraisii var. notabilis                                                3319     DD  Bergplaas.

6783   mirabilis var. mirabilis                                               3419     DB  Mierkraal.

6784   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DC  Draaihoek.

6785   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DC  Draaihoek.

6788   viscosa                                                                    3324     DA  Komdomo.

6789   cooperi var. picturata                                                3324     DA  N Komdomo

6790   cooperi var. picturata                                                3324     DC  W Kranz, E Wistaria.

6791   cooperi var. picturata                                                3324     DC  E Kranz, E Wistaria.

6792   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3424     CB   N Jeffrey’s Bay.

6793   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  N Zuurbron.

6794   fasciata                                                                    3324     DD  Hankey Pass.

6795   fasciata                                                                    3424     BB   Kabeljouws.

6796   fasciata                                                                    3424     BB   N Jeffrey’s Bay.

6797   fasciata                                                                    3424     BB   W Bank Zeekoevlei.

6798   gracilis var. isabellae                                                3324     DB  Houtkloof, Elandsriver.

6799   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  E Roodewal.

6801   gracilis var. isabellae                                                3324     DD  Milton, SW Hankey.

6802   gracilis var. isabellae                                                3324     DD  Philips Tunnel.

6803   attenuata var. radula                                                 3324     DD  Hallelujah, N Hankey.

6804   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  NE Hankey.

6805   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DD  Hallelujah.

6806   fasciata                                                                    3325     CC   Loerie Dam.

6807   fasciata                                                                    3324     DD  E Hankey.

6808   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3325     CC   E Gamtoos Bridge.

6809   fasciata                                                                    3325     CC   S Gamtoos Bridge.

6810   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3323     DD  N Joubertina.

6811   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3323     CA   Uniondale Poort.

6813   pygmaea var. pygmaea                                            3422     AA   Moss Gas, W Mossel Bay.

6815   maculata var. maculata                                             3319     CB   Audensberg Peak.

6816   sordida var. sordida                                                 3325     BC   SE Kirkwood.

6817   magnifica var. atrofusca                                           3421     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

6820   monticola var. monticola                                           3322     DB  W Uniondale, NE Kykoe.

6821   scabra var. scabra                                                    3322     DB  NE Kykoe.

6822   viscosa                                                                    3323     DA  Bottom Nuwekloof.

6823   monticola var. bavensis                                            3324     CA   Top Bosrug.

6824   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     CA   Koutnek.

6825   transiens                                                                  3324     CA   S Geelhoutboskloof.

6826   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     CA   Rooikloof.

6827   cooperi var. picturata                                                3324     CB   E Rooihoek.

6828   attenuata                                                                  3324     DA  Sandlands Cambria.

6830   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3324     DA  E Komdomo.

6831   attenuata var. attenuata                                             3324     DD  Hallelujah, N Hankey.

6832   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   E ft Plutosvale.

6833   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   ft Plutosvale.

6834   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   W ft Plutosvale.

6835   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   WW ft Plutosvale.

6836   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   W Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6837   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   S Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6838   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   SE Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6839   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   W Mindmill, Plutosvale.

6840   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   opposite windmill, mid Plutosvale.

6841   attenuata                                                                  3326     BA   Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6842   bolusii var. blackbeardiana                                        3227     BC   Inverbolo.

6843   cymbiformis var. reddii                                             3227     BC   Inverbolo.

6844   angustifolia                                                              3326     AC   E Alicedale.

6845   cooperi var. cooperi                                                 3326     AC   E Alicedale.

6847   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3326     AC   SW Alicedale.

6848   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3326     AC   NW Alicedale.

6849   angustifolia                                                              3325     BB   Aalwynspoort. Stn.

6850   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3325     BB   Swartwaterpoort.

6851   aristata                                                                     3325     BB   Modderfontein, S Verdun.

6852   aristata                                                                     3325     BA   Stonefountain.

6855   decipiens var. virella                                                 3325     AA   E Waterford.

6856   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3323     BB   NE Fullarton.

6858   glauca var. herrei                                                      3323     BB   NE Fullarton.

6859   floribunda var. major                                                 3420     AB   SW Swellendam.

6860   maraisii/mirabilis                                                       3420     AB   4km SW Swellendam.

6861   maraisii/heidelbergensis                                            3420     AB   SW Swellendam.

6862   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420      AA NW Rondeheuwel.

6863   mirabilis var. diversicolor                                          3419     BB   Boesmansriver/Olifantsdoornkloof.

6864   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3319     DD  Whipstock, W McGregor.

6865   mirabilis var. consanguinea                                       3319     DD  Dwarswaterkloof, W McGregor.

6867   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3320     CB   NE Ouberg.

6868   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3320     CD  W Twistniet.

6871   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DD  Pietersfontein. M

6873   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DD  NW Pietersfontein.

6875   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   NE Ashton, Cogmanskloof.

6876   mirabilis var. depauperata                                         3419     BB   E Olifantsdoornkloof.

6877   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Die Nekkie.

6878   maraisii/mirabilis                                                       3419     BB   SW Swellendam.

6879   maraisii/floribunda                                                    3420     BA   Koppies. SE Swellendam.

6880   rossouwii var. rossouwii                                            3420     BA   Oudekraalkop.

6881   floribunda var. dentata                                              3420     BA   S Oudekraalkop.

6882   heidlbergensis                                                          3420     AD  W Juliesfontein.

6883   mucronata var. mucronata                                         3320     CD  Poortjieskloof.

6884   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   Roff’s Rock, N Plutosvale.

6885   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3222     DC  Trakaskuilen.

6886   heidelbergensis/mirabilis                                           3420     AD  N Juliesfnt.

6888   variegata var. modesta                                             3420     BC   NW Slopes Potberg.

6889   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     BC   NW slopes Potberg.

6890   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     AD  Witkop, N Brakfontein.

6891   cooperi var. tenera                                                    3326     BA   300m W lower Roff’s Rock

6892   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   below 6891, Roff’s Rock.

6893   cymbiformis var. incurvula                                        3326     BA   400m W Roff’s Rock.

6894   angustifolia                                                              3326     AB   Thornkloof, NW Grahamstown.

6895   cymbiformis var. obtusa                                           3326     AB   SE Thornkloof.

6896   coarctata var. adelaidensis                                        3326     AB   SE Thornkloof.

6897   aristata                                                                     3325     BB   SE Commadagga.

6899   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   Paddafontein.

6901   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   W Hopewell.

6903   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3325     AD  S Spekboomkop.

6904   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3325     AD  Top Wilgerfontein

6905   cooperi var. “puberula”                                             3325     AD  Top Wilgerfontein.

6907   glauca/coarctata                                                       3325     AD  Top Wilgerfontein.

6908   glauca                                                                      3325     AD  SE DePlaat.

6909   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  SE DePlaat.

6910   cooperi var. “puberula”                                             3325     AD  SE DePlaat.

6911   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  Kaboegapoort.

6914   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  E Spekboomberg.

6915   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  SE Koksedam

6916   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   Spitzkop, Kaboega.

6917   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   Original Kaboega gate.

6920   aristata                                                                     3325     DA  Soutkloof.

6921   cooperi var. doldii                                                    3327     BA   Chalumna.

6922   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3325     BA   Oudekraal.

6924   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  Kaboega Dam.

6925   cymbiformis var. cymbiformis                                   3325     AD  Koksepad.

6927   bolusii var. pringlei                                                   3325     BB   W Ripon Stn.

6928   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3324     DC  Nuwelande, Patensie.

6929   longiana                                                                   3324     DC  Nuwelande, Patensie.

6930   cooperi var. picturata                                                3324     DC  E Andrieskraal.

6932   cooperi var. isabellae                                                3424     BB   Krom River, Ripon.

6933   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3424     BB   E Humansdorp.

6934   fasciata                                                                    3424     BB   SW Humansdorp.

6935   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  S DePlaat.

6936   cooperi var. gordoniana                                            3323     CA   N Uniondale.

6937   decipiens var. scottiana                                            3323     CA   Vetvlei.

6938   decipiens var. scottiana                                            3323     CA   Woedjieskloof, NE Uniondale.

6939   decipiens var. scottiana                                            3323     AD  Ghwarriepoort, Keurfontein.

6940   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AB   Klipfontein, E DePlaat.

6942   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   DePlaat Weir.

6943   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3325     AD  Dassiekop.

6945   nigra                                                                        3325     AB   N DePlaat house.

6947   sordida                                                                    3325     AD  S DePlaat house.

6949   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3325     AD  Vyeboomfontein.

6951   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   NN Ashton.

6952   marginata                                                                 3320     CC   N Ashton.

6953   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Le Chasseur Nek.

6954   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AA   N Stormsvlei.

6955   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3420     AA   Stormsvlei.

6956   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  SW Rooiberg, Eilandia.

6957   reticulata                                                                  3319     DD  S Rooiberg.

6958   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  S Rooiberg.

6959   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Upper SE Rooiberg.

6959   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Kleinspitzkop, Vrolikheid.

6960   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   W Sanddrift.

6961   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Muiskraalkop.

6962   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   Olifantskrans.

6963   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   W Bonnievale.

6964   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   E Zandvliet.

6965   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3320     CC   far E Zandvliet.

6966   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Steenbokshoogte, Vrolikheid.

6967   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  W Kanonkop, Vrolikheid.

6968   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Witkranz, Vrolikheid.

6969   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Kleinspitzkop, Vrolikheid.

6970   herbacea var. flaccida                                               3319     DD  Rooiberg, Vinkrivier.

6971   heidelbergensis/maraisii                                            3320     CC   Jakkalshoek, E Bonnievale.

6972   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  with flaccida, Rooiberg.

6973   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3419     BD  N Napier.

6974   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   Tonteldooskop.

6976   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   S Tonteldooskop.

6977   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   S aspect at 6974.

6978   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   between 6974/6977.

6979   heidelbergensis/maraisii                                            3320     CC   Loerkop, E. Ashton.

6981   heidelbergensis/maraisii                                            3320     CC   SE Loerkop.

6982   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AC   Hasiesdrift.

6983   rossouwii var. rossouwii                                            3420     CA   Soutkloof, NW Bredsadorp.

6984   rossouwii var. rossouwii                                            3420     CA   Nooitgedacht.

6985   rossouwii var. calcarea                                              3420     AD  DeHoop.

6986   rossouwii var. petrophila                                           3420     CA   Karsriver.

6987   mirabilis var. badia                                                   3419     BD  Sandfontein.

6988   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  Pietersfontein.

6988   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   Nooitgedacht.

6989   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   SE Nooitgedacht.

6990   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   NE Mardouw.

6991   mucronata var. inconfluens                                       3320     DA  Jakkalsfontein.

6992   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CD  Langverwacht.

6994   arachnoidea var. nigricans                                         3321     DB  NE Tierkloof, Gamka.

6995   viscosa                                                                    3321     DB  E Tierkloof.

6996   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DB  SE Tierkloof.

6997   viscosa                                                                    3321     DB  S Tierkloof.

6998   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DA  Top Rooiberg.

7001   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DA  Groenefontein.

7002   viscosa                                                                    3321     DA  Groenefontein.

7003   arachnoidea var. setata                                             3321     DA  W Groenefontein.

7006   bolusii var. pringlei                                                   3225     CC   Moederzoonpoort.

7008   bolusii var. pringlei                                                   3225     CC   Rietvlei, NE Waterford.

7010   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   SE DePlaat Weir.

7011   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   SE DePlaat Weir.

7012   aristata                                                                     3325     AB   Buffelsnek, Kaboega.

7014   truncata                                                                    3322     CB   N Dysseldorp.

7017   cooperi var. “puberula”                                             3325     BC   S Klipfontein.

7021   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3225     CC   SE Pearston.

7022   decipiens var. virella                                                 3225     CC   SE Pearston.

7023   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DB  Ebenezer.

7024   viscosa                                                                    3322     AB   Sleutelfontein.

7025   decipiens var. cyanea                                               3222     DC  Trakaskuilen.

7026   decipiens var. decipiens                                           3322     BC   Klaarstroom.

7028   decipiens var. xiphiophylla                                        3325     AA   Darlington Dam.

7029   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AD  SW Swellendam.

7030   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AB   Napky, SW Swellendam.

7031   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AB   N Napky.

7032   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AA   Rietfontein.

7033   arachnoidea var. arachnoidea                                    3319     DD  W Cape Lime.

7035   kingiana/minima                                                        3321     AD  Rooiberg, S Calitzdorp.

7036   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   Witkop, SW Janharmsgat.

7037   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3320     CC   Middelrivier, Drew.

7038   marginataXpumila                                                     3320     CC   NW Sanddrift.

7041   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DD  Palmietfontein, NE Jansenville.

7042   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3224     DD  Hinchenbrook.

7043   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DD  Langollen.

7046   bolusii var. bolusii                                                    3224     DD  DeRust, S Lootskloof.

7047   decipiens var. virella                                                 3224     DD  DeRust, S Lootskloof.

7049   cooperi var. pilifera                                                   3325     AD  SE Klipfontein, Kaboega.

7051   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Helspoort, upper W.

7052   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Helspoort, lower E.

7053   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Helspoort, lower W.

7054   cooperi var. gracilis                                                  3326     AB   Helspoort, upper E.

7055   maraisii var. nov.                                                      3420     CC   Rietvlei (Shielam).

7056   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     CC   NW Sandrift.

7057   heidelbergensis var. scabra                                       3420     CC   W Sanddrift.

7058   pumilaXmarginata                                                     3420     CC   S Sanddrift, Drew.

7059   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BC   Jongensklip.

7060   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     AD  Beyersdal.

7061   variegata var. modesta                                             3420     AD  Kathoek.

7063   heidelbergensis                                                        3420     AD  SE Beyersdal.

7064   mutica var. mutica                                                    3320     CC   Sanddrift.

7065   pubescens var. pubescens                                       3319     DC  Sandberg.

7066   pubescens var. livida                                                3319     CD  Lemoenpoort.

7067   herbacea                                                                  3319     DC  Sandberg.

7068   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     BB   Witteberg Rd.

7069   viscosa                                                                    3320     BB   Witteberg Rd.

7070   nortieri var. pehlemanniae                                          3320     BB   NW Laingsburg.

7071   arachnoidea var. scabrispina                                     3320     BB   NW Laingsburg.

7072   marumiana var. dimorpha                                          3320     AD  Konstabel.

7073   wittebergensis                                                          3320     BB   S Laingsburg.

7074   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3419     BB   Verdwaalskloof.

7075   mutica var. mutica                                                    3420     DD  Grootvlakte, E Riviersonderend.

7076   herbacea var. paynei                                                 3419     DD  S Grootrivier.

7077   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3319     DD  Wolwedrif.

7078   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  Wolwedrif.

7079   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3319     DD  W Middelplaas.

7080   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   W Wakkerstroom.

7081   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   E Goudmyn.

7082   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   Bobbejaanskloof.

7083   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   NE Goudmyn.

7084   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   E Olive grove.

7085   maraisii var. meiringii                                                3320     CC   Station Hill.

7086   maraisii var. maraisii                                                 3420     AA   SE Bokdam.

7087   mirabilis var. triebneriana                                           3420     AA   Brakfontein.

7088   reticulata var. reticulata                                             3319     DD  W Middelplaas.

7089   pumila                                                                      3320     CC   E Bonnievale.

7090   mirabilis var mirabilis                                                3419     DB  Mierkraal.

7091   mirabilis var triebneriana                                            3419     BD  NW Napier.

7092   mirabilis var triebneriana                                            3420     AB   Elandskloof.

7096   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  Koningsriver.

7097   maraisii var notabilis                                                 3319     DD  Kranzkop.

7098   maraisii var notabilis                                                 3319     DD  Bergplaas.

7099   heidelbergensis                                                        3420     AA   Nuutbegin.

7100   minima                                                                     3420     AA   Nuutbegin.

7101   variegata                                                                  3321     AB   Hoekraal.

7102   magnifica var splendens                                           3321     BA   Welgevonden.

7103   floribunda var dentata                                               3321     BA   N Ouvloer.

7104   floribunda var dentata                                               3321     BA   NE Ouvloer.

7105   turgida var suberecta                                                3321     BA   NE Ouvloer.

7106   floribunda var dentata                                               3321     AB   Snymanskraal.

7107   retusa                                                                      3321     AA   NE Melkboom.

7108   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NE Melkboom.

7109   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   Klien Kragga.

7110   retusa                                                                      3321     AA   N Melkboom.

7111   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   N Melkboom.

7112   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7113   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7114   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7115   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7116   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7117   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7118   heidelbergensis                                                        3321     AA   NW Kweekkraal.

7121   cymbiformis                                                             3325     BD  Gatjewolf.

7125   attenuata                                                                  3325     BC   N Enon.

7126   cooperi var puberula                                                 3325     AD  Wilgerfontein.

7127   glauca                                                                      3325     AD  Buffelsnek.

7128   angustifolia var baylissii                                            3325     BD  Wells Gate.

7130   venosa subsp granulata                                            3319     BA   Karoopoort.

7131   venosa subsp granulata                                            3220     CC   E Bizansgat.

7133   mutica var nigra                                                        3420     BB   Goedehoop.

7134   mutica var nigra                                                        3420     BB   Klipdrift.

7135   venosa subsp venosa                                               3420     BB   Sandkraal.

7136   limifolia                                                                                       Bridgewater Nursery.

7137   limifolia                                                                    2732     CD  Pumalanga.

7138   limifolia                                                                    2732     CB   Inxwala, Mkhuze.

7139   limifolia                                                                    2731     BC   Ncotshane, Pongola.

7140   limifolia                                                                    2731     BC   Draaiwater, Pakamisa.

7141   limifolia                                                                    2531     CC   N Rymers Creek.

7142   limifolia                                                                    2531     CC   Mays Mine.

7143   limifolia                                                                    2531     CB   Boondoks.

7144   limifolia                                                                    2531     CB   N Manders Dam.

7145   limifolia                                                                    2531     CB   Three Sisters.

7146   limifolia                                                                    2731     CA   Bivaan Dam.

7147   limifolia                                                                    2731     CB   Ithala.

7148   limifolia                                                                    2731     AD  Ithala.

7149   viscosa                                                                                       N.Koup Stn.

7150   decipiens var cyanea                                                                   W.Merweville.

7151   heidelbergensis                                                        3421     AA   N Kweekkraal W.

7152   heidelbergensis                                                        3421     AA   N Kweekkraal W.

7153   heidelbergensis                                                        3421     AA   N Kweekkraal W.

7154   heidelbergensis                                                        3421     AA   N Kweekkraal W.

7155   floribunda                                                                3421     AA   SW Pretoriuskop.

7156   floribunda                                                                3421     AA   W Pretoriuskop.

7157   atrofusca                                                                 3421     AA   N Bosgasiekop.

7158   floribunda                                                                3421     AA   N Bosgasiekop.

7159   atrofusca/floribunda                                                 3421     AA   N Bosgasiekop.

7160   magnifica                                                                 3421     AA   N Kweekkraal E.

7161   magnifica                                                                 3421     AA   N Kweekkraal E.

7162   magnifica                                                                 3421     AA   N Kweekkraal E.

7163   magnifica                                                                 3421     AA   S Riversdale t.loc.

7164   floribunda cf.                                                           3420     BD  Dassieklip.

7165   heidelbergensis                                                        3420     BB   Matjestoon.

7166   pumila                                                                      3319     BD  Mowers Stn.

7167   pumila                                                                      3319     BC   Apiesklip.

7168   cooperi var                                                               3325     AD  Kabouga.

7169   attenuata                                                                  3325     BC   Enon.

7170   cymbiformis var                                                       3325     BC   Enon.

7171   glauca/coarctata                                                       3325     AD S Wilgefontein.

7172   floribunda                                                                3421     AA   N Kweekkraal E.

7173   retusa                                                                      3421     AA   N Kweekkraal E.

7174   maraisii                                                                    3319     DD  Skurweberg.

7175   pumila                                                                      3319     DD  W Highlands, Goree.

7176   maraisii                                                                    3319     DD  N Agtervink.

7178   viscosa                                                                    3323     BD  Ruiterspoort.

7179   viscosa                                                                    3323     BD  Constantia.

7180   decipiens                                                                 3323     BD  Constantia.

7182   monticola                                                                 3323     BC   SW Koegoeroe.

7183   monticola                                                                 3323     BC   SE Koegoeroe.

7184   bayeri                                                                      3323     CA   Uniondale Fort.

7185   monticola                                                                 3323     CA   Uniondale Height.

7188   decipiens/scottiana                                                   3323     CA   5km E Hoekplaas.

7189   decipiens/scottiana                                                   3323     CA   2km NW Hoekplaas.

7190   mucronata                                                                3322     BD  3km E Rooiloop Stn.

7193   cf scottiana                                                              3322     BC   5km W Rooiloop Stn.

7194   arachnoidea                                                             3322     DA  E Middelplaas Stn.

7195   arachnoidea                                                             3322     BC   2km E Vlakteplaas.

7196   bayeri                                                                       3322     BC   SW Derust.

7200   truncata                                                                    3322     CA   NE Oudtshoorn.

7201   truncata                                                                    3322     CA   Volmoed.

7202   morrisiae                                                                  3322     CA   Volmoed.

7203   arachnoidea                                                             3321     CB   Ladismith.

7204   scabra                                                                     3322     DA  SE Doornkloof.

7205   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     DA  W Vensterkrans.

7206   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     CA   Buffelsdrif S.

7207   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     CA   Buffelsdrif.

7208   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     CA   Bakenskop.

7210   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     CA   E Vensterkrans.

7211   arachnoidea var nigricans                                          3321     CC   W Springfontein.

7212   mucronata var mucronata                                          3321     CC   Tradouwshoek.

7213   mucronata var mucronata                                          3321     CC   S Barrydale S aspect.

7214   maraisii                                                                    3321     CC   S Barrydale S aspect.

7215   mucronata var mucronata                                          3321     CC   S Barrydale.

7216   mucronata var mucronata                                          3321     CC   S Barrydale

7217   heidelbergensis/magnifica                                         3421     AA   Rooikop Melkboom

7218   floribunda/magnifica                                                 3420     BB   Duiwenhoks Morn Star

7219   turgida                                                                     3420     BB   Duiwenhoks Morn Star

7220   floribunda/magnifica                                                 3420     BB   NE Morning Star

7221   mutica var nigra                                                        3420     BB   NE Morning Star

7223   scabra                                                                     3322     DA  Diepkloof, E De Rust

7224   floribunda/chloracantha                                             3421     BB   Cooper Siding

7225   retusa                                                                      3421     AA   S Droekloof Riversd.

7226   turgida                                                                     3420     BB   Witheuwel Pienaarsr

7227   heidelbergensis/magnifica                                         3420     BB   Witheuwel Pienaarsr

7228   turgida                                                                     3420     BB   Somona S Heidelberg

7229   heidelbergensis/magnifica                                         3420     BB   Somona S Heidelberg

7231   bayer1 (seed)                                                           3322     DA  “Kleingeluk, E DeRust”

7232   turgida/heidelbergenss                                              3420     BB   S Heidelberg Reserve

7233   turgida/heidelbergenss                                              3420     BB   Hooikraal (Die Plotte N)

7234   turgida/heidelbergenss                                              3420     BB   Hooikraal (Die Plotte S)

7236   turgida/retusa                                                           3420     BB   E Heidelberg Dam

7237   magnifica cf.var atrofusca                                        3420     BB   Andrieskraal/Skeideing

7238   magnifica cf.var atrofusca                                        3420     BB   Andrieskraal/Skeiding

7239   magnifica cf.var atrofusca                                        3420     BB   Andrieskraal/Skeiding

7240   turgida/retusa                                                           3420     BB   Skeiding

7241   maraisii                                                                    3419     DD  Voordieberg, McGregor

7242   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     AA   Witkop, N Uitvlug Annex

7243   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     AA   SE Uitvlug Annex

7244   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     AB   E Die Kop, S Uitvlug.

7245   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     AB   do. above, E

7246   mutica                                                                      3420     AC   Verbrandskloof

7247   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3419     BD  0.5km NE Napier

7248   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     DB  N, Infanta

7249   mirabilis/maraisii                                                       3420     DB  N, Infanta

7250   maraisii/heidelbergensis                                            3420     BC   Uitrus (Whisky Creek)

7251   mirabilis                                                                   3420     BC   Sandhoogte, DeHoop

7252   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AA   NE Klipfontein

7253   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AA   N Klipfontein

7254   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AA   NW Noukloof Homestead

7255   elizeae                                                                     3420     AA   28km E Riviersonderend

7257   maraisii                                                                    3420     AA   SW Stormsvlei homestead

7258   minima                                                                     3420     BC   Uitrus (Whisky Creek)

7259   mirabilis                                                                   3419     BD  Napier Stn

7260   mirabilis                                                                   3419     BD  S Mierkraal, Napier

7261   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AC   NW Bredasdorp

7262   mirabilis                                                                   3420     BA   Ouplaas, SE Greyton

7263   maraisii                                                                    3319     DC  Droerivierberg B

7264   maraisii                                                                    3319     DC  Droerivierberg A

7265   maraisii                                                                    3319     DC  Haumanskloof

7266   pubescens var livida                                                 3319     CD  E Lemoenpoort S

7268   herbacea                                                                  3319     CD  E Lemoenpoort S

7269   maraisii v meiringii                                                    3320     CC   Edendale, Bonnievale

7270   maculata                                                                  3319     CD  Ouhoek Mt Moddergat

7271   maculata                                                                  3319     CB   N Kwaggaskloof Dam

7273   herbacea                                                                  3319     CD  Draaivlei Kop

7280   mirabilis                                                                   3419     BD  N Mierkraal Napier

7283   mirabiis var                                                              3420     AC   W Adoonskop

7285   mirabiis var                                                              3420     AC   N Brakkloof

7287   mirabiis var                                                              3420     AC   SW Adoonskop roadside

7288   mirabilis var                                                              3419     BC   N Diepkloof, Oudebakh.

7295   mirabilis var                                                              3419     BC   N Diepkloof, Oudebakh.

7299   rossouwii                                                                 3420     AC   NW Soutkloof

7325   maraisii                                                                    3320     CC   Laastewater

7327   maraisii                                                                    3320     CC   4km E Bonnievale

7334   maraisii                                                                    3420     CA   4km NE Bredasdorp

7337   heidelbergensis var scabra                                        3420     BC   SE Brakfontein

7356   mirabilis var                                                              3420     BC   NE Buffelsfontein

7376   decipiens                                                                                    Scholzkloof PAlb.

7376   marumiana var viridis                                                                 Scholzkloof PAlb

7377   viscosa                                                                                       Scholzkloof PAlb

7382  nortieri ‘devriesii’                                                                          N Prince Albert

7383   viscosa                                                                                       Syferfontein PAlb.

7386   nigra                                                                                           Toekomst BWest

7417   floribunda/choracantha                                             3422     BD  Melkhoutfontein

7419   venosa subsp granulate                                            3421     BA   Die Eiland, Gouritz

7420   chloracantha                                                             3421     BA   Die Eiland, Gouritz

7425   chloracantha                                                             3422     AA   Wolwedans Dam

7453   marginataXminima                                                                       NE Bredasdorp

7485   herbacea                                                                  3319     DC  Droogerivierberg

7486   cooperi var pilifera                                                                       Vyeboomfontein, Kaboega

7487   floribunda                                                                3420     BC   Byneskop, Potberg

7488   minima                                                                     3420     BC   Byneskop, Potberg

7482   floribunda                                                                3420     BC   SE Klipfontein, Potberg

7494   floribunda                                                                3420     BC   +SE Klipfontein

7495   floribunda                                                                3420     BC   Matjieskloof, Potberg

7496   maraisii cf atrofusca                                                 3420     BC   Matjieskloof, Potberg

7497   floribunda                                                                3420     BC   SE Kleinberg

7499   floribunda/heidelbergensis                                        3420     BC   Juliesfontein, Potberg

7500   mirabilis/mutica                                                        3420     AD  Die Kop, Wydgelee

7502   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AD  W Die Kop

7503   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AD  Mid Die Kop

7504   mirabilis                                                                   3420     AD  N Die Kop

7507   pygmaea ‘fusca’                                                       3220     AD  Paulsfontein Albertinia

7508   pygmaea ‘dekenahii’                                                 3421     BA   Draaihoek

7509   floribunda                                                                3421     BA   Draaihoek

7510   maraisii                                                                                       NE Bredasdorp

7511   variegata                                                                  3421     BA   Swartklip, Albertinia

7512   turgida                                                                     3421     BA   Draaihoek

7513   maraisii                                                                                       Klippoort,N Bromberg

7514   mirabilis ‘pilosa’                                                        3420     AD  Stoffelsrivier, S Malgas

7515   variegata                                                                  3420     AD  Stoffelsrivier

7516   maraisii/floribunda                                                    3420     AD  W Kleinberg, Malgas

7518   variegata                                                                  3420     AD  S Kleinberg

7519   minima                                                                     3420     AD  S Kleinberg

7520   mirabilis ‘pilosa’                                                        3420     AD  NW7514

7522   nortieri                                                                                        Arizona, Vanrhynsdorp

7523   nortieri                                                                                        Nawelskloof, Gifberg

7524   nortieri                                                                                        Spotzkop, Vlanwilliam

7525   nortieri                                                                                        17km S Clanwilliam

7526   maculata                                                                                     Western Die nekkies

7577   arachnoidea                                                                                Nuweplaas, Nieuwoudtville.

7578   nortieri                                                                                        Nuweplaas, Nieuwoudtville

7579   nortieri                                                                                        Trawal Bridge

7580   nortieri                                                                                        Bakkamerfontein, Cedarberg

7586   transiens/cooperi                                                                         Kliprivier, Uniondale

7593   aristata                                                                                        De Plaat t.o. Kaboega

7594   nortieri ‘albispina’                                                                         Koup

7595   nortieri                                                                                        N Dwarsrivier, Cedarberg

7597   nortieri                                                                                        Kunye, Citrusdal

7599   nortieri                                                                                        S Kunye

7604   minima                                                                                        NW Bredasdorp

7605   mirabilis                                                                                      NW Bredasdorp

7608   mirabilis ‘pilosa’                                                                           Melkhoutrivier, Malgas.

7609   mirabilis ‘pilosa’                                                                           Melkhoutrivier, Malgas

7612   mirabilis                                                                                      Diamant, Swellendam

7615   mirabilis                                                                                      Aalwee, Malgas

7622   maraisii                                                                                       Bergendal, E Ashton

7623   maraisii                                                                                       Sarahrivier, E Ashton

7626   mirabilis                                                                                      Diamant E 7612

7633   mirabilis                                                                                      Luiperdsberg, Swellendam

7634   cooperi cf cymbiformis                                                                Glen Avon falls S East.

7635   sordida                                                                                       Zwartkop, Kaboega

7636   cooperi cf cymbiformis                                                                N Zwartkop, Kaboega

7640   venosa subsp granulata                                                               Oskopvlakte, E Laingsburg

7641   viscosa                                                                                       Blokhuis, E Laingsburg

7642   wittebergensis                                                                             Ezelfontein, Laingsburg

7644   arachnoidea                                                                                Bakoven

7646   arachnoidea                                                                                Bizaansgat

7658   arachnoidea                                                                                SW Perdekraal

7659   venosa subspgranulata                                                                Bantamsfontein

7660   arachnoidea                                                                                Bantamsfontein

7666   arachnoidea                                                                                Patatsrivier

7670   arachnoidea                                                                                Keurkloof, Matjedfontein

7671   arachnoidea                                                                                Bulhouer, Matjesfontein

7672   arachnoidea                                                                                NW farmhouse do

7673   arachnoidea                                                                                N Bulhouer.

7676   arachnoidea                                                                                N Bulhouer/S Dwarsindieweg

7677   arachnoidea                                                                                S Dwarsindieweg

7678   arachnoidea                                                                                SW Josefskraal

7679   arachnoidea                                                                                Lospersberg, Laingsburg

7681   marumiana ‘archeri’                                                                      Lospersberg

7686   arachnoidea                                                                                NE Dwarsindieweg

7688   arachnoidea                                                                                Klein Tafelberg, N Dwarsindieweg.

7692   nortieri ‘pehlemanniae’                                                                Volstruisfontein, n Matjesfontein

7693   arachnoidea                                                                                Volstruisfontein

7695   glauca                                                                                         SE Darlington Dam/Kirkwood.

7698   aristata                                                                                        1km E Buffelsnek, Kaboega

7700   glauca                                                                                         Above Kaboega farmhse

7701   cooperi’puberula’                                                                         Above Klipfontein farmhse

7703   aristata                                                                                        1km N Zwartkop, Kaboega

4. J.D.Venter numbers for MBB accessions:-

│ 86/68   2551  │  96/55   6542  │  97/48   6682│

│ 87/51   3670  │  96/57   6554  │  97/50   6684│

│ 87/56   2011  │  96/58   6552  │  97/51   6685│

│ 87/57   2373  │  96/59   6555  │  97/52   6686│

│ 87/58   2356  │  96/60   6557  │  97/53   6683│

│ 87/59   2038  │  96/61   6561  │  97/58   6691│

│ 87/62   5209  │  96/62   6559  │  97/59   6692│

│ 87/65   2347  │  96/63   6559  │  97/78   6720│

│ 87/66   2457  │  96/64   6563  │  97/79   6714│

│ 87/72   1247  │  96/65   6563  │  97/80   6710│

│ 87/73   2579  │  96/66   6567  │  97/81   6711│

│ 87/74   3363  │  96/67   6570  │  97/82   6712│

│ 87/78   1119  │  96/68   6572  │  97/83   6713│

│ 87/81   2070  │  96/69   6571  │  97/84   6694│

│ 87/85   2052  │  96/70   6573  │  97/85   6702│

│ 87/90   2092  │  96/71   6580  │  97/86   6696│

│ 87/104  2556 │  96/72   6583  │  97/87   6696│

│ 87/109  5620 │  96/73   6584  │  97/88   6698│

│ 87/131  2292 │  96/74   6584a│  97/89   6697│

│ 87/133  2261 │  96/76   6588  │  97/90   6693│

│ 93/31   2292  │  96/77   6590  │  97/91   6703│

│ 94/75   2292  │  96/78   6591  │  97/92   6704│

│ 96/6    6505   │  96/79   6592  │  97/93   6705│

│ 96/7    6506   │  97/22   6624  │  97/94   6706│

│ 96/8    6509   │  97/24   6632  │  97/95   6723│

│ 96/9    6510   │  97/25   6630  │  97/129  6741│

│ 96/15   6516  │  97/26   6641  │  97/130  6740│

│ 96/16   6536  │  97/30   6668  │  97/144  6757│

│ 96/17   6513  │  97/31   6661  │  97/151  6758│

│ 96/18   6533  │  97/32   6660  │  97/152  6761│

│ 96/19   6521  │  97/33   6655  │  97/153  6760│

│ 96/20   6518  │  97/33   6656  │  97/154  6764│

│ 96/21   6528  │  97/33   6657  │  97/155  6774│

│ 96/22   6527  │  97/34   6658  │  97/156  6775│

│ 96/23   6519  │  97/35   6663  │  97/157  6772│

│ 96/24   6520  │  97/36   6649  │  97/158  6773│

│ 96/25   6534  │  97/37   6659  │  97/159  6768│

│ 96/27   6512  │  97/38   6670  │  97/160  6769│

│ 96/49   6539  │  97/39   6667  │  97/161  6770│

│ 96/50   6537  │  97/42   6648  │  97/162  6771│

│ 96/51   6541  │  97/43   6646  │  97/163  6776│

│ 96/52   6546  │  97/45   6673  │  97/164  6778│

│ 96/53   6544  │  97/46   6680  │                       │

│ 96/54   6545  │  97/47   6681  │                       │

4. JDV numbers against MBB nos.

│ 86/68   2551  │  96/55   6542  │  97/48   6682│

│ 87/51   3670  │  96/57   6554  │  97/50   6684│

│ 87/56   2011  │  96/58   6552  │  97/51   6685│

│ 87/57   2373  │  96/59   6555  │  97/52   6686│

│ 87/58   2356  │  96/60   6557  │  97/53   6683│

│ 87/59   2038  │  96/61   6561  │  97/58   6691│

│ 87/62   5209  │  96/62   6559  │  97/59   6692│

│ 87/65   2347  │  96/63   6559  │  97/78   6720│

│ 87/66   2457  │  96/64   6563  │  97/79   6714│

│ 87/72   1247  │  96/65   6563  │  97/80   6710│

│ 87/73   2579  │  96/66   6567  │  97/81   6711│

│ 87/74   3363  │  96/67   6570  │  97/82   6712│

│ 87/78   1119  │  96/68   6572  │  97/83   6713│

│ 87/81   2070  │  96/69   6571  │  97/84   6694│

│ 87/85   2052  │  96/70   6573  │  97/85   6702│

│ 87/90   2092  │  96/71   6580  │  97/86   6696│

│ 87/104  2556  │  96/72   6583  │  97/87   6696│

│ 87/109  5620  │  96/73   6584  │  97/88   6698│

│ 87/131  2292  │  96/74   6584a │  97/89   6697│

│ 87/133  2261  │  96/76   6588  │  97/90   6693│

│ 93/31   2292  │  96/77   6590  │  97/91   6703│

│ 94/75   2292  │  96/78   6591  │  97/92   6704│

│ 96/6    6505  │  96/79   6592  │  97/93   6705│

│ 96/7    6506  │  97/22   6624  │  97/94   6706│

│ 96/8    6509  │  97/24   6632  │  97/95   6723│

│ 96/9    6510  │  97/25   6630  │  97/129  6741│

│ 96/15   6516  │  97/26   6641  │  97/130  6740│

│ 96/16   6536  │  97/30   6668  │  97/144  6757│

│ 96/17   6513  │  97/31   6661  │  97/151  6758│

│ 96/18   6533  │  97/32   6660  │  97/152  6761│

│ 96/19   6521  │  97/33   6655  │  97/153  6760│

│ 96/20   6518  │  97/33   6656  │  97/154  6764│

│ 96/21   6528  │  97/33   6657  │  97/155  6774│

│ 96/22   6527  │  97/34   6658  │  97/156  6775│

│ 96/23   6519  │  97/35   6663  │  97/157  6772│

│ 96/24   6520  │  97/36   6649  │  97/158  6773│

│ 96/25   6534  │  97/37   6659  │  97/159  6768│

│ 96/27   6512  │  97/38   6670  │  97/160  6769│

│ 96/49   6539  │  97/39   6667  │  97/161  6770│

│ 96/50   6537  │  97/42   6648  │  97/162  6771│

│ 96/51   6541  │  97/43   6646  │  97/163  6776│

│ 96/52   6546  │  97/45   6673  │  97/164  6778│

│ 96/53   6544  │  97/46   6680  │              │

│ 96/54   6545  │  97/47   6681  │              │

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.

♦

This essay was published in Alsterworthia International Special Issue No. 4.

My fascination with Haworthia has presented me with many problems in the way the genera in the Alooideae have been discussed, appraised and modified in and subsequent to G.D. Rowley’s analysis (1967). Parr (1971) coalesced Astroloba, Haworthia and Poellnitzia and I refuted this in 1972 when I also wrote a rebuttal of Rowley’s paper. My remarks did not deter Mrs. Obermeyer-Mauve (1973) following and accepting Parr, nor in adding Chortolirion to Haworthia. Rowley (1976) quite pragmatically discussed the Aloid genera, but in 1980 suggested the incorporation of Poellnitzia in Aloe. He implemented this proposal in 1981 and promoted it again in 1985. Smith and van Wyk (1991) published a cladistic analysis of the Alooideae which I felt was unacceptable because of the fallacious character states and sets that were used there. Despite that paper and at least four others (Smith 1991, 1994, 1995; Smith & van Wyk 1992) generally supporting the uni-specific status of Poellnitzia, Manning and Smith (2000) incorporated the genus in Astroloba.

My objection to this manipulation of the genera is that the supporting arguments have been incorrect and that it essentially has not addressed or considered what I perceived to be the stumbling block to arriving at a better delimitation of the genera in the sub-family. This is the relationship within the genus Haworthia where it is quite evident to me that it comprises three distinct sets of species (the subgenera of Bayer ex Uitewaal). The floral and morphological differences for those three sets are absolute, and I am sure will need to be seen so in any way in which Aloe is configured. This is because the floral similarities within those subgenera are so minimal. I consider these floral differences to be as dramatic for genus delimitation as any of the character states covered in Rowley’s (1967) analysis. It would alarm me if the result of a DNA study produced any other result. The sets also appear to me to “behaviourally” different and with this consideration the genera (even if unispecific) Poellnitzia, Chortolirion, Astroloba are of similar status. This is not to imply that I do not recognise the problems with many other oddities in the Alooideae which require re-evaluation of the generic arrangement.

Adam Harrower of NBI asked me to identify an Haworthia he had collected near the Potberg (cf. H. heidelbergensis). In view of his interest I asked him to lookout for H. limifolia on a trip he was to undertake to the eastern Transvaal. On his return he presented to me a plant he took to be that species. It was in fact Chortolirion angolense. However, he produced photographs of another species at which I exclaimed “This is a new genus”, but probably a Chortolirion. Here I recognise the irony of this reaction when the generic arrangement in Aloe is so questionable.

The plant that Harrower collected has thin slender spineless hyacynthoid leaves (fig.1) with very pronounced bulbous bases. There seem to be few accumulated dry bulb scales as in Chortolirion and the plants have not displayed deciduousness as does that species. The older leaves blades dehisce leaving fleshy bulbous base and these are spirally arranged in the lowest order of the Fabonacci series viz. 2, 3 or 5 (fig.2). The roots seem rather sparse and are the yellowish colour of Aloe. The flower intrigues me more (figs 3 & 4). The free terminal portions of the flower are not channeled but are flared in the style of the sub-genus Haworthia. The midribs of the inner petals remain exposed and the margins of the outer petals adhere close to the mid-rib of the inner. This is the case in the subgenus Hexangulares and  Chortolirion, as well as in this “new genus”. The lower petals are more undershot than is the case in either the Hexangulares or subgenus Haworthia.

The geographical location is the high-lying escarpment between the ranges of the species H. koelmanniorum and H. limifolia of the Haworthia subgenus Hexangulares.

Why I have stated so categorically that this is a “new genus”, is largely because of the historical maltreatment of the genera of Alooideae and the failure of students and commentators of Haworthia to exhibit any rational species concept. Such a concept appears to be missing for the genera as well. What has troubled me in recent times is the emerging belief that molecular study will provide the basis for a real and irrefutable phylogenetic classification. We have now a paper Phylogenic relationships in Asphodelaceae Taxon 52:193 (2003) by Treutlein et al, which will enable one to see to what extent these expectations are being met.

What strikes me immediately about the paper is firstly a statement in the abstract, and secondly the unfortunate selection of study material. The abstract summaries the results of the work done and this is: “The current taxonomic system does not reflect the phylogenetic affinities and relationships among the succulent genera Aloe, Chortolirion, Gasteria, Haworthia and Poellnitzia.” I find this extraordinary, as it has never occurred to me that it did, and I would have expected this sentence worded in such a way to form a key question to be answered by the study rather than as a conclusion. Similarly Treutlein’s closing paragraphs of his discussion should have been used as key questions to be answered by the study and not have been derived from it. One sentence reads “complete sampling … needed”.

The selection of material I take to be somewhat irresponsible given the past history of classification of the group and the literature. I would have expected some kind of predictive approach to the selection of material. The inclusion of unknown hybrids such as H. ryderiana, H. kewensis, and H. icosiphylla can tell us nothing. Ignorance of the actual taxonomic position of H. geraldii is similarly curious. The material is virtually entirely ex hortus and given my experience with identification; even voucher specimens are hardly likely give such material much credibility. I do think more thought and consideration should have been given to the species used in relation to the problems they present to their classification.

Putting these considerations aside, I would comment as follows on the results as presented primarily in Treutlein et al’s in fig 4. It does tell me what I had supposed i.e. subgenus Haworthia is very different from the other two subgenera of Haworthia. BUT H. geraldii (i.e. retusa) is grouped with H. attenuata and H. glauca and close to Gasteria! It is a result which does not make sense. The true H. geraldii is H. retusa and that is arguably an ecotype of H. turgida as much as it is a discrete species. We could indeed just be seeing ‑ in Treutlein’s own words ‑ a “gene tree”. Of course genes that can be sampled in the different types of DNA analysis are only another data set, and are not necessarily responsible for the morphology that we can see. Nevertheless it is equally true that, say; observed floral morphology may be the product of interplay of far more genetic material than those analyses entertain.

The inclusion of the unknown hybrids just introduces unnecessary tension or clutter or inaccuracies into the cladograms. H. kewensis and H. ryderiana may have parentage in subgenus Hexangulares or even Aloe, to explain their position in the cladogram. Astrowothia bicarinata/skinneri is the hybrid H. pumilaXA. corrugata (muricata!) so it is not surprising that it comes out with A. corrugata.

What is significant is that Chortolirion comes out with the grass Aloes, thus showing that the Hexangulares flower may be homoplasious (i.e. having evolved more than once). It would surprise me for a structure as complex as the flower to be so. Please note that Treutlein is wrong in saying Uitewaal divided Haworthia into two groups and that the “former including the subg. Haworthia and subgenus Robustipedunculares“. Uitewaal divided the group Hexangulares into Gracilipedunculatae and Robustipedunculatae. The way this is has been repeated in the closing paragraph of Uitewaal’s paper has confounded Treutlein, who goes on to say “This division is strongly supported by…”. This is not true.  He has no Robustipedunculares in his analysis apart from the DNA (cytoplasmic) in the hybrid Astroworthia. It is thus not surprising that comes out in the “heterogenous group” that includes Aloe aristata, Gasteria, Poellnitzia, Astroloba and, in a slightly wider group, H. retusa (“geraldii“, where its position here is very dubious).

Dr. Manning (personal communication) feels that the results vindicate the treatment he and Smith gave Poellnitzia. I must state that he is quite correct on the point of bird pollination and it has been shown that sunbirds do pollinate (some) Microloma species. But I cannot agree that Poellnitzia is unequivocally Astroloba. In Treutlein’s fig.3, Poellnitzia could be with either Gasteria or Astroloba, with Aloe aristata as a wild card nearer to Astroloba than is Poellnitzia (one needs to look at distribution and variability of Aloe aristata to know that something is not kosher here). In fig.4 Poellnitzia collapses below Astroloba as does Aloe aristata and the cladogram shows no “bootstrap values” to substantiate an opinion. Would one argue that Aloe aristata then also belongs in Astroloba?

As there is no member of the Robustipedunculares in the analysis and one can only wonder what a better species representation would have done to the cladogram. It is important that Chorolirion is seen to group with the “grass” aloes. The flower is definitely Hexangulareoid whereas the bulbous structure is replicated in Aloe buetneri as well as in a few of the “grass” aloes. My opinion regarding the Harrower “new genus” is that it is in fact discrete and introduces an entirely new dimension to the discussion.

Something should also be said about cladograms. The binomial system is essentially built on the concept of dichotomous branching. The fact of the matter is that in any two-dimensional cladogram which is used to depict relationships, the one axis will represent time and the other two-dimensional space. If one considers that species, like any other phenomenon in creation, are spread in space (they change with time), a two-dimensional diagram is very restricting and will lead, for example, to statements such as “Poellnitzia is nested in Astroloba. To think that a statistical bootstrap value will give a true measure of that distance in a two-dimensional array may be wishful thinking.

After seeing this Treutlein paper I am happier with the way in which the existing classification meets my needs for identification and communication and I do not think the word “merely” used by Treutlein in this connection is appropriate. Whatever high-grounded attitudes now seem to prevail that DNA studies give a new and correct dimension to phylogeny as the intent of classification, my contention is that this has always been the aim even in the most simplistic morphological studies. Classification is a prime function in zoology as well and there has never been any doubt that phylogeny was the prime aim of the classification. The only reason it seems to be obscure in botany is the absence of good archaeological or fossil evidence and the problem of determining homologies in a muscle and nerve free organelle.

Dr. Manning kindly made this comment among others which I may not be doing justice to:

“Clearly there are just two alternatives IF one wants to define genera in phylogenetic terms: lump everything into Aloe or split Aloe up into several other genera, each corresponding to one of the monophyletic branches that are revealed by the analysis. The latter treatment is confounded by a) incomplete sampling within Aloe and b) probable lack of good characters by which these segregate genera could be recognised”.

I would have omitted “within Aloe“.

Treutlein et al make another statement … “The further the status quo departs from reality, the more difficult it will be to integrate practice and theory.” This seems to be a twist of words. I think it should read … “The further theory departs from practise the more difficult it will be to integrate the status quo with reality?”  Again that is the problem that should have been addressed in the preliminary approach to the study. The status quo by definition cannot depart from anything.

To close, I need to say something about definitions. I have already made several statements about the absence of definition at species level, where I still find resistance among students of Haworthia (if not wider). It is simply a fact that classification is a process of specifying so that one can generalise about a set of some kind. In dealing with Haworthia, I experience the group as three sets, and as stated above, these sets relate to the present classification as I have already described. The current generic classification expresses the experience of collective experience of all previous writers and researchers in the field.  It has an historic value and an embedded “truth” of some kind; or, if the classification process has credibility, it should have and it should be respected accordingly. The definition of genus quite obviously has to be linked to that of species – systems of species which can be shown to be related sets in respect of morphology (physiology), genetics and geographical considerations. I contend that this has always been an unspoken aim and intent of classification and it is wrong to suggest now that it is absent from existing classifications. In my experience it is/was always seen to be the ideal that classification should reflect phylogeny. In doing so it would also reflect morphological/physiological, genetic and behavioural characters that lead to understanding. This is what I wrote in Asklepios 77:6 (1999) … “understanding of what it really means to be human”. If we are pursuing knowledge for any other purpose it may be that we are on an ego-trip. To maintain that floral structure is very limiting in the way it has largely driven classification is correct to a degree. I think it is wrong to make the implication that floral structure is driven by less characters than, say, those nucleotide sequences of the Treutlein analysis.

Touching on the “behaviour” aspect ‑ I think Poellnitzia is unique. The Robustipedunculares and Astroloba possibly could not maintain their integrity in each others’ company viz. hybridisation between members where they co‑occur. They complement each other geographically. Hexangulares maintains integrity wherever and with whatever it grows except with its own members. Subgenus Haworthia similarly always maintains integrity except with own members and presents a degree of plasticity far greater than any complementary set. Poellnitzia maintains its own integrity and is extraordinarily invariable in the close company of Gasteria, Robustipedunculares, and subg. Haworthia. Hexangulares and Robustipedunculares occupy quite different territories and virtually do not meet at all.

Acknowledgement
Dr. J.C. Manning, Compton Herbarium, Kirstenbosch responded in very kind manner to my criticisms in Bayer 2003, and was most helpful in obtaining hard-copy of the Treutlein publication, as well as in interpreting the DNA methodology for me for the purposes of this paper. In having written this, I do not dispute his need for a pure phylogenetic model. I am simply trying to put a case based on my practical experience and knowledge of the plants concerned, hoping that the two poles will eventually meet in a functional way. Paul Forster of the Queensland Herbarium and Steve Hammer of California were kind enough to comment on, and edit, drafts of this article.

Literature cited

• Bayer, M.B.  (1999).  Is classification science or art.  Asklepios 77:3. [link]
• Bayer, M.B. (1972).  Re-instatement of the genera Astroloba and Poellnitzia.  Natl.Cact.Succ.J. 27:77. [link]
• Bayer, M.B. (2003).  Classification with purpose.  Alsterworthia Special issue 3:5.
• Manning, J.C. & Smith, G.F.S. (2000) Asphodelaceae: Alooideae. The genus Poellnitzia included in Astroloba. Bothalia 30:53.
• Obermeyer-Mauve, A.A. (1973).  Liliaceae, Aloe, Chamaealoe, Haworthia, Astroloba, Poellnitzia and Chortolirion.  Bothalia 11:119.
• Parr, C.J. (1971).  Revision of the genus Astroloba.  Bull.Afr. Succ.Plant Soc. 6:145.
• Rowley, G.D. (1967).  A numerical survey of the genera of Aloineae.  Natl.Cact.Succ.J. 22:71.
• Rowley, G.D. (1976).  Generic Concepts in the Aloineae. Part 1.  Natl.Cact.Succ.J. 31:26.
• Rowley, G.D. (1981).  Re-name that succulent.  Cact.Succ.J.Gt.Brit. 43:2.
• Rowley, G.D. (1985).  The Haworthia drawings of J.T. Bates.  The Succulent Plant Trust, Essex.
• Smith, G.F.S. (1991).  Generic relationships in the Alooideae (Asphodelaceae).  Taxon 40:557.
• Smith, G.F.S. (1994). Taxonomic history of Poellnitzia Uitew., a unispecific genus of Alooideae (Asphodelaceae).  Hazeltonia 2:74.
• Smith, G.F.S. (1995). FSA contributions 3: Asphodelaceae/Aloaceae, 1028010 Poellntzia.  Bothalia 25:35.
• Smith, G.F.S. & van Wyk, A.E. (1992). Pollen morphology of the monotypic genus Poellnitzia rubriflora (Alooidea: Ashodelaceae).  S.Afr.J.Bot. 58:90.
• Treutlein, J., Smith, G.F.S., van Wyk, B.E. & Wink, W. (2003). Phylogenetic relationships in Asphodelaceae (Alooideae) inferred from chloroplast DNA sequences (rbcl, matK) and from genomic finger-printing (ISSR). Taxon 52:193.

Addendum: Since the above was written, I have seen a copy of a second paper by Treutlein et al (2003). They make three observations to which I must draw attention.

1. “An exception in the current classification was found with the sister species H. geraldii and H. gracilis var. tenera: genetically they belong to group ll, whereas morphologically they show affinities to the subgenus Haworthia (represented by group 1).”
2. “H. geraldii and H. gracilis var. tenera are sister species according to rbcL (fig.1A) and matK (fig.fig.1B). Contrary to their previous morphological classification (Bayer, 1999), they are clearly grouped in Haworthia subgenus Hexangulares by both molecular markers.”
3. “… the taxonomy of the genus Haworthia must be revisited. More species of both groups need to be examined to determine their phylogenetic relationships before taxonomic consequences should be drawn.”

It has been disconcerting for me to conclude from past experience that perhaps botanists in other disciplines are not fully aware just what it is that taxonomists do, and the constraints that taxonomists work under. Another observation is that there are botanists who move between disciplines and thus do not have a firm foot in the taxonomic camp. This seems to result in decisions that may be thought to be relevant and correct but yet are incongruent from the purely taxonomic viewpoint.

It is stated quite clearly in most of my writing, certainly so where I have been at pains to explain my requirement for “species”, that my classification is barely morphological. It is clearly so in terms of the subgenera but not for the “species”. In my revision of 1999, I particularly stressed the “geographic component”. Thus for Treutlein et al to suggest that my classification is primarily a morphological one has no relation to my writing at all. The writers have not addressed my classification in respect of my approach, which has so often been explained. I have pointedly tried to analyze Haworthia as a system of integrated populations that is almost impossible to separate into discrete entities on morphological rounds. The very absence of morphological criteria and character is what motivated me to explore Oxalis where there is such character (see Bayer in Herbertia 48, 1992) and so validate my decision-making criteria. Perhaps the authors have never themselves addressed complex living systems and neither do they appreciate that there are taxonomists who have perforce had to do so. I have said elsewhere, there is a lack of discrimination between good and bad taxonomy because there is no definition and no standard.

The question of the subgeneric relationships of H. geraldii and H. gracilis var. tenera are concerned is a fundamental issue. If either of these had been considered and reviewed as taxa, it would have been quite evident that the conclusion Treutlein et al reach with such felicity is impossible. The taxon “geraldii” has been discussed many a time. Further discussion gives credibility to the recognition of local variants as full species, which is wholly misplaced. In the case of H. gracilis var. tenera, the writers can be excused for overlooking the discussion of this taxon in my book Haworthia Update Vol.1 (2002) or in Ecotypes in Haworthia (Aloe ca 2002). In the latter paper I explain why the species “gracilis” and all its varieties are transferred to H. cooperi. This was affected in Haworthiad 16:62 (2002). It is further evident to any reader that the two taxa “tenera” and “gracilis” cannot be excised from the subgenus Haworthia by any stratagem at all. That the term “sister species” is used, wholly disregards anything that I have written in respect of “species” concept for Haworthia. No matter how the subgenus Haworthia is manipulated these two taxa are elements in quite different sub-domains. Writers in the technical literature may claim that the popular literature where I mostly write is outside of formal science. IF they do so, then they must surely ensure that the academic and intellectual rationalisation and conclusions are acceptable and true even at that low level.

The Treutlein et al. paper brings to an end an era of faint hope that truth and sensibility would prevail. It is not the taxonomy of Haworthia that must be re-visited but to common sense that we should return. Botanists who do involve themselves with Haworthia should recognise the appalling state of affairs that has been introduced in the guise of science.

Treutlein, J., Smith, G.F.S., van Wyk, B.E. & Wink, W. (2003).  Evidence for the polyphyly of Haworthia (Asphodelaceae Subfamily Alooideae; Asparagales) Inferred from nucleotide sequences of rbcL, matK, ITS1 and genomic fingerprinting with ISSR-PCR. Plant. Biol.5:513-521 (2003) ♦

This essay was published in Alsterworthia International in a special issue No.3, June 2003.

This is a two-part essay. The first is to discuss a problem in the small Madagascan Aloe species, and the second to discuss Poellnitzia. The latter is now be listed in the genera of Southern African plants as Astroloba rubriflora. I think it is necessary to point out that while this may now be perceived to be ‘authoritative’, the taxonomic treatments are in fact not so.

A. The small Madagascan aloes: In my pursuit of a communication framework for Haworthia, I have experienced many problems. Not least, is the response I get from botanists. From this experience I thus find the article in Taxon authored by no less than four botanists, really most instructive. The article (Taxon 44:513, 1995) deals with the differences within the genus Aloe and the re-instatement and transfers by P.V. Heath of some of the Madagascan species (A. haworthioides, A. boiteaui and A. parvula to Lemeea, and A. bakeri, A. bellatula, A. calcairophylla, A. descoingsii and A. rauhii to Guillauminia together with A. albiflora.) As will be shown below, the information that Heath’s ‘classification’ either provides or obscures is virtually nil, and the reversion restores a heterogeneity which also says very little. The Taxon 5‑page article starts the discussion with a textbook quotation from Jeffrey (1968): “There is no single criterion which by itself can be regarded as unfailing for recognising a genus. For practical purposes the genus should be regarded as an inclusive category whose species have more characteristics in common with each other than with species of other genera of the same family. There should be a clear morphological break between the members of the particular genus and the members of other related genera. Past and current practise are also important, since a major change in classification and naming can create communication problems and result in loss of information.”  If one considers that Taxon is a prestigious scientific journal, this quote is surely unnecessary as the Asphodeloid genera have defied logic since Linnaean times.

Smith et al claim to have undertaken an investigation of Aloe to show that it is polymorphic. The basis of any genus is polymorphism. The evidence of the investigation is firstly, a table listing the ‘characters’ used by Lemee to distinguish Aloinella (= Heath’s Lemeea), against Aloe species which are suggested by Smith et al to have the same “characters”. Secondly, is a similar table juxtaposing Guillauminia with Aloe species which suggestively also have the same “characters”.

Why I have put “characters” in inverted commas is because it is well known in classification, that recognition of categories may be intuitive rather than rational. I claim that this is the case here as well, and that the analyses made by Smith et al are just fallacious. Even were the facts of “character” true, it would still be a fairly pointless exercise to try and simplify a multivariate state the way they do.

To illustrate this:-  Take Lemeea in Table 1 in the Taxon article:

1. Rosette small and dense. Smith et al cite A. aristata and A. humilis as having such rosettes as well, but Haworthia also has species which have small dense rosettes. The fact is that these small dense rosettes can readily be seen to be different, and recognition of species and even genera can be made on the basis of seeing only those rosettes. So an informed observer can distinguish many of the species on the basis of the rosettes only. This is in contradiction to a situation where experienced herbarium workers have confused members of wholly different genera e.g. Aloe aristata and Haworthia, H. pumila (maxima) and H. limifolia, Aloe humilis and Haworthia, Haworthia venosa and Astroloba muricata (aspera/rugosa/corrugata).
2. Leaves narrowly linear. Smith et al cite Sect. Graminaloe. This is another misleading comparison. Any average observer in Aloe can recognise that section on the basis of its leaves. To suggest that one could not separate any of these Graminaloe from the small aloes in the group proposed by Heath on the basis of leaf character is an indictment of the skills of ordinary people.
3. Pedicels negligible. Chortolirion too, has a negligible pedicel as do several species of the sub‑genus Haworthia. But A. bowieae too is cited, and it could be claimed that, as Chamaealoe, it communicated something which is lost when it is treated as Aloe.
4. Filaments broad. No comment by Smith et al. Aloe haworthioides has the most remarkable filament structure and the broad upper part of the filaments can be mistaken for petals and an extended perianth tube. In fact it is quite ironic, and likely, that the same experienced amateurs who can see differences in the rosettes which Smith et al cannot, may mistake the filaments for petals. These filaments cannot emerge from the tube before the flower opens. To suggest that this condition in A. haworthioides is the same as the extended filaments in say Aloe ferox where both anthers and stigma are presented to pollinators outside of the tube, is misleading.
5. Anthers exserted. Many aloes do indeed have exserted filaments and it is hardly necessary to cite something as spectacularly different as the huge-stemmed A. ferox in a discussion of plants with small compact rosettes.
6. Ovary acute. This is cited as erroneous, but there is so little evidence anywhere for the shape of ovary, style and stigma in Aloe species, that this character is hardly worth noting.

Now take Fig.2 for Guillauminia of Bertrand:

1. Inflorescence lax. Smith et al would have to give a very precise definition of this term and say exactly how they would use it in this particular context. In Haworthia there are inflorescences which can be described as sparse and lax, and inflorescences which can be described as dense and firm (sometimes within the same species!). Hardly any of them are quite as firm as is the case in A. tenuior for example ‑ which has a variant on the Zuurberg having a lax inflorescence compared with its more robust relatives on the karoid plains where the inflorescence could by comparison be described as firm.
2. Perianth segments free. Smith et al cite A. myriacantha and A. albida. The actual situation is one which does not seem to have been explored in the genus Aloe, nor in related genera. The flower in the Aloaceae comprises three outer tepals and three inner. There are many different states within these genera. The outer tepals may be free or partially free or form a separate tube; they may be fused to greater or lesser degree with the inner petals to form a more convincing tube. More to follow.
3. Anthers exserted. This is a fairly meaningless statement in view of the degree to which anthers are exserted or not exserted in the genera as a whole.

The facts thus are that these two tables are just a fallacious assembly of observations used by Smith et al to negate an unsubstantiated opinion put forward by Heath. They do not comprise a series of facts which face the scrutiny suggested by Smith et al, and which are therefore just as weak as the rationale for Heath’s genera.

Tables 3 and 4 of the Taxon article, which supposedly tabulate the “characters” of the species which Heath placed in Lemmea and Guillauminia are technically no stronger and have no more substance than the previous two tables.

Smith et al conclude… “The species transferred by Heath to either genus do not have any features that might even remotely warrant their segregation from Aloe“. It is really regrettable that this kind of a statement is a feature of taxonomy. It can be liked to Shakespeare’s “Me thinkest thou dost protest too much!”  It is obvious that there are characters which suggest difference of quite a major degree. If there were two more species that had those exserted flattened coloured filaments of A. haworthioides, they WOULD in all probability be taken to be a separate genus. The weakness of the protest is underscored by the next statement. Despite now claiming proof that the species can only be classified as Aloe, Smith et al go on to say “Should Heath’s views be followed, many more Aloe segregates deserve recognition”. It is a curious co-incidence that a paper by Forster in Bothalia 30:53 (2000) follows one in which Poellnitzia is included in Astroloba.  Forster writes of the “characters” by which species of Lomatophyllum are easily distinguished. In fact there are two characters and these are the fleshy fruit and wingless seed. Just how much difference there is between the fleshy fruit of Lomatophyllum and the said non-fleshy fruit of Aloe is, is conjectural. The fruit of Aloe is initially also fleshy. Winged versus winglessness is a character set which has not been explored within Aloe. Thus even Lomatophyllum, as genus or subgenus, rests on flimsy ground. What is disturbing is this feature of scientific writing. Forster cites the cladistic analysis of the Alooidae by Smith and Vanwyk published in Taxon 40:557 (1991) giving it a credibility which can be proven to be totally misplaced. That analysis rests on a set of characters which are just as fallacious as similar allusions I make in this paper.

Actually therefore the statement by Smith et al is the only substance in the entire 5‑page article by the four botanists which is of note. The article has actually demonstrated that classification is not science (as this writer has claimed it to be), and neither is it art. It is simply the arrangement of groups of plants in an ill‑defined way where they are said to be species related together in genera. It is done in a way in which we can communicate with one another about them in the hopes that we can make general statements about specific things.

My complaint now is that the papers by both Heath and Smith et al fiddle with the classification and nomenclature, without adding one iota of information to the subject. The facts are:

A. haworthioides and A. albiflora do in fact have characters which make them most unusual in the genus Aloe. There is no Aloe remotely like A. haworthioides which has the extraordinarily protruding flattened filaments. These form a reddish tube nearly as large and conspicuous as that of the perianth itself, which is almost hidden by the large floral bract. In the case of A. albiflora, the florets are widely campanulate and sparsely arranged on the slender peduncle. Reynolds placed 12 species together in his Group 1 of Madagascan Aloes and stated most plainly that they were not closely allied. Now Heath has ignored three of those 12 species and made two groups out of the disparate remnant. This is the problem that Smith et al should have addressed. The curious thing about this is that there appears to be a similarity between A. bellatula and A. perrieri (ignored and abandoned in Aloe by Heath, and not even considered by Smith et al), which in terms of variability could be extended to A. albiflora and perhaps further to A. parvula.  There is no such similarity between A. haworthioides, and A. bouteaui. A. descoingsii and A. calcairophylla do seem to have unique florets. There is nothing odd about the florets in A. rauhii or A. bakeri that could necessarily separate them from, A. versicolor and A. parallelifolia.

In my own observation of Aloe, which I have had to consider when trying to find solutions for Haworthia, I have been struck by the artificiality of the whole classification by Reynolds. Not for a moment do I suggest anybody else could have done it better, but it is in fact just an eye-balled solution. Looking at the Madagascan aloes, it seems to me that species like Aloe conifera and cryptoflora are probably synonymous. In the South African aloes, there is a problem with Aloe striatula. in which the floret is quite unique (the inversion of the arrangement of outer and inner tepals). This species is also oddly placed with species like A. ciliaris and A. tidmarshii in a Subsection and Series (categories which Reynolds abandoned for his second volume for the non-South African species).

In once trying to identify a small Graminaloe from McClear in the Transkei, I could not separate it from neither A. myriacantha nor A. albida. Reynolds in his first volume had a very restricted distribution for A. myriacantha, but in the second volume it is shown to have the second widest distribution after A. buetneri. Thus it is obvious to me that it is in fact synonymous with A. albida, and may include even A. minima and A. saundersiae (the question of actinomorphy vs zygomorphy intrudes here!).

The Smith et al comment, that if Heath was followed many more segregates would have to be re-instated or created, is irrelevant. It suggests that these authors could authoritatively identify such segregates, and from what they have done in Tables 1 and 2 only, I have to conclude that they could not. The issue is what benefit would there be.  Heath’s hypothesis, which is a flattering term, suggests affinities which are not there. The Smith et al annulment is appropriate, but poor in rationalisation.

An important issue is that of ‘characters’. The details of floral morphology are really not understood in the Aloaceae. This statement is underscored by the historical lack of attention that has been paid to the differences in the flowers of Haworthia and its three sub-genera, also of Astroloba and of Poellnitzia. In fact a recent treatment of Poellnitzia places it in Astroloba, which is so incongruous one has to ask why recognise genera in the Aloaceae? Several attempts have been undertaken to unravel the relationships of the genera and produce a structured phylogenetic tree (cladistics). None of these have considered the diversity within Aloe, nor the actual structure of the florets.

The quote from Jeffrey that Smith et al use, is probably useful at undergraduate level to suggest some kind of ideal. Why they have used it in this article in the Aloaceae where the genus Gasteria is probably the only genus which has more than 10 indisputably related species, is curious. My observation will be lost on the reader unless I state that subgenus Haworthia could be allied with the Graminialoe, the subgenus Hexangulares with Chortolirion, the subgenus Robustipedunculares with Astroloba, the genus Poellnitzia (now Astroloba) with Gasteria. Jeffrey’s requirements are no doubt met to some degree by these genera, but the genus Aloe is by far the greater body of species, which remains relatively intact by default rather than as a rational considered portrayal of morphological or genetic difference. As I would plead for Haworthia – do not make changes unless they contribute substantially to knowledge and understanding. Any changes should facilitate communication and make that communication meaningful. It may in fact be very useful to recognise some of those segregates of Smith et al which we are left to guess at. There are substantial segregates such as the group of Leptaloe and the maculate aloes. These could profitably be separated out simply to direct better attention to the extent of diversity in the family and the genera and make them more manageable.

The problem in Aloe may primarily be, one could suspect, because the revisionary work has been done by an amateur. This is G.W. Reynolds. No matter how much effort and diligence and intellectual skill has been applied, there is no way that the work can represent a real contribution to the essence of classification of biological systems. Smith et al are professional botanists and their observations here are no better directed. Reynolds, in his preface to The aloes of South Africa writes “The beginner will learn … ” and goes on to the superficial comment found in every popular work about mans ignorance, and the refusal of nature to conform with mans wish for precision. But neither he nor other botanists really seem to make much progress beyond the beginner stage. The fact is that a classification is for people to use. The vast assemblage of species in the single genus Aloe need to be teased out for practical purposes and the weak rationalisation described above is a blow to any hope of clarity. The fact is that a species may be “seen” to be different but there may be no “characters” by which the degree of difference can be demonstrated.

B. Poellnitzia rubriflora: A problem similar to that of Lemeea and Guillauminia, occurs with the genus Poellnitzia. This species P. rubriflora (L.Bolus) Uitewaal is a very distinctive species of plant which cannot be confused with any other. So it is really very curious that it has such a chequered taxonomic history. At least, this would be curious if this systematics and of its related genera and species had not suffered such cavalier and unbelievable treatment by botanists and would be botanists. Smith and Manning (Bothalia 11:53, 2000) now place P. rubriflora in Astroloba. They say … “Vegetatively the species shows close affinity to some species of Astroloba and accords completely with the genus in its tubular actinomorphic flowers with included stamens.”  This is in contrast to Rowley’s suggestion (in Smith, 1994) that Poellnitzia shared more characteristics with the genus Aloe than with Haworthia.  Or with Parr (Bull.Afr.Succ.Plant Soc., 1971) who placed Poellnitzia in Haworthia.

The facts are that Poellnitzia is similar to all seven Astroloba species in that the plants have the leaves carried on extended stems in clear 5-farious tiers. In any Haworthia which have such extended stems, the leaves are trifarious or multifarious. Trifarious and even 5-farious arrangements do occur in some stemless species but just as dictated by spiral phyllotaxis. Poellnitzia is characterised from Astroloba on the basis of a very waxy epidermis.

The statement about the accordance of the flowers is a most extraordinary statement. In Poellnitzia the perianth tube is apparently entire as the margins of the outer petals are fused to the mid-rib of the inner petals for their greater length. The midribs of the inner petals are clearly visible between the ‘margins’ of the outer as they are in Astroloba, as they are in two of the three Haworthia subgenera and as they are in Aloe. The most obvious similarity of the Poellnitzia flower is probably to that of Gasteria, except that the curvature of the tube is down as it is in Haworthia subgenus Haworthia, and opposed to up as in Gasteria.

This statement raises the question of actinomorphy. The flowers definitely are not actinomorphic in Astroloba – this is a persistent myth. There are always two distinguishable upper outer tepals and the single outer lower tepal. This is the same as in the Robustipedunculares of Haworthia. The Poellnitzia flower is only actinomorphic in a superficial sense and I would not call it so in an analytical and scientific sense. Just the curvature of the tube alone, denies any bilateral symmetry except in one plane. I frankly do not understand why this perception is so strongly held, but then I do not understand why formal botany has always treated the Liliaceae in such a cavalier way. The tepal tips may be actinomorphic but the tube is generally simply asymmetric and there is no way that one can bisect it in any plane but the vertical one. In Haworthia, and in most species of Alooidiae that I have examined, the upper inner petal overlaps the upper margins of both the lower petals. There is no similarity in the flower of Astroloba and Poellnitzia at all in the context of the smaller Aloid genera. On the other hand if flower structure is so important as to suggest one genus, what does one do with Aloe striatula, which must have a flower unique in the Aloaceae, if not in the Order. There is one upper outer tepal and two lower outer! – the flower is by the way, zygomorphic too. It needs to be seen what the arrangement is of the inner petals is to each other – they are truly turbiniform imbricate.

The authors close with a statement of pollination saying that Poellnitzia is pollinated by the Lesser Double-collared Sunbird. It is well known that Haworthia and Astroloba, with their whitish flowers, are also visited by the same Sunbird. The thrust of the Smith/Manning note is that a specialised pollination strategy is not sufficient grounds for separation of Poellnitzia as a genus. Thus the paper directly contradicts Smith, who in a 13-page article (Taxon 41:437, 1992) postulated Poellnitzia to have a mite-dominated pollination syndrome. It seems to have been then overlooked that the mites are possibly even more difficult to move between flowers than the smaller pollen grains. It is just curious logic, because a specialised pollination strategy surely implies any degree of associated structural adaptations relating to separation of even families. Smith in both that paper, and in S.Afr.J.Bot. 58,90, 1992, claimed either that Poellnitzia had a unique floral morphology or that “strong macromorphological evidence” separated it from other Aloid genera.  Obermeyer-Mauve (Bothalia 11:119, 1973) wrote a short paper on the small flowered Aloineae which is also quite erroneous (as evident in Bayer, Nat.Cact.Succ.J. 27:78, 1972, and refuted in Bayer, 1976). She tacitly supported a suggestion made by Parr (Bull.Afr.Succ.Plant Soc. 6:145, 1971) that Astroloba and Poellnitzia be included in Haworthia.  She fallaciously argued for the inclusion of Chortolirion in Haworthia as well.  Rowley (Cact.Succ.J.Gt.Br. 43,2, 1981) actually validated his proposal that Poellnitzia belonged in Aloe. Smith wrote another paper (Hazeltonia 2:74, 1994 – in which no less than 43 literature references, but excluding the text-book by Jeffrey, are cited) saying…”morphological differences … still readily serve to distinguish.” Poellnitzia, and that based on these it should form a distinct entity as a separate unispecific genus.

These articles by Smith et al, Smith and Manning, and Obermeyer-Mauve just demonstrate the ease with which the whole classification system can be disrupted, and the massive effort which is then required to restore a status quo. Neither protagonist is required to display any particular degree of expertise, and the botanist claims higher moral ground on the basis of science which has no more substance than that of religion. The actual unstated problem these botanists have is the embarrassment of monotypic (euphemistically now “unispecific”) genera. The word genus implies more than one anyway, and it would be more honest just to acknowledge the impracticality of unispecific genera, than parade a host of fallacious arguments to obscure them. The other even more unfortunate aspect is that all this fault-ridden argument passes over the heads of the unsuspecting community that is interested in the plants and wants to use the names. All that actually happens is that credibility becomes a very rare commodity in plant classification and nomenclature. If this is what professionals do, what can be expected from amateurs? The foundation is secured for the most uninformed and ignorant to parade as taxonomists – and they do.

The question of pollination comes into question because of the latest indignity. This is the transfer, described above, of the species to Astroloba by G.F. Smith and J.C. Manning published in Bothalia 30.1:53 (2000). There are many in congruencies in this half-page of text, and many more pages have to be filled to clarify this issue than should ever have been necessary.

The following claims are made in the Bothalia article:

1. “Vegetatively Poellnitzia shows…
   
   a. – close affinity to some species of Astroloba“. Experienced and skilled botanists have confused Astroloba and Haworthia (at the Pretoria herbarium Astroloba muricata was identified for Mrs. Bohnen as Haworthia venosa), and Aloe and Haworthia (in the Compton Herbarium there is a description by a very experienced botanist, of a new species Haworthia natalensis, attached to a specimen of Aloe aristata). P.V. Bruyns also brought me the first specimen of Haworthia pungens as an Astroloba. Many years ago I visited Miss Grace Britten at the Albany Museum and showed me a plant from the Longkloof. My reaction was “But that looks like Poellnitzia!” The discovery of Haworthia pungens demonstrates that there is this similarity of an Haworthia to Poellnitzia as well.
   
   b. – and “accords completely with the genus in its tubular actinomorphic flower with included stamens”.
   
   “Actinomorphic” and “zygomorphic” are terms used to distinguish structural differences in flowers. “Actinomorphic” means the flower is radially symmetrical and can be bisected into two equal symmetric halves in more than one plane. “Zygomrphic” means that the flower can only be so bisected in one plane – usually the vertical.  I have made this point for Haworthia and Astroloba before. The flowers in these genera are equally zygomorphic. There is no basic structural difference in respect of symmetry. What then is the case in Poellnitzia? The fact is that Poellnitzia has the zygomorphic floral structure of most of the Alooideae. There are two upper outer petals and one lower outer petal. There is one upper inner petal and two lower inner petals. The margins of the outer petals are fused to the midribs of the inner petals, but the lines of fusion are clearly visible on the outside of the tube so-formed. The raceme is borne horizontally and the individual flowers are borne secundly erect. Smith in Bothalia 25.1:35 (1995) has properly described this, and states that the upper-third of the tube is decurved. This is absolutely correct and also contributes to the fact that the flower cannot then be actinomorphic! If the flower is properly examined it can be seen that it is in fact zygomorphic. Only the tip of the flower with the connivent petals, is actinomorphic… see point 3.
   
   Curiously the zygomorphy of the white flowered Aloe albida is occasionally introduced as a red herring in the discussion of the classification of Haworthia. This zygomorphy is actually not in the least structurally different to that in the flower of many other Aloe species, including the four Reynold’s placed with A. albida in the Graminaloe and which he described as “regular” (actinomorphic!). The tube in A. albida is curved upward.
   
   
2. “A close relationship (between Poellnitzia and Astroloba) is supported by a preliminary survey of… aglycones in the roots of … Alooideae“.
   
   How close?  What is the position of Astroloba to the three Haworthia subgenera? Or to Chortolirion or Gasteria? This is not evidence as it is presented here.
   
   
3.  …”careful examination (sic!) of the flowers, shows that the aestivation is in fact imbricate and the species thus differs from Astroloba only in the more or less horizontal racemes…”.
   
   This is not what careful examination will show. Careful examination will show that in Astroloba the upper inner petal includes the two lower slightly revolute inner petals. For this reason alone the flower can never be actinomorphic. In Poellnitzia, the margins of the inner petals are separate for their entire length. Sectioning the tube at any point in its length will show asymmetry and the fact of zygomorphy as in Astroloba. The cross-section is that of an inverted triangle with the base shorter than the two sides. If the base of the flower is examined from the rear of the flower, the perigon can also seen to be slightly egg-shaped with the thin end of the “egg” below. The perigon is not round and thus cannot be actinomorphic. This is true for Astroloba, and also for Haworthia subgenus Robustipedunculares. To suggest that there is actinomorphic accord as described in point 1, is thus fallacious. Further, the stated similarity of tubular structure is absurd given the tubular nature of the flowers in the Alooidea generally.
   
   Rowley (1976) refers to my claim that “the flower in Astroloba is positively not actinomorphic”, writing that to say so is.. “to imply that no Aloineae at all are 100% actinomorphic”. I implied and stated no such thing. I explained the position with regard to structural symmetry or asymmetry as above. The only implication is that which the facts of structure have for the truth and practicality of classification. The fact that Aloe albiflora is actinomorphic (the flower is not even really tubular) is a problem of its own as is Poellnitzia and many other aloid oddities.
   
   
4. “These floral adaptations are now recognised as part of the syndrome of sunbird pollination…”
   
   The authors are getting to the point where they eventually will claim that Poellnitzia is best treated as a species of Astroloba adapted to pollination by sunbirds. The fact is that Smith and Manning fail to cite a long paper in Taxon 41:437 (1992) by Smith, where Smith virtually excludes birds as pollinators. A curious point too is that the Poellnitzia flower (like Microloma) in contrast to most Aloe, Gasteria and the general red-flowered, bird-pollinated species has secund (erect) flowers. The others have pendulous flowers. Is Aloe albida then just a anthophorine bee-pollinated Haworthia.
   
   
5. … “and the resemblance between the flowers of Poellnitzia and the bird-pollinated genus Microloma (Asclepiadaceae) is particularly striking”.
   
   This is a remarkable statement.  It is to my knowledge only Microloma tenuifolium which has a very bright shiny red flower, and it is not always this red. I would not personally in my wildest dreams have considered the flowers of these two genera from vastly different families as comparable even on the most careless examination. One could say that Microloma is best treated as belonging in the Alooidae because it is also adapted to pollination by sunbirds. But, worse. Is Microloma pollinated by birds?  The Asclepiads have a complicated pollination mechanism generally and most are insect pollinated. The flowers of Microloma sagittatum are not even red and the tube is not comparable to that of Poellnitzia. They are pinkish and even partly white. Microloma massonii has a small greenish brown obscure flower.
   
   
6. “In the wild the species is visited by Lesser Double Collared sunbirds…”
   
   This statement is followed by an unlikely description of how the birds insert their beaks and tongues into the flower. Smith gave a very comprehensive account of the possible pollination of Poellnitzia in his Taxon (1992) account where he concluded that bird pollination was improbable. In my own experience I have often seen Poellnitzia in flower in the wild. It flowers in March-April. These are hot dry months when the veld offers very little nutriment to anything and flowers of any kind are few. In response to Smith and Manning I have made a point of examining Poellnitzia in the field and my observations suggest that Smith should stay with his 1992 more careful thoughts. The only prospective pollinator or mite “phoretor” (carrier) was the large Camponotus ant as observed by Smith. The flowers were tended by individual ants which walked over the tops of the flowers and carefully “palpated” the flowers with their feelers. The ants would often pay particular attention to the base of the tube and we (my wife and I) saw that occasionally a single flower would bear a small redder abraded spot to which the ants returned. The would place their mandibles on this point while palpating the flower with their feelers. The tube was never penetrated and more significantly over the period of two weeks, we never found any nectar in the flower tubes. This is not like Haworthia which can literally ooze nectar.
   
   There are two complications. One may favour bird pollination and the other ant/mite pollination. In my field observation (early April when it is still hot and it was very dry too) seed-set was intense. But it was irregular. There was a syndrome of racemes with complete seed-set of the many consecutively maturing flowers from base to apex. There were racemes where most of the lower flowers had set seed, with the upper approximate third not doing so. There were racemes with seed set on the lower flower points, a long gap of 8-10 flowers points which were sterile and the end ones still bearing flowers and buds. There were also a few racemes in full flower and bud. Something had thus interfered with seed set over a period of about two weeks. The other interesting point is that there is barely any opening at all between the connivent tips of both sets of petals. The stigma is borne 3-4mm below the tip of the tube, surrounded by the anthers. Pollen can occasionally be seen outside the barely open slits between the connivent petal tips. Smith reasonably suggests that mites are responsible for this. Are they also responsible for carrying pollen back into the concealed stigma? I brought flowers back with me and placed them in water. A few days later I observed some yellow mites on the outside of the flowers. They were very active and appeared to be seeking re-entrance into the flowers which they could not achieve. I had to pry apart the petal tips for the mites to enter. Yet in the flowers there were many mites. How did they get there? The ants are thought to need a nitrogen source (feeding on bird droppings for example). Do they use the mites as a food source and do they transport eggs or young mites between flowers? If this flower is adapted to a bird-pollination syndrome it is sending a strong message to birds that they are not welcome.  One might as well say that the damage starlings and weaver birds do to Aloe flowers is strong evidence that the flower is adapted to bird pollination!
   
   
7. “The sugar composition of the nectar of Poellnitzia also refelects a shift from insect- to bird pollination…”
   
   How does when deal with this rationale? One could use the same statement to separate the species from Astroloba. But I do not think when treating genera, one can exclude other genera from consideration in this manner and with this kind of argument.
   
   
8. “Adaptations for specialised pollination strategies alone are insufficient grounds for recognition of genera..”
   
   The grounds for recognition of genera are as cited from Smith et al from Jeffrey. Smith and Manning have produced no facts by which Poellnitzia can be more closely related to Astroloba than to any of the other Aloid genera. All the facts have been distorted in order to reach an end, which is obviously to exterminate unispecific genera. Any structural character can, if so desired, be construed to have some or other adaptive significance. It is absurd to suggest that if these adaptations are directed at pollination, they are less significant for classification purposes. There is no connection of this kind whatsoever. A point is missed which I cannot adequately explain. Poellnitzia rubriflora demonstrates a uniformity which could even suggest that it is vegetatively propagated. I have yet to see two clones which I think I could consistently separate. I have even collected what I thought was a smaller form, only to find it grow out to equate others in cultivation.

It is actually very difficult to refute argumentation of this class against the general background of the treatment of the Alooideae by systematists and would-be systematists. I say this because Rowley (1976) also contributes to the debate with an odd statement. “Very often one finds that minute floral differences are linked with supporting vegetative characters…”. He is in fact referring to my recognition of the subgenera of Haworthia on the basis of floral characters. He is actually quite wrong and is repeating the attitude which Dr. L.E. Codd expressed in private communication to me when questioned about the amalgamation of the smaller Aloid subgenera. Dr. Codd said… “We are ignoring the small differences”. This is not true. Because, firstly, these writers are confusing the small size of the flowers with the significance of the differences. Were the flowers large, the differences would be more unquestionably seen to be large. The irony is that here in Smith and Manning, we have the case that more obvious large differences are discounted.  Secondly, when a judgement of similarity or dissimilarity is made, the observer in fact makes a decision and then seeks a rationalisation. What are currently seen as Haworthia are three subgenera which have historically been judged to be similar and the rationalisation has never been properly constructed or questioned. The floral differences have been minimised. Capsule and seed structure has been ignored, and no attention has been paid to anatomy or things like root morphology. I have not done so either. The reason for this is that it is already obvious to me that the rationale already exists for the classification that I adopt viz. 3 subgenera, and one that I would propose viz. 3 genera. It is thus pointless to pursue other goals when proper attention is not paid to evidence already presented and which alone constitute grounds for the recognition of genera. But I do not think genera are real taxa in the sense that I see species to be. I feel that a classification arrived at over a period of 200 years has an accrued value. It is pointless to make changes which are not properly weighed against that value.

Rowley ends by sensibly making the point that the question of genera is artificial. I am very sceptical of his sanguine hopes for some future ideal solution when the … “time will be right”. To assume that botanists using sophisticated technology (DNA, molecular, cellular etc.) or statistical methodology (cladistics and multivariate analysis) are going to produce better classifications will be unwise. Botanists have not effectively used the available simplest of evidence to classify or discuss the classification of the Alooideae, and amateurs are exacerbating the situation. Botanists are playing with technology, and with classification to display the results of this game. Amateur and impostor taxonomists are playing with classification to display their grasp of technology and knowledge. The motives are questionable, and the results prove it. ♦

In 1943 Dr. J. Luckhoff, who was better known as a collector of stapeliads, wrote up some observational and collecting records of Mr. M. Otzen after whom Haworthia otzenii was named. Most of these records have been followed up at one time or another and we know what most of the plants and populations were that he recorded. However, there is one particular item that remains a mystery. One of Otzen’s records reads like this:

”About six miles north of the six or seven houses forming Infanta there is a large salt-pan on your right … Four miles further south follow a narrow track on your right, which ends on a bluff on the foreland called Cape Infanta. On the southern slope towards the sea a very small Haworthia, almost black, with longer, narrower leaves than H. retusa, very scarce, and very difficult to find.”

Otzen does say for another record north of Bredasdorp that the small black species growing there is “similar to the Cape Infanta one”. This Bredadorp record is referable to H. maraisii, and I infer that the plant at Cape Infanta must be this species too. Nevertheless this small black plant at Infanta has bothered me for years. I did look for it in 1972 on the only excursion I ever undertook to this fairly remote area, but I mis-read the Otzen note and searched in vain on the rocks south of Infanta. While writing a review of my collections, a plant Adam Harrower of Kirstenbosch had given me started to create some problems. It did not fit the pattern of “flow” that I had so far observed for haworthias. Harrower’s record was for the Potberg Mountain where I had already obtained plants that were odd in one way or another. When I finally asked Adam for the detail of his collection, it appeared that he had collected it only about 10km from Cape Infanta. The plant is similar to that of one collected by the late C. Burgers of the Cape Department of Nature Conservation, at Buffelsfontein 20km further west. Both of these localities are on the south side of the Potberg, the vegetation is fynbos and the geology is Table Mountain Sandstone. My assessment of the two collections was that they were somewhat similar to H. mirabilis var sublineata. This is not a comfortable conclusion because of the geographical intercession of H. rossouwii var petrophila just west of Bredasdorp, and of H. rossouwii var calcarea from near the DeHoop residential complex. There are also five other populations recorded from the northwest corner of the Potberg but which have only an indirect relevance to the thrust of this article, so I exclude them. In fact I also exclude them from a magnum opus that I am preparing because the problem is so extensive and complex.

The question of the identity of H. maraisii is something that I am trying to answer in a separate rather long manuscript. There I will discuss a whole suite of species and the end product will probably be too long for journal editors or readers. The crux of that presentation will be that species names do not actually convey the information that we expect them to, and that collectors are caught up in a confusion of names that have commercial, egocentric and any other meaning but that within the orderly one of an informative botanical science that we unthinkingly expect

What I am considering and trying to explain in that big work in preparation, is that there is no distinction that one can actually make between all the variants of H. mirabilis and of H. maraisii (and more) that I recognize in my revision. Down at Infanta H. maraisii tails away to a tiny dark plant through a series of populations that probably confound any perception that only one species is involved. The problem is compounded by the fact that juxtaposed on either side of the Potberg Mountain are two plant populations. One could be H. mirabilis, the other H. maraisii. This confounds my argument because in the context of my longer manuscript I show that these are one and the same.

Thus Otzen’s record takes on a slightly larger dimension and I wanted to explore further south and east of the juxtaposed populations to see if any connection could be found. This found my wife and me at Infanta where J.D. (Kobus) Venter later joined us. We did find new populations.  In the one collection  the plants are small and dark with very erect leaves and similar to those cited in my Revision (1999) under the name H. maraisii var. maraisii (in which the leaves are classically retuse, ‘bent-back like a thumb” to use an apparently obsolete meaning – but see figures). The collection cited in my Revision is one by P.V. Bruyns from the east bank of the Breede River opposite the farm Ziekenhuis (Fig.1 JDV87-50. Kobus Venter found the same thing on the west bank at Jakobsrivier (Figs.2a & b JDV92-85). My new collection (MBB7250) is similar and about 1km east of that. The geology at this locality is rather hard to fathom and seems to be recent (quarternary) riverine or marine deposit overlying Ecca shale. The vegetation is also rather anomalous and would probably fall under Renosterveld. It is the second (MBB7248) and third populations (MBB7249) that stunned us, because the plants revert to being larger in size, with fully retuse leaves having an end-area level to the ground. Furthermore the end-surfaces are spinose (Figs.3 MBB7248). Such spinescence occurs in H. emelyae var. major and also in a population of H. magnifica just east of Riversdale. It does, however, also occur to a lesser degree at both population- and single-plant-level in many other populations. As an aside, it is actually possible to suggest that here we have the convergent emergence of a species character independently in another distant population. The geology at these last two sites is sandstone and the vegetation Fynbos.

When Kobus joined us the following day, Keith Spencer and his staff of the De Hoop Nature Reserve accompanied us to Cape Infanta. Keith was naturally interested to know what we were looking for as well as serving the supervisory role for the Reserve. Cape Infanta is a windy bluff along a rocky shore where the rocks rise almost directly from the sea to a height of about 30m. The geology is quite complex and is mapped as calcarenite commonly called Cape Limestone. The vegetation was very typically Fynbos although there were many mesems too. We did not find any haworthias after quite a thorough search and we gave up the attempt deciding rather to trace Adam Harrower’s record. We did this without too much difficulty though we wondered why Adam should have thought the locality (near Sandhoogte) was promising for any odd things he was looking for in his search for herbaceous plants for horticultural screening. The locality is a rocky (sandstone) ravine bank with Fynbos vegetation. Adam’s plants were quite common but not all that easy to find. Although I make the connection to H. mirabilis, I also feel that there is some justification for calling in H. rossouwii var. calcarea for comparison (Fig.4a ADH594, & b MBB7251). One of Keith’s rangers then maintained that he had in fact seen a similar plant at Cape Infanta and so we retraced our steps. We searched in a different direction but still failed. Reading Otzen’s notes, one is filled with a sense of depression because it is apparent that the collection may have had commercial undertones. It is known that Triebner was purchasing plants from collectors and Otzen’s one record reads…”Doubt whether there are any left after Venter, Werth, Geyer, Malherbe and I have been there.” Another reads, “three of us searching for more than an hour, found only three specimens – doubt that there are any more.”

The one common binding factor in these populations we saw is the fact that they were in flower and beginning to fruit. The southwestern Cape haworthias seem to fall into two groups on the basis of flowering time viz. a spring-flowering time, and a late summer- flowering time. I wrote an article for Aloe (40:10, 2003) in which I discussed ecotypes of haworthias on the Zuurberg Mountains. I have to conclude that this is probably what we are seeing here, coupled perhaps with a dispersal history that has carried plants (genetic material) from the south and west, and independently from the north and east. However, it is more complicated than that. The resemblance of the Harrower collection to H. turgida var. longibracteata is noteworthy. Harrower’s population juxtaposes our spinescent find and only 3km separates them as the crow flies. Burger’s collection at Buffelsfontein is juxtaposed by only 5km with H. turgida var. longibracteata at Diepkloof. We should have gone on to examine the Buffelsfontein population as my confidence in declaring it to be the same as that at Sandhoogte was only based on a herbarium specimen. Co-incidentally, there is also a specimen collected by Prof. Compton that has a close likeness to the Buffelsfontein plant. Compton’s record is remarkable for the statement that it was collected on “the Potberg sandy flats”. There is so much “sandy flat” surrounding the Potberg, that the re-discovery of this population will be purely fortuitous. We did in fact get a later opportunity to explore Buffelsfontein and find Burger’s population (Fig.5 a & b MBB7374) and my conclusion is that it is a continuity of MBB7248 and ADH594. In the light of Chapter 15, I can hazard a guess as to how this really fits in.

Our excursion did not therefore resolve any problems and instead seems to have added to the complexity of the situation. I have been writing for a long time about haworthias and have been finding it increasingly difficult to precisely and concisely explain the ramifications of all these new things that keep turning up. I have never thought that simply generating new names is going to add anything to our knowledge of the plants as a group. My feeling is that a good classification should communicate something about the plants. It is therefore exceedingly disheartening to read a quotation from the book by D.A. Levin The Origin, Expansion and Demise of Plant Species (Oxord University Press, ca 2000). He quotes authors Raven, Berlin and Breedlove, who say… “our system of names appears to achieve a reality which it does not possess”. Levin himself writes…“our taxonomic system communicates little about the organism being considered, although it appears to communicate a great deal”.

Levin discusses the species concept at some length and I doubt if I could debate the subject at his academic level. My contention is that he makes much the same mistake as all these people who discuss the matter – they do not define the word “species”. Levin’s introductory chapter is a discussion of premise and concept and there are many sentences that can be taken to represent fragments of a definition, but he ends it by saying that “the choice of concept has to do, in part, with the perspective that gives one satisfaction”. I find this alarming because to my mind it leaves the definition open and subject to interpretation and whim. We will never have even crude agreement of a classification if each of us follows the matter to one’s own satisfaction. To some extent this objection is overcome by his closing statement that: “it is important to understand the biological properties and relationships of population systems rather than get hung up on putting them into conceptual pigeonholes”. My only response to this is that we should try to understand these properties and relationships in the process of conceptualizing such pigeonholes.

This brings me to a closing argument. In Avonia 21:45 (2003) Breuer describes six new species and six new varieties of Haworthia. Only one of them is meaningful to me; the others all fall into my existing conceptual pigeonholes derived from a definition of species that have genetic, morphological, geographic and behavioral similarities. My dissatisfaction is that the descriptions have as their one visible goal, the need to satisfy or nourish the acquisitive urge of collectors while neglecting – even negating – any obligation that these descriptions should possess or add meaning. This is the same argument I would put forward for any name changes. If they do not add or contribute meaning, they should not be made. Names should convey more than a collector’s item that is in essence only a source of income to a commercial outlet and an expense to a collector. Another goal may simply be the egocentric one that builds on this false notion of “meaning” and “discovery” associated with names, which of course could be satisfying to the author too (and of course the collector commemorated in the name).

What is the exception in those 12 new taxa of Breuer’s? It is H. elizeae said to be from west of Swellendam (Figs.6a, b, c, d, & e MBB7255). The plant was it seems first collected by Derek Tribble in 1977. According to Breuer it was apparently also collected by E. Esterhuizen and by V. deVries and the latter is credited in the citation of the type (deposited of all places, in Tokyo). It is quite strange that the plant is otherwise unknown except that so many places are unexplored in the sense that anyone can barely know what is new or common on any site. This particular site is within a stone’s throw of Stormsvlei that is a common collecting ground for Haworthia. On our way home from Infanta I thought I should try to examine the population. The resemblance I could see while looking for information and meaning in the description and illustration, is one to H. rossouwii (Fig.7) which species has a very odd broken distribution. There is also some resemblance in it to H. emelyae var. multifolia too. Breuer’s description in Avonia gives no meaning at all, other than to vaguely suggest a western extension of H. turgida and an equally vague comparison of the flower, viz. “the floral characteristics look a bit more like those of H. triebneriana than those of turgida”.

Given the locality as “25km west of Swellendam in stony outcrops”, we actually struggled to find the plants. Fortunately Derek Tribble provided a better description of the site. It is about 30km west of Swellendam and is not “stony outcrops”. It is a significant band of finely textured Table Mountain Sandstone abutted by Ecca shale. The population occupies a surprisingly small area comprising the rocky foreground in the two illustrations (Figs.8a & b). As the ridge continues east it rapidly becomes coarse-grained sandstone and is the home of H. mirabilis in the form that this species has in the nearby Stormsvlei Pass. (Using the name H. triebneriana for that population as Breuer apparently does, removes information from the system as will be evident when my review of that system is published.) H. elizeae is indeed different. It is a highly proliferous clustering plant and flowers in spring, or certainly earlier than H. mirabilis. It does not comfortably fit anywhere in my pigeonholes and I see the need to uphold the name in the way I uphold my own H. pubescens. I see the need to explore further, to see if the distribution can be extended in anyway. However, it seems very unlikely. I did not see any resemblance of the plants in the field to H. rossouwii as I had surmised from the illustration. But I do not think the possibility of a link to H. rossouwii should be totally excluded when anyone comes to trying to explain the question “how did it all happen?” Perhaps there is a closer resemblance to H. maraisii var. meiringii at Bonnievale where I drew a comparison with the spring-flowering H. herbacea. I also consider that H. maraisii var. notabilis (Fig.9 JDV98-1) at Robertson and Klaasvoogds could yield variants which parallel H. elizeae, and this is also possible true for H. mirabilis var. consanguinea from MacGregor. But these are all summer flowering.

The message I would like to convey in this article is my belief classification must have meaning beyond that of items on a price-list or in fact on any list. My feeling is that botanical science has deluded and corrupted us all by the pursuit of classification as a cataloguing process instead of a methodology based on solid definition and purpose. Not in every instance, of course, and not to the extent that all taxonomists are culpable, but there certainly is an abuse of the system. This is perhaps what Levin refers to when he quotes Ehrlich and Raven who write of “a good species…an artifact of the procedures of taxonomy”. It is not surprising that many readers have become exasperated with taxonomists and “namenklutter”.

Acknowledgement
I state that my collecting was under accreditation of permit 45/2003 issued by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. I would also like to acknowledge the co-operation of Mr. Graham Lewis and Mr. Keith Spencer of De Hoop Nature Reserve for their assistance, Mr. Adam Harrower, Mr. John Douglas-Hamilton, Mrs. Christine Wallace and Mr. Hanrico Cilliers. Mr. Ingo Breuer kindly sent me a copy of Avonia 16. Messrs. Bob Kent, Steven Hammer, Elliot Adler and Paul Forster kindly commented on the text of my article where idiosyncrasies remain unfortunately my own.

Addendum
Flowers of MBB7255 H. rossouwii var. elizeae, Bromberg taken on 1 December 2012. ♦

Published in Haworthiad 18:3:102-106, 2004.

The systematics of Haworthia and the production of a practical and useable list of names that reflects a predictive classification for these plants, has kept me preoccupied for more than 40 years. Initially I simply produced a list of names published in 1976 as Haworthia Handbook. This was not a great work but there was a desperate need then for some kind of conspectus that established order where there was none. I rewrote the Handbook published in 1982 as The new Haworthia Handbook. This was followed by C.L. Scott’s  The genus Haworthia, A taxonomic Revision (1985), which effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. In 1996 I was asked to produce a synopsis of Haworthia for two projects, and Steven Hammer and Kobus Venter persuaded me to formerly revise the genus. It should be explained that the greatest obstacle to such a work was the very difficult question of the validity and priority of names as required by an international code for plant nomenclature that sets out to standardize and lay down norms for this process of typification. The problem in Haworthia is that the illustrations and specimens on which the process is based, were and are, so confounded. Either there were no specimens at all, or the basis of the names existed only as barely identifiable illustrations. An additional difficulty is that specimens from different species so often resemble each other, that unless locality data was available, there was often no certainty to what the name actually applied to. Thus most of the available types were ambiguous and subject to alternative interpretations. This is a self-evident truth. The overriding consideration was to give meaning to the names in terms of biology and to give an objective reality to the different kinds of Haworthias that are the basic units of biological diversity i.e. species. This latter objective seems very mundane and straightforward and it is extraordinary to now recognize what a minefield of discussion, dispute and argumentation is appearing in the literature concerning the subject.

With nomenclature being so confounded, I had in my Handbooks not attempted to formalize the application of names, but rather to cite specimens to make it quite clear on what my usage was based. The application of names to specimens preserved in herbaria is a base-line requirement in systematic botany, but consistently appears to be a difficult concept to persuade eager amateur botanists to adhere to. At the same time I tried very conscientiously to get as close to a realistic appraisal of the sources of all the names with respect to the fundamental types required by the code. With the decision to prepare a list of names for Urs Eggli’s Illustrated Lexicon of Succulent Plants, and almost simultaneously the decision to rewrite the Haworthia Handbooks, the formalization of names became inevitable. Enter disaster. I. Breuer in Germany had become inspired to undertake the same task. He presented me with a manuscript of his The World of Haworthia – Vol.1 with a request for an introduction and intellectual sponsorship.  It was evident to me that he had no more capacity to do the work any more effectively than Col. Scott or myself and there was no time to negotiate a solution. I declined. Breuer with Dr. Detlev Metzing had already submitted a formal typification of Haworthia names to the botanical journal Taxon and the die was cast. Of course it was a logical step for them and it is recognized in taxonomic botany that one can approach a revision in two ways. The first is to establish the validity and priority of existing names and then proceed to the field to establish how they can be used. The second is to proceed to the field and then only decide how best the available names can be assigned. The advantage of the second method is that it grants one the grace of being able to better interpret ambiguous types and to generate some sense from poor original illustrations. It also allows one the opportunity of fully appreciating the history of usage, past and present; and then properly formulating the way in which these names can be used with predictive value into the future. All of this assumes that there is a solid understanding of biological diversity and the nature of the classification process with respect to “species”. It was evident that Breuer and Metzing were not competent to undertake their mission with respect to either option and definitely not for the first.

In the introduction to my second Handbook, I wrote, “The complexity of what species are, is beyond the object of this book…”. It is very difficult for me to explain my thoughts on the subject against the background of the extraordinary statements now being made in the literature with regard to species concepts. The advent of molecular biology and the analysis of DNA have suddenly hit taxonomic botany as a revealed truth, and the vision of a true evolutionary history of plants is seen as an attainable goal. Having been educated in the environment of animal science it never occurred to me that there was any other objective than this in classification. Hence the ideal that DNA study now encourages viz. a phylogenetic species concept, is thus in my estimation simply a very damp squib. The fact that botanists have never had a clear and unobstructed definition of the species which they have been identifying and naming so industriously for so long is only evident now from the convoluted discussions about the reality of the concept and the serious proposals to even abandon the binomial system of names. The juxtaposition of the words phylogenetic, species and concept is not my construction. It is one by botanists who have several other species concepts and yet no precise definition of the one word “species”.

My Revision Haworthia Revisited, drafted in 1996, was printed in 1999. The text for Eggli’s Handbook was drafted earlier in 1996 and only published in 2002. There are some minor discrepancies in these two works, but far the greater confusion has been the impact of the typifications by Breuer and Metzing and the subsequent publication by Breuer of a series of books and articles that add fuel to the fire. Other authors and their editors seem to have taken every advantage of the existing confusion to make matters worse and fan the fire into a runaway inferno. The inevitable result has been a relentless struggle on my part to maintain some kind of credibility on behalf of the plants I am interested in, and also for those people who I imagine present my reading public. It can be likened to sitting at the control panel of a rocket fired wildly at the moon by a sightless scientist, and then firing directional rockets by remote control and a faulty keyboard, to get the act together and the rocket on course.

What has emerged now in one of the house journals of the National Botanical Institute of South Africa, Strelitzia 14: 983-1017, is an annotated checklist of the plants of Southern Africa with the section for Haworthia compiled by Ingo Breuer, E.M.E. Steyn, G.F. Smith, and N.L. Meyer. There is no doubt very good reason why my participation was not sought considering that I have curated the NBI herbarium collection at the Compton Herbarium in Cape Town, effectively since 1970. The most telling one is perhaps, facetiously, the assumption that I was senile or dead. Surprisingly the list of names is remarkably true to my classification, in stark contrast to the surprising and odd opinions maintained by the principal author in his prior publications. It is not clear quite when the list was drafted, but the book appeared in 2003.

Superficially the Strelitzia list seems to be very authoritative and certainly is a vast improvement to a similar earlier listing. That was a ridiculous compound of both Col. Scott’s classification and my own. The reason for that mess is simply explained in the miasma of a classification activity that had, or has no standard and by which any ambitious individual can assume or be granted credibility as an expert merely by publishing new names, irrespective of whether they reflect real taxa. However, the new list does have problems and a large measure of incongruence. My classification is founded, within the limits of my intellect, on a thorough effort to get as close as was reasonably possible to “how it could all have happened”. Where the list seems to follow my classification, I must therefore accept it as sound. However, the introduction of “new species” described primarily by Hayashi, makes a mockery of the intended all-encompassing and predictive value of my classification as a whole. This is a wholly different set of problems added to those already generated by the Breuer and Metzing typifications and associated interpretations and applications. I am just very grateful, as every other Haworthia enthusiast should also be, that Breuer has been seemingly constrained by his co-authors, to abandon many of his other radical and misconceived opinions or at least conceal them for the purposes of the publication.

The prime changes I would make to the list are:

Haworthia pumila (H. maxima). I did introduce the use the name maxima in the manuscript version for the Eggli publication and I seriously doubt if any author would have ventured to promote this name in the absence of myself as the “fall-guy”. While the name pumila is inappropriate, it is the earliest name for this Haworthia and the late Dr Onno Weinands is credited with the formal typification of the name on the basis of the same illustration on which maxima is based. Further debate on this issue that has already consumed so much paper and ink seems ridiculous.

The introduction of the name integra exposes the flawed nature of the whole list when it comes to the key problem of how these names are USED. There is a massive interplay of what I have recognized as two distinct species. These are H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata. I have written about this problem at length in many places and I cannot go on and on presenting the same arguments over and over again. The essence is that one has to recognize that “species” in Haworthia are not separate elements in the way in which we want to segment them for any purpose. The type specimen that Breuer has triumphantly unearthed is a pickled one found in the Berlin herbarium. It is quite evident to me that it has the darkened leaf-tips of plants that I know very well from Lemoenpoort near Barrydale, across to the area between Riversdale and Ladismith, which Dekenah patrolled so thoroughly. These glabrous elements generated the type material for the original concept of H. venteri and the entire ramification that culminated in my decision (among others) to regard the name integra as ambiguous and to exclude it as insufficiently known.  Were I to reconsider this decision in the light of this new type, I would concede that it relates to H. arachnoidea var. nigricans but as nothing more than another problem variant. Here again, fussing over this minor problem when it is difficult enough to separate the major components in the puzzle is just incongruous. I see no need to refute my variety rycroftiana or to recognize Esterhuizen’s standeri. I make no pretensions that my system has any greater virtue than is possible in the face of the real nature of field variability and my capacity to sustain some kind of consistency across the genus as a whole. The name H. mucronata var. rooibergensis is similarly upheld in the list when I know very well that in this interplay of the two species aforementioned it is not possible to uphold any such small distinctions – what to say of the problem extended eastward to the “species” there.

One cannot pass this issue by without back reference to the uses of names. There is no doubt that the way in which Breuer would use the name aristata would reflect the confusion generated by Col. Scott when he had several species names such as mucronata, aristata, mclarenii and unicolor in different sections for the same one complex in the vicinity of Barrydale. I was inspired to think that the name aristata could more effectively be used for a dubious group of populations in the H. cooperi complex of the eastern areas. The list is in fact unsatisfactory because it excludes the changes that I was constrained to make when I wrote Haworthia Update in 2001 to describe and explain the results of my further exploration. These authors have been confused over elementary things like the zygomorphic structure of the flowers in the minor genera of the family, the spiral arrangement of leaves in H. viscosa, or the fact that the illustration of rossouwii cannot be equated with a depauperate specimen of serrata, and I have my doubts that they are able to apply the names they have listed, with any greater sensibility. The last example is replicated many times in Breuer’s books where there is incongruence between type material and added images of other plants that are taken to represent the same entity.

What is now left is the really curious array of one-off names that are paraded as “species”. They are in total conflict with my entire conceptual view of Haworthia and it is quite senseless to include my name anywhere in the list other than with the words “sensu Breuer et al” appended if this is the paradigm for which the list is required. I use the name geraldii as the prime example. If classification is the expression of a purely personal opinion, and many leading writers amazingly tout this nonsensical point of view, then of course one can generate new names in any way one chooses. The fact is that I generated a system of names with a view to explaining a complex system that includes ALL haworthias and relates to my experience with many other genera, both plant and animal. My system was intended to serve science and to efface my own predilections and opinions as far as it is possible to do so. Geraldii is a name that owes its origin to Col. Scott and it relates to one single population where it is not even clear that the plants are non-vegetative in origin. Similarly the odd agnis refers to a single population of the greater complex nortieri – a local ecotype. All the names generated by Hayashi fall into this same category of names generated purely by personal attraction to a particular variant and for self edification (viz. H. hayashi Hayashi), which can actually quite easily be accommodated in a descriptive statement of a far more predictive system. The hidden part of the floating iceberg, which this checklist is, is a barrage of new names being generated by Breuer, among others, before the print has cooled. This kind of classification has eventually to sink from its own weight and will do so when any real and honest attempt is made to apply it to the great range of ecotypic variants and continuities that are such an obstacle to our sensibilities.  My few loyal friends suggest to me that I should just ignore these nomenclatural and descriptive incongruities and leave it to history in the belief that “truth will out”. I appreciate the sense in this remark, but the reality is that I am in the present and would prefer to experience commonality of sense now too. I plead that my system should stand in its entirety with no changes until these can be soundly supported by good technology, good statistics, and good appreciation and observation of the actual natural system. A last requirement is that botanical classification finds a way through proper definition, purpose and communal agreement to arrive at a standard of names for all living systems. ♦

Abstract
Classification of plants is often controversial and it is common to suggest that further research and application of technology will resolve problems. This paper overviews six publications in peer reviewed botanical journals with respect to the classification of Asphodelaceae: Alooideae and particularly Haworthia. It demonstrates that there is a gulf between the results produced by researchers using sophisticated technology and the practical, ordinary observations of the layman. This may be because researchers are not familiarizing themselves with grassroots information and observation, which is observation of the plants in the field, in cultivation, in the herbarium and in the literature. Their results may thus be contrary to the experience of the layman who may in fact be better informed.

Introduction
The classification of Haworthia has quite a turbulent history. This is generally attributable to the fact that it is a difficult genus in terms of the vegetative plasticity of individual plants and the many populations that have a shared history in time and space in geologically and geomorphologically diverse environments. Confounding these environmental variables are the concepts and techniques of the taxonomists that have been involved in naming plants within the genus. The popularity of Haworthia with succulent plant hobbyists has meant that many of these workers have by-and-large not been professional or qualified taxonomists. Therefore it is of considerable interest to note some significant publications in respect of the broader subject viz. the Alooideae, written by professionals and recently published in peer-reviewed botanical journals. This could confirm whether or not the problem lies with the difficulty of the subject and/or skills of the respective researchers or taxonomists.

Discussion
The first publication of six that I review here is by Vosa and Bennet (1990) with respect to Gasteria. The general conclusion was reached that the cytological differences are minimal and that there may be only one species. In this work the nomenclature and terminology is inconsistent and the data are also presented in an inconsistent way. Furthermore, the material used is not representative of the genus (Bayer, 2000). The paper very effectively demonstrates the need for a sound organization (classification) of materials before work commences. There was no revision in place prior to the work by Vosa and Bennet and there is no statement to say how their material was identified nor by whom. They concluded…”The slight variability is probably not more than that found between the individuals of a normal natural population of a single species”. A correct conclusion would be that the technique employed produced no meaningful understanding of the genus.

A second paper is that by Smith & Van Wyk (1991). This is a cladistic study of the genera in the Alooideae. It is concluded that it is a monophyletic group and suggests that some clarity has been brought to the relationships of the genera. It can, however, be shown that the characters used and the evaluated states of those characters, are erroneous and that the results are consequently misleading. The following is a brief synopsis of the characters and coding (plesiomorphic – derived or advanced character state – 1; and apomorphic – residual or primitive character state – 0) applied by Smith & Van Wyk in their cladistic analysis:

Habit (caulescence)­ – all genera are scored 1 for this character except the outgroup Kniphofia. According to G.W. Reynolds (1960), Aloe has 130 species in southern Africa of which 30 are acaulescent, 56 caulescent and 47 may be neither of the two states. In my observation of 68 Haworthia species, 58 are acaulescent and 16 are semi-caulescent. Among the former are species like H. pumila and H. herbacea that can form quite distinctive, if prostrate, stems. In H. cymbiformis, which is generally acaulescent, there is the surprising var. ramosa, which is caulescent. It is part of an extensive population north of Wooldridge where the plants are otherwise acaulescent. If the condition is examined in the other genera such as Gasteria and Chortolirion, it seems that the coding used by Smith and van Wyk is simplistic and incorrect.

Leaf arrangement  (congestion on stem) – Aloe and Lomatophyllum are scored 1 as each genus is said to have species in which the “leaves are comparatively widely spaced”   (others are scored 0). Gasteria rawlinsonii has leaves which must be regarded as “widely spaced”. It can be said that in Haworthia, because the leaves are spirally arranged, it is differences in leaf congestion that result in trifarious, quinquefarious and multifarious leaf arrangements. Thus there is a range of spacing and in fact H. coarctata and H. reinwartdtii can be separated by the difference in the congestion of leaves on the stems of these two species.

Leaf consistency (succulence) – all genera are again scored 1. It is obvious that this is again a simplification. Even Uitewaal (1947) suggested that leaf consistency could provide a basis for separation of Haworthia into the three groups he proposed. In the Hexangulares there are species with the added state of having fibrous leaves. The consistency of the leaves of H. graminifolia cannot be equated with that of the case of, say, H. mucronata.

Leaf tuberculation – Astroloba, Gasteria and Haworthia are scored 1, while A. aristata is noted to be tuberculate as a “rare exception” in Aloe. My observation in Haworthia is that 26 species have tuberculate leaves and 42 have smooth non-tuberculate leaves. It is common for H. marginata to have both tuberculate and smooth leaves and this is less rarely the case in other species of the Robustipedunculares. In H. limifolia, the var. gigantea has tubercled leaves, the vars. ubomboensis and glaucophylla have entirely smooth leaves, while vars. limifolia and arcana are characterized by transverse ridges or semiconfluent tubercles. The state in A. aristata adds a complication as the “tubercles’ may be homologous or comparable with the surface spination, translucent or simple white markings on the leaves of many species in many of the genera.

Outline of leaf cross-section – all genera are again scored 1, as of course, against the outgroup (Kniphofia). Reynolds (1950) states that in A. cooperi, “leaves are keeled resembling a “V” in cross-section, and mentions this for A. variegata, A. sladeniana and A. dinteri too. It is quite misleading to suggest that leaf outline in the Alooid genera is crescentiform/cymbiform and synapomorphic for all the taxa in the Alooideae. Note the confusion of the terms outline as described by “cymbiform” and cross-section. How can one consider the shape of the leaves (cross-section or outline) of, say H. viscosa as even similar to the leaves of for e.g. H. cymbiformis var. obtusa? In total the two authors code sixteen such characters and it is beyond the scope of this paper to tediously discuss each of them. The question of the character “floral symmetry” does, however, perhaps deserve attention and that will be discussed in the fourth paper.

The third paper is by Smith et al. (1995). It concerns the reversal of the very curious re-instatement of the genera Aloinella (as Lemeea) and Guillauminia affected by Heath (1993, 1994). Heath’s argumentation was weak indeed, but the counter argument by Smith et al. is equally poor. The balance is only in favour of Smith et al. because there are no substantial criteria that suggest that different genera are involved in the first place. (Bayer, 2003a). My complaint now is that the papers by both Heath and Smith et al. fiddle with the classification and nomenclature, without adding one iota of information to the subject. The facts are:

A. haworthioides and A. albiflora do in fact have characters which make them most unusual in the genus Aloe. There is no Aloe remotely like A. haworthioides that has the extraordinarily protruding flattened filaments. These form a reddish tube nearly as large and conspicuous as that of the perianth itself, which is almost hidden by the large floral bract. In the case of A. albiflora, the florets are widely campanulate and sparsely arranged on the slender peduncle.  Reynolds placed 12 species together in his Group 1 of Madagascan Aloes and stated most plainly that they were not closely allied. Now Heath has ignored three of those 12 species and made two groups out of the disparate remnant.  This is the problem that Smith et al. should have addressed. The curious thing about this is that there appears to be a similarity between A. bellatula and A. perrieri (ignored and abandoned in Aloe by Heath, and not even considered by Smith et al.), which in terms of variability could be extended to A. albiflora and perhaps further to A. parvula. There is no such similarity between A. haworthioides, and A. bouteaui.  A. descoingsii and A. calcairophylla do seem to have unique florets. There is nothing odd about the florets in A. rauhii or A. bakeri that could necessarily separate them from, A. versicolor and A. parallelifolia.

The fourth paper concerns the genus Poellnitzia and its transfer to Astroloba by Manning and Smith (2000). Again the argument is weak, particularly in respect of the statement… “accords completely with the genus in its tubular actinomorphic flower with included stamens”.  The flowers in neither genus are actinomorphic and it was, and is, the elongation of the tube as well as the connivent petal tips that precluded anyone from suggesting that Poellnitzia was an Astroloba in the first instance (Bayer, 2003a)

The next paper is by Smith et al. (2000) and it concerns nectar sugars particularly with respect to Haworthia. Smith et al. cite my paper (Bayer, 1972) where the main message was that the genera in this group would never be resolved while the main elements within the genus Haworthia were not recognized to be discrete. Uitewaal’s (1947) attempt to subdivide Haworthia was a much labored effort. He was clearly a victim of his time in trying to establish a hierarchical classification and it is a distortion of the facts to say that he divided Haworthia into two main groups. There is no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that he identified and recognized THREE, and not the two that Smith et al. claim. Uitewaal recognized two groups; Triangulares and Hexangulares based primarily on the shape of the flower base, but he then split Hexangulares into Robustipedunculatae and Gracilipedunculatae, primarily on the robustness of the peduncle. As an interested observer of Haworthia, I added the additional facts from geographical distributions and capsules to recognize Uitewaal’s groups as three sub-genera. It is interesting that no significance seems to be attached by Smith et al. to the fact that the nectar sugars in Astroloba are sucrose dominated whereas in Poellnitzia the nectar sucrose is less than 5%.  These authors also find that… “The correlation of nectar in Astroloba and members of the H. subg. Robustipedunculares with the sucrose-rich Hexangulares type is surprising.   Because of floral and other morphological features they expected that the sugar composition belonging to these two units would be nearer to the sucrose-low Aloe type nectar…”.  This seems to be an odd statement when there is very little to support their expectation in the sense of the classification history of the groups and the statements concerning the two genera (Bayer, 1972).

The paper concerning a DNA study by Treutlein et al. (2003a) is also a very curious one and the result is summarized in this statement… “The current taxonomic system does not reflect the phylogenetic affinities and relationships among the succulent genera Aloe, Chortolirion, Gasteria, Haworthia and Poellnitzia.” That is quite obvious simply from the papers noted to this point and, had this been considered at the start of the study, surely this would have been the question to be addressed. The selection of material I take to be somewhat irresponsible given the past history of classification of the group and the literature. The inclusion of unknown hybrids such as H. X ryderiana, H. X  kewensis, and H. X  icosiphylla can tell us nothing. Likewise the failure to deposit vouchers in a recognised herbarium is problematic. Ignorance of the taxonomic position of H. geraldii is similarly curious and had the authors (and reviewers) known, as well they could have, that this taxon is simply a local variant in the H. retusa/turgida complex, and they would have been alerted to the anomalous and also startling result which finds them placing it in a different sub-genus.  It can be noted that B.J.M. Zonneveld’s (geneticist, Leiden Univ. – pers.comm.) observations on total mass of nuclear DNA suggests that plants in cultivation in Europe are polyploids while field collected samples from South Africa fall in the normal diploid range for H. turgida or H. retusa as opposed to a higher value for species of the Hexangulares.

The authors repeat the mistake of stating Uitewaal’s contention that there were two main groups in Haworthia and mistakenly state…”two main units (Triangulares and Hexangulares), the former including the subgenus Haworthia and Subgenus Robustipedunculares.” Uitewaal divided the group Hexangulares into Gracilipedunculatae and Robustipedunculatae, not the group Triangulares. The way this has been repeated in the closing paragraph of Uitewaal’s paper has confounded Treutlein et al., who go on to say, “This division (into two groups) is strongly supported by…” their results. This is not true. Treutlein et al. have no representatives from the Robustipedunculares in their analysis apart from the DNA (cytoplasmic) in the hybrid  XAstroworthia. It is thus not surprising that this “species” comes out in the “heterogenous group” that includes Aloe aristata, Gasteria, Poellnitzia, Astroloba and H. retusa (“geraldii”, with the position here of the latter extremely dubious if not totally erroneous). The suggestion that Haworthia could be split into two genera as a result of this study is misplaced because of the omission of members of the Robustipedunculares and ignorance of the actual situation reflected in the history of the groups where there are three groups that have to be considered.

Treutlein et al. are also the authors of another paper (2003b) and there three observations are made which I must contest.

1. …”An exception in the current classification was found with the sister species H. geraldiiand H. gracilis var. tenera: genetically they belong to group ll, whereas morphologically they show affinities to the subgenus Haworthia (represented by group 1).”

2. … “H. geraldii and H. gracilis var. tenera are sister species according to rbcL (fig.1A) and matK (fig.1B).  Contrary to their previous morphological classification (Bayer, 1999), they are clearly grouped in Haworthia subgenus Hexangulares by both molecular markers.”

3. … ” the taxonomy of the genus Haworthia must be revisited. More species of both groups need to be examined to determine their phylogenetic relationships before taxonomic consequences should be drawn.

Where Treutlein et al., did not cite my Haworthia Revisited (Bayer, 1999) in their first paper, they do in this second one. It is difficult to know why, when they have not grasped that it is not a “morphological classification” as they claim, and thus could not have referred to it at all. My revision is probably unusual in that such pains are taken to explain a species concept and to state specifically that the geographical component is the over-riding consideration in the classification although it is also fortuitously a morphological one.

The question of the subgeneric relationships of H. geraldii and H. gracilis var. tenera is a fundamental issue. If either of these had been considered and reviewed as the taxa that the literature suggests (Bayer, 1974, Bayer 1999, Bayer, 2002a), it would have been quite evident that the conclusion Treutlein et al. reach with such facility is impossible. Certainly the taxon “geraldii” has been discussed many times. Further discussion gives credibility to the recognition of local variants as full species that is wholly misplaced. In the case of H. gracilis var. tenera, the writers can be excused for overlooking the discussion of this taxon in my book Haworthia Update (Bayer, 2002a) or in “Ecotypes in Haworthia” (Bayer, 2003b). In the latter paper I explain why the species “gracilis” and all its varieties are transferred to H. cooperi. This was effected in Haworthiad (Bayer, 2002b). It is obvious to any reader that the two taxa “tenera” and “gracilis” cannot be excised from the subgenus Haworthia by any stratagem at all, but this should have been apparent regardless of my two papers. That the term “sister species” (for ‘geraldii’ and ‘tenera’) is used, wholly disregards anything that I have written in respect of a “species” concept for Haworthia. No matter how the subgenus Haworthia is manipulated these two taxa are elements in quite different sub-domains of two species and in the subgenus Haworthia, not Hexangulares as Treutlein et al. show in their phylograms. It is unfortuante that researchers can be so unfamiliar with the classification of the elements they work with. Lee (2004) argues that such molecular diagnoses need to be based on an appropriate taxonomic framework in turn based on all appropriate biological information. Otherwise they are premature and likely to cause problems rather than solve them.

The observation that the classification of Haworthia should be revisited is quite unnecessary in the light of what I stated in my revision (1999). These authors have not understood what the basis of the revision was. It is based on a conceptualization of species as systems and recognition of three sub-genera. Thus where Treutlein et al. (2003b) state that…”The present study unequivocally shows that molecular evidence conflicts with the current treatment of Haworthia as a single genus” is therefore misleading. Similarly the statement that their data set supports a dichotomy of Haworthia is only true because of the omission of representatives of one of the sub-genera. Their failure to have familiarized themselves with the literature that they cite is evident.

One has to recognize that the classification in place is the product of a very long history and is reasonably sound and practical. There is also a very extensive herbarium record to support it. It is professional botanists that are not properly familiarizing themselves with the fields they engage. They are not asking logical questions about the relationships of the plants of interest, nor are they selecting authentic or representative samples. Their work in peer-reviewed journals does not pass scrutiny and one is left to consider that the selected peers are not competent to undertake the task expected of them in a proper review process. It should not be necessary for writers in the popular literature to be discredited by results and conclusions derived from frail, poorly conceived and badly planned research projects and publications at the higher academic and intellectual level. Neither should a functional classification system be shaken and threatened by weak research of this kind.

Acknowledgement
I must thank the reviewers of this paper and the editor of this journal for instructive and necessary comment. Steven Hammer similarly provided incisive comment. Dr. Paul Forster has been particularly supportive in assisting me with significant literature as well as his views as a contemporary plant taxonomist and systematist. I must state that I am a parataxonomist (as opposed to a professional botanical systematist). The opinion that I should present a full phylogenetic analysis of my own, rather than direct my criticism of other efforts, should also take cognizance of the fact that all the evidence I can present is that within the extant genera and the three subgenera of Haworthia. It should also be stated that, the nature of variation may frequently defy any conventional Linnanean or Hennigian paradigms (Brummitt, 2002).

Literature Cited

Bayer, M.B.  1972.  Re-instatement of the genera Astroloba and Poellnitzia (Liliaceae- Aloineae). Natl.Cact.Succ.J. 27:77-79.

Bayer, M.B.  1974.  Haworthia Duv.: Section Retusae fide Scott – additional comment.  Aloe 12:89-98.

Bayer, M.B.  1999.  Haworthia Revisited.  Umdaus Press, Pretoria.

Bayer, M.B.  2000.  Observations – cytology as a character source in Gasteria.  In Thoughts on Haworthia :96-99. Addendum 9. (ISBN No. 0-620-25323-1)  Spiderwalk Services, Cape Town.

Bayer, M.B.  2002a.  The case of Haworthia incurvula.  Haworthia Update 1:25-33.  Umdaus Press, Pretoria.  (Revised from Aloe 36:34, 1969).

Bayer, M.B.  2002b.  New names and combinations in Haworthia.  Haworthiad 16:62.

Bayer, M.B.  2003a.  Classification with purpose.  In Alsterworthia International, special issue No.3.

Bayer, M.B.  2003b.  Ecotypes in Haworthia.  Aloe 40:10-15. [link]

Brummitt, R.K. 2002.  How to chop up a tree.  Taxon 51:31-41.

Lee, M.S.  2004. The molecularisation of taxonomy.  Invertebrate Systematics 18:1-6.

Manning, J.C. & G.F. Smith.  2000.  The genus Poellnitzia included in Astroloba.  Bothalia 30:53.

Reynolds, G.W.  1950.  The Aloes of South Africa.  Johannesburg.

Smith, G.F. & B.E. Van Wyk.  1991. Generic relationships in the Alooideae (Asphodelaceae).  Taxon 40:557-581.

Smith, G.F., B.E. Van Wyk, M. Mossmer. & A.Viljoen.  1995.  The taxonomy of Aloinella, Guillauminia and Lemeea (Aloaceae).  Taxon 44:513-517.

Smith, G.F., B.E. Van Wyk, E.M.E. Steyn & I. Breuer. 2000.  Infrageneric classification of Haworthia (Aloaceae): perspectives from nectar sugar analysis.  Proceedings of XV1 AETFAT Congress, Belgium.  Syst.Geogr.Pl. 71:391-397 (2001).

Treutlein, J.,  G.F. Smith, B.E. Van Wyk. & W. Wink.  2003a.  Phylogenetic relationships in Asphodelaceae (Alooideae) inferred from chloroplast DNA sequences (rbcl, matK) and from genomic finger-printing (ISSR).  Taxon 52:193-207.

Treutlein,J., G.F. Smith, B.E. Wyk. & W. Wink.  2003b.  Evidence for the polyphyly of Haworthia (Asphodelaceae Subfamily Alooideae; Asparagales) Inferred from nucleotide sequences of rbcL, matK, ITS1 and genomic fingerprinting with ISSR-PCR.  Plant. Biol. 5:513-521.

Uitewaal, A.J.A.  1947.  A first attempt to subdivide the genus Haworthia, based on floral characters.  Desert Plant Life 19:132-136.

Vosa, C. & A. Bennet.  1990.  Chromosome studies in the Southern African Flora.  Caryologia 43:235-247.

♦

(assisted by R.D. Kent and S.A. Hammer)

Let me not detract one iota from an exceptional and remarkable compilation of descriptions. There is no need for me to go through the book in detail because in respect of it being a compilation, it is outstanding.

What concerns me is what it portends and what it holds for the future of Haworthia. The book follows a Vol.1, which was reviewed in my book Thoughts on Haworthia (Spiderwalk, 1999). It is quite clear to me that Ingo Breuer is in a sense re-inventing the wheel. There is very little information in the book new to me and most of the work was available to Smith in 1947 and certainly to me in 1976. A prime problem I thus have with the work is that it is so firmly rooted in the past. It is thus a threat to the present and holds no promise for the future. The work does present problems, and portends disaster.

Some of the implicit interpretations in this work are possibly just as dubious as some of mine and often more so. I see little purpose in generating change for so small a result. I find the foreword by Prof. G.F. Smith disturbing. It demonstrates some of the malaise I describe in other chapters. Smith’s foreword ranks with a similar foreword to Breuer’s Vol. 1. by Prof. Ihlenfeldt which I commented on in Thoughts on Haworthia. I have said from extensive experience with many genera, that Haworthia does not offer any challenges which are not extant in other genera. It is my indictment of taxonomic botany that taxonomists are not better acquainted with natural diversity and the complex reticulate relationships of species.

To suggest that this book is going to help the reader in anyway towards understanding the actual species of Haworthia as Prof. Smith does, is unfounded. Classification is integral to language, organisation of thoughts and any communication. It is necessary for science and not necessarily science in itself as taxonomists seem to take science to be. To say that Breuer’s work comes as a refreshing change is to beg the question “From what?” In the context of the literature of Haworthia, the work by Breuer takes us back sixty years, and Smith is supporting this backward step. As I will point out, the work is fraught with potential disaster. To further say that this work allows the reader to make his or her own decisions on the application of “some of the controversial names” and further “assist in maintaining an acceptable level of stability” is just mis-statement and a poor assessment of the situation. I will set out to show why.

The purpose of a classification is for a single reasonably competent mind to review a group in such a way as to propose a system which unifies nomenclature and circumvents the need for individual judgements. If we each have our own interpretation of names, what purpose does classification then serve? It is like each of us having our own dictionary and own language. Unless authors driven by the communal need set out to respect nomenclatural stability, there will be no such thing. Names of plants are concerned with species. I have said in many places that if we use names, especially Latin binomials, we need to know what a species in fact is. This is something which not many taxonomists, nor aspirants to the task, seem to be aware of. Any botanist surely should know that the only real interpretation of an assemblage of plant specimens is to examine them in their actual field context. This compilation of descriptions by Breuer, however well intentioned, is self-evidently worthless in that respect and all the illustrations nearly so. This is particularly so in respect of the juxtaposed illustrations where Breuer has attempted interpretation.

The name “asperula” can be taken as an example. I discarded it for a very good reason.  von Poellnitz used the name for at least four different elements and Scott for five. I am well aware that Hayashi and Esterhuizen (private communication) are, or were, of the opinion that it should be in the place of my concept of H. magnifica. What Breuer has done is to juxtapose J.R. Browns illustration and concept of what is almost certainly H. pygmaea as Aloe asperula with Salm-Dyck’s neotype and illustration. For him to have made this visual match is in my opinion a bad one even in the context of Haworthia. In my experience of Haworthia, I would say without question that Salm-Dyck’s icon is probably nearest to scabrid forms of H. retusa and, as Hayashi and Esterhuizen actually implied, specifically to a population from east of Riversdale.

Regarding H. emelyae, H. correcta and H. bayeri; it is not absolutely clear if Breuer has done a volte-face. He did intend correcta to supplant bayeri, and now it appears rather that picta may supplant emelyae. The origin of H. emelyae is quite clear from the exchange between Smith and Ferguson. I wrote this up in 1979 (part 4 of the Nat.Cact. Succ. Jl.).  The plants were not in fact collected by Mrs. Ferguson, but by a Mrs. Le Roux, from near VanWyksdorp. The photos by Fourcade that Breuer uses to illustrate emelyae are quite misleading. One is H. reticulata and the other is H. turgida (Gamka River – and probably the lower Gamka which is the Gouritz River). Breuer has again demonstrated this curious inability, exhibited also by Col. Scott, to make visual comparisons. I liken it to the inability of some people to read maps. If one looks properly at the type illustrations of emelyae and correcta, one can conclude that they are more similar to each other, than are the Fourcade to emelyae. Breuer has simply assumed that Fourcade’s identifications were correct.

One of the reasons I regarded emelyae and bayeri as possibly the same species, was because I had two small collections of bayeri from De Rust and from south of Oudtshoorn.  These were so scabrid that the difference between them and the Uniondale plants, was as great or greater than the difference between plants at VanWyksdorp and the predicted variation of emelyae between Rooiberg and Muiskraal (collections by Dekenah, and in recent years my own) and Springfontein (multifolia) and also its var. comptoniana from Georgida.

Breuer has a photograph by G.F. Wagner on page 570N, entitled “H. mirabilis sensu Bayer (mundula)”. I do not know how he arrives at this caption. It demonstrates a complete ignorance of all my writing and the problem I have stated of look-alikes, and demonstrates also the problem of identification which Breuer seems to assume does not exist. The illustration can superficially be taken to resemble mundula I will agree, but it is quite obvious that the plant cannot be and I certainly have never used the name “mundula” for this H. magnifica population at Barrydale. One needs to look at the illustration of mirabilis in Curtis’ Bot Mag. – the neotype – and see how well this compares with the Barrydale illustration in Breuer’s book. Then one must look under at H. emelyae var. beukmannii and see the various illustrations there from which Breuer also draws his epitype for mirabilis.  Unfortunately Smith’s published illustration of his mundula is a very poor rendering of the element as it occurs in nature. Additionally there is a poor comparison of this with the real mundula photographed by Esterhuizen – of one of the less-lined yellowish clones. It can be noted that as a general rule, mirabilis tends to colour red to yellow under stress whereas maraisii (and magnifica) become darker and duskier.

There is actually a remarkable story of change attached to mundula which I should relate in another place. The plants are not now as they were in 1969 when I first saw them, and of course they might not be anything like what Otzen might have seen. It does raise an interesting point about the taxonomic process – is it designed to produce a classification with which we deal with the living phenomena we see, or do we really need a system which allows us to organise a very limited sample of dead and dried specimens with precision?

I class these Barrydale plants as either magnifica or maraisii although in my work it is clear that I have problems with separating maraisii from magnifica. Thus originally I specifically refer to these Barrydale plants as magnifica (see Haworthia Handbook, 1976 p100, under asperula). This is one of the problems I have in trying to discuss Haworthia with anyone.  There is this reticulate relationship and one can find odd plants in populations which more closely resemble other ‘species’ than that to which they belong.

The problem with mirabilis as opposed to mundula is one which I refer to as a weakness in nomenclature. Breuer has thus designated an epitype for H. mirabilis from Skuitsberg whereas I select the Curtis Ker-Gawler illustration and state the similarity to Smith’s mundula. Therefore a local variant becomes H. mirabilis var. mirabilis, and the whole general body of mirabilis has to be treated as the var. triebneriana. In private correspondence Breuer makes it obvious that this aspect of nomenclature has eluded him, by asking me what can have happened to H. mirabilis if I now typify it with a specimen named mundula!  An unpublished manuscript of Breuer’s in my possession suggests that he wanted to uphold the var. beukmannii of mirabilis also from Skuitsberg. This is done in his book. It does not make sense and any change at species level creates a host of complications at subspecies or varietal level (apart from the added complication of rank priority). Also concerning my species mirabilis in a similar way are the two illustrations used by Breuer to depict the var. rubrodentata. This particular variety is actually represented by a few specific slender leaved clones on a particular steep north facing clay slope indicated to me by the original collector G.J. Payne in 1970. There are at least four other localities west of Greyton where mirabilis occurs and Breuer’s IB5129, coming from any of these, is not comparable with the itemised Triebner 1143.

Three last examples of this incapacity to apply visual imagery with any credibility are:-

1. In the case of H. rossouwii where Brown’s 1953 illustration is obviously not comparable with the von Poellnitz lectotype. This particular picture is virtually identical with Breuer’s own illustration of H. emelyae var. major IB5539.

2. The illustration of H. stiemiei can be shown to be ambiguous and controversial and this will emerge from a manuscript of mine dealing with four intergrading elements from the Zuurberg north of Kirkwood. Breuer’s own depiction of this species could be fruitfully compared with elements as far afield as Wolfkloof, Robertson; and many places in the Baviaanskloof, as well as the Elandsriver Valley. While it no doubt could be that Breuer’s illustration may represent the same element that the type of stiemiei does, the actual resemblance of the two, in the sense of the book, is minimal.

3. What is disturbing is the fact that Breuer wants to apply the name denticulata (Bavaainskloof) here, and the visually and chronologically comparable aristata to Barrydale (my mucronata). I am comfortable with the former because I consider this is where aristata and denticulata BOTH COULD actually belong. In fact I am not comfortable at all with the imagery with which Breuer relates his aristata to the lectotype or to Triebner’s plant. I agree there is reasonable merit, but only in the absence of any prior attempt to better interpret the element. Scott’s views and imagery are/were never any better than Breuer’s. Breuer is remiss for having learnt nothing from history.

It occurs to me to now relate an example of the potential confusion that exists in Haworthia by explaining an example of what Breuer might well do. One can argue on the basis of both type illustration and description that bijliana of v. Poelln is actually either Rooivlei (Bredasdorp) H. heidelbergensis, OR H. serrata from northwest Bredasdorp. In terms of Haworthia these would both be valid arguments and I think this should be pre‑empted.  In an unpublished manuscript I uphold H. rossouwii (which is a much later name than H. bijliana), over serrata. But it could be argued that bijliana also is this element.

In Feddes Repert. (1936) v. Poelln. cites the species bijliana from Klawer and Eenriet, and in 1937 cites it again as from Springbok. In this last publication he cites a specimen also from Springbok, another from Bonnievale, another from Ezeljacht Oudtshoorn, and also sinks H. fergusoniae here which in fact was supposed to have come from ‘near’ Grahamstown. Thus Breuer has:

H. bijliana v. Poelln. in Feddes Repert. 27:134 (1929); Bredasdorp, Mrs. van der Bijl. Type van der Bijl s.n. in (B). Not preserved. Lectotype designated Breuer 1999, unpublished photo. icon. (B)  (my copy of the description does not have the word “doubtful” after Bredasdorp as Breuer adds in his book).

Funnily the original illustration of bijliana is in my opinion very like rossouwii, and fergusoniae like that of tenera ‑ whereas later treatment of the names puts them as arachnoidea. Breuer’s treatment thus in many instances demonstrates the inherent self-evident fact that types in Haworthia are, and always will be ambiguous. Types cannot be used to confidently identify and name plants outside of the geographic origins of those types. The point Breuer makes about ambiguity on XIII is actually just some of the juristic jargon which is supposes to lend credibility to nomenclature. It is a fact of life that a type in Haworthia is ambiguous unless it is very clearly illustrated and the locality properly stated. Thus in the case of emelyae it is self-evident from Breuer’s own use of the illustrations, that the lectotype was highly ambiguous.

Without making a point of finding any trivial errors:

On page 784 Breuer has Olifantsdorn for Olifantsdoorn, page 784 Breuer has Conwitz i.s.o. Gouritz and on page 786 Stromsvley for Stormsvlei (this is an interesting error because v.Poellnitz cites a Strydomsvlei when it may have been Stormsvlei (as it happens this is also in connection with H. triebneriana, and potentially damaging because Stormsvlei is the origin of the vars. depauperata and pulchra. All these fall within the broader context of mirabilis and mundula of either Bayer or Breuer).

There is merit in trying to arrive at another interpretation of H. helmiae and I think Breuer in this one case is possibly right. For some reason Scott was adamant that Mrs. Helm had told him she had collected this species at Schoemanspoort, which would have made my interpretation reasonable, but Scott often bent the truth to meet his needs If one looks in any way at the four illustrations that Breuer present for helmiae, one must be struck again at the incongruence of the match. Breuer’s lectotype could hardly be more ambiguous when held against the Fourcade photograph. The point should be made that Breuer seems to attach an omniscience to the Brown and Fourcade illustrations which is wholly at variance with the facts – as noted by myself in 1976.

The re-introduction of the name integra for my rycroftiana is probably acceptable on the basis of the new evidence (if true). I regarded ‘integra‘ as an unknown in 1982 with inadequate evidence to support it. Scott salvaged the name for what in my opinion is arachnoidea var. nigricans. Almost any specimen of any of the similar ‘soft’ Haworthia species from diverse populations, preserved in alcohol, could be taken to be a mucronata variant if so desired or required. This particular one with the dark tips evident to the leaves could in my opinion be from outside the Gamka Valley from a place like Ockertskraal or Muurkees. The species mucronata is any event so variable that the suggestion that integra be upheld as a discrete species from mucronata, is of very doubtful value. As it is I have enough evidence to show that arachnoidea and mucronata can often not be separated.

I think it would be useful to know if Breuer’s IB numbers refer to plants which he had any real familiarity with in terms of their field context. I am aware that Breuer is first in the queue for plants collected and propagated by myself which come to be distributed in the trade. This creates a problem because propagation has always been largely by vegetative means – and mistakes occur in transfer. Thus the trade, and collections, tend to be dominated by proliferous clones and they may be misnamed and wrongly accessioned as to origin. The variability of the population is wholly obscured. Evidence of Breuer’s capacity to match visual images, suggests to me that he would not be able to find any pattern unaided by modern interpretation. Hence the reference to re-invention of a wheel.

There is a problem with a H. gigas – the plants from Amalienstein are familiar to me and they are not quite the same rigid plants with brown spination that is so characteristic of the Laingsburg plants. Treating them as synonymous with my H. arachnoidea var. scabrispina removes the geographic significance of the taxon. It is not in the least significant that they look-alike. Attaching nomenclatural significance to this similarity is wholly unnecessary and misleading.

There will be a problem with aristata as Breuer and I interpret them so differently. There is in fact a problem with gracilis as well which Breuer may not be aware of. However, the dickering over nomenclature here is not going to resolve the problem of what anyone does to understand the relationship between what I have called gracilis, cooperi, blackbeardiana and cymbiformis, and which extends to pringlei, decipiens, xiphiophylla and even mucronata. Using names in any other way is not going to solve any problem and will simply add to the confusion when the problem has to be faced. There is no way that one can actually separate Breuer’s aristata (my mucronata var. mucronata) and his mucronata (my mucronata var. inconfluens) as species. This ONE element is confounded with H. arachnoidea in many places and how anyone is going to find names to accommodate the associated variation in any new arrangement will be fascinating to see.

I have written several manuscripts which deal with specific issues in this context and these are included in this volume of essays. These will show the difficulties which Breuer’s work presents, and will show that Prof. Smith’s use in the foreword of the term “golden age” is for a work which actually helps to usher in a blackout. I agree wholeheartedly with Prof. Smith that Breuer’s work as a librarian is beyond reproach, but for helping to reorganise Haworthia it has very doubtful value. ♦

Published in Haworthiad 13:119 (1999). 

At last a reasonably rational review which is written with some insight and understanding.  It makes points which lead to communication and hence discussion. The then Editor of Haworthiad in relaying his feelings and that of his readers has criticised me many times for what is said to be my intolerance of the views of others. I want to set this record straight. I am intolerant of anything which stultifies and paralyses the understanding of Haworthia and distorts communication about it. I had written to Paul Forster before I heard he was preparing this review, and then I was thrown into a bit of a quandary. I do have enormous respect for people and it is not my wish to hurt anyone’s feelings. Paul is no doubt at all an excellent botanist and a human being of a high order. Unfortunately, I do not think his review is particularly good as it is couched in the paradigm of the orthodox and the conventional. I hoped for more, as I sense the complacence and almost smug security of the professional herbarium botanist who’s highly descriptive revisions will be held in awe by, and never ever tested in the crucible of, popular interest. There are many very positive things in the review, and in concentrating on the negative I really feel that progress is possible.

Firstly, I stated that herbarium space was a problem. It IS a problem. Whether Paul thought there was space or not is irrelevant. For many years random additions to the herbaria have been frowned on. Also for many years there was resistance to discarding the meaningless collections that occupied so much space in the cupboards. Paul should know how a herbarium is arranged, and that an addition to the full cupboard of a fern genus has a ripple affect all the way to the end of the collection. Space in the fern cupboard does not mean space in the Haworthia cupboard. The Bolus herbarium will only accept material regarded as necessary for bona fide research and the same is true for Compton Herbarium (NBG), where researchers are genuinely concerned about ‘their’ own space. Three of the only collectors I know (and who were persuaded and encouraged by me) to deposit specimens at all are Howard Gie, Emil Heunis and J.D. Venter. They were discouraged from doing so because of the real pressure for space that existed at the Compton and Bolus Herbaria – and still does. Gone are the days when collectors were welcomed with open arms and seen as a source of valuable new material. It is only in 1996, that space for Haworthia was created in the new herbarium building at Kirstenbosch. This is not because of a spacious new building which squeezed Haworthia into possibly less space than it had before, but because the curators allowed the transfer of about four boxes of G.G. Smith duplicates to Pretoria. I hate to think what problems these have created for Pretoria when I reflect on the lack of space I saw there in 1996, and available in terms of the total arrangement of the herbarium. I contributed many specimens to NBG and I share their concern that it is just not possible to provide the space necessary to reflect the diversity of the flora of the Cape. I must have driven them to distraction with my collections of Oxalis and Asparagus, which I think are packed in boxes in some remote and isolated room somewhere in the user unfriendly building. It is also not just a question of space.  The management of new material from the collector is a mammoth task. Specimens must be accessioned, treated, mounted and labelled. Those I submitted more than two years ago, are still not available for me to see again!

Why does Paul cite DMC3625 Kubusie Drift, near Kingwilliamstown if there is no specimen?  Because it is in fact meaningless and he intends this as an abject lesson to collectors who want a classification, but not the trouble required to support one. He later states that if there are no specimens (of intergrades) then they do not exist from a scientific data point of view. I would say, please leave out the red‑herring word ‘scientific’. It is beginning to convey to me the ultimate in insensibility. There are these intergrades and I really puzzled about how to cite them. I even described taxa to accommodate them e.g. H. decipiens var. minor, and H. gracilis var. viridis. Paul also writes of intergrades which he knows exists because he has seen them – but he also has made no specimens? His casual statement is thus good enough while mine is not? He does have the grace to say that new specimens have further blurred the distinctions between previously recognised taxa but he does not say which ones. Did he make specimens to support this statement? Paul does miss an important criticism ‑ the incorrect citation of specimens e.g. under H. cooperi var. pilifera, where Brigadoon is cited as Grahamstown and also King Williams Town; Peninsula is cited as Grahamstown, when it should have been King Williams Town. These are important errors because knowing this geography would perhaps have allowed one to connect the Kubusie Drift collection with other collections from nearby sites. Thus DMC3625 (if it existed) could in terms of my revision be only H. cooperi var. pilifera or H. cymbiformis var. setulifera. Also I find that I have several times erroneously cited the same specimens under different names. This arises from duplicates seen at different times and place, and ones which confused me often because of their intermediacy. However, this is what I hope the next revision will sort out ‑ thorough field work and assignment of each collection, in a more considered way, to each taxon. Part of my own frustration is that persons are fiddling about with nomenclature and guesswork when it is things like this that need attention and questioning. A herbarium specimen does not give the required information and ‘feel’ and sometimes a single dried specimen, and my memory, is all I had. Let me also say in mitigation – I have never been employed to do work on Haworthia and have never, in employ, been encouraged to do so. I do not have full-time access to the herbarium, and have never had. This is a serious problem when the herbarium record is the core of revisionary work and I might have made fewer mistakes had it been easier for me. I would also make fewer mistakes if half my mind was not held back so by the negative history of the literature on Haworthia.

There is also a serious and common problem with DMC numbers. This particular collector is well known to me and we have exchanged views on collection done without a permit, in numbers which no permit would concede, in a way which has no scientific principles at its base, and which does not ensure a herbarium record. 3600 meaningless numbers! It just is a fact of life that collectors do not make specimens and it plagues me more than it does him. In the normal course one should not expect them to do so, but for one he gets out into the field in the way that DMC does, it is another matter.

A bigger problem with herbarium material is that any haworthiophile values the plants he/she gets. To reduce them to squashed dried specimens is painful in the extreme. Apart from the pain of separation, it requires really tedious effort, more to make the specimens recognisable, and then the equipment and space to do so. Permit requirements, and a conservation ethic, severely limit what one can collect (my permit allows three offsets, and my ethic none!). As the plants require some observation, these are generally taken into cultivation with attempts to propagate and distribute material as well as produce a specimen from the product. The dried specimens seldom display the variation of the parent population and one usually finds a vegetatively propagated clone on the sheet. Miss Winsome Barker (past Curator of the Compton Herbarium) encouraged the use of colour photography to add to the usefulness of herbarium sheets. If there is any strength in my classification at all, it is because of what is in the herbarium like this. It disturbs me that so much of what I have seen, is not adequately documented in this way. Most of the herbarium records are of single specimens. While my permit allows three, I generally like to see at least six grown in cultivation to get an idea of what any population may be like.  I have grown plants from field collected seed, and to record some of this variability in terms of essential herbarium record is a monumental job – an impossibility. But I have tried to do it and am still trying. I cannot add an apology for the fact that I like the plants living rather than dead.

Paul says I have all this ‘information’ about vegetation and habitat ‑ indeed I do. So much so, that I cannot fool myself into thinking that one can make specific statements about habitat preferences. His comment makes me think back to the comment of Gordon Rowley’s about the soil pH data given in Col. Scott’s book. Was this pH data really any good at all, and if it was, did it have any practical value whatsoever?  (The story of the mima-like mounds of the winter rainfall Cape would be a useful reference in this respect.)  It should be clear to the expert who knows something of the South African flora and geography that no statement he can make will be clear to the novice, and that quite probably it will not be clear to any other expert either. I am still wrestling with this problem fantasy that vegetation can be classified with the same facility that discrete species can. I believe this is one of the great misconceptions and myths of botany, which like so many things in science, is never as simple as it seems. Paul is said to be a cycad researcher. I doubt if he could explain the distribution and habitats of the E. Cape cycads in terms of the recorded and described vegetation of the area, or in terms of their classification. This is a considerably easier task than it will be for Haworthia. Paul should know that Haworthia is just one of many genera which are virtually unresolvable in terms of classic taxonomy, or describable by vegetation and habitat. I have named some before and I can add to the list with Hermannia, Rhus, Tetragonia, Lycium, Pteronia, Zygophyllum as examples I am familiar with. Vegetation study will be more meaningful when we have good classifications for these genera. I have recently seen a Haworthia change facies over a distance of 50 meters, because of local habitat differences. The only differences I can record is the fact that one plant form was on exposed vertical slabs of rock, and the other in sloping terrain with the same rock substrate, but with more soil and grass. One would need to be a geologist, geomorphologist, and soil scientist, in addition to be able to identify and quantify the associated plant species to do what Paul idealises. Perhaps this is the prerogative of a reviewer. Nothing is impossible and it should have been done.

Paul makes the excellent point that the only person who can say if this new classification is any good is I. So I say “Thank you, I actually think, and know, that it is very good indeed”! This should be true for the author of any revision. I am sorry to say that in my experience, many revisions which have been accepted and published by “scientific” journals (or as academic theses) have proved to be pretty useless. I should add that this is not only for new material not seen by the authors, and despite meeting all the requirements Paul has for my ‘synopsis’. He goes on to say that “While it may be easy (probably not) for Bruce to attempt to fit new and morphologically distinctive collections into his system, it is well nigh impossible for anyone else for the lack of data presented”. The unnecessary words ‘probably not’ points to the wrong place. The subgenera in Haworthia are morphologically distinctive and that is practically where it stops. My complaints have been directed at the fact that persons unlimited are creating new names and fiddling with old ones because they are so unaware of this problem. My ‘data’ includes geographic information and no one should even attempt to fit a grossly ‘new and morphologically distinctive’ collection into my system without familiarity with that system. Nobody without knowledge of the herbarium collections can know what is new and distinctive. If they do not know this they should not be fiddling with Haworthia. The problem is not caused by my presentation and its shortcomings – it IS a fact of life for many more genera than just Haworthia. Writers are playing with MY classification, that have not seen the material in the herbarium and neither do they have the knowledge of those specimens in the field. They may have seen material that I have not seen, but still the responsibility is on them to first know what forms the body of an existing classification and its predictive ness, before embarking on a new mission to repeat the exercise.

Paul skates about a bit with the questions of descriptions and measurements. He complains that dimensions (‘size dimensions’!) are not provided. In an age when people do not read, and look at pictures instead, I decided that this kind of data could as well be deduced – at the level that it is practical and needed – from the many illustrations. Of course a lot of importance is attached to these details Paul calls for, because they give the impression of quantification and hence ‘materialistic ‘science’. Intellectuals have to have something to keep them busy or create the pretensions of business. It would have made the book a lot thicker (and a lot more expensive). I also know very well that with all that detail my credibility in the academic environment would be assured. Of course living organisms are measurable and there is also a statistical science (biometry) that goes with it. This science depends on randomness and replication, deals in mostly normal data and probabilities. It is my knowledge of this science which supports my understanding of Haworthia, and part of the reason why my work is sound. Nobody is going to get anywhere in Haworthia neither with three specimens, nor very far with the specific mensuration that Paul calls for. I do know the group. Contrary to Paul’s statement (sorry #, Paul), it is because I know the group (and many others) that I also know that this variability cannot be easily rationalised and summarised for meaningful usage. Haworthia is not like, say, Hoya where a new species (see Marsdenia as a new genus) can be recognised on the basis of a single flowering specimen. In a collection, often the decision on whether one or two clones are involved is to look and see if their flowers are different! The variability of the plants is what it is, and I do not understand why readers seem to think that there must be some character state lurking somewhere that is going to provide an ultimate solution. It is all well and good saying, as Paul does, that every time he plants seed he is struck by the differences. I challenge him to document this frivolous observation and to explain to me what exactly has struck him and what it’s more general value is. This approach of his is the same as the weaknesses he rightly perceives in my revision. How do we get out of the condition? In biometry (the statistics of biological systems?) we were taught that you do not attempt to seek significance when it is obvious what the variability in the sample tells your common sense. It is a laughing issue in agricultural science that researchers seek significance in statistical test after statistical test until, on the basis of the very probability they are testing, they find the significance they seek. Botany has apparently not reached this stage yet.

What I have said about voluminous and detailed descriptions is that they are in practise almost useless. I can say confidently that Paul’s comments about the woeful and incomparable descriptions (I think they are masterful in their brevity, contrary to Paul’s use of the word!) is a true statement about Haworthia. It cannot be wished away or blamed on me. I would really like to give him just the currently deposited collections of what appear to be two species viz. H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi. He must then write a description (aided by as much living material as he wants) which allows the reader to identify them with any degree of certainty at all, and in so doing also exclude elements such as H. gracilis, H. bolusii and H. aristata. If his then comprehensive description adds anything to the synopses of my revision, I will indeed be surprised. I know what goes on in taxonomic accounts which Paul so reverently cites, and I am not impressed by the vast amount of detail ‑ look how it has been used in cladistic studies in the Aloeaceae at genus level! If Paul knew Haworthia well enough to write this review, he would have also been able to say that Esterhuizen and Battista’s taxon (H. mucronata var. rooibergensis) bore no relation to reality at all. Of what value to Paul (and Col. Scott’s book would have been adequate for this particular exercise) was the detail these authors supplied? How could he possibly have used it if I had supplied the statistically true comparable values for just H. mucronata alone? I had already written a response to Esterhuizen and Battista which will be published elsewhere, and this response does deal again with this issue of detail. I must say that I am familiar enough with Halda’s work to suggest a blacklisting by the International Association of Plant Taxonomists. We could both be there together!

Yes, I am aware that I have not given, say, the difference in flowering time between bayeri and emelyae. It is only about six weeks and I think the actual flowering dates vary from east to west. However, it is a lot more complicated than that and I do not know what I can truthfully say. G.G. Smith recorded flowering times of many collections for several years and these varied by as much as 5 months. In H. magnifica var. splendens, the west of Albertinia populations flower in November, those east, in September and perhaps again in November. In the field I have observed a population of H. cooperi var. gordoniana (which has affinities with cymbiformis var. transiens! – Jeffries Bay MBB6792) which in one year flowered six weeks later than in the preceding year. Flowering time is as erratic and variable as the populations are. A good record should also be bounded by statistical limits. I separated maraisii and mirabilis on flowering time (Apr./May vs Feb./Mar), but it does not always work. The McGregor complex may flower from Nov. to May. In cultivation there are nearly always odd plants flowering out of synchrony and my field work has not been that of the professional who can set goals to observe phenological events. Yes, I did indeed do a lot of work on the flowers, and I cannot use it because I could find so little pattern. Like in the asclepiads, differences in the flowers within populations often exceeded the differences between populations. Again, underlying Paul’s complaint is the fact that there is no Holy Grail that is going to unlock the conundrum of Haworthia.

No, the book without pictures is not user friendly. It was not expected to be and I said as much. If the publisher could have accommodated another 450 (is it 450 or more?) photographs and the book remain affordable, I am sure they would have done so. The question of intergrades is also thin‑ice stuff. Does the nomenclatural system allow these things? In my collection book I quite happily use the chemistry equilibrium equation to indicate how I would classify a collection and many of the herbarium collections are so indicated. The object of my classification was to try and identify divisions rather than obscure them, which is what most classifications do. My next exercise (which I wish was a competent somebody else’s) is to show that intergrades are not just two-way, but perhaps three- or even four-way.

As to H. pumila, many (may I repeat, many) professional plant taxonomists have entered the debate and indeed there is no vacuum here. It is a space filled with vacillation and doubt, conflicting opinion and retroactive wisdom. Nomenclature is not my strong point, and perhaps for the very reason that any good practicable workable solution can be contested and upturned (and will be so contested and upturned) for no other reason that there is a juristic element which caters for it. That the International Association of Plant Taxonomists has not resolved the particular issue of H. pumila is their problem. I find it extraordinary that Paul does not see the irony of the situation. IF I have made a mistake, the following is what I will concede – the author citation of H. pumila should read (L.)Scott, and not (Duv.)Scott or (L.)Bayer. I deliberately took the onus on myself for any flack that my continued use of the name would draw, but I am very happy to give the credit back to a gentleman and a friend. This name pumila is the first epithet for Haworthia in the Linnaean system and if the ICBN does not allow its use I will happily continue to condemn that august body, all its pettifogging recommendations, and the Committee that empowers it or is empowered by it. Paul is just another of a very long list of professional taxonomists who can blithely say “I am not sure what the outcome should be at this point in time”. When will this momentous decision be taken and by whom?  He cannot thus be any more comfortable with nomenclature than I am, given that he is a professional. Paul is only going to be sure what the correct solution is when he is so informed by the high priests of nomenclature. So much for science. The fact that a committee has to resolve these things is, in my opinion, an indictment of the entire process. It is not just any committee of qualified taxonomists he can do this wondrous work as I painfully learned from a group discussion with four Doctored intellectuals. As for the “serious” oversight concerning the rule (Prof. Cronquist asked if nomenclaturists knew what they were doing, and I think not) of rank priority, forget it. I do not like the rule (or much else about the ICBN) and I do not see the necessity for its inflexibility. There seem to be more instability nurtured by the code than precluded by it. I prefer the names I have used and I also think they are more meaningful. Let the bandits do what they want to. It is perfectly clear what my names were derived from and what they mean. I think carping about the “rules” is just a nit-picking exercise derived from a failed historical attempt to rigidly control nomenclature. It does, and will continue to cause, more problems than it solves. As for “bandits”?  Who stole the familiar name Astroloba muricata away from Groen and Roberts-Reinecke and substituted a new name corrugata under the guise of the strongest words associated with the Code i.e. to avoid confusion? This is what I refer to as trivial botany and I hope the IAPT will mint a medallion for this kind of thing.

A fact is that there is not one of my names (or Scott’s) for which there is any doubt as to origin, usage, or typification – except that it was not done in the style and letter-correct formality of the ICBN. The fact that Breuer and Metzing could do what they did (and add to this, all the words that the former author generated for the non-existent enigma of H. arachnoidea) is further adverse commentary on the ICBN.

Paul does dangle the predictable carrot…”It can be expected that with further exploration…new data… may radically change classification”. What does he think happened between 1982 and 1996 when the book was drafted?  What is more important is what has happened since 1996? I have been almost horrified by the threatened return to the taxonomy of the early 1940’s, and in this respect Paul was kind enough to mention “the changing of a few names” by Breuer. The dearth of any signs of intelligent life in new ventures into Haworthia compelled me back into the arena by default. I have done some very thorough recent exploration and can say that my classification is even better than I had hoped it would be. Some very interesting new collections (and to date there are well over 400 new numbers in my accession book) can all be explained in terms of my classification if they can be explained at all. This is why I know my classification is so good. I hope to present the information somehow, in someway, as supplementary publications and the first has just appeared in Aloe 36:34 (1999).

There is a reference to refereeing of the book prior to publication. This is not fair to Peter Bruyns and I unfortunately cannot give a full explanation why I think this is so. We have worked together for more than 25 years. While his contribution was useful, this usefulness was not very forthcoming and it is not a door I would beg at. His big contribution to the debate about Haworthia is his forthright comment “Lump them!” It may well be the sensible thing to do and I have many times considered it seriously. Regrettably the opinion is based on an extraordinary ignorance of Haworthia, despite our long association.

Finally let me say this. For the full eighteen years that I was Head of the Karoo Botanic Garden (before, and even after) I sought the taxonomist Messiah that would lead us out of the unhappiness or confusion of Haworthia. Nobody has ever even nibbled at the bait.  Botanists just do not want to mess with “difficult” groups, and I have seen them really mess with simpler problems. See what Prof. E.A.C.L.E. Schelpe said and did about Gasteria, or about publishing a really marvellous work on Astroloba by Pandora Roberts. If I have presented a revision of Haworthia, it is simply because there has not been anybody more competent, and this may be an unpleasant truth. I have never wished to say “Trust me, I am the expert”. I consider it most unfortunate that I am, and I would rather be doing something else. After reading Paul’s review I can confidently say that my classification is a lot better than Paul is guessing. As I digest and work over these latest collections of mine my confidence grows. If good sense prevails there will be very little in the way of name change or circumscription and we will all be able to enjoy the plants a lot more. If somebody competent does appear who wishes to build on what I have done and take over where I want to leave off, they will have my unstinted blessing, assistance and gratitude. ♦

I read a review of the book Rock of Ages authored by Stephen Jay Gould, by D. Bristow-Bovey (Sunday Independent, 27th May, 2001). Because the review left me feeling paltry and empty as a scientist, and defrauded, ignored or forgotten as a seeker, I acquired the book to find out what Gould actually had to say. Gould is a seminal figure in the popular literature of biology where I browse, and I look to him to interpret science and its progress.  But this book with a subtitle “Science and religion in the fullness of life” seems to fail the subject, and me, completely.

I would have thought that the appearance of books like Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception (describing the effects of drugs on awareness), Fritjof Capra’s The Turning Point, Bentov’s Stalking the Wild Pendulum, Gary Zukav’s The Seat of the Soul,  Shirley McClean’s Dancing in the Light, Lyall Watsons books, as well as so many, many others; would have at the least indicated that mankind was on the threshold of a new age.  There is a vast literature on the subject of new age philosophy and predictions of change.  Where can science be in all this?

Gould’s book is a rude awakening to the facts of our collective spiritual dormancy. Far from providing any comfort, it coolly suggests that this intellectual and intelligent business of science has work to do, and people with spiritual inclinations can go and play somewhere else: i.e. religion is for believers, and science is for thinkers. Gould, in my opinion, has written in the intellectual climate of the age of Darwin as he to some degree honestly admits.  In that age intellectuals were awakening to the harsh reality that the religious beliefs of the day, did not tally with their observations of the world. Gould holds that this problem can be resolved simply by recognising that there are two sides to the story. Two magisteria, the one being religion, and the other science. One being that of religion, where imagination can run riot without the strictures of hard evidence. The other, the dispassionate, disciplined, considered, calculated and wondrous field of science, where he himself is a great scientist and writer.  He does not say what other magisteria there are in which one would then have to accommodate human aspirations or in which one could seek human happiness.

Gould seeks to exonerate himself from predicted criticism.  With a respect to him at least equal to that he accords religion, I think his argument can be shown to lead nowhere.

In his Preamble, Gould states what science is, viz… “what is the universe made of and why does it work this way”.  He is immediately fuzzy with the same fuzziness which he deplores when he later says.. “I have difficulty keeping a straight face and a peaceful pen”. He assigns to religion the task only of “ultimate meaning”, which is surely no different than the “why” of science.  The difference is just one of belief.

He suggests that science deals with measurable things and that religion does not. The truth is that science just does not have a measure of the elements of the human mind such as pleasure, pain, hate, love, greed, contentment, humour, charity, happiness, wonder, truth and humility. For that reason then, all the things which drive emotions and feelings do not exist for the limited scientist. He perhaps overlooks the fact that in the broader sense, science actually has no absolute measure of space or time either. Creation is nothing but phenomena distributed in space and changing with time, and religion is there to fulfill a void that Gould’s version of science is too limited to deal with. As a scientist and intellectual, Gould opts out of his responsibility and leaves us all to the mercies of laymen.  What has happened, and this is very well stated by Schumacher (in his book “A guide for the Perplexed”), is that science has simply departed from its original root and foundation.  Where it was given birth to free mankind from the religious dogma, pedantry, ritual, ceremony and blind belief of organised religion, it has actually become another religion which simply denies the very things to which religion owes its origins. It has its own pedantic and blind priesthood, it’s same speculation and falsehood. It is just as accountable for the misery pain and suffering in this creation as anything else.  Science has set us free from nothing. Even its claims of technological advance in so many fields have done nothing more for the human spirit than religion.

Freemasonry probably can be found at the roots of intellectual awakening, and I understand that the fathers of science like Bacon and Newton were freemasons. Was it not in their creed to study natural phenomena and extract meaning and purpose from such study? Was it not the beginning of an attempt to escape from the restriction and persecution of religious doctrine, creed and dogma of the day?  The intrinsic binding injunction or requirement of the mason was the practise of truth and justice and a belief in God.

Schumacher placed great emphasis on ancient wisdom – but what is ancient wisdom? Is it all that old traditional pagan, heathen myth, legend and belief which underlay the evolution of the human spirit? Was it just the glue of a backward society without the wonder of science and intellectual achievement? Or was it the true, real product of an innate driving force which compels man to seek meaning and purpose? Thus we may have a scientist whose profession it is to develop technology, or study the biology of Seekatruthicus religiosus (this is a fictitious name for a non-existent mite). This same scientist may have an unquestioned fixation and unsubstantiated belief in life after death, promised by virtue of birth in a family which has organised his circumcision, christening, and later confirmation.  Such a scientist may or may not consider and face the reality of death and what it will hold for him. Almost certainly he will not even think about, let alone follow the promises and practises of the religion he professes to follow by either conscious or unconscious choice.  Another scientist may follow the same route and while examining the mites under his microscope, ask “What is the meaning and purpose of what I see?”  “Does it tally with what the circumstance and experience of my life reveal to me?” Why Gould should suggest that such questions are invalid in the domain of science, may just be because of his personal belief that science should not address such questions. This is a limitation which Gould may place on science as his personal prerogative. Whatever other people also do, it is not a limitation of science or of scientific method. It is a personal limitation which the individual is free to examine and then retain or discard. We should all go through this process.

The problem that arose from Darwin was that man began to believe that religion too was a simple product of evolution, and that spirituality as descent of man from angel was unthinkable.

Gould places a restrictive meaning on the word “science” and maintains the restricted meaning of the word “religion”. Science, from the latin “scíre” meaning to know, and with a dictionary meaning (among others) of…”a body of organised knowledge”. Religion from “re” return and “ligare” to bind, meaning to bind back. This is no different from the meaning of the word “yoga” from the Sanskrit meaning to yoke (back to God). If a scientist is serious about what he thinks, he sets out to obtain the data, the knowledge and the experience which can help him answer his questions. Schumacher would simply say that it is a question of where and how he seeks happiness. Science and religion do not stand opposed as Gould suggests. Anyone can follow scientific method to understand how to bind back to God – however improbable that may sound or difficult it may prove to be.  Enchantment with the outward physical world is no excuse for turning away from this human imperative. Religion is by definition “belief”, but that does not necessitate ignorance, nor invalidate any intellectual attempt to convert that belief to knowledge.

If Gould would read and study the literature (and the Bible is one of the lesser works in all that is actually available), and if he would penetrate the wisdom of the Rubaiyat which he freely quotes, he would see that these writers (and there are so many of them) are describing their travails, their hopes, their despair, their triumphs, their experiences, their methods. But by reading these works one does not acquire that experience or that knowledge. There are methods by which one obtains spiritual knowledge – as opposed to the outward practises of ceremony and ritual which accompany religion. There are actually many methods as any aspirant seeker will soon discover. The fact that so many of them, and so obviously, lead to scientifically and intellectually unacceptable conclusions and practises, may discourage one from further effort. This is again a choice one makes. To either persist or abandon the quest. Failure does not mean that it is not possible to get a result. The first rocket fired did not get to the moon.

Perhaps we can say.. “Science is method. It is not a magisterium of anything”. If it is a magisterium, then there is only one other magisterium and that is nescience”. We have “knowing” and “not knowing”. What religion does is present material which can be scrutinised. Hypotheses can be derived for examination by scientific METHOD. Scriptures are largely derived from experience and all can be used to rationally hypothesise the existence of God. Science is now required to properly examine and test such hypotheses if the scientist feels compelled to make public statements about their relevance and impose his non-belief and agnosticism on others. Gould is perhaps concerned that Gnosticism is directed at him and sullies his personal magisterium of science. The converse could also be true. His agnosticism may be sullying the field of religion and denying the emergence of greater truth, however much he professes otherwise. Religion takes it as a self-evident truth that God exists, because this is fundamental to human consciousness. This is ancient wisdom – it resides within each one of us. Perhaps it is just good fortune that our circumstances of birth and environment (Gould’s “accidental ontogeny”) allow this spark to flicker into flame. But elegant prose does not bring enlightenment nor lead us to an awakening of our true nature. Perhaps God IS consciousness, or better still, consciousness IS God.  There are many levels (“mansions”?) of consciousness – this is axiomatic from the ordinary observation of people, let alone from a considered view of deep sleep, dream, hypnosis, fantasy, vision, direct perception and mystic transport. If one considers the Bible, which Gould is happy to quote and use so extensively, one can get a lot more from it than he apparently has done.

In respect of some of the quotes. Gould closes his book with a small part-quotation from St John, which he pointedly acknowledges also has another meaning. So he makes the same mistake that he would condemn in a “bible-thumper”. He quotes only the piece “In the beginning was the word”, to score intellectual points. Gould states that he “knows that the phrase bears another meaning in its original context”. Does he indeed “know” what that meaning is?  If he did, he might find himself nailed to a wooden cross. It surprises me always that scientists are not “religious”, when it is so obvious what they need to do and can do, with such scriptural statements. They need to develop a testable hypothesis.  St John (as written in the gospel) further stated that this “word” was with God and the word was God. Still further, he states that all that was created was created by “word”.  What is unscientific about speculating that there is then a creative force behind space and time, and that this creative force is any different for “science” or for religion? There cannot be two truths. Gould’s insinuation that the “word” is just a written and spoken instrument of debate and discussion is going to take no-one further along the spiritual path than that same discussion and debate. Like so many preachers he has lost the gist and meaning of those words of St John and prostituted them for another end.

St. John elsewhere (4:8) also states that “God is love”. In other words we begin to develop that hypothesis.  God = love = word.  So the word is not a book or writing or language.  Christ is reputed to have said “I am in my Father and ye in me and I in you” (John 14:20).  He further goes on to state quite explicitly… “He that hath seen me hath seen my Father”.  What does Gould even begin to imagine that Christ is talking about?  What should a scientist do? Dismiss this as fantasy? He is of course free to think and do what he likes, and the faculty to take either option is this one which is denied any other living species. Is he free to espouse his view without review or scrutiny? Is this not what preachers demand from us too? In Corinthians (1,3:16) it is also clearly stated “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God”.

The Bible was written nearly 2 000 years ago and we can be excused for thinking that it is just imaginative prose and has no literal meaning. We can also forget that there were no dictionaries and no way in which the language and idiom of the day could also simultaneously used to satisfy the intellectual 2000 years into the future. But we are now being scientists either testing if a hypothesis can be extracted from this ancient writing and then testing that hypothesis. Perhaps we have evidence that man is devolving. If Gould just acknowledges that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further, that is entirely his prerogative. But to impose his feelings upon a reading public in the guise of a text dealing with the fullness of life is not correct because it shuts a door on that fullness.  Will we say in another 2000 years time, “He did come again, and again, and again”. What use will that be to any of us today?

The Bible is the source of a great deal more wisdom which actually leads on to describe precisely how one comes to “know” that this body is the “temple” of God. Christ is reputed to have said “If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light” (Matthew 6:22). Is it just chance that this statement is repeated in the Adi Granth (M4, p1323). Is it just chance that bells and lights figure in the tradition, ritual and ceremony of so many religions? What can be meant? The scientist, the real scientist, asks this question. The fool may shun it, but we have the beginnings of a worthwhile hypothesis that may be worth developing further.  God is word, God is love, God is consciousness, He is knowable. How do we take this further?

The Bible does contain all the necessary answers, but it cannot take one to that experience that it so plainly describes. Christianity is also not the only religion after Judaism, nor is the bible remotely the only book of relevance that Gould’s béte noires would like to believe.  There are many other texts, including the Rubaiyat, which state the same “truths” or principles that the Bible does. Again, the individual (whether he wishes to be seen as a scientist, agnostic, or atheist) is free to ignore all this and make of it what he wants.  Gould’s claim that he is an agnostic based on his opinion that “truly one cannot know” is nothing that I would be proud to acclaim. The ancient Greeks said “Man know thyself”.  Were they just guessing at something?  Who said “Be still, and know that I am God”?

Gould states that we should “Acknowledge the personal character of these human struggles about morals and meaning and stop looking for definite answers in nature’s construction”. He does go on very meaningfully, but he obfuscates the point. The human body is nature’s chief construction. This is where we are to find what we seek (“seek and you shall find”) and it is the only place where this can be done. In the Adi Granth it is said “True devotees seek within, all others wander in delusion”. The Bible reads “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). “Man is made in the image of God”. Science as a process of organising knowledge should enable and empower us, not drive us from the door.

Gould once made a statement which impressed itself on my mind roughly as follows.. “When I see what is done with those things I know something about, I am very sceptical about what is done with things I know little about”. Instead of being disturbed by the weak arguments of syncretism, there should be absolutely nothing to stop Gould from properly applying his scientific mind to the question of the existence of God. I have personally experienced the failures and weaknesses of the scientific product, and have made many mistakes myself. These mistakes are nothing to do with science, unlike the woes of mankind which often have everything to do with religion. Man was not made for religion and neither was he made to be led up the garden path by mechanistic science. He was made for the purpose of realising God? What prevents us from doing this? Who knows?  Gould quotes “blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed”. Gould’s interpretation may only demonstrate blindness brought on perhaps by undoubted brilliance of intellect and erudition. It is a statement extending the view that “the meek shall inherit the earth”. Does it not state that even those who do not have the intellect or the knowledge or the privilege of high birth or rank or education, can find their way to God and fullness of life?

Gould writes…”A sceptical attitude towards appeals based only on authority combined with a demand for direct evidence, represents the first demand of proper scientific procedure.” This is indeed what is required if one wants to understand the true origins and aim of religions, and achieve the same one goal. This is true knowledge and enlightenment. There are thus only two magisteria. Man has his roots and origins in one, but insists in living in the other where he constantly pursues the illusion of “fullness”. Thus the great deception is that we confound our magisteria of “science” and “nescience” by misconstruction. Consequently, “Born in ignorance, we live in ignorance and we die in ignorance”. Knowledge of our physical universe may be very profitable to have, but in what sense?

This is precisely why I labour the point about classification being science.  We have to write in a functional paradigm.  In the “Scientific American Book of the Cosmos”, Gould contributes the chapter…”The evolution of life on earth” and he makes this dramatic statement.. “We will (NOT) complete Darwin’s revolution until we can find, grasp and accept another way of drawing life’s history”. (By chance, the omission of the word ‘not’ is a typographic error in the text!)  He is saying in more eloquent language in a wider context, the same thing that I wrote in “The case of Haworthia incurvula” (Aloe 36:34, 1999) “we need a new language”. He speculates that we may be limited by “socially imposed conceptual locks rather than inherent restrictions of our neurology”. I speculate that we have intellectually imposed conceptual locks and that we indeed need to examine what Andrei Linde wrote, also in “Book of the Cosmos” …”The Self-reproducing Inflationary Universe”. He wrote that the universe may be a huge growing fractal and that if this model is correct…”then physics (science?) alone cannot provide a complete explanation for all properties of our allotment of the universe”. Further…”Does this mean that understanding…will require…a deep investigation of our own nature, perhaps even including the nature of our consciousness?”  Personally I have come to the conclusion that this is a truth which we should all take as self-evident, and that we need to change our conceptual locks – if we want to understand Haworthia fully. ♦

This article appeared largely as follows in Haworthiad, and is reproduced here on account of Charles Craib’s comments included in the following chapter.

I often wonder why I have written and still continue to write about Haworthia. The plants have had a special fascination for me since childhood, but it is not that I really enjoy these plants more than I do many others. The interest for me lay in the problem of identification and naming and I was continually asking where a particular plant seen illustrated or growing came from and what was it and why did the names seem to differ. As an entomologist I came to question all these names and their meaning, and to wonder about the classification. After all, it is the names that we use as individuals or as groups of people to grow, collect and communicate about the plants we interest us. So classification and names are just as basic and fundamental to us as a group of hobbyists as they are to botanists pursuing academic and intellectual truths. The history of Haworthia was clouded with conflict before I started writing and the pattern has continued despite what history should have taught us. I have personally made my best effort to generate a stable and sensible set of names for a community that I would like to be part of.  This community I wanted to encompass was that of the ordinary collector, the more dedicated collector, the horticulturist, the commercial grower, herbarium and field botanists, and conservationists.

It has been immensely frustrating to see my ideal so thwarted and to find it so difficult to communicate what I consider to be simple ideas to all the sectors of the community I want to share with. Now at the closing of my life and what career there has been in Haworthia I feel the need to make some final effort. A motivating factor has been the recent publication in the German journal Avonia, of twelve new species and varieties of Haworthia by Ingo Breuer. If I ask what significance this has for the community I perceive out there, I cannot answer the question except to suggest that it may be the commercial value – I can see no other sense in it. The field collection has been done by South Africans who are not accredited by Nature Conservation to do the collecting, neither by any institution that supports their activities as far as I have been able to establish. Is it a product of bona fide research and does it justify the tacit support given by individual botanists who are involved in the writing of forewords and introductions?  Regarding the classification involved, I throw up my hands in despair because none of these new taxa suggest to me the taxonomic significance that the descriptions or the describer may attach to them. It is quite probable that the collectors have some individual motivation and are not working through local institutions that could thwart their private goals.

Few members of my imaginary community seem to share my concerns. As a writer, editors are the main vehicles for publication and I have expected them to function as a filter to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable. The kind of reaction I receive from them is that everyone is entitled to an opinion and that the reader can make what he/she wills of any classification put before him or her. An editor has also said to me “I think the “problem” is that most people who like plants that I am addressing with the Journal are just hobbyists. Some are more serious than others. They want a good name, pretty plants, field trip notes, good books to pore over, but not necessarily devour. They don’t want to be confused, to the contrary, most want a hard and fast true answer… as if there is only one or ever will be”. However, I cannot agree.  My conclusion from so many years of frustration and intellectual isolation, is that the problems lies in how we have all been led to regard botanical names and their meaning. Readers are already confused and editors are co-responsible. This is what I would like to address in this article.

After describing Haworthia limifolia var. gigantea in 1962, I wrote “Haworthia as a problem genus” in 1970 and that article was published in this Journal. In effect what I said then was that there would never be order unless the species were to be seen as morphologically and geographically distinct entities.  I also said that new species and varieties were not discussed adequately in terms of distribution or variability.  Among my comments was it would take detailed and intensive coverage of the area before a sample could be taken as representative.

Since I wrote that article there has been a vast volume of water under the bridge and many new writers have come and gone or are still busy gnawing away at the carcase. The taxonomic situation in Haworthia is as confused now as it was in 1970 and before.  Why?  I think the answer is simple, and sadly so. The roots of taxonomy are in a foundation of shifting sand because a botanical name does not mean the same thing to everyone.  As one editor put so succinctly…” There is no doubt that SPECIES should have a meaning, preferably one that is universally accepted so that everyone is on the same level”. Albeit that this conclusion was only reached after a long struggle to get this editor to distinguish between a species description and the definition of the word “species”.

This is a point that I have been struggling to make for a long time and it has amazed me that botanists talk about different kinds of species, biological species, phylogenetic species, chemical species and many more kinds of kinds. The word “species” has always meant to me “life-form”. Most people will agree that it is the basic unit of biology and yet there is this curious and incongruous use of the phrase “biological species” which suggests that there are species that are not of biology. Can one progress through a university curriculum and postgraduate study to a doctorate and still have no idea of what a species is or might be? My observation is that this is fact.

If botanists have not been able to establish a definition and agree on species definition, it is patently obvious that we have all the ingredients for an unholy mess. If there be any doubt about this, I would refer readers to all the literature on Haworthia, including my own. One botanist remarked that I was being silly insisting on a definition when the subject was one of continuous debate! Classification is largely a non-science. It is simply a descriptive activity ensconced in a web of legislative rules, articles and recommendations of a formal nomenclatural code. Anybody can become and be fully accepted as a taxonomist with absolutely no credentials, on the presentation of a description, a Latin synopsis and the citation of a type. If in addition they can quote the clauses and articles of the International Code and throw in some Latin phrases here and there, their stature is elevated. There is a whole field of literature which deals purely with the technicalities of the code and has no relation whatsoever to the plant species for which it was fabricated. It is a vast playing field. The tragedy is that there is no protection for the passive observer or interested party who should feel secure in the knowledge that there is logic and reason in the whole process of naming and communicating about plants.

Currently there are two trends in present time to remedy this unfortunate situation. Both are aimed at taking the subject to abstruse intellectual heights that will positively close the door and make it impossible for the uninitiated to participate. The one trend is to rely on the so-called science of cladistics and the other is to enter the realm of the sub-microscopic and analyze the genetic material on which the (still undefined) species rest.  Neither trend is to address the underlying problem.

In my opinion cladistics should be seen clearly for what it is. It is multivariate analysis or character sorting where character states are chosen and modified as subjectively as in conventional methodology to produce a two-dimensional “tree”. This tree is presumed to be the representation of the evolutionary processes in the plants being discussed. This is the element of time. But in this model the element of space (the branch ends) is restricted to one dimension. DNA methodology is primarily based on examining the sequence of nucleotide bases (amino acids) on a piece of the total protein strands that constitute the chromosomes or cellular protein that drives genetics. It is said that these amino-acid sites represent characters and thus looking at, say, 1000 such sites (“characters”) is immensely superior to the guesses we make when we look at say flower colour or bract shape which we could choose to identify a “species”. The argument loses sight of the fact that these 1000 sites on a single gene sequence are but a fraction of the genome DNA (Sahtouris writes that the genes probably account for less than 1,5% of any single genome), whereas flower colour or bract shape may be the end-products of the interaction of many genes or of the entire genome. The-end model is also still presented in the same two-dimensional one of cladistics.

I have suggested that species follow a pattern that many natural systems do. My suggestion is that species are fractal. This means that they possess or exhibit variability that cannot be explained or plotted in linear or smooth curvilinear fashion. But I also define the word “species” – a dynamic system of living organisms in a group or groups of individuals that are morphologically, genetically and behaviorally continuous in space and time. This definition is not proposed as a fairy wand as one critic suggested. It is anything but. It does not make taxonomic decisions easier. It means that there is now a definition and standard in place against which one can question and evaluate species descriptions and taxonomic decisions. We have to see individual plants as members of systems and act on the fact that a name tied to a single dead herbarium specimen is less important than the meaning of the name referring to living forms. More incisively then, it makes it incumbent on the taxonomists to view species as systems in a greater whole of biology. There is a still greater objective and that is to see species as these life forms that give meaning to a creation science otherwise demands that we examine only mechanistically.  It would mean that the classification process could be placed back on a proper scientific foundation and exclude individuals who pursue new names for atavistic pleasure, for egocentric and commercial goals, or for particular communities.

My experience has not been limited to Haworthia. I have to say this because inevitably when I meet another taxonomist the attitude is assumed that I am working in a strange and unique field; condescendingly, that I am grubbing around in my own tiny space quite ignorant of the deep thoughts and knowledge of the inner sanctums of science. Generally the genus Haworthia is seen to be taxonomically intractable and largely so simply because it fascinates amateur collectors (and amateur taxonomists). I wish I could demolish this myth for once and for all. It is only intractable because botanists have been so self-satisfied and mollycoddled by lack of peer review in their backroom havens of herbaria that they have seldom really had to face the realities of natural variation. They have worked secure in the knowledge that there is no definition and that under these circumstances one opinion is a good as another. In the general forum of human behavior, someone who comes in from outside with a plucked flower in the hand is almost seen as demonstrating an above natural interest in flora and a flair for botany. With a bit of early encouragement the individual could presumably have been a great botanist. Haworthia is difficult perhaps because it is so well collected and so widely grown.

For a journal editor to say that readers are not interested in the problems of nomenclature and do not want to be confused is a denial and renunciation of responsibility.  It is to say that readers are asleep and they should not be awakened; that they have been educated to an untruth and they should be left there. Furthermore, this is any case what we feed them and we have a vested interest in maintaining untruth. There is no general close interest in plants that extends to proper nomenclature. Very few people in the vast mass of society actually have a Latin binomial anywhere in their vocabulary. As an oddball who has grown up and lived with such names, it has been a constant war to have them seen as keys to knowledge. Instead of respecting this fact, it is common for people to proudly deny knowing the scientific proper names for living things.

Classification and nomenclature has become a laughing stock in society and a subject to be avoided. Unfortunately someone has to take it seriously and give it meaning. I have tried to do this for Haworthia for sincere and honest people who deserve better than the untruth and misinformation that is laid before them on a daily basis. My community has dwindled away to nothing. Where I was myself a lost sheep, I now feel like a shepherd with no flock! ♦

This essay is inspired by the chapter, of “Taxonomy and the sociology of botanical knowledge” written by Charles Craib in his book “Grass Aloes in the South African Veld” (Umdaus, 2005). That particular chapter was written purportedly to explain why he prefers the taxonomic revision of Reynolds (1950) to that of Glen and Hardy (2000). Craib states that Reynolds provides “… a better reflection of the infrageneric taxonomy of the group”, and also better suited to “elucidation of processes concerning the autecology of the SA grass aloes.”

Craib maintains that… “The classification used by Glen and Hardy takes its place in the knowledge production process as a more abstract model than that proposed by Reynolds”. However, Craib states that abstraction is a trend “…in the development of SA botanical knowledge and that such trends can be expected in the history of this development”. He maintains that the discipline of a “sociology of knowledge” is essential for understanding how classification systems work as they do, and also useful in accounting for the regular revision of plant genera and changes in plant names. I would like to ask if this argument is true for Haworthia and can it in any way explain the remarkable plurality of names that exist there and being added to exponentially.

In my opinion, Craib’s views are extremely relevant.  Not necessarily because they clarify the problem so much as demonstrate that there is indeed a problem. Many of Craib’s assertions need to be questioned if the acquisition of knowledge is really the motive for writing and reading. I am truly seeking closure on the whole issue of why I ever wrote about Haworthia and still do.

Analysis:  What does the title “Taxonomy and the sociology of botanical knowledge” actually mean?  Taxonomy according to Collins Dictionary is… “the branch of biology concerned with the classification of organisms into groups based on similarities of structure, origin etc.”.   Sociology is…”the study of the development, organization, functioning and classification of human societies”; and knowledge is…”information about a subject”. So the title appears to mean that the object of the chapter is to enlarge on the way in which the classification of plants generally is related to the functioning of society with respect to the grass aloes and the communication and sharing of knowledge about them.

The impression I get from Craib’s chapter is that there are two available classifications which present him with something of a dilemma in deciding which one to use. The particular problem in Aloe needs to be properly explained and understood if any contribution is to be made in that respect to the “knowledge production process” in botany generally, and this is indeed what Craib attempts to do.  Reynolds’ revision of the Southern African Aloe was published in 1950. It was and still is a remarkable product by a non-botanist (Reynolds was an optician). The publication of this work initiated a remarkable and quite extraordinary popular interest in these plants. Aloes became a collector’s realm and Latin names were the key to the collectibles. A vast new body of information became available and some of this was reflected in new names (species) in the formal literature. Thus it was evident as early as 1970 that a new revision to unify and consolidate that information was necessary. At that time there was also a drive in South African botany for a new Flora to list and synthesize all plant species. In respect of Aloe, it was probably entirely fortuitous that Glen and Hardy were available and interested, to be assigned the task of revising the genus.

The essence of Craib’s thesis is that Glen and Hardy’s classification is a “more abstract model” than that of Reynolds’s and implies that the reasons are to be found in new technologies and processes which inspire the revisionary processes in botanical classification.  What concerns Craib is that such botanical revisions invariably lead to name changes and re-arrangements of species.  He is not alone in his contention that this process confounds the various segments of society outside and even within botany that use Latin names to generate, accumulate and share knowledge.  In Haworthia confusion is rife.

However, it appears to me that Craib’s chapter is only symptomatic of the problems that beset and confound the literature of Haworthia and similar popular plant groups. The revisionary process in the hands of competent taxonomists is required to produce a clearer and better understanding of a genus and its complement of species. If it does not do so and an abstraction results, we need to reflect on the people and the processes.  For science to triumph it is absolutely necessary for there to be organized and proper skepticism. If this is lacking the whole process of progress is reversed and we come no closer to knowing anything. This is the problem I perceive in Haworthia. It does not require a “discipline of sociology’ to explain botanical revisionary cycles as these are the natural product of exploration and the inquiring mind. A discipline is needed to examine the increasing abstraction and theorizing of revisions and the rifts that are widening between users of names and the people who generate, change and argue about those names. Not only this, but revisions can appear, as in Haworthia, that have no intellectual substance at all. How does this happen?

Thus any real contribution to the knowledge of Aloe (and other plant genera) in society (Craib’s “sociology of botanical knowledge”) requires a more realistic appraisal of botanical science and the role of individual persons and the aptitudes and competence that they bring to the task. It is people and personalia which trade in knowledge and it is the invidious fact that these are the factors that have to be evaluated and for which there is no provision in any code. It is painful to have to express an opinion on the basis of personal merits. In respect of Aloe, Glen is by observation, a theorist, a nomenclaturist and an historian, whereas Hardy was acknowledged worldwide as a collector, grower and field naturalist par excellence. It is pure fantasy to suggest that a combination of these skills of two different people would necessarily result in a happy union. A key issue, which Craib has not properly addressed, is ensconced in his use of the term “model”. This is when he suggests that Reynolds generated one model for the classification of Aloe, and that Glen and Hardy generated another. This is at the heart of the entire problem and what the sociology of botanical knowledge needs to address. It is where the argument already begins to unravel, because Glen and Hardy used Reynolds’ revision in generating their own version of the SAME model. It should not take any place in the “knowledge production process” unless it merits a place and substantially contributes more information. The simple assertion that revisions become necessary once names have been assigned to the different entities in a genus is not correct. Revisions become necessary when exploration and the publication of new information and names proliferate to the degree that a new statement is necessary to synthesize and re-organize all the available information.

If Glen and Hardy have now produced another classification, it is clearly not as a question of model that it can be queried, it is one of competence.  Have any changes, apart from obvious and necessary new additions, been based on tangible new evidence and new information to justify them?  Craib provides some instances where he obviously disagrees and it is quite certain that he is the best positioned and equipped to make any contribution towards the knowledge and truth of the matter. If one takes the question of Aloe bowiea and its inclusion in a section Leptaloe along with other “grass” aloes, it is evident that Craib disagrees. Rather than discredit and question this action he makes the cognitive choice that it simply does not serve his purpose. But what is the truth of the matter.  Knowledge can essentially only be of something that is true. Aloe bowiea was at one time the unispecies genus Chamaealoe africana. Despite the argumentation and merit put forward by Smith and van Wyk(1993) it is not an absolute certainty that its transfer to the genus Aloe represents any fundamental truth. It is unlikely that Glen and Hardy had any better insights and information by which they took a further step and put the species in the section of grass aloes. Any “sociology of knowledge” has to acknowledge that while “species” may be real, genera and infrageneric groups may very often not be so. Thus the transfer of Chamaealoe africana may be justified in several ways, but the driving force may have been derived primarily from the assessment… “This resulted in the unsatisfactory situation we have today where 27 generic names are available for some 450 species which could easily be accommodated in seven genera”.

The classification model used by Reynolds and that used by Glen and Hardy are depressingly and disappointingly exactly the same. There is no difference. The model is the two-dimensional dichotomously branching tree which is universally used to depict evolution and the relationships of species at the various levels of the classification hierarchy. All Glen and Hardy have done is to add in the new names not known to Reynolds and to shuffle a few about on the basis of some new information (hopefully) or on the strength of their opinions. It is an unfortunate reality for us that Reynolds is unavailable to express his opinion of this new product, and no doubt fortunate for Reynolds.

The question being asked in the botanical literature is if this existing old model is in fact adequate and is the binomial nomenclatural system valid.  The consensus seems to be that the system does work and besides that, new advances in scientific technology (molecular biology particularly) are in any case producing such dramatic new insights into the genetics and hence the evolution and phylogeny of species.  Hence any debate on the fundamentals of any model can be put aside for another time and place. The problem does not go away.  It can be categorically stated that Haworthia will never be satisfactorily understood and interpreted on the basis of the current model as used by either Reynolds or Glen and Hardy.  My contention is that this will be found to be true for many other plant genera.

This is a reflection on the model used by both Reynolds and Glen and Hardy in which families genera and species should be accommodated in a formal near symmetrical and easily managed hierarchy.  This is the “sociological” aspect which determines how names and classification should be understood.  The further examples that Craib cites where Glen and Hardy depart from Reynolds, has less to do with abstraction than it does with the competence and integrity of the taxonomic decisions.  Craib is in fact evidencing the better knowledge on which a classification can be based without committing or exposing himself to the scrutiny of the botanical community (professional and very amateur alike) and which can indeed be unpleasant, trivial and prejudiced.   The South African National Botanical Institute accepted the Glen and Hardy revision of Aloe, and Craib tacitly denounces it.

Craib raises one further issue which is extremely important.  This is that there are groups and individuals who have different needs in respect of classifications and that some of these groups require certainty in plant nomenclature and identification.  The answer is not to have different options in terms of classifications that can be used.  The answer is to generate one sound classification which is not abstract and which can be properly understood.

The basic unit of this classification is the species and this is what Latin binomials denote.   Do we ask how present society (the community that has a non-professional interest in plants) understands these names and their arrangement (taxonomy)?  Do we ask if taxonomists understand what it is they are doing and if what they are doing is meeting the needs of society?  Do we ask if taxonomists and society have and share a common definition of the “species”?  In the role that language plays in sociology, names are given to objects to facilitate communication and thus an association of names and objects is built.  The foundation of plant taxonomy is that single specimens serve as the primary objects (the types) to which any name is attached.  Unfortunately it happens that the association of those names is very often built around objects other than the primary specimen.  That is one source of confusion.  The other source of confusion is the association of the single prime specimen or type with others of the same kind.  There is no single common perception of what constitutes a single kind.  The “single kind’ is of course the “species”, and while definition and perceptions of this differ from one person to another, there can never be a true shared knowledge about how they are classified. If we consider consciousness and experience, we have to recognize that life is manifest in an array of living things at many different levels of organization from simple to complex.  We recognize these as different life forms and we use the word “species” to denote them.  It is remarkable that the system of plant names works at all given the fact that there is so much difference in the minds of people of the associations that exist between Latin name and its primary object.  A Latin binomial is not a common noun and a name for a single thing.   The root of the problem is that the association of a name with a type, and the association of that type with any living system of organisms, is confounding.    It is ridiculous to expect the Latin binomial system to be descriptive of all botanical variation.  It is equally ridiculous that interpretations of the meaning of the Latin binomial and its attachment to a hopelessly inadequate definition and diffuse usage of the word “species” remain a sociological problem.  Taxonomists, whatever the individual idiosyncrasies may be, are striving towards a classification which truly reflects evolutionary processes.  There cannot be alternatives, but we also need to realize that there is embedded knowledge that becomes associated with the use of a name.  It is absolutely incumbent on persons who generate name changes, and on user groups, to mutually and cognitively ensure that names and changes serve a common “knowledge” process.

It is just an obvious fact that in society, interest in plant names can range from the trifling collection of oddities to the deep wish of individuals to understand creation itself.  The ancient Greeks had a saying “Man know thyself”.   To many this instruction has no meaning, but there is a word in language which indicates that to a few it is important.  This is “teleology” – do natural phenomena have a predetermined purpose and are not just determined by mindless mechanical laws?  Can we start to consider this fundamental question if we do not properly understand those phenomena we observe?   People are engaged in taxonomy in a way which may only meet the needs of a segment of society, but which does not meet the needs of science nor can serve the interests of a cognitive thinking greater society.

Conclusion:

My observation is that the knowledge of taxonomy within society is woefully inadequate.   Hence “sociology of knowledge” is unlikely to find any more science than art in classification.  It has been said that in botany the measure of a classification is that of the nomenclatural juristics rather than that of the practical usefulness or even scientific accuracy and relevance.  It seems unlikely that the botanical community will come any nearer to providing better practical classifications in the future than they have been able to do in the past.  Few botanists can match the application, energy and enthusiasm that a genuinely interested amateur brings to his chosen subject.  A revision can only be a reflection of the degree of sampling and the capacity of the observer to synthesize what he has seen and, axiomatically, the usage which can be obtained from that revision will be relative to the knowledge of the user.  It is evident therefore that the gauge of the usefulness and value of a revision will lie with the knowledgeable user.

Such users may be few and far between and Crain happens to be one of them.  If there were more like him botanical classification might in fact be found to be quite fraudulent.  An additional part of this problem is the excessive fragmentation of the literature and the huge volume of literature that is being produced as a by-product of the need of scientists to validate themselves.  This confounds the knowledge production process and non-professionals find themselves able to join the ranks of taxonomy without much fear of redress.

A new paradigm is needed by which the Latin binomial serves the needs of science and is appropriately understood and modified to also meet the needs of interest groups. What a specialist group needs to do is to cognitively recognize the ideals of science, the need for proper and good information and a stable reliable structure of meaningful names of equal value by which they can communicate. Societies, committee and journal editors need to similarly recognize their responsibilities in terms of the stated or unstated objectives of their activities. This is surely to ensure that a screening process is in place by which the interests of their members and subscribers is protected and served. Individuals need to be identified who genuinely have the credibility and skills to effectively and truthfully evaluate comment similar to Craib’s and my own, and identify and apply corrections where they are needed. These in turn need to be fed back to, and respected by, competent scientists. Finally we need to find a less tortuous and circumlocutory way of expressing what needs to be said.

Acknowledgement:  I would like to express my appreciation to Charles Craib for his positive and constructive responses to my communication with him.

COMMENTS ON THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWING HAWORTHIA AND HAWORTHIA AS A PROBLEM GENUS – 34 YEARS ON.

By Chareles Craib

Bruce Bayer has written two very useful, interesting and insightful essays with the above titles. One of them “Comments on the Sociology of Knowing Haworthia” refers in part to the chapter “Taxonomy and the Sociology of Botanical Knowledge” in my book “Grass Aloes in the South African Veld” (Umdaus Press 2005: 10 – 12).

The purpose of these comments is to look at the kinds of analysis which the Sociology of Knowledge can provide with specific reference to some aspects that Bayer has written about. The techniques used for analysis examine the knowledge production process. They do not provide alternative types of knowledge nor do they replace existing paradigms. Changes to existing knowledge or paradigms always originate from the knowledge producing communities themselves in this case people involved with the disciplines and sub-disciplines of botany.

Bayer correctly points out that Glen and Hardy use the same paradigm in their revision of Aloe (2000) as Reynolds (1969). The model however which Glen and Hardy use (meaning the constituent elements and concepts in the classification) is presented at a level of abstraction different from that used by Reynolds. Reynolds taxonomy was essentially rooted in extensive fieldwork with numerous justifications provided for his classifications, based on observable characteristics of plants. Glen and Hardy rarely, if ever in grass aloe, provide justification for the nomenclatural changes they make. I cite a number of examples of this in the book (2005: 33 – 34, 39 – 40, 50 – 52, 57 – 61, 75 – 76, 85 – 86, 88 – 90, 101 – 102 and 123 – 126). Essentially the abstraction does not represent any advance from the classification that Reynolds presented and is probably less accurate as it has little to do with aloes in the veld.

Techniques used in the Sociology of Knowledge judge this revision as another attempt to classify aloe with a number of shortcomings in the way in which the knowledge was articulated. Thus this revision does take its place in the knowledge production process concerning Aloe. The use and value of the revision must be determined by the botanical community itself. In the book I essentially used the techniques of criticism, provided for in the sociology of knowledge, to look at what existing classification provided the best model for an autecological study of grass aloes.

Revisions of plant genera occur for several reasons. As Bayer points out (2006 ….) a proliferation of plants names may necessitate a new synthesis. Other reasons are that analysts with different concepts of species, genus and family validly publish new species. All that is currently required for the naming of a new species is a description that has been validly published. The new species cannot be proved to exist empirically. This process will continue to have but a semblance of accuracy until such time as botanists are able to formulate a universally accepted code of what a validly published species concept comprises of. This is very significant since species are the primary units of understanding before grouping into families and genera. This problem has been extensively recognised and discussed by Bayer to some degree or another in most of his many publications.

The Sociology of Knowledge has one primary concern here and that is the characteristic that plant classifications probably represent an art rather than a science. This implies that unless paradigms change there will be any number of revisions of many plant genera in the future. Users of classifications will need to decide which one best suits their purposes. This will be based on principles such as the internal logic of the proposed system and whether or not it represents an improvement from a previous model for understanding the genus in question.

The sociology of knowledge focuses on published information. The competencies of botanists are important to the botanical community when plant genera are revised. However, from the point of view of the analyst of new knowledge, trends in knowledge production processes need to be examined, particularly those which might lend to paradigm changes.

It would be helpful if there was one universally accepted classification of a genus at a given point in time. In terms of the currently accepted methods for producing botanical knowledge this is unlikely to be achieved for two important reasons. The concept of species has no defined universally accepted boundaries and any newly described plant owes its existence to the fact that it was validly published. The huge amount of leeway that this provides will ensure a proliferation of names and provide room for various interpretations of what “species” are. If the concept of species is already abstract (it is the primary unit of understanding) then so much more so the higher level concepts of genus and family.

It is incumbent on the botanical community to change the methods for producing their own knowledge. This will require a paradigm change in the knowledge production process. In this respect perceived inadequacies of the status quo will be required to motivate botanists to change the way in which plants are classified.

Experience with plants in the field is and will probably remain essential for any plant revision. This is not always recognised as the formal point of departure for revisions and is likely to account for the abstractions that are published, which bear little resemblance to the physical reality. None of this is controlled by formal requirements and as a result it is legitimate to publish any kind of revision. The sociology of knowledge in this instance is only concerned with the consistency with which the internal components of the model are articulated at the level of abstraction they are presented.

There are several questions which will need to be asked and answered before botanists will be able to provide alternative or improved paradigms for the presentation of knowledge. One of the most significant is that empirical techniques of science which can be proved and demonstrated are used uncritically to elucidate concepts such as genus. The legitimacy for the combination of these two fundamentally different knowledge types needs to be theorised at an appropriate level before it is accepted as legitimate. Another problem is that there is probably insufficient motivation for botanists to involve themselves in these sorts of significant theoretical debates. A solution may be an expanded range of courses offered to botanists at tertiary level. More people would enter the discipline of botany with an enhanced range of skills for facing these sorts of intellectual challenges.

References:

• Bayer M.B. Haworthia Revisited.  Umdaus Press, Hatfield, Pretoria, 1999.
• Thoughts on Haworthia. Spiderwalk Services, Durbanville, 2002.
• Haworthia Update Vol.1. Umdaus Press, Hatfield, Pretoria.
• Haworthia Update Vol.2. Alsterworthia, Preston, UK. In ms.
• Craib C. Grass Aloes in the South African Veld. Umdaus Press, Hatfield, Pretoria, 2005.
• Glen H. and Hardy D. Aloaceae, Flora of Southern Africa Volume 5, National Botanical Institute, Pretoria, 2000.
• Reynolds G. The Aloes of South Africa. A.A. Balkema, Cape Town, 1969.

♦

Dr. Canio Vosa in Caryologia 57:4, 395-399 (2004) hypothesizes two superspecies for the subgenus Haworthia. He cites my published works including Haworthia Update Vol 1 (2002). It is not clear if he has considered all the species that I recognize, or considered that if there are superspecies there may ipso facto be ‘inferior species” too. It is also not entirely clear that he as followed my argumentation. He writes…” the morphological characters, as used for species definition of the taxa in question, do not give a clear indication of true discontinuity over their geographical range which in some case(s) is rather restricted”. As early as 1972 I pointed out that there were fewer species rather than more, and most of my works have featured some kind of statement on the problem of identifying any discontinuities, other than geographic that suggest a realistic concept of species as systems.

A problem I have also had to face is that there is a very strong user group for names in Haworthia in terms of collectors and growers and it is extremely difficult to balance the different needs and perceptions of these non-professional but knowledgeable people against the needs and perceptions of professional botanist and other scientists that have often proved to be highly flawed. Also to be taken into account is the ground truth and what I would regard as objective reality. This entire Vol.2 is dedicated to extending this ground truth to a point that I can claim that there is enough now known to make a truthful statement. This is the point of Chapter 24 of this Volume where I provide what I think constitutes a rational list of names under which all that I have seen can be catalogued with some degree of confidence. It is from that point that I believe scientists, like Dr. Vosa, should hypothesise and test.

In this last chapter, I myself am going to propound a partial superspecies concept. On request from The South African Institute for Biodiversity, I have already generated a species list for a proposed flora for the Eastern Cape. That list excludes other geographic areas and here I limit my discussion to principally those species concerned in the chapters of this book and the southwester Cape.

Where Dr Vosa asserts that…”the subgenus Haworthia constitutes a single polymorphic assemblage of species which can be subdivided, albeit with some difficulty in some cases, into two groups”, he is not making a ground-breaking statement and neither is it accurate.  In all three subgenera it is often quite difficult to allot specimens to groups that would then constitute species.  At least one of the chapters explains that this problem extends to the genera of the Asphodelaceae.  The problem in the subgenus Haworthia is simply more acute and there are more than one polymorphic assemblages.

Dr. Vosa makes further assertions about the role of specimens, types and herbaria.  These have to be examined because there are profound misconceptions which fuel the opinions of users in any of the user groups. The role of the type is not intended to designate a species. It is solely to substantiate a name and link that name to a tangible reference point that may be a herbarium specimen or an illustration. Choices in this regard are the functions of taxonomists and nomenclaturists which are governed by a very comprehensive International Code for Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). A revisioner would look at all those types in the process of reviewing all the literature and additional specimens and then generate a synonymy to put together any names which he thinks can be attributed to the same species set. This is all confirmed in the list of specimens, and any published or formally deposited illustrations if necessary, which are then cited to formally convey the total concept of what that revisioner thinks constitutes the “species’.  Unfortunately the necessities of nomenclature do not bring the stability and understanding of names to the point where confusion and misunderstanding is totally excluded.  Examining all the taxonomic literature may even suggest that there is a preoccupation with nomenclature which displaces the purpose and function of classification. This is only partly relevant to the present discussion in view of the choice by Dr. Vosa of H. cymbiformis as the typical species for one of the superspecies.

Why I say this is because in my presentation for a Flora of the Eastern Cape, I have seen the necessity for a superspecies concept and my decision has been that H. cooperi is the superspecies and H. cymbiformis an independent species. There is a problem created by the priority requirements of the ICBN. H. cooperi can in the field, seen to be the dominant and most widely spread element whereas H. cymbiformis comprises a smaller part of this complex. Were they amalgamated in a superspecies, the epithet cymbiformis would have priority and implementing this would distort the perceptions of the relationship.

I fully agree with Dr Vosa that species such as H. bolusii and H. decipiens could be included in one superspecies with H. cooperi  but I do feel that too much usefulness will be lost if this is implemented..  While there is no doubt that very strong cymbiformis look-alikes emerge from ecotypification of H. cooperi, there is a concomitant set of populations at a higher level which have an independent distribution.  The evidence for converse ecotypification is less persuasive.  Certainly to document this kind of evidence by way of herbarium record is totally impractical, as Dr Vosa points out.  The object of this book and of its predecessor was primarily to overcome this obstacle by providing an extensive pictorial record.

Regarding the two superspecies conjectured by Dr Vosa.  Here I have to flatly disagree on the candidature of the two lists.  Quite plainly H. reticulata is bound to the excluded H. herbacea and cannot be included in the superspecies H. cymbiformis.  I started my intensive field career trying to understand the relationship of the former two species and how they related in terms of superspecies thinking to their geographic counterparts.  My observation was the curious one that they were geographically contiguous or complementary.  At several places they grew virtually together and hybridized whereas certain populations could not be positively referred to either of the species. Wider experience suggests that this kind of situation is deeply imbedded in classification and identification of many plants. I have not considered the problems this causes as a sound rationalization for lumping. I would rather suggest a growth process or learning curve that user groups and individuals truly examine their own definitions and understanding of species and classification. This will require a paradigm shift in how name are used without any tinkering with the system in place.

Dr Vosa presents six colour illustrations which, in the absence of explanation, are presumed to substantiate the claim that they are indistinguishable as discrete species. It is difficult to refute such a claim against the concomitant one that his years of field experience and careful observation support this claim. Certainly to the uninitiated this could be true whereas any true aficionado would recognise the untruth of the statement. H. chloracantha also cannot possibly be included in this same superspecies H. cymbiformis. It is confounded with H. floribunda and this in turn is central to the recognition of H. retusa as a superspecies. Furthermore the connection has to be followed through geographic distribution and the historic confounding of the identities of H. chloracantha with H. angustifolia and I turn the relationship of that species with H. cymbiformis.  Recognising superspecies will simply move the problem of continuity to another area or level of classification.

I would again regard Dr. Vosa’s superspecies H. retusa as a rational option but it very largely skirts the problems contained in and surrounding the suggestion. H. bayeri and H. springbokvlakensis do not enter into the picture. They are “inferior” species in that they do not have problematic continuities. My own independent view is expressed in a letter that I wrote to Steven Hammer…”Your comment ‘illusion of understanding’ also resonates in a comment in the literature where the author, D.A. Levin, quotes from Raven, Berlin and Breedlove’s, “The origin, expansion and demise of plant species” (Oxford University Press, ca 2000)…“our system of names appears to achieve a reality which it does not possess”.  Levin himself writes…“our taxonomic system communicates little about the organism being considered, although it appears to communicate a great deal”. This is the conundrum that I get quite lost in. Species have a reality and a meaning to me quite different to what I sense in people I have talked to over such a long period..

Re pygmaea – I need to find a superspecies solution to the SW Cape …”

I presented an outline of a proposal which I now modify as follows:-

H. retusa – to include mutica, turgida.

H. pygmaea – to include dekenahii, argenteomaculosa, splendens, fusca, esterhuyzenii, acuminate and vincentii (it should be noted that these names refer to elements which have a fairly restricted distribution and are highly sought after collector items. I do not personally consider them species although I do not doubt the user pressure for a Latin binomial. For those who have followed my classification it is important to note that I have previously allied them with H. magnifica whereas I am now suggesting that they have their closer origin in H. turgida).

H. mirabilis – to include maraisii, magnifica, emelyae and heidelbergensis.

H. floribunda – to include parksiana (?), chloracantha, floribunda and variegata.

There are other elements viz:-

H. herbacea – to include or cover reticulata, maculata and pubescens

H. rossouwii –

The essential problem is that we have three species in the west viz. mutica, turgida and mirabilis, while in the east we have two viz. turgida, and pygmaea. In the intervening area H. turgida ad H. retusa are continuous with each other. The retusoid element expresses itself in the west as H. mutica whereas in the east it seems to be transferred to the mirabiloid set suggested above while H. turgida remains independent.

There is a problem in this summation in the very complex relationships that also exist between retusoid, and mirabiloid elements elsewhere. These extend to floribundoid and rossouwoid.  H. turgida crosses the distribution area of H. mutica to befuddle the proposal that they are elements of a clearly definable H. retusa superspecies. Similarly there is a suggestion that H. mutica has some degree of continuity with H. mirabilis sensu stricto. There is a huge problem to segregate H. floribunda which has close ties to the mirabiloids as well as to H. chloracantha, H. variegata, and thus also H. monticola and perhaps eventually H. zantneriana and H. angustifolia.

I do have preliminary ideas for extending the concept of superspecies to the entire subgenus Haworthia but am reluctant to do so while I am aware of the deficiency in terms of field work. More fieldwork is required to examine known problems in the area between Uniondale and Oudtshoorn and also in the mountains south of Prince Albert. These problems suggest that similar situations to those discussed particularly in other chapters, exist in many more areas. Comprehensive as the field work has been, it still does not provide clearer insight. Nevertheless the system of names I now suggest in Chapter 17 does provide a framework of communication that will work if users properly recognized the definitions and premises on which it is based and the reservations that accompany it.

One of the most significant and important user groups is conservation bodies and environmental impact assessors. They require definitive names and lists.  No shuffling and reshuffling of names can produce such a list. The reality is that species are intrinsically highly variable and this variability simply has not been exposed as it has been in Haworthia. Hence conservationists have to realize that all pristine and semi-pristine vegetation is valuable and that conservation is not about species, but about habitats with attributes that promote diversity and minority species.

The recognition of supergroups could mean that user groups would have to deal with the problem of using Latin trinomials and higher. This is where the paradigm shift will be the most acute and yet it would be simply solved in common usage by the substitution of the superspecies name where the genus name is presently cited. My conclusion is that the recognition of superspecies is an essential process in synthesising and extending our understanding of the genus but that it would have no merit in terms of the communication value of Latin binomials. Far more would be gained from a proper analysis of the many sources of misunderstanding of taxonomy and an educational process instituted where users and practitioners acquire better insights into biological diversity and how it is recorded.

My closing statement is that scientists seeking a better understanding and classification of Haworthia would do well to try and properly follow what I have written. I am confident that this is the text on which proper and valid hypotheses can be formulated and then tested.  I would further add that my field work and observations have been so extensive and so thorough that they could and should be used to test the validity of sophisticated technological inquiry.

Addendum
The above manuscript was submitted to Dr. Vosa for comment and I deeply appreciate and value his response printed below.  Dr. Vosa, as a pre-immanent geneticist, cannot possibly be expected to be aware of the confusion that exists in the minds of non-scientific user groups and I consider that he has, as he set out to do, indeed made a major contribution to demonstrating that the taxonomic emperor is unclothed…

“Dear Bruce,

Thank you very much for your e-mail message and welcome criticism of my Haworthia paper and also for the rather important attachment (Chapter 33). The purpose of my initial effort has been to make clear the problems facing who is trying to classify Haworthia in a plain understandable and possibly correct way.  My paper was also conceived as a kind of provocation aimed chiefly to the “classical” conservative taxonomists.  I have never taken into account the opinion of the many “user groups” interested as they seem in “splitting” and in maintaining as many species and varieties as possible for sheer lust of collecting or,, worst, “economic” reasons.  I agree very much with all you say about my very faulty and, of course, incomplete “groupings” but I considered them in the light of my research experience relative as it is but in all good faith.

I consider your Chapter 33 as very well written and argued and as an important and basic contribute to that knowledge we all earnestly seek.  The Chapter itself will be for me as a sort of main guideline.  Above all, I think very appropriate and wise your statement “that there is a preoccupation with nomenclature which displaces the purpose and function of classification”.

I came to choose H. cymbiformis as the typical species for one of my two “superspecies” in the light of my field experience in the Eastern Cape. However, taking into account the evidence, I think that your decision to consider H. cooperi as a superspecies as perfectly valid.

Bruce, I certainly understand fully you disagreement on the ‘candidatures’ as suggested in my two lists which were compiled and meditated using my, alas, fragmentary notes and material in hand.  In any case, the reasoned purpose of my paper was to put forward the concept of superspecies as contributing to progress and as a discussion point for constructive criticism and useful argumentations and suggestions as yours.

Thanking you again very much,

With regards, Canio”

♦

In trying to close my long history as a writer about Haworthia, I am anxious that my closing thoughts are more understandable than my opening ones were. Update 4 calls for a “paradigm shift”- for me as much as anyone else. My friend Kobus Venter has written … ”I feel that a lot of important descriptive and analytic content gets lost by reducing the species to this level (of superspecies)”. My intention is completely otherwise. My view has altered in the sense that I recognize and admit that all these new names and descriptions of writers like Masa Hayashi or Ingo Breuer are extremely useful and informative and that we are losing content in arguing and disagreeing about them. My contention now is that our problem lies in the fact that we are trying to explain and understand these complex systems things within the context of a restrictive nomenclatural system that is not designed for the purpose. It is confounded by the problem that as a society we do not understand what species are.

The formal nomenclatural system and the use of Latin binomials is too much for us and it does not work for us as a community. One of my critics went so far as to say that she was “turned-off” by my use of haworthia plant names where I omitted to write the prefix “H” in an article which was about nothing else but Haworthia! This in my view is pedantic nit-picking that the code cannot exclude. The same person wrote that the nomenclatural system is very precise and prevents us from getting in a mess. I think we are in a mess because we try to force it to do something that it is not designed to do. We should be more intent on trying to apply the horticultural system that is intended to cope with cultivars, as is now more evident in the literature. The difficulty we face is that the plants are highly variable IN THE FIELD, and we have yet to do more than scratch the surface of that variability.

The code articles that insist on chronological priority are also to my mind problematical (Dr. Paul Forster wrote…”the current framework (ICBN) for decisions is riddled with flaws…” (So there are other problems too?). This is because an earlier name, which may be based on a wholly atypical plant or population, has to be chosen for a species where a later name may be far more appropriate in terms of all other considerations (including historical use and connotation) for all those variants which, are OR NOT YET considered to, comprise a particular species system.

Gordon Rowley’s complaint (penned in the early ‘70’s” should be recalled. This is against my failure to formally recognise names in my Handbook listing such as “ryderiana”, “revendetii”, “cuspidata” etc. that in my opinion were (ARE) horticultural in origin, and therefore did not belong in a formal botanical system. The problem now is that there is a greater mass of variants which are of field origin and the descriptive boundaries of these variants are far tighter and considerably more difficult to record and document in any naming system. Many of those old names that I dropped are being ignored as new ones are being invented.

Dr. Forster has also expressed the opinion that someone who knows the plants has to make the decisions. If I had known at the start what I now know, I might have done a lot better. My contention is that the community leaders need to address the problem as it is now one of general perception and understanding.

Bruce Bayer
Kuilsriver, RSA ♦