Credulity stretched.

Haworthia mortonii I.Breuer was published in Alsterworthia International  7(1):22(2007).

In Alsterworthia 7(1):22  Breuer states “No records have been found to indicate that this plant has been discovered before and as it is dictinctive I have decided to name it as a new taxon”. This population is recorded in the old collecting record of G.G. Smith and I searched on the calcretes further to the east as far back as 1969. Unfortunately it never occurred to me then to even look at the remnant of rock in an area largely destroyed by road-building operations. Presently this small ravaged quartzitic outcrop is bisected by a meaningless road which is fenced and I did find the plants there in 2004 – name the place SW Karsriver. Why I looked is because of the mindless destruction of a small valley habitat on the Karsriver about 3km further northeast where a magnificent form of Aloe brevifolia once grew with a population of H. maraisii that has gone with it. I was thus anxious to confirm a maraisii so close to Bredasdorp for reasons best explained elsewhere (Update 3 Chapter 1). Morton Cumming  apparently found more than the three plants I saw there across the fence on the north side. I recognized the plants as minima/marginata hybrids and was also a bit nonplussed by the absence of putative parents. Minima was only known at Mierkraal far to the southwest and marginata is known about 10km further to the northeast. I was disturbed by the fact that I could only find the three plants and in February 2005 I visited the site again and collected seed under MBB7453.  Cumming seems to have been at the site also early in 2005 and claims to have seen many plants, which surprised me. In the past the site has been grossly disturbed and a constant pain to me is that major road-construction in the late 1960era led to the use of rock outcrops such as this, as gravel sources. The badia-locality at Napier became a major gravel source and could be seen as a huge white scar on the landscape from afar afield as Swellendam. Thus this site at Bredasdorp suffered the same treatment and the land surface has been transformed with the removal of surface rock and gravel. Only the smallest fraction is left and I do hesitate to report the survival of “maraisii” on virtually a single quartz rock remaining on the south side of the road pictured in Alsterworthia. I cannot believe that I would have missed any plants in the area available to be searched.  Farming in the area is not mainly devoted to “merino-sheep and grain crops”. Farming in the area has become highly commercialized and water is exported from afar afield as the Theewaterskloof Dam at Villiersdorp. Grain crops are unreliable and with this artificial supply of water, farmers have turned to ostriches and dairy cattle. The result of feed-supplementation has resulted in higher stocking densities and greater trampling and damage to natural vegetation. This has put tremendous pressure on pockets of surviving vegetation that is also exacerbated by a turn to dual purpose Dohne-Merino sheep breeds that graze more aggressively than the original Merino. Additional to this is the destruction of roadside vegetation in what appears to be a deliberate policy of road-engineering to clear verges to the farm fences, and the dreadful application of herbicides for the fear of weed-seeds contaminating crops from those road verges. The possibility that this herbicide application and disturbance of stable natural roadside vegetation will certainly lead to greater weed problems in the future, is left for that dark future.

If there were more plants there at SW Karsriver in 2005 there certainly are not now. When I revisited the site in 2006 one of the three plants had been dislodged presumably by grazing animals, and we replanted it across the fence. At a later visit we found that the plant had sadly died or else, having been in the fenced zone, may be the “small two plant” now gracing a herbarium specimen? In February this year, 2007 I again visited the site in passing and saw that another plant had been broken off. The crown was resprouting and I removed the main body of the plant to grow on in cultivation. Together with this I can report that Sheilam has very successfully germinated the seed I collected and has given me about 20 seedlings for further cultivation and we will return these to the site in due course. Thus 1.5 specimens of H. mortonii represent the species and I hope Sheilam makes a fortune selling this now gravely endangered taxon.!

Breuer in his article makes a reference to MBB6633 as “also this taxon” viz H. mortonii. I already have a problem in that I think professional botanists have reduced taxonomy to a playing field where “the most ignorant and uninformed parade as taxonomists”. 

Unfortunately the fragmentation of the literature and the existence of a privately operated journal exacerbate the situation enormously. Both fortunately and unfortunately, it also provides me with a public platform. This MBB6633 is simply H. marginata and what Breuer has observed in cultivation with respect to the two populations and his acquisition of material probably has as much to do with the disappearance of plants as do animals and road-building. Incidentally I periodically visit the marginata at Adoonskop as the northerly population is known. Now in 2007 the plants are very severely grazed down to ground level and the landowner is contemplating turning that non-arable 140ha into a fenced game camp with accompanying ecotourist facilities. Curiously Cumming has reported (private communication) small marginata still further north and I suppose further “research” is going to result in yet another superfluous taxon.

Not over yet!  A population of H. mirabilis (var sublineata) used to occur on the south bank of the river course (This river is named Dryriver because like a few “rivers” in the area it only holds water in winter) that runs west to east immediately north of Bredasdorp. In distress at the loss of this population I scoured the wider area to see if by chance it occurred elsewhere. By virtue of a minor miracle we found seven scruffy and bedraggled specimens surviving within a grove of gum trees, covered by a fallen litter of old gum seed capsules, leaves and branches. How they have managed to survive for what must be 50 years or more is very difficult to believe. The site is virtually the same as an historic laundry concretion dating from the 18^th century. In searching for the plants we had to scratch and scrape among the litter, raising huge doubts and difficulties in respect of more disturbances and of conservation. Very curious was the additional discovery of a truly depauperate and chlorotic specimen of H. minima from the wreckage. Thus there is no doubt that H. minima was never far from the mortonii locality. It certainly was known a little further east and Breuer is again inaccurate in his reporting that the “coastal area areas from Bredasdorp and further to the south-west are not very well explored for haworthias”. The area is extremely well-known in general botany and has also been explored specifically for haworthias. A proper view from both these perspectives is that this is the southwestern boundary for the genus and it is unlikely that further exploration is going to yield anything new – i.e. based on a rational opinion.

Here I want to point out something. I do not hold a collecting permit from nature Conservation anymore, and yet I have removed the plants from the gum-tree litter at Bredasdorp and also the broken specimen from the DMC10485 site – for which I am fairly confident no permit was issued for so-numbered specimens either. The reason that I do not apply for a permit is manifold. Primarily I suppose it is because I feel I am busy passing my sell-by date (comforted by the fact that some people never were saleable). Secondarily I feel humiliated by the process and the scrutiny of people whom I do not think are knowledgeable or really interested. Thirdly by the challenges of conservation where my activities – however many plants I might remove – are as nothing compared to the mindless destruction of habitat by roadworkers, farmers, other landowners. There seems to be nothing in an environmental impact assessment which lists species by name, that draws anything from those names and bears on the fact that we have living things of different kinds in our living space and we should be very careful indeed that we call it that. The permit system seems to me to be a way of harassing interested people and worded solely to improve the probability of successful prosecution should officials be so lucky as to fall over someone removing so much as a seed from the field without a long list of provenances. There are severe changes taking place in respect of our environment and I think that foolish taxonomy is doing nothing towards helping constructive engagement with conservation issues like this SW Karsriver site presents. Not to speak of proving information which can usefully be added to the knowledge-base we all should gainfully share. ♦

During the time I have worked with plants, I have met many botanists and taxonomists and I particularly had the opportunity to associate closely with one of the most prominent in succulent plant taxonomy. I could never hope to emulate the energy, application, thoroughness and zeal with which that person approached the subject, nor the academic and written achievements. The sharing of ideas was however, a problem and I never felt much more than student. My discomfort with the taxonomic product of this persons work eventually resulted in alienation and eventually I wrote in frustration… ”Taxonomy as a science has to answer the question “Are species real?” starting and ending with proper definition of the word/concept.”

The reply I received was this… ”Yes, species are real, and defined well by their ability to cross freely and produce offspring which again crosses freely. This has been studied and demonstrated since 1750 or so (you may remember that I talked about this in one of our discussions on the subject), but it is naturally not easy to dive into so much work including following up several generations etc. And since related individuals are similar looking, the reciprocal conclusions that similar objects are related has unfortunately been used as being true, which it is not. And yet, species are the only natural unit in the whole of taxonomy, which to determine is the crucial point.

Perhaps this sounds rather like the famous Dicta of Bessey, but after having dealt extensively over 38 years by now with species boundaries in teaching, reading, theory and practice, in different vegetation zones and many different groups, I come back to old definition first given by Ray in 1682:

“Group of plants derived from common seeds, reproducing their typical features by sowing.”

and used by most taxonomists since.

The point I have been trying to make in writing about Haworthia is that consciously or unconsciously, this definition describes the underlying perceptions of most persons. The very problem is the use of this simplistic definition and the fact that it does not work. I do not think I have ever been able to argue this adequately and this response from this paragon of academic botany leads me to this response. The Ray definition of the species flies in the very face of Darwin’s concept of their evolution and adaptation. If species did in fact breed true, there would be no adaptation and no evolution. The nature of creation is change and living things have the capacity in terms of inherent variability to meet this constant change whether it is by slow degree or by cataclysmic event. My contention is that “most taxonomists” have indeed thus been using a faulty definition and wholly underestimate the degree of variability in plants. Their contention may be that they are only providing an approximation of the truth, but this is not the effect achieved nor is it the impression I obtained from long association with this particular taxonomist and others. In Haworthia particularly, variation is pronounced. In some populations where field examination may suggest the plants are all very similar, when grown from seed no two individuals look alike.  Vegetative propagation may have contributed to an illusion that plants breed true.

My own definition is that species are a dynamic and fractal group, or groups, of living or past living organisms which are morphologically, genetically and behaviorally continuous in space and time. Quite obviously the discontinuities are not going to be any easier to determine whether one uses Ray’s definition or mine. But what mine does is that it covers the reality that species are spread in geographic space and they have both the variability associated with the range of habitats they occupy as well as the inherent variability which provides them with the flexibility to respond to changes in habitat. Few people have the necessary experience in the field with enough living systems, and with cultivation, to truly encounter the phenomenal variability which underlies capacity to adapt and change. ♦

Recently I have been in communication with three recognized botanists and have their written admissions that…


1. “Taxonomy is in a mess.” 
2. That the question of species is “highly controversial”. 
3. “The current framework for decisions (for taxonomic decision making) is riddled with flaws, but it is the only one we have. Someone who knows the plants has to make decisions.”

I do presume to have some knowledge of the plants and hence I made a decision to submit a list of names which I think could serve the need of a botanical reality. However, the very botanist who had suggested who should make the decisions then commented … ”It is interesting that all of the ‘new’ discoveries (e.g. H. cummingii to name one) must be forced into the existing classification”. I asked if there was any evidence that force was required to do this. There was no reply.

My conclusion has to be that the botanical nomenclatural and classification system is flawed and that there is actually no way in which Haworthia can be satisfactorily forced into that system. Therefore there is no further contribution that I can make. There is still a huge amount of fieldwork that could and should still be done, but I cannot see that any new records or observations can significantly improve any classification that is connected to the traditional systems and escape the controversy invariably generated when more than one taxonomist becomes involved.

It is now evident in all this that human sensitivities are of far greater consequence than sensibilities. While a classification may be an apparently intellectual and truth-finding process, it may be nothing more than an easily accessible arena where minds can create an illusion of being so occupied. I am deeply sorry that I have thus offended and hurt people by my own activities there.  ♦

Printed in Excelsa 4:17 (1974)

Introduction

There are few succulent collections which do not include haworthias, although these small and insignificantly flowered plants are not good garden subjects. Their size, and shade and shelter requirements make them better suited to intensive cultivation in raised containers under shelter. Very popular with collectors especially prior to World War II, the decline in popularity can be attributed to various factors. Although the genus is credited with some 160 species and more than 250 varieties, it is highly unlikely that more than 90 species and perhaps 10 sub-species would survive a critical revision. Many species have been eliminated in recent years, but there are still many maintained only by the mystery of their origin. Hybrids and ill-defined or inadequate species account for many superfluous names. The result is an artificial pseudo-scientific system of nomenclature in which the classic binomial system is prostituted for a series of horticultural cultivars.

Within Haworthia there are real problems of definition and circumscription of the species. The variability within species is often so great that it is very difficult to circumscribe a species in such a way as to exclude members of other species. The species are best recognised as geographical entities and no species can be described without good reference to locality and distribution. This is the only way in which a sound system of nomenclature directly related to field complexes, and hence a “natural system”, can be derived. Names are the fundamental basis of communication concerning the plants, and the psychology of collecting requires good definition of the “kinds” of things being collected. Nevertheless it is surprising how many persons enthusiastically and vehemently argue the “differentness” of things without seriously considering where the boundaries of difference really lie. The system of nomenclature in Haworthia has been so confused that it has not been possible for collectors to name or acquire plants consistently or confidently.

What are Haworthias?
The genus Haworthia is currently experiencing another stormy taxonomic passage and for the present includes the genus Chortolirion Berger. C.A. Parr in the African Succulent Plant Society Bulletin (6: 145, 1971) also included the genera Astroloba Uitew. and Poellnitzia Uitew. However, the writer refuted this in the National Cactus and Succulent Journal 27: 77 (1972). This refutation was not considered by Mrs. A.A. Obermeyer-Mauve in her article in Bothalia (11: 119, 1973) where she tacitly supports Parr’s arrangement.

The genus Astroloba comprises seven species, all of which have leaves arranged in five conspicuous rows. The genus was revised by Mrs. P. Roberts-Reinecke¹ in an unpublished thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science to the Department of Botany at the University of Cape Town. This comprehensive work makes a mockery of the recognised species and demonstrates the remarkable confusion that can arise in taxonomic nomenclature. It is Mrs. Roberts-Reinecke who concludes that there are only seven species with three subspecies, and she also describes the intergeneric hybrid Astroworthia bicarinata (Haw.) Roberts-Reinecke – the hybrid Astroloba rugosa Roberts-Reinecke (nom. nud.) X Haworthia margaritifera (L.) Duval (the latter now H. pumila).  Apart from floral characters, there are no caulescent haworthias with five well-defined leaf parastichies and only Poellinitzia rubriflora (Bolus) Uitew. is strictly comparable. This monotypic genus has a unique gasteria-like flower and to lump it either with Haworthia or Astroloba is clearly incorrect. The more recent inclusion of Chortolirion, also monotypic, under Haworthia by Mrs. Mauve is also very questionable. Certainly her argument in which she presents H. graminifolia G.G. Smith as being bulbous and thus comparable with Chortolirion is erroneous. H. graminifolia has no semblance of a bulb or fleshy leaf base, although the broad leaf bases do completely enclose the stem. The real error lies in the unstated contention by both Parr and Mauve, that Haworthia is an integral undifferentiated unit. This is fallacious, as Haworthia is clearly divisible into at least three very well demarcated subgenera (Bayer, 1970).

The first of these is the subgenus Robustipedunculares Uitewaal ex Bayer. When Uitewaal proposed this name he was suggesting it as a subdivision of two sections of the genus. Proper analysis referring to valid natural species shows that there are five species sharing common characteristics.

These are:
H. minima Haw.
H. marginata (Lam.) Steam.
H. margaritif era (L.) Haw. (H. pumila (L)Scott)
H. kingiana Poelln.
H. poellnitziana Uitew. (now H. minima var. poellnitziana)

They are all acaulescent with robust branching inflorescences; unmistakably similar perianth tubes and arrangements of penanth lobes: rounded seed capsules and black winged seeds. They all occur in the southwestern Cape with H. margaritifera extending into the Little Karoo and H. kingiana occuring in the Mossel Bay area. These are essentially winter growing species which flower in mid-summer. There is some degree of presumed introgression in the case of H. margaritifera and H. marginata in the Ashton area and apparent hybridisation of H. marginata with H. minima around Heidelberg (Cape).

The second subgenus Hexangulares Uitew. ex Bayer was also defined. It comprises both caulescent and acaulescent species, and the flowers are exasperatingly identical throughout. The perianth lobes are practically always similarly presented, but small differences can be detected (also in the case of the perianth tube) in some instances. The peduncle is usually unbranched and the perianth tube is comparatively straight with the veins of the three inner petals positively separating the margins of the outer tepals. There are not more than twenty species in this group and the distribution is quite extensve. H. limifolia Marloth and H. koelmaniorum Oberm. & Hardy occur in the B. Transvaal, Swaziland and N. Natal. The former species is variable so that distinctive geographic types can be recognised. Thus H. koelmaniorum may still best be recognised as a local element within, certainly having no affinity with H.. tuberculata as suggested by the authors of the species. H. tuberculata v. Poelln. is also not allied with the so-called Margaritiferae.  It occurs in the Little Karoo, has the same slender branched inflorescence and narrow slender perianth tube with straight upper tepals as H. starkiana v. Poelln.  The latter species is fairly localised in the low mountains just north of Oudtshoorn and the hybrid with H. tuberculata probably accounts for “H. smitii” v. Poelln.!

H. tessellata Haw. is very widespread, occurring from south of South West Africa, through the southern Orange Free State to Jamestown (at 6 000 ft.!) and down to the Little Karoo. H. venosa (Lam.) Haw. is probably a synonym of H. recurva Haw.,  which occurs in the Breede River valley near Swellendam. It is supposedly distinguished mainly by its longer bigger leaves, but some very small forms occur at Napkysmond to the south, while large forms of H. tessellata occur around Oviston and Graaf Reinet. In the Ceres Karoo one finds caulescent subscabrous populations which are very close to the distinctive H. granulata Marl.

H. viscosa (L.) Haw. is a strongly trifarious species occurring widely in the Great and Little Karoo as well as the southern Cape. It varies quite considerably at different localities, and species such as H. beanie G.G. Smith, H. cordifolia Haw. and H. asperiuscula Haw. are probably all superfluous. H. nigra (Haw.) Baker (or H. aspera Haw. if Mrs. Reinecke is correct) is widely spread in the Eastern Cape and Great Karoo. It is a smallish caulescent dark tubercled species which has been recorded in different forms from as far to the northwest as Loeriesfontein and down to Grahamstown in the southeast. H. sordida (Roem. & Schult.) Haw. is a comparatively rare species found from Uitenhage westward to Steytlerville — a very slow growing dark species with the same slender 2-3 branched inflorescence as H. starkiana and H. tuberculata. H. glauca Baker is best known in the glabrous form from the top of the Zuurberg north of Addo, but is undoubtedly synonomous with the slightly tubercled straight leaved “species”, “H. herrei v. Poelln”., “H. jacobseniana v. PoelIn.”, “H. jonesiae v. Poelln.”, and “H. eilvae v. Poelln”., from the area Uitenhage to Willowmore.

H. reinwardtii (Saim-Dyck) Haw. and H. coarctata Haw. are the subject of a recent paper in the National Cactus and Succulent Journal, and many species and varieties can be excised with rational observation of these two species in the field. H. reinwardtii occurs from East London to the Fish River and just beyond, while H. coarctata is found westward to Paterson near Port Elizabeth. These two species are caulescent and are otherwise very close to the acaulescent H. attentuata Haw. and H. fasciata (Willd.) Haw. H. attenuata is best recognised in the area east of Grahamstown and H. fasciata in the fynbos areas around Port Elizabeth and Humansdorp. However, H. attenuata also occurs with the very distinctive finely tuberculate H. radula (Jacq.) Haw. in the lower valley areas of Hankey/Patensie. H. armstrongii v. Poelln. and H. browniana v. Poelln. both consist of small local populations lying very close to each other north of Uitenhage. It is possible that they may have arisen by odd hybridisation of H. glauca and H. fasciata and subsequent vegetative propagation. This is of course highly speculative because no evidence has yet been presented to indicate that hybridisation has led to speciation in Haworthia.

There is no doubt about H. longiana v. Poelln., it has long hard leaves and the offshoots at the stem emerge as strong branchlike out- growths, rather than as softer obviously axillary offsets as in near relatives. H. woolleyi v. Poelln, is most easily allied to H. tessellata although it has the proliferous clumping habit of H. attenuata.

The third subgenus Haworthia is perhaps the most complex of all. These are all acaulescent species (despite “H. ramosa G.G. Smith”) where the peduncle is simple and the outer tepals of the floret have touching margins. The tube is curved and the style upcurved – there is no adhesion between the inner and outer tepals. There are several very decided species with characteristics which evidence a distant relation. H. wittebergensis W.F. Barker with its papery leaves, growing in the mountains south of Laingsburg, cannot really be allied with H. angustifolia of the section Loratae. H. graminifolia G.G. Smith from Schoemanspoort near Oudtshoorn and H. blackburniae W. F. Barker from Van Wyksdorp to west of Ladismith both have fusiform roots and long linear narrow leaves. H. maughanii Poelln. and H. truncata Schonl. have truncated leaves (to use the vernacular, these are the “perdetande”) and truncation occurs in the second leaf of the seedling. This is quite unlike the recurvature of the leaves of the section Retusae, although the functional end purpose appears to be the same. The involved taxonomic confusion presently negates a really rational discussion of the remaining species. The “Retusae” is a section comprising a vast series of intergrading populations extending from Steytlerville to Bredasdorp in the southwestern Cape. This series includes many recognisably distinct taxa such as H. springbokvlakensis C.L. Scott, H. comptoniana G.G. Smith, H. parksiana v. Poelln., H. mutica Haw. and H. mirabilis Haw. etc. where the leaves are strongly reflexed to give an apparently truncated end area. However, several segregates in the same series have normal suberect or incurved leaves e.g. H. reticulata Haw., H. pubescens Bayer. In H. schuldtiana v. Poelln. some of the segregates have “retused” leaves and others lanceolate incurved leaves. The section as it stands at present is an artificial one as some of the principal elements of the series are incorporated in sections such as the Denticulatae Berger and Muticae Berger.

Without good anatomical characters it is virtually a question of guesswork to try and prepare a reasonable diagnosis of the other sections and this may be true of the whole tribe Aloineae. Chortolirion can be described as having a haworthia-like flower if one very crudely regards the flowers of the haworthias as all alike. Actually Chortolinon has the straight tube, tepal arrangement and straight style of the Hexangulares. Whereas there is some difficulty in separating species of that group on floral characters, Chortolirion stands out like a sore thumb. The florets are practically sessile with wide pedicellate attachment while the peduncle is relatively short, fleshy in comparison with Hexangulares and notably glaucescent. Vegetatively Chortolirion has a distinct bulb, the leaves tend to spiral, they have the white markings characteristic of the Leptaloe and the plants are deciduous as is Aloe kniphofioides – the die-back of the leaves is not directly due to fire or frost as suggested by Mrs. Mauve, but a seasonal phenomenon. H. graminifolia in the subgenus Haworthia does not have the semblance of a bulb and it would take more than “eliminating gravity” to get the floret to resemble that of Chortolirion. Mrs. Mauve is also responsible for the inclusion of Chamaealoe africana in Aloe as A. bowiea Schult. & J.H. Schult. While in essence her treatment may be correct, the facts mobilised in support do not substantiate the change. No one can claim that the generic states in the Aloineae are or were factually correct, but there seems to be little point in merely guessing at a better construction. What is needed is a thorough anatomical study of the entire tribe to include all the genera and aberrant species. Any other basis for creating and recreating categories is unsatisfactory.

The cultivation of haworthia
The success of any plant in general cultivation is more certainly a product of inherent adaptability and vegetative or seed fecundity, than dependant on any skills of the gardener. The principal basis of speciation in plants is undoubtedly geographic distribution and habitat selection, so that there are many kinds adapted to specific microhabitats. Any collector attempting to grow all the species of any respectably sized genus must face either fact or disappointment. To be successful the collector must provide “intensive care” facilities for the inevitable difficult plants. Haworthias are no exception to the rule. The gaps in comprehensive collections are not only due to a taxonomic situation loaded with “species” that are not, but also due to species which require luck or skill to cultivate successfully. Of all the variables which affect success in cultivation, soil is perhaps the most complex. Variability in soil seems to play a major role in determining the composition and distribution of plant communities. Haworthias are largely associated with rocky situations with undeveloped soils and it is surprising that most can be grown in the standard soil mix consisting of one part loam: one part sand: one part compost. J.R. Brown, the American doyen, concluded that Haworthias could be grown in almost every type of fairly porous well drained soil. This is mostly true but attention must be paid to shade and watering. Practically all the species occur naturally in shaded conditions and require semi-shade in cultivation. Mature plants are often found in exposed positions in the wild, but these are invariably highly coloured, stunted, withdrawn into the soil, or the leaf tips are necrotic. The best colours and forms are of course obtained with the least possible shade and attenuation or yellow chlorosis of the leaves should not be tolerated.

Watering is a very critical factor and it must be remembered that there are species from the southwestern Cape adapted to winter rain. Conversely there are species averse to winter wetness. There is no fixed principle that winter growers flower to set seed for the start of a new growing season, so flowering is not a good indication of water requirement. H. herbacea and H. reticulata flower in early spring, H. margaritifera in mid-summer, and H. schuldtiana in early winter, yet they are all winter growers. The winter rainfall area is really demarcated by a line drawn from Bredasdorp to the mouth of the Orange River. Rainfall immediately east of this line comes mainly with the autumn and spring solstices, but growth is mainly in winter as a result of adaptation to the intense summer heat and low humidity. East of Ladismith the species appear to be mostly summer growing. In practice the winter growers require a dry spell in late summer. There are some species which have an indeterminate growth cycle, e.g. H. setata Haw. and H. venteri v. Poelln., and injudicious watering can quickly lead to disaster. If in doubt it is best to water when the plants show indications of stress, always bearing in mind that shade may be more desired than water. With some of the really slow growers such as H. sordida and H. woolleyi the temptation to water may be an invitation to the compost heap. They cannot be pushed into vigorous growth and increased shade is again more likely to produce the required results than water.

The summer rainfall soft-leaved Haworthias tend to lose all their roots with winter watering but it is not wise to generalise. H. pilifera cannot be put in the same class as the cliff-hanging (literally) H. cymbiformis–planifolia types. These types are very proliferous and want particularly good drainage below, and a dry winter. H. pilifera will tolerate poor drainage if its water comes sparingly and at the right time. The best specimens are grown in quite intense light conditions forcing retraction into the soil as is their wont in nature.  In some variants the leaves may completely truncate with a network of necrotic veins to screen out the sun. In this respect many haworthias resemble the windowed “mesembs” such as Fenestraria, Lithops etc. which reduce surface area (and transpiration) and make provision through surface translucency, for photosynthesis by sunlight in the deeper buried chlorophyll-bearing tissue. Retraction into the soil is a characteristic of the thick-rooted species such as H. truncata and the “retusae”. It is thought to be brought about by contraction of the roots pulling the plant down into the soil. If plants are excavated and allowed to dry out, the roots flex very strongly upwards which would also have the effect of forcing the stem down. However retraction occurs, it is puzzling how the soil is displaced underneath the plant, because H. truncata, among others, may be found in the stoniest of ground. Retraction should thus not be regarded only as a movement per se of the plant downwards, but a state into which the plant grows from the time of germination. If retracted plants are transplanted and well submerged in the soil, the chances of losing them from overwatering are increased. Overwatering can be defined as a combination of giving too much water too often, poor drainage, poor ventilation and incorrect nutrition.

The Hexangulares species such as H. attenuata, H. reinwardtii and H. coarctata are the commonest encountered in gardens. This is because they are very prolific vegetatively, fairly fast growers, and very much more tolerant of exposure to sun. Members of this group seldom have surface translucency and are generally not retracted. H. tessellata grows in very very hot situations but usually in the protection of rock crevices and under stones. H. limifolia is also found where it can get very hot, but survives under the protection of bush or grass canopy. A common species in gardens is a highly fasciated form of H. attenuata which is usually taken to be H. fasciata. The latter species has less attenuate leaves and the upper leaf surfaces are smooth. H. fasciata is not a common species in gardens and this can only be accounted for by soil requirement. The species is found in the acid soils of the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area where it grows in the “fynbos” vegetation and exemplifies the problem of suitable soil for cultivation.

Several species are found in the Robertson Karoo in undeveloped soils of the Malmesbury shales. The vegetation is highly differentiated into distinct plant communities over very small distances. Soil pH may vary from 3,9 to 7,8 over a distance of ten paces. However soil pH is not an only consideration. H. margaritifera is found usually in Pteronia paniculata (the composite “ribbokbos”) communities where pH varies between 3,9 and 4,9. It also occurs in Ruschia carolii (Aizoaceae – vygie or mesem) communities where low pH (4,8) is also recorded and where H. herbacea may be plentiful. It is not unusual for the situation to be reversed with H. herbacea in the Pteronia communities and H. margaritifera in the Ruschia. Yet it is clear that each species has very specific requirements and does not ever appear to co-habit in a single locality. It is often the case that three or four species of Haworthia grow in the same general locality, but clearly confined to their own microhabitats within a stone’s throw of one another. Neither H. margaritifera nor H. herbacea is successful in general cultivation and the reason appears to be a combination of their winter rainfall requirement and their soil needs. H. marginata is similarly rarely successful in cultivation and also (or co-relatedly) rare in habitat.

Propagation of haworthias is more often than not by vegetative offset, as most of the easily cultivated species are also very prolific. Pure seed is not generally available because of the tendency to hybridise, and the plants take three to four years to reach maturity from seed. Seed is easy to obtain by cross-pollination but the parent plants must be isolated from the insects and birds that normally pollinate them. The plants are self-sterile and so the parent plants must be from genetically distinct clones. Pollination is simply effected by inserting a fine hair into the floret of one plant and transferring the adhering pollen to the other. Pollen is released from the youngest flowers and the older flowers bear the receptive stigmas. Pollination is dependent on ideal weather conditions and warm sub- humid mornings are ideal. The seed capsules begin to form immediately after successful pollination and the fertile capsule may ripen in weeks. Failure of pollination. marked by the early abscission of the pedicels. Seed is best sown fresh, in early winter for the winter growers and any time in the summer for the summer growers.

A well-drained loose soil is used, with the seed very lightly covered with the same soil and lightly topped with a thin layer of small pebbles to hold the germinating seeds and tiny seedlings. Where damping- off is a problem, soil sterilisation may be practised or fungicides used. Transplanting follows crowding and must take place with due respect for the growing season and condition of the seedlings. Experience indicates that young plants should first be subject to some drying out and the young seedlings transplanted with intact roots, and then lightly watered. Older mature plants should also be well-rested before moving and if not, all the roots should be stripped off before replanting. Water should also be withheld for a few days after planting and the plants shaded until they start to grow again. Haworthias root best from the stem area closest to the lowest leaves and it is unwise to leave a big section of stem, or plant deeply with the expectation that roots will develop all along the submerged portion. Many species will propagate from leaves but this is a haphazard venture unless properly done. The leaves must be removed as closely as possible to the stem to ensure removal of adventitious growth tissue with the leaf. Gasterias can propagate from portions of leaf, but not Haworthia. Like aloes, non-dividing species can be induced to multiply by damage to the growing point the difficulty in this technique lies in inducing oneself to inflict the necessary damage on a treasured rarity. Excised leaves may be stuck shallowly into a sandy soil-mix and weighted down with small stones if need be. Propagation may also be effected by cutting entire plants into section and treating the cut surface with sulphur or some other fungicide. The writer cannot claim to having achieved any success with rooting hormone but it does seem to produce a good healing of broken surfaces.

Conclusion
The published literature on Haworthia prompts one to misquote… “never has so much been written, about which so many know so little!”. Inadequate descriptions, erroneous naming and confused names seem to be the lot of succulent plant groups where the degree of amateur interest has greatly exceeded that of the botanist. E. J. Bullock made some apt remarks concerning the amateur in “Thoughts on the status of Aloe lutescens” in Excelsa No. 3. It is fortunate that there is no such thing as “closed shop” in taxonomic botany but it still behoves the prospective taxonomist to be aware of the levels at which information might now be available. The making of an herbarium specimen and concoction of a Latin description are very elementary barriers to the determined author of a new name. However, the development and maturation of a suitable species philosophy is another matter altogether. Since Darwin and perhaps before, there has been no complete accord on a definition of the “species” although almost everyone has a good idea of what it is. All can agree that the species is the basic unit of classification and it is also fairly easy to accept the classic definition of a species as a grout (or groups) of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals. It is only in the last 30 years that the qualification has been added where all barriers to sexual reproduction are included. However, the difficulty really lies in the fact of change, so that any definition needs to consider variability in a species as it is exhibited in both space and time. There may be groups of plants which are currently not broken into clearly discontinuous groups which can be readily recognised as species. Often the case is that where some elements of a group form very clear subgroups and so species, other elements are highly variable. The former group suggests completeness of adaptation which has been said to be “cause of senescence of the issue”. In other words a well adapted and nonvariable species has probably lost the genetic capacity to change with changing environment and is so threatened. Alternatively, the highly variable “species” or aggregate of elements has the genetic resources to meet changes in the environment. In Haworthia the variable elements are often highly localised and it does not seem possible to evaluate these properly as species or otherwise.

G.W. Reynolds can be considered to have done remarkably good work with Aloe classification for the period in which he worked, and perhaps for much later too. However, no one can contest that problems do not still exist in that genus, and not only at the level of the species. The genus concept in the Aloineae is under pressure as witnessed by the changes implemented by Parr and Mauve. That this pressure has been characterised by a lack of valid new information on which a better grouping can be based, merely serves to emphasise the fact that sound arguments for the older situation never existed.     ♦

(This article was accompanied by colour illustrations).
(1) https://haworthiaupdates.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Astroloba-Pandora-Roberts-Reinecke-Thesis.pdf

Printed in British Cactus and Succulent Journal 4:45 (1987).

Haworthia is indeed a popular genus which seems to inspire a great deal of controversy and confusion. One would have to be very thick-skinned to be able to ignore past history and not plead for forgiveness for similar transgression. I was just busy trying to clarify, in my own clouded mind, the problem of H. pumila (L.) Duval, when I saw Will Tjaden’s little article on the subject in this journal (3:88, 1985). Gordon Rowley in the same issue reviews the recent books on Haworthia and also mentions the H. pumila versus H. margaritifera debate. Coming so soon on the heels of Fearn versus Cole and Walker versus Bruyns, it would be insensible for Bayer to take up the cudgels against anyone.

In any case I frankly do not know what to do about the problem of the name-game so well expressed by both Rowley and Tjaden, and yet I shamefully have to admit my displeasure at their contribution, or lack of it. In the case of Tjaden, I agree with his comments on name changes and respect this view far more than he suggests. My distress at the recognition of H. pumila (L). Duval is greater than Tjaden has conceived, and all the more because I knew that Col. Scott’s solution offered in 1978 was not correct. Col. Scott was assisted in this instance by Dr L.E. Codd, who is one of our most respected taxonomists. Unfortunately they overlooked Burmann’s Flora Capensis of 1869 and also the fact that another species (H. minima) was involved.  While I accepted their decision in the interests of stability and peace, Dr. Onno Wijnands pursued the matter a little more vigorously.

The intention of the Code of Botanical Nomenclature, to bring order and stability to the names of plants, seems fairly obvious. It also seems to me that the Code, being as complex as it is, is either an ass or can often be made an ass of, because its various articles can be used in contradiction to one another. For Mr. Tjaden’s benefit particularly, let me just quote, article 55.2 which is directly relevant to H. pumila… ”On transference of a specific epithet under another generic name, the resulting combination must be retained for the species to which the type of the basionym belongs and attributed to the author who first published it, even though it may have been erroneously applied to a different species.” One of my first experiences with the Code was in the presence of three distinguished taxonomists (one professor and two PhDs) trying to get guidance on the question of application of Linnaeus’s epithet pumila. The problem was so skillfully compounded and evaded that I felt that this simple mortal would have to stick to easier things. I really thought that Dr. Codd had helped solve a complex problem and I am as disconcerted as anyone else that Dr. Wijnands has established otherwise, arguing:—

1. H. pumila (Alt.) Duval is a homotypic synonym of H. herbacea (Mill.) Stear.

2. H. pumila (L.) Duval does not exist, and H. pumila (L.) … cannot be taken up because it would be a later homonym of H. pumila (Ait.) Duval.

3. H. margaritifera (L) Haw. is the correct name for the species concerned.

Gordon Rowley is right in surmising that we have not yet heard the end of the story. I do not yet know the correct position and can only say confidently that it has not yet been arrived at. (A whole lot more straw in the wind followed. The actual outcome was the typification of the Linnaean epithet pumila on as the Commel illustration t10 and this is the valid name in Haworthia). Tjaden is quite wrong in referring to a name-game being played by botanists. Names are part and parcel of the communication process and confusion can just as often be put at the door of gardeners as anywhere else. Duval was a gardener.

Regarding Gordon Rowley’s review, there are a host of major and minor discrepancies between Col. Scott’s perceptions and my own, and I am particularly disappointed in that the review examines none of them nor even reveals them. One of my chief complaints about reaction and response to even my own writing is the undiscriminating attitudes of the audience. Even my respect for Gordon Rowley does not deaden the impression that he has not actually read and comprehended what either Pilbeam, Scott or myself has had to say. Without meaning to be unkind or offensive, I think a much better review could have been written unless Gordon Rowley also finds the audience unselective.

Regarding Rowley’s references to monographs and revisions, I would like to point out that I have used neither term for my work. The cytological data which Rowley refers to as a vast body of published research is an indictment of the subject rather than a source of worthwhile information. Riley and Majumdar (1979), and here I think it unlikely that Rowley read the book, state “all determinations of chromosome numbers should be regarded with suspicion” and this sentence is qualified by a reference to “if they were made from botanical gardens collections of long standing”. It would have been better to have said “from plants of doubtful authenticity”. A common problem with cytological work is that one has to be sure of the material worked on, and although H.P. Riley does cite voucher specimens (which are lodged here at the Compton herbarium), the origin and identification of the material remains doubtful. Even a good dry specimen is not easy to identify. At present the best cytological work, in the sense that Rowley asks for, is that being published by Dr. Canio Vosa at Oxford. At least emphasis is placed on authenticity of material. Dr. Peter Brandham at Kew has also published proper cytological work on Haworthia and all the references available to me are listed in my handbooks. I am sorry if it is not obvious that I had also considered the contents. Brandham’s work is more orientated to chromosomal aberration than to species resolution, and in any case the results of his work on H. coarctata and H. reinwardltii seem to substantiate my mass transfer of varieties.

Rowley for some odd reason cites the basic chromosome counts in H. venosa, H. recurva and H. tessellata. These are all 14 but with polyploids in the latter two. What this bit of information is supposed to convey to anyone evades me completely. Scott mentions these counts too in Cactus and Succ. Journ. (U.S.) 50:77 (1978) with the same degree of breathless reverence. At least Scott points out that there is little possibility of knowing just what Ferguson in 1926 was naming H. recurva. If there is anything in the literature (including the work on chromatography by Riley and IsbeIl, 1963) to suggest any arrangement of species substantially different from mine, I stand helplessly to correction.  My handbook was not written to duplicate what I wrote in National Cactus and Succulent Journal 28:80 (1973).

Regarding leaf surfaces, Dr. David Cutler was kind enough to photograph a good number of leaves using electron scanning micrography. I wonder if anyone can read more taxonomic sense into these pictures than I have been able to extract from them. It seems only possible to interpret them against a background of origin and with some prejudgement of taxonomic order. Dr. M. Hayashi of the Tokyo Breeding Research Institute has some very valuable results from tissue culturing and this will to some extent improve our understanding of species relationships. But any method like this which departs from standard herbarium practice of comparing dry barely recognisable specimens, moves onto shaky ground because of the real limits to the material that can be properly examined. At some time or another one has to reach some kind of a decision, and if we are going to wait for clear-cut anatomical, cytological and physiological studies, will we ever get revisions, let alone monographs?

The appearance of Col. Scott’s revision of Haworthia does in fact pose many problems for me and a superficial review is not very helpful to anyone. Who in his right mind wants to enter into a needless and fruitless disputation about who said what when, and about who is right and who is wrong? On the other hand, concerned readers must surely want to know what skeletons are lurking in the cupboard – so let’s open the door and see.

H. herbacea (Mill.) Stear is typified by an illustration in Boerhaave’s Index Alter Plantarum (1711). I apply this name to an element which Scott calls H. arachnoidea, in turn typified by an illustration in Commelin’s Praeludia Botanica (1703). Wijnands points out that this illustration is actually in better agreement with Scott’s H. setata than his H. arachnoidea, and further confounds the issue by stating that H. arachnoidea sensu Bayer is the same element as H. herbacea sensu Bayer, but omitting this relevant citation from his synonymy. Setting this aside, I would concede that my idea of the Boerhaave illustration representing my species causes problems, as I have long nursed the secret apprehension that the illustration more nearly represents H. magnifica V. Poelln. In a way this is a problem that both Scott and myself have been advised to avoid, i.e. selecting neotypes which may later be upended, it would have been difficult for me in 1976 to predict what interpretation Scott would adopt in 1985 and Tjaden may place the blame for confusion where he wishes.

In the case of H. angustifolia Haw. there does not seem to be a problem because nearly all authors imply that Salm Dyck’s illustration (Monogr. 13, t.2 1836) of Aloe stenophylla Schultes represents the species. Fourcade (in Trans. Royal Soc. S. Afr. 21:78, 1932) gives a new name for H. angustifolia sensu Baker, viz. H. monticola. He cites A. stenophylla Schultes and also Salm-Dyck t.2 as synonyms, and states expressly that Schultes’ epithet cannot be taken up in Haworthia because of the priority of H. stenophylla Baker (now Chortolirion). Schultes’ A. stenophylla is a direct transcription of H. angustifolia as described by Haworth. Under Article 63 of the Code, H. monticola is a superfluous name for H. angustifolia Haw. because Fourcade has indisputably included the type of that species.  In analysing the discussion of his H. monticola (as I pointed out in Nat. Cact. Succ. J. 37:31, 1982 – one of many references not cited by Scott) it is obvious that Fourcade wholly misinterpreted both the Haworth and Baker descriptions. I do not contest that Fourcade had a different species, but this is only evident from mention of the origin of his specimens. He describes a plant which has translucence in the lower leaf. This is quite nonsensical and there is no comparision between the chlorosis of buried leaves and the translucence of exposed leaves in those species which do exhibit translucence. Scott’s description under H. monticola in this respect also deviates from Haworth, Baker and Fourcade, because he writes of a leaf with a semipellucid upper surface with a number of pellucid spots in the upper third. This is not at all evident in Scott’s illustration of the species and I would go so far as to say that he has two different elements in the picture. The foreground and middle-right plants are in my opinion H. chloracantha var. subglauca (V. Poelln.) Bayer. The other plants resemble specimens I have of H. divergens Bayer from Uniondale which are relatively unspotted. I did not take up Fourcade’s name for the very reasons then suspected and, even if only for that reason, see none to change now.  Therefore:

H. divergens Bayer, Haworthia Handbook :38 (1976). Type: Bayer 175 (NBG, holo).

[Syn. H. monticola Fourcade, nom. illegit., sensu Scott, The Genus Haworthia, a Taxonomic Revision, :57 (1976).]

(For the sake of peace and with some doubt about my own nomenclatural expertise, I later just abandoned any argument and reverted to the use of monticola.)

Col. Scott takes up a number of old Kew illustrations as types of Haworth’s species e.g. H. altilinea, H. mucronata and H. aristata. I put my case clearly in both editions of my Handbook and, contrary to Rowley’s supposition, these illustrations have been available to researchers outside Europe and were also seen by both Uitewaal and Von Poellnitz. Scott simply confirms the total confusion in the historical application of these names by illustrating H. habdomadis var. inconfluens (v. Poelln.) Bayer and H. cooperi Baker from Ladismith and Grahamstown respectively, as H. mucronata Haworth. His distribution map implies the inclusion of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana (v. Poelln.) as well.

Col. Scott’s abandonment of subgenera and the characters which support them is inconsistent with exclusion of Astroloba, Poellnitzia and Chortolirion from Haworthia. If inflorescence characters of this degree are ignored identification must accordingly be complicated. I simply cannot understand Rowley highlighting practically useless cytological evidence and passing this over. The consequences to Scott’s perceptions of Haworthia are immediately disastrous where on page xii of his ‘revision’ the illustration C478 is identified as H. marginata which it cannot possibly be. Jaquin has an identical illustration in Hort. Schoenbr. :421 entitled Aloe pumilio which Scott at least has correctly labelled H. reticulata. On page xiii, C481 is obviously H. marginata and the flower positively excludes H. venosa as Scott suggests.  C313 on page xii also compares very unfavourably with H. heidelbergensis on page 131 and I find it very difficult to believe that the species is correctly illustrated anyway. These misidentifications of C478 and C481 cross the boundaries of three major groups of Haworthia first indicated by Uitewaal. Scott finds it difficult to understand why H. bruynsii and H. springbokvlakensis should be separated taxonomically when they are separated… “geographically by only a few kilometres of geologically uniform undulating ground”. I find it equally difficult to accept a classification that for example separates H. scabra Haw. and H. tuberculata v. Poelln even at species level, let alone at sectional level. Scott’s exposition of his species concept does not leave me any the wiser, and the short section on the generic concept speaks for itself.

Without wanting to be unkind, I would have thought that some of the misstatements in Scott’s book should have been apparent to a competent reviewer. Gordon Rowley, having seen H. graminifolia in the field himself, should of all people know that it does sucker. I have avoided giving habitat data like the plague because it is so difficult to make true and usable statements. One has only to read Scott’s discussion of H. pumila to see on what quicksands one treads in this respect. Read first the discussion and then refer to the distribution map. Being right here on my doorstep, I should know this species very well.  H. pumila is not found in strictly fynbos vegetation and the statement… “found under fynbos or other karoo scrub” can be valuable information only to the barmy. This species grows here on Malmesbury shales and it is only common in the Pteronia paniculata communities (one of seven such) where pH can be below pH 4 (KCI). These soils are also characterised by Euphorbia mauritanica communities where pH is often above 8, and H. pumila can be at home there too. It also occurs on soils derived from Witteberg quartzites, Dwyka tillite and Bokkeveld shales and I do not believe that this information is going to help any grower in the slightest. H. reticulata is similarly described by Scott as a component of fynbos, but is also said to grow on outcrops of shale. If anybody can be said to deserve credit for making such mutually exclusive statements then truly we can identify this epoch as the age of untruth.

Of what value is a statement for H. minima Haw. which reads… “A constituent of fynbos . . under renosterbos”?  Fynbos is one veld-type and renosterbos is a major element of another. H. herbacea (H. arachnoidea sensu Scott) is also on my doorstep, and I am more than surprised to learn that it grows in sandy, well-drained acid soils derived from sandstone. While it has the same distribution range as H. pumila it is fortunately blessed in that it enjoys a higher rainfall maximum. Who will point out that H. angustifolia var. baylissii is represented by a single clone from one of the densest populations of H. angustifolia that I have seen and that in fact has no distribution? Who will point out that Scott’s illustration of H. serrata is definitely not that of my species and that it can best be equated with the form of H. arachnoidea at the northern end of the Tradouw Pass? In the case of H. marumiana sensu Scott, he cites H. archeri Bayer as a synonym and also H. marumiana sensu Bayer. He then goes to great pains in the discussion to exclude the latter and suggest that its “systematic position is not yet clear.” Uitewaal does describe his species as freely proliferous but Scott writes… “H marumiana sensu Uitewaal” is not.

To evaluate this revision of Scott’s we should perhaps look at his section Retusae which he first revised in Aloe 11, 4:17 (1973). The synoptic key (Rowley) consists of 8 steps each with two to three species. One of these steps reads “leaves in 5-tiers” and includes H. retusa and H. heidelbergensis, while another reads leaves in 2-4 tiers” and includes H. mirabilis and H. asperula sensu Scott. Under the description of H. retusa these tiers are described as vertical, while it is wholly unclear what 2-4 tiers means in H. mirabilis or H. asperu!a. The illustration of H. mirabilis shows a plant with 8 near-vertical tiers.  In the illustration of H. asperu!a it is possible to resolve the two primary counter spirals, the three secondary spirals, and the five secondary counter spirals. The illustration of H. magnifica facing H. asperula shows beautifully the five secondary counter spirals in near vertical position. (I wrote the article in respect of leaf spirals in Aloe precisely to forestall and nudge both Dr Codd and Col Scott to a rational view.)

In 1973 Scott upheld the name H. nitidula v. Poelln. but the 1985 version does not cite this interpretation under H. longibracteata Smith where it belongs by virtue of its accompanying illustration. H. willowmorensis v. Poelln. sensu Scott 1973 becomes H. correcta v. Poelln. but is cited under the synonomy of H. mirabilis. Similarly H. sublimpidula v. Poelln. of 1973 becomes H. heidelbergensis Smith of 1985, but is not cited as such. The illustration and guide to H. heide!bergensis do not agree with the original description nor with this species as I know it.

The illustration of H. dekenahii is not that element but that of H. turgida var. pallidifolia Smith, which Scott does away with in a new concept of H. retusa.  While H. asperula sensu Scott covers everything from H. pygmaea in the east to H. pubescens in the west, four species viz. H. geraldii, H. multilineata, H. fouchei and H. longibracteata are required for a relatively simple situation around Riversdale.

These are only some of many problems which I see in Col. Scott’s book. John Pilbeam’s book is in another class. Except where he enters the taxonomic fray it is the most useful book for the collector. The most serious objection that I have to it is the chapter on geographic distribution. The only nice thing I have to say about that is Pilbeam’s kindness in concealing the origin of most of it. This chapter should have been updated and corrected before publication.

The ‘definitive monograph’ is Gordon Rowley’s pie- in-the-sky. The realities of plant taxonomy are going to prove far more disparaging of hybrids and cultivars by taking them properly out of the rank of genus and species. Haworthia has just been fortunate in having being treated by non-botanists who are sympathetic to the collector. A truly botanical dispensation could reduce the Hexangulares to 11 species, the subgenus Haworthia to 18 and Robustipedunculares to 4. Teasingly I would like to say to Gordon Rowley that he should look at more than just the dust cover when he next reviews a book.

GORDON ROWLEY comments: ”In some books the dust covers are the best parts. But to be able to state that the only reference to chromosomes in all three books is on p.73 of Bayer’s surely indicates some attempt to look between the covers, doesn’t it? Maybe I just wasn’t reading the same volumes that Bruce has. Incidentally, I would love to know what is to become of the luckless hybrids and cultivars if they are to be deprived of the rank of genus and species!

Now, perhaps, could we invite Col. Scott to round off the review with his side of the story?” ♦

During the last half of 2008 I decided that I would make a last concerted effort to try and further clarify the uncertainty of classification of these plants. This involves the usual introspection, retrospection and reflection. Where are we now and what do we understand? I have had considerable correspondence and interchange of ideas with many enthusiasts. There is a huge disparity between what I write and what other authors do and there are definitely massive misunderstandings. The one reason is the obvious one that we each create our own realities and can only interpret the world around us in terms of our own experience and individual capacities. The second reason is that there are flaws in the entire information system in which we operate.

Much of my correspondence has involved trying to bring someone through the very simple barrier of what a species is and what a Latin binomial is supposed to convey. Several correspondents have remarked that they follow my revision Haworthia Revisited and cannot reconcile themselves with what I have subsequently written. Particularly revealing is the reaction to a very brief item I wrote entitled “A reality check” (reprinted in this publication). In that piece I submitted six pictures of very different plants and stated that they were all the same one species. Respondents expressed surprise that I could say that these were the same (thing), basing their opinions only on the fact that the plants looked so different. They lose sight of the fact that this is the reality of “species”. The members of a species are not all the same and especially not outwardly; and to confuse the sameness of members of a genetic system with the sameness of superficial resemblance, lies at the heart of classification and identification problems.

Gordon Rowley kindly sent me a copy of an article by Sandra Knapp FLS entitled … ”Naming Nature: The future of the Linnaean System”. Erudite and academic as the article is, it exposes the fact that there is a problem inherent in the system without actually defining what the problem is. It seems to me that the alarm bells of a sinking ship are being taken for sounds inherent to the structure and performance of the ship.The problem is that here is not the universal definition of what a species is and Knapp informs us that attempting to arrive at one is ”ultimately not practical in the short or long term”. My opinion is that a statement like this simply adds fuel to the fire. We have to define the word species and in doing do recognize that in their very nature species are not equivalent.

It is botanists themselves who have led us into this morass of names where the whole process of classification and nomenclature is an intellectual and juristic minefield. As collectors, growers and enthusiasts we have come to believe that a Latin name pins a plant into place simply by virtue of superficial resemblance. This is where we fail. Knapp cites Darwin as being unconcerned that the exact definition of a species was difficult to pin down. My opinion is that this statement is at the core of the matter. It is not the definition that is difficult to pin down. What is difficult to pin down is where any plant (organism) fits in any of the boxes we want to fabricate. There is absolutely no need to vacillate about a species definition because we do not know enough about the things we want to organize accordingly.

My plea to Haworthiophiles is now to try and think clearly and recognize that the formal system of latin binomials is primarily the domain of scientists. They have not set us a very good example and we need to adapt our outlook and the way in which we approach the use of Latin names.

In these now twilight notes of mine I will use an informal system of naming and describe some really interesting experiences and finds that follow the very path that Knapp suggests will lead us forward. Gordon Rowley wryly observed that “Bayer changes his mind”. This is because I have been getting on with the job and using names, just as Knapp proposes; as hypotheses, subject to continual testing and change as I gain better insights into processes and pattern in the field where the plants are. There is a misplaced confidence in technology and laboratory based methods that simply are no substitute for the information that is needed from direct field observation and experience.

There is one very disturbing aspect. This is that there are commercial and egocentric interests in opposition to mine that may be using my information for their own interests and to the detriment of sensitive habitats and populations. It is thus very distressing to know that the joy and delight these plants have given me on so many occasions is threatened or marred by the need I have felt to write about them. I have been taken to task for revealing localities. The thing is that there can be no understanding of these plants unless the spatial and distributional aspects are known and understood. There is no way in which my writing can stand as a valid hypothesis that can be tested and refined without this critical element in the constitution of a sensible view of what species are. I firmly believe that there is no merit in secrecy. It is not my role to play policeman and neither do I think that strict conservation laws and implementation have any merit where they deny the expression of natural curiosity and wonder about this incredible creation around us. What is important is for us as individuals to realize that we live in an extraordinary creation that is a conscious one and that we are individually tied to it and responsive to it. We are responsible for it and to it: we need to get back to caring for it rather than scraping what we can out of it.

I have also not written all this because of what someone really unkindly suggested was my need to write. I am writing now because I feel an obligation to do so, having started in an era where the available classification was simply woeful and ending in a situation that is a history repeating itself. It is not about Haworthia, it is about what is true and what is meaningful.  It is about how we understand nature and about what nature should mean to us. We have an incredible creation and it is time we woke up to the reality of its beauty and its purpose. God did not write a single book that so many different elements of our society claim as one that only they possess and understand. If there is any book it is everywhere around us as our birthright. ♦