3. Haworthia aristata Haw., Suppl.Pl.Succ. :51(1819), Rev.Pl.Succ. :58(1821). Non V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 43:92(1938). Non Jacobsen 2:537(1954). Non Scott, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 35:12(1980). Non Scott :110(1985). Type: Cape, ex hort Kew. Not preserved. Lectotype (designated here): icon (K). Epitype (designated here): CAPE-3325(Port Elizabeth: Deadmans Gulch (Soutkloof) (-DA), Smith 3550 (NBG): H. denticulata Haw., Rev.Pl.Succ. :58(1821). Baker, JLinn.Soc. 18:213(1880). V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:199(1937). non idem. 45:168(1938). Type: Cape, ex hort. Kew. Not preserved. Lectotype (designated here): icon, Kew library.
aristata: furnished with an awn.
Rosette stemless, proliferating slowly, to 6cm φ. Leaves slender, erect, incurved, dark-green, margins and keel entire or finely spined, with little translucence and faintly reticulated. Inflorescence simple, lax. Flowers 10-15, white.
In the first editions of the Handbook these two names were rejected as insufficiently known, and I did not agree with von Poellnitz’ use of aristata for his later H. unicolor. I mentioned too with regard to H. denticulata, that Von Poellnitz had consistently allied that name to the Hankey H. translucens (now gracilis) complex. However, von Poellnitz cites a number of improbable associates, further lists it as a variety of H. altilinea, and also describes it as having translucence. I do thus do also not agree with Scott’s 1985 interpretation where he overlooks the very translucent margins and keel of the species (see H. mucronata) to which he applies the name. It is only recently when I re-examined collections in the Compton herbarium, and a collection received from W.R. Branch from Addo, that it became apparent that Haworth’s two species can be allied to collections which have previously been hidden in H. gracilis. As applied here, it is indeed to a small dainty species which has very little translucence to the leaf. It is odd that the description as it appears translated in Scott (1980), reads ‘resembles a dark green cuspidata…’. Haworth’s description refers to Sempervivum cuspidatum and not to the big presumed hybrid Haworthia of that name. The late F.J. Stayner had in private communication commented on this odd species from Cougakop, east of Port Elizabeth. He collected specimens for the Karoo garden and these are still in cultivation. It was treated as a variant of H. xiphiophylla because it was not as translucent as most of the small elements in that area are, and because it was not substantial in terms of botanical record. Cougakop is now virtually quarried away. H. aristata is represented by about four collections from that area and also by three collections by P.V. Bruyns from further north and west. Here the plants do show some translucence and also tend to bluish-green, so it is possible that it may link up with small forms of H. decipiens. It should not be assumed that this element is really subtstantial enough as recent attempts to establish its validity have not been very successful. The collection from Mt Stewart cited below is probably H. decipiens var, minor.
Distribution: 3324 (Steytlerville): S. Mt. Stewart (-AB), Bruyns 1812 (NBG). 3325 (Port Elizabeth): Stonefountain (-BA), Bruyns 1654 (NBG); E. Verdun (-BB), Bruyns 1630 (NBG); Near Kommadagga (-BC), Smith 5890 (NBG); Soutkloof (-DA), Swart (NBG), Stayner in KG7/76 (NBG), Branch 459 (NBG); van Jaarsveld 6902 (NBG); Deadmans Gulch (Soutkloof) (-DA), Smith 3550 (NBG).
Inadequately located: Somerset East, Herre in STE6612 (BOL).
I will be disappointed if anyone had concluded I had any fixed ideas on the classification of these three species and their relationship. It has a problem which has long been on my mind. What happened recently (Nov.1998) is that I was offered the use of a time-share apartment at Jeffrey’s Bay, near the mouth of the Gamtoos River. I used this opportunity to spend six days in the field testing my hypothesis concerning the species Haworthia cymbiformis, Haworthia cooperi and Haworthia gracilis, and this is what I would like to record. Subsequent to that trip (Mar.1999) I planned and executed an excursion through the Baviaanskloof to Grahamstown and Stutterheim in March 1999, and repeated the exploration in Sept. and Oct, 1999.
First I must point out again that there is a problem with plant names in that they do not necessarily reflect a set of objects which can be seen and easily recognised. The naming and typification process is partly to blame. Typification is simply the process of ensuring that a name is based on some substantial recognisable item, preferably a specimen rather than an illustration or photograph. (A specimen is preferred because it lends itself to some other analysis e.g. a tissue sample). The type is used to secure and permanently attach a name to for reference purposes. A type specimen and hence a name need not be, and often is not, typical of the taxon which the specimen represents. This does create difficulties particularly when varieties are at issue. In Haworthia there are an inordinate number of populations of uncertain pedigree. This is not because of some obscure evolutionary process, and nor is it just because there is an absence of characters by which to characterise and circumscribe each population. It is what we should expect. Everything is in a state of change and Haworthia is simply following the same unsteady path. I have shown that in Oxalis, in which there are an embarrassment of riches where characters are concerned, that these are of surprising little help in circumscribing the species. I was interested to read this sentence in a book about chameleons, “Without collecting data many chameleons are difficult to identify.” One would expect chameleons to be less difficult to identify than plants. Darwin stated that geographic distribution is the doorway to understanding species, and this is all we have in Haworthia which I can see to make sense.
We simply use ordinary visual observation and sensibility to make judgements about similarities. The less objects we have to examine, the easier it is to assess similarities among them. The problems that then arise are no different from those that develop even with complicated and convoluted discussions and explanations that arise from sophisticated techniques and analysis of characters. In my experience it is very often the direct visual judgement which is used to test the worth of technology rather than the converse. These comments are made because readers seem to think that plant names are as centrally defined as their own unexpressed concept they have of species being groups of things with well-defined limits and readily compartmentalised. Thus they imagine that there is a solution and it is just a question of how it is found. These comments are made because several times in the literature, wild statements have been made about the use of some character or technique or other throwing great light in the darkness. It just does not happen that easily and simply. The more sophisticated the technique, the smaller the sample and the less ‘peer’ review and replication. In statistics it is also pointed out that you do not undertake sophisticated statistical analyses when the figures already show the obvious. Yet how many times do analysts not persevere with test after test until a result does appear significant – itself a matter of probability. Technique may become and end in itself and the purpose for which it is devised lost to view.
There is a nomenclatural code for plant names which regulates about everything except what the binomial stands for. What should be pointed out with some vigour, is that there is a tendency to think that species can be described from single specimens in the paradigm (this is a most useful word because it suggests a pattern, a habit and a model of a time period) of Salm Dyck, Von Poellnitz, G.G. Smith and company. The single plant (and its description) and specimen that is used to typify a name, does not constitute a circumscription of the species. These people described specimens – NOT species. Their work was thus in some measure comparable with stamp collecting. It has little to do with present time description, organisation and understanding of the living variable and changing systems which species are. The different elements in Haworthia named as ‘species’ have been determined by early writers on the basis of vegetative characters such as colour, rosette shape, leaf number and shape, translucence and spination. Nothing much has changed except the scope and extent of the problem. A difficulty with characters is stated in Vavilov’s Law of Homology which states that a set of characters in a taxon will also be present in related taxa. Thus if one finds awned and obtuse rounded leaf tips in the genus, it is possible and indeed probable, that this character set will also occur in lesser ranks. If a set of characters is present in one species, they will possibly and probably occur in related species. This article is to demonstrate the difficulty of classifying plants on this simple basis and in an era when so much more material is there to classify.
It is necessary to discard the name translucens as I have used it in my earlier books. Originally the name really is associated with what is obviously H. herbacea, and I only used it to follow a tradition of misuse. The misfortune of this is that the name gracilis then occupies the nomenclatural hierarchy, but not the same geographic position in my understanding of the species. The consequence is that an outlying variant (Hellspoort, Grahamstown) will become the species name (i.e. gracilis) and a name has to be unearthed for the core of the species in the Gamtoos valley viz. H. gracilis var. isabellae. This in my new book replaces H. translucens var. translucens. Similarly H. cooperi var. cooperi is not central to the plot as is the var. pilifera, and I unearthed the latter name in my 1999 revision for this reason, as also the name gordoniana. I opted in 1985 to use the rank ‘subspecies’ under H. translucens for reasons which should be obvious – a weaker geographical relationship of the known variants of the species associated with a broader distributional phenomenon.
This following discussion is done in terms of Darwin’s statement about the importance of geographic distribution, and the evidence I have in my mind for a wide range of species. The essential problem with the species considered in this article is that we have a set of plant populations from Grahamstown, replicated to a degree by a set of populations in the Humansdorp area. In neither area is the relationship in the set well understood, and this does not imply that they can be so understood either. I set out to deal only with recent limited observations in the Humansdorp area but like a stone thrown into a pond, the ripples soon spread.
The link between the Grahamstown and Humansdorp areas is a curious one. It can be seen in the vegetation types of Acocks, which is a broad view of species associations. Valley Bushveld occurs discontinuously from Natal through to Swellendam. Alexandra Thickets are coastal, east of Port Elizabeth. Knysna forest, west of Humansdorp. Dry fynbos dominates the immediate Humansdorp area. Karoid vegetation dominates north of the Groot Winterhoek Mountains. It is at species level that really interesting facts emerge that impact on our analysis of Haworthia. What happens in the genera Aloe, Gasteria, Astroloba etc.? I leave this as a largely unanswered question because unless the reader can respond, he or she is unlikely to appreciate that it may have implications for understanding Haworthia. Astroloba does not occur in the Humansdorp area. There is instead the curious Haworthiapungens. The Baviaanskloof is home to several endemic Gasterias as well as to Aloe pictifolia. Haworthiaviscosa is ubiquitous. H. nigra with an otherwise fairly similar distribution is not. The distribution of the genus Encephalartos (cycads) is particularly interesting because of its known antiquity and the similarity of present day species to evidence in the fossil record. Aloe must also have an ancient history as evidenced by presence of species of this genus on Madagascar – a continental drift pre-history. It would in fact be instructive for would-be authors to read what R.A. Dyer wrote about the classification of cycads, before trotting out any banal aphorism about ‘active evolution’. There is an interesting break (interval) between the cycad species, east of the Sundays and Bushmans River valleys which separate Grahamstown and Humansdorp. This break can be observed in the distributions of other genera and species and evaluated both for compliance and non-compliance. Haworthia has both conditions e.g. cymbiformis and pilifera happily cross the interval. Angustifolia and coarctata only just do so. Marumiana, and nigra do so in the inland areas. Attenuata does so. Viscosa is almost ubiquitous. Fasciata does not and neither do sordida, longiana nor xyphiophylla. No species jump the Knysna forest interval and the genus as a whole jumps the Transkei interval northward only via limifolia and koelmanniorum (+mcmurtryi). These east-west breaks are interesting because they thus indicate speciation pressures. They may be helpful in deducing possible or probable relationships in a two-directional way i.e. distribution and variation in one set of plant variants provides a tool for the examination of other sets. In the case of H. gracilis, one can argue simply that it complies with the interval, in which case the var. tenera east of Grahamstown is discrete from the Uitenhage, Baviaanskloof look-alikes. Alternatively one can hypothesise non-compliance and that continuity will be found between Grahamstown and Uitenhage. Hellspoort (the site of the var. gracilis) is somewhat supportive of this view, but their is still a wide gap. Perhaps this is only in the known distribution record.
Known collections and observations were the basis of my 1985 classification hypothesis. Many of these were either dry herbarium specimens perhaps supported by photographs of single plants grown in cultivation. This hypothesis for the species in question here was arrived at from specimens from the immediate Grahamstown area and from the lower and eastern Baviaanskloof (Humansdorp) area. For the 1999 revision I have broadened the range of varieties, and relevant to this discussion are:
Haworthia cooperi
var. cooperi
var. leightonii
var. pilifera
var. gordoniana
and included Scott’s two new species as varieties:-
H. joeyii (= var. dielsiana)
H. venusta (var. venusta)
Haworthia gracilis
var. gracilis
var. tenera
var. isabellae
Haworthia cymbiformis
var. cymbiformis
var. incurvula
var. transiens
In this discussion I will largely avoid the issue of both H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, H. cooperi var. cooperi and H. decipiens although they are closely involved. I will deal primarily with the Humansdorp (Hankey-Patensie); and to lesser degree with the immediate Grahamstown (Plutosvale) area.
I will use the term look-alikes because it is frequently used in the fynbos vegetation to refer to plant species from different genera, which are superficially so similar that close examination and full flowering material is often needed to establish their real identities. In Haworthia this detail is simply not available and thus there are specimens from different species which are geographically and thus probably genetically aeons apart, but which are visually identical.
Grahamstown (Albany) H. cymbiformis – is well represented and discrete. Yellow-green plants with spreading broader, flatter, ovate leaves. Clump forming plants on steep rocky faces. The var. incurvula – is known from many collections but only one locality (Plutosvale). It has look-alikes in the Patensie area particularly. Its relationship as a variety of cymbiformis really follows G.G. Smith who made the combination on the basis of a continuity which he claims to have seen. I recall (!) that its flowers are more reminiscent of tenera and this article may expose this as a possibility. Pale semi-opaque green, small clump-forming, with ovate, obtuse incurved leaves.
H. cooperi – is well represented by the var. pilifera. Blue-green plants tending to purplish, with incurved thicker, shorter ovate leaves, often spined. Solitary plants withdrawn into the soil. (The var. cooperi is not discussed in this appraisal although the concept presents a substantial problem on which I am preparing a manuscript).
H. gracilis – is known only from Hellspoort north-east of Grahamstown, with a second population of larger more cooperi-like plants from nearer Plutosvale (MBB6603-99, Glen Craig – a Gerhard Marx collection). Gracilis does have look-alikes in the Kirkwood area (Paardepoort, and a greater Humansdorp area). Paler grey-green plants tending to clump, with more leaves. The leaves are incurved narrow attentuate, and with or without spines. My opinion, based on my most recent collection from Hellspoort is that the var. tenera is actually the element concerned and is thus a superfluous name for gracilis. This var. tenera – is very well known from several populations north-east and east of Grahamstown and these include a glabrous population. It has look-alikes in the Uitenhage and Hankey areas of Humansdorp. Grey-green, small solitary or clump-forming, with many narrow, spined incurved leaves.
(Note:- the original description of gracilis seems to be of a moderately spined species, and von Poellnitz concept was apparently drawn from several disparate collections. The conception of the species from an illustration in Desert Plant Life, and indeed my own collection from Hellspoort in early 1970s, is of a moderately spineless plant. The recent collection of mine has forms which are relatively spineless as opposed to forms which are indeed similar to the smaller, densely spined, tenera. Thus we again have the problem where a name is neither central to the geographic element nor typical. The name tenera could be dispensed with and replaced with var. gracilis – this is evident from my discussion).
Humansdorp H. cymbiformis – represented by the typical variety in the small Baakens River valley and discrete. It may occur north-east of the Baakens River in the Rocklands area of Port Elizabeth. There is also the population at Hell’s Gate north-west of Uitenhage which I am regarding now as the var. transiens (It needs to be re-examined – hastening to add ‘by someone competent to do so’). This var. transiens – is only recently known to be very well represented in the upper Longkloof and in the Baviaanskloof. Its relationship with cymbiformis may not be as close as varietal rank, and the linking population at Hellsgate east of Uitenhage may be misunderstood. Leaves are incurved, pale-green and less opaque than in cymbiformis. Some of the variants resemble plants of the var. incurvula from Plutosvale.
H. cooperi as the var. pilifera – well represented and largely discrete. However, the typical variety with the necrosing-end area seems to have a western limit just outside Port Elizabeth and also near Uitenhage (the furthest west being at Perseverance, JDV90/40). It is then replaced by a variant which is often smaller, having the same blue-green colour darkening to purplish, but the leaf tips remain slender acuminate even in light conditions. This is what I have regarded as the var. gordoniana which in its typical form is not well represented.
H. gracilis as the var. isabellae – is well represented but apparently variable. The leaves tend to be spreading, pale greyish-green and spined. Some plants resemble gracilis from either Hellspoort (less-spined) or from Plutosvale (densely spined – tenera).
General It is known to me that in the area from Kirkwood, westward to the Little Karoo (north of the Baviaanskloof), there is an interaction between gracilis and decipiens. H. cooperi (not designating any variety) also occurs in that area. There is a problem in the Addo area, where another element (aristata – a separate weak hypothesis) may intrude. It has also been suggested, and this has always been in my own mind, that unicolor (mucronata) from the western Little Karoo may be continuous with either cymbiformis, bolusii or cooperi. It is continuous with arachnoidea, lockwoodii and with decipiens, and I am treating it as a separate issue because there are also other reasons for its exclusion here. The discussion could descend to the point where one says simply that there are not many species in the sub-genus Haworthia.
Results
Grahamstown I first looked at Hellspoort early in 1970 to collect and form an impression of H. gracilis. This was of a largish plant with leaves exceeding 3cm long, fairly spineless and weakly clustering. I also saw tenera in Plutosvale and at Hunts Drift. The former, small, densely spined and strongly clustering. At a later occasion I collected tenera again in Plutosvale as the conventional spiny element, and close by as a glabrous element of the same size. On that occasion I neither looked for nor saw incurvula or cymbiformis in the area. I revisited Hellspoort with J.D. Venter and G.D. Marx in 1996 and Venter made a re-collection again in 1998 (JDV89/42-117). My 1996 collection (MBB6614-118) reminded me forcefully of Plutosvale tenera, the plants were smaller than my previous collection and also spinier. Venter’s 1998 collection (all slightly different points within Hellspoort) was of the conventional gracilis that I visualise from the Von Poellnitz illustration, and from my early collection. These were quite large plants. During my visit of March 1999, I observed and recorded systematically from the bottom of Plutosvale, to the top (Roff’s Rock). On the north side of the kloof from the Cotswold farmhouse to the middle of the kloof which is Plutosvale, there was tenera both large clusters and relatively solitary plants. I could not locate or identify the site where I had collected the glabrous form before. The area has been degraded by the grazing of goats and it is possible the plants are now gone. From there we explored the south side of Plutosvale as the road climbed out of the kloof. Roffs Rock is very accessible and this no doubt accounts for the large number of herbarium records for incurvula. We found if from virtually the top of Plutosvale, to the lower and eastern point across from where we had observed tenera at our western-most search point. It is possible that the collection G.D. Marx in JDV93/73-93 was from further to the south-west than our starting point at Roffs Rock, at the upper point of Plutosvale. Nevertheless we found the same very pointed leaved plants of that collection, tending to be clump-forming. As we moved eastward, so the plants tended have leaves which were less pointed and more incurved. The colour was yellowish-green rather than the greyer or bluer-green of the Baviaanskloof incurvula look-alikes. The leaves seemed to lack the more swollen upper and end margins that may characterise cymbiformis.
My impression from this repeat visit to the Grahamstown area, is that the elements gracilis and tenera may be better considered as the same taxon. This may lay the basis for a better understanding, or be more compatible, with the range of look-alikes in the west around Humansdorp and Uitenhage.
The incurvula problem is now largely resolved and although it may still be necessary to find other links between incurvula and cymbiformis which Smith claimed and which is not supported by herbarium evidence. To the contrary, the collections of the gracilis-gordoniana plants from Glen Craig and Roffs Rock (viz. -99, -89, -93)), as well as the interplay of species in question in the Baviaanskloof, suggest that incurvula may equally be interpreted as a variant of H. gracilis or even H. cooperi. There is a further possibility based on new observations in respect of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. It may be possible to restructure the classification to relate the var. bolusii with H. semiviva; and to consider the element blackbeardiana as a variety of cooperi, (as nomenclaturally correct but geographically weak) as the species, with pilifera and gordoniana as principle variants. Nomenclatural considerations in ‘the strict terms of the code’, might confuse the issue, but I see no reason why reasoned and logical argument could not be used to dismiss names which are confusing because of their geographical connotation.
Humansdorp I looked at populations at Jeffrey’s Bay, Zuurbron between Humansdorp and Hankey, two at Draaihoek to the south-west of Patensie, three near Andrieskraal, one further west in the Groot River Poort, and three still further west in the Baviaanskloof, one at Patensie, one at Houtkloof in the Elandriver valley, one at Hankey, one north of Hankey, two south-west of Hankey, and one at the Gamtoos Bridge. Some of these populations were known to me before, and many of them are already represented in the Herbarium. I will also refer to other collections (mostly multiple plants) in my discussion which I have either not seen in the field at all, or in the more distant past. These are collections by credible field botanists and naturalists such as P.V. Bruyns, G.D. Marx, E.J. van Jaarsveld, T. Dold and D. Clarke. This thus reviews some 60 populations, but does exclude some significant ones in the Kleinwinterhoek mountains, where other considerations apply.
MBB6792-20 Jeffrey’s Bay. Fynbos. Very short vegetation on level sandstone outcrop. Early bud stage. Small single plants to 20mm diam. Leaves incurved at tips, no marginal spines and bluish-green, darkening to purplish hue (3) – gordoniana-picturata.
MBB6933-21 E. Humansdorp. Grassy fynbos. Rocky sandstone knoll. Small single plants, bluish-green with coarser spination than MBB6793 (2) – gordoniana.
MBB6553-22 and MBB6793-22 Zuurbron. Valley Bushveld. Scrub vegetation on level alluvial stream bank with loose sandstone rocks. Flowering and seeding. Small single plants to 30mm diam. Leaves thicker, leaves incurved at tips, many small closely spaced marginal spines, bluish- green (2) – gordoniana (possibly close to type locality).
MBB6784-23 SW Patensie. Valley bushveld, west sloping conglomerate. Seeding. Small single plants to 30mm diam. Leaves incurved at tips, forms with and without marginal spines, and blue-green (1). Smaller plants of this order were collected by Tony Dold at Drinkwaterskloof in the Baviaanskloof near Geelhoutboskloof – gordoniana.
MBB6786-24 SW Patensie. Valley bushveld, steeper south facing conglomerate. Flowering and seeding. Small single plants to 25mm diam. Leaves incurved at tips, mostly plants with marginal spines, blue-green (2) – gordoniana-isabellae.
MBB6827-27 Rooihoek. East of Geelhoutboskloof. Steep east facing slope. Plants single, greenish, very small – picturata-transiens.
EvJ14680-28 Vetmaakvlakte, S Rooihoek – isabellae (as for a clone of -41, resembling H. aristata).
MBB6789-29 Groot River Poort (Komdomo). Valley bushveld, very steep west-facing shale cliff. Flowering. Small clustering plants to 30mm diam. Leaves with spreading tips, slightly obtuse, no marginal spines, pale-green (5) – transiens-picturata.
MBB6830-30 E Komdomo. Riverine margins. Large clustering plants on steep soil-covered rock- gracilis.
J.N.Reddi in JDV93/86-31 2km NW Andrieskraal, is a collection which may be the same as -30 – gracilis.
EvJ15927-32.1 N. Groot River Poort. Steep south-facing cliffs. Clustering or single. Fairly similar to -29 – transiens-isabellae, the clone 32.2 to decipiens var. minor?
MBB6790-33 Andrieskraal. Valley bushveld, very steep south-facing conglomerate. Flowering and seeding. Small clustering plants to 30mm diam. Leaf tips moderately incurved, slightly obtuse, no marginal spines, pale yellow green (4+Y) – picturata.
MBB6791-34 Andrieskraal. Valley bushveld, steep east-facing conglomerate. Flowering and seeding. Small single plants to 25mm diam. Leaf tips incurved, slightly obtuse, no marginal spines. Pale yellow green (4+y) – picturata.
MBB6930-35.1 E. Andrieskraal, Nuwelande. Steep south facing conglomerate. Small plants down to 16mm diam. As above (4+y). – picturata. JDV90/55-35.2 from nearby westward, is also small plant with very pronounced windows.
MBB6928-36 Nuwelande. Upper steep conglomerate cliff. Plants nearly spineless and the leaves more slender and terete. Greenish (4). These are similar to JDV94/115-37 from the Paul Sauer Dam wall and also from the site for Gasteria glomerata where it was collected by E.van Jaarsveld (EvJ11076 in JDV90/118-38.1&2). A plant from that collection (-38.3) also resembles the Ripon plants (MBB6932-39) which have broader more deltoid, and more spinose leaves – isabellae.
J.G. Marx298 in JDV94/30-40, also Paul Sauer Dam, include both spined and spineless plants which also appear to be (4) – isabellae.
MBB6799-41.1 also (-9&-10) NW Patensie. Valley bushveld. South facing conglomerate slope. Seeding. More robust single plants to 45mm diam. Leaf tips incurved, with and without marginal spines. Pale green and blue-green (1-3) – gracilis-isabellae. One clone in this quite variable collection, strongly resembled a large specimen of H. aristata (-125,-142,-143).
MBB6801-42 SW Hankey. Early flowering. Valley bushveld. Vertical conglomerate. Small clustering plants to 20mm diam. Leaf tips incurved, with marginal spines. Pale blue-green (2-3) – isabellae.
MBB6802-43 SW Hankey. Valley bushveld. Steep east facing conglomerate. Early flowering. Plants mostly single to 30mm diam. Leaf tips tending to spread, with marginal spines. Pale blue-green (2-3) – isabellae.
PVB7128-44 Holriver, far S Patensie. Steep north-facing cliffs. Similar to above – isabellae.
D.Clark1050-45 Kouenek, Geelhoutboskloof. No detail, similar to above. – isabellae.
MBB6773-46 N Kareedouw. Fynbos. Conglomerate. South facing. Flowering late Dec. Plants single small, leaves incurved, very spiny and spines on leaf surfaces too. Blue-green (2) – isabellae.
MBB6771-47 Moordenaarskloof (N. Kareedouw). Steep south facing slope. Plants in small clusters or single. Relatively spineless. Leaves incurving. Green (4) – picturata.
MBB6805-48 NE Hankey. Valley bushveld. Gradual west facing slope. Seeding. Plants single to 50mm diam., leaf tips incurved, with and without marginal spines. Blue-green and pale-green and (1-4) – gracilis-isabellae.
MBB6804-49 N Hankey. Valley bushveld. Dense vegetation on alluvial stream bank. Seeding. Plants single to 50mm diam., leaf tips incurved, without marginal spines. Pale-green and blue-green (1-4) – gracilis-isabellae.
JDV97/3-50 E Hankey. Valley Bushveld. Plants similar to above – (1-2) – gracilis-isabellae.
MBB6808-51.1 Gamtoos Bridge. Valley bushveld. Steep west facing conglomerate. Seeding. Clustering plants to 50mm diam. Leaf tips spreading, with marginal spines. Blue-green (2) – isabellae. There are very similar plants at Longmore, east of Loerie (MBB6555-51.2).
MBB6798-52 Houtkloof (Upper Elandsriver valley). Fynbos. Rocky valley in sandstones. Neither flower nor seed (flowered in cultivation in Jan.). Plants single to 35mm diam. Leaf tips incurved, very spiny. Blue-green (2) – isabellae.
C. Marais in JDV96/95-53 Forest Glade and JDV92/136-54 Oaklands, both Elandsriver, are similar but more coarsely spined and paler green (4) – isabellae.
MBB1404a in JDV86/13-55 is an old collection of a tenera-like plant from the lower Elandriver valley (Groendal Dam) – cf. tenera.
D.M. Cumming6831 is from nearby and is more typically isabellae-like).
PVB7040 in JDV97/8-57 and PVB7944 in JDV97/7-58 Ouplaas (E. Cockscomb) are very similar to the above from the Elandsriver, but the plants are more robust, with much wider and more obtuse leaves. Particularly interesting because similar plants also occur in the Kleinwinterhoek eg JDV93/41-59 N Campherpoort, JDV87/180-60 S Campherpoort, JDV91/136-61 N Wolvefontein, JDV92/140-62.1 and JDV94/45-62.2 both Wolven (all decipiens var. minor). There is also the collection from the northern Groot River Poort (EvJ15927 – 32.2) linking these, and perhaps also the Cockscomb and Elandsriver plants (ie. isabellae) with transiens.
JDV97/6-63 W Braamrivier. Dry Fynbos. Steep W. facing cliff. Clump-forming, short obtuse incurving leaves. Pale green (5) – transiens. EvJ15342-64 Dieprivier, NE Kareedouw; EvJ17548-65 Horee, Saptou, SE Uniondale; PVB7077 in JDV97/5-66.1 Oshoek, E of Uniondale; MBB6729-66.2 S Uniondale, and Reddi in JDV93/54-67 Kabeljouwsriver, near Jeffrey’s Bay (a doubtful collection), are also this element – transiens.
The latter is similar to -29 Groot River Poort (transiens-picturata), ie. small clustering plants to 30mm diam. Leaves with spreading tips, obtuse, no or very few marginal spines, pale-green. I could not locate this population and it would prove that gracilis, transiens and cooperi co-exist. E. Aslander1247-68 made a collection from the place reported by Reddi, and these plants are unquestionably gordoniana-like.
PVB7093 in JDV97/1-69 Skrikrivier, north of -63 is similar to that collection, but leaves more elongate acuminate and some lightly spined. Flowered late Jan. Very reminiscent of gracilis var. gracilis and particularly a brighter green variant from Paardepoort (MBB6600-70, var. viridis in the new revision) in the Kleinwinterhoek mountains to the north-east. PVB5402 in JDV97/20-71.1 Palmietrivier and MBB6589-71.2 Dorschfontein, both E. Steytlerville, are similar to this latter collection but better related to decipiens var. minor. A problem arises here in trying to limit the scope of the paper because there are similar collections from north of Glenconnor (JDV91/17-72.1), and south of Lake Mentz (JDV91/116-72.2, which grows with gordoniana JDV91/115-73).
MBB6810-74 (also -11&-12) Joubertina. Fynbos. South facing, rocky sandstone slope. Neither flower nor seed. Plants single to 50mm diam. Leaf tips incurved, without marginal spines. Blue-green (1) – gordoniana.
MBB6811 & JDV90/80-75 (also -13) Uniondale Pass. Renosterveld. Rocky defile, steep sandstone. Early bud stage. Plants single to 25mm diam. Leaf tips incurving, with and without marginal spines. Blue-green (1) – gordoniana. PVB7079-76 Saptou, (Upper Longkloof), PVB7062-77 Redcliffe (NE Willowmore), JDV91/80-78 Engelandsekloof (Baviaanskloof), JDV94/95-79 Nuwekloof (W. Baviaanskloof), are all in this class. A collection G. Marx194 in JDV91/81-80 from Apieskloof (Baviaanskloof) is unusually pale green but otherwise also seems to compare with these gordoniana-like plants).
In completing this review of collections I would like to mention five which seem to touch on this issue, but which are even more relevant to the H. cooperi var. cooperi and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana issue. These are G. Marx in JDV91/14-145 De Plaat (NW Kirkwood), PVB5002 in JDV92/33-147 Kaboega Gorge (Suurberg), JDV96/89-116 Gladhurst (S Adelaide), J.G. Marx in JDV96/4-98 and MBB6603-99 NE Grahamstown (Glen Craig), and JDV93/73-93 upper Plutosvale. These are all plants with elongate acuminate leaves about as wide as thick, and almost or completely without spines. They could be confused with H. cooperi var. leightonii, or with clones of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana – and of course with H. gracilis var. gracilis.
Discussion In trying to circumscribe each collection I have been aware of my deficient descriptive skills. Can one rationalise such similar things one observes in writing in a way and which can lead others to identifications? I have elsewhere pointed out major weaknesses in the capacity of persons to compare what is written with what is seen, and also to compare plants and illustrations. Apart from the problem of variation in the populations, there is a problem of different habitat conditions (light, soil, temperature and moisture) which will cause phenotypic differences. It should be possible to define these if the plants could all be grown under the same conditions. However, local variation and sample size also becomes a problem. Colour must be critical. There are four main classes in this set of species under discussion – the opaque yellow-green of cymbiformis, the darker blue-green of cooperi which can develop reddish veins and a purplish colour under stress, the mid pale (or light) grey-green of translucens and the subdued pale green of transiens. Under stress the latter becomes very pale. In the descriptions above I have categorised colour on a scale of 1-5 from blue-green through to pale green, and added Y to indicate a more opaque yellow colour. In my book I recognise a variety (i.e. MBB6791-34 picturata from Andrieskraal) in which the transition from opacity to translucence is abrupt. This collecting trip does not strongly support such a geographic entity although their may be populations in that area which do. Certainly in the var. transiens, some plants are also very conspicuously patterned. Flowering time in early summer for all these collections appears to be very much the same. Curiously the Jeffrey’s Bay collection was still at bud stage when most of the other collections were seeding already. When I visited this population six weeks earlier in the previous year, the plants were already in flower.
The off-setting, clustering character is also worth commenting on. As in the case of H. turgida and H. retusa (remembering also an expressed contention of mine that the latter can be regarded as a variant of the former), clustering is usually associated with very steep rocky situations as opposed to plants on level sites being solitary. In this particular study the slopes varied from level through moderate to vertical. Clustering was most pronounced on vertical sites and at Andrieskraal where vertical and sloping sites were nearly adjacent, the plants were clustering on the vertical and solitary on the sloping. Clustering may be accompanied by the capacity of the plant stems to elongate. It is significant that populations around Hankey and Patensie which seemed to be var. gracilis, were invariably on moderate sloping or level ground (NOTE. I have previously always identified these collections as gordoniana), and using the name gracilis now is derived from the product of the papers in the compendium. My later papers suggest that transferring these elements to H. cooperi is worth consideration).
The above collections confirm my observation that Haworthia in the Baviaanskloof are very difficult to classify and circumscribe. It does seem on the basis of collections by Bruyns, Van Jaarsveld, and Venter that transiens is a very substantial element to the west, which may not have a strong connection with cymbiformis. Gordoniana is apparently a much stronger element than I had previously supposed and I am comfortable with the decision to now recognise it as a valid variety of cooperi. The above collections in the Longkloof, and some other recorded collections, seem to show convincingly that it effectively co-occurs with transiens. In the area just west of Patensie, three collections described above seem to indicate that gordoniana intergrades directly with transiens and this transition gives rise to plants which resemble incurvula and which I identify as H. gracilis var. picturata. Similarly south-west of Patensie gordoniana (-24) seems to alter to isabellae. South west of Hankey this latter variety (-42) resembles tenera. The resemblance to tenera is also apparent in the Groendal area of Uitenhage. The Elandsriver collection (-52), and a similar one by Clifton Marais in the same valley (-53), appear to be intermediate in appearance between tenera and isabellae. Isabellae as a separate entity is also represented by the Gamtoos Bridge collection (-51), and an old collection by W.R. Branch from the Krom River estuary at Ripon (-39).
A major difficulty is the Jeffrey’s Bay population (-20). These small solitary plants seem, by virtue of their growth habit and the near co-occurrence with isabellae (perhaps transiens too, if Reddi’s collection -31, was confirmed), to be the local equivalent of cooperi var. pilifera. However, if they had been observed at Grahamstown, they would be taken to be gracilis. In cultivation they have come to bear a stronger resemblance to the -47 which is closer to picturata than to gordoniana. The Zuurbron population (-22) passes for the equivalent of pilifera with some difficulty, and this does transpose to isabellae via Draaihoek, SW of Patensie (-24). The gracilis-like plants around Hankey (-48,-49,-50) and Patensie (-41) too, often present an isabellae facies. Thus we are faced with the possibility of a strange inversion. The upper Longkloof has cooperi as the var. gordoniana, but in the lower Longkloof similar plants may be derived from gracilis. A similar problem is presented by the similarity of gordoniana-like plants to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana at several different places in the wider Eastern Cape.
The collection -46 is particularly interesting (I am indebted to Ernst van Jaarsveld for its discovery). This is a very small isabellae which has the same colour and (spininess) hairiness of the leaf surfaces as has Scott’s venusta. This may be very significant in providing supporting for an hypothesis that prior to inundation of the continental shelf (12-18000yrs ago) there was less of a vegetation interval east and west of the Sundays and Bushmans Rivers. I have suggested that this is reflected in the relationship and distribution of H. coarctata and H. reinwardtii, and will suggest elsewhere that H. fasciata may also be evidence of such a situation. However, this is very speculative. The surface spination is also evident in some collections from north and south-west of Jansenville (-129,-130,-131,-132 and -133 which I have identified with either decipiens vars. minor or pringlei), although the spination is sparse.
Conclusions These specific observations suggest that my classification hypothesis (the classification as presented in my two handbooks and in my recent revision) is a sound communication medium for the two areas in question, without implying thereby that it cannot be improved. What is problematic is that in the greater Baviaanskloof area, the three elements never seem to occur together. I repeat what I have written in respect of H. cooperi and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, and in my handbooks and revision. It is also stated indirectly in the preamble to this paper. “The essence of my classification is that of co-occurrence and to examine its merit it can be tested on that basis. Botanists would probably prefer the use of the terms sympatric and allopatric, but I think technical language does often just strain good will.” In this particular article, the key question would have been:-
“Do three elements we can identify as separate living systems representing the species cooperi, cymbiformis and gracilis grow in the same close geographic proximity?”
Evidence available to me and in the herbarium record, is that they do not. There are a few known instances where two of these species are in such proximity – but not all three. What is curious is that it is rare for any two species of the subgenus Haworthia to be in immediate proximity to the extent that they share any specific habitat.
Observations seem to confirm my opinion that there is a connection between the three species in their occurrence east and west of the Sundays and Bushmans Rivers. What does concern me is the relation between cymbiformis and transiens, and the implications these observations have for incurvula, gracilis and cymbiformis around Grahamstown. The set of plants around Grahamstown favours cooperi, cymbiformis and tenera, while the mirror set of the Humansdorp area, favours gordoniana, transiens and isabellae. The relationship of incurvula needs to be explored. In the eventual integration of all these collections, sight should not be lost of the complex situation around Fort Beaufort, where the same set of species and variants seems to be present. Nor should it be forgotten that in the Kleinwinterhoek mountains H. decipiens becomes involved. The situation north of the Groot River is complex and there are substantial records from the Perdepoort and from Willowmore and Steytlerville which indicate a close interaction between decipiens and gracilis as well as gordoniana.
There are a good many other collections from the upper Baviaanskloof, but mostly these are represented only by herbarium records and I would like to see this material in its living state.
A final thrust of this article is to emphasise that Haworthia is not going to be understood by botanists or enthusiasts sitting on some other continent. This is particularly if they depend on the convolutions of the Code of Nomenclature, literature and limited collections for their information and the opinions they feel compelled to express. Less so if they do not and cannot, read and write the English language sufficiently well to communicate properly. Still less so if they have no knowledge and feel of South African geography and vegetation, and are operating in an outdated paradigm where specimens represent entire species. Explanations which only account for a few plants in cultivation are not going to be very satisfactory. The fact must be faced that classification is difficult and more information makes it more difficult. This is not a problem peculiar to Haworthia. It only seems so because the genus has received so much attention. The question now is:
“How is this information recorded and presented in a way that can be accessed, understood and appreciated?”
My conclusion is that we now need to resort to computerisation and digital imagery, recognising that dealing with single plants is not the same as dealing with populations. It is not easy to assess populations objectively as the sample sizes become unmanageable. We should progressively assess and re-assess populations and build up good herbarium documentation. In this way a proper revisionary process is set in motion, which limits Micky Mouse decisions about hypotheses, classification and nomenclature. ♦
1 a. MBB6792 H. cooperi var. gordoniana to H. gracilis var. picturata, Jeffrey’s Bay.1 b. MBB6792 H. cooperi var. gordoniana to H. gracilis var. picturata, Jeffrey’s Bay.2 a. MBB6933 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, east of Humansdorp.2 b. MBB6933 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, east of Humansdorp.2 c. MBB6933 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, east of Humansdorp.3 a. MBB6553 & MBB6793 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, type locality, Zuurbron.3 b. MBB6553 & MBB6793 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, type locality, Zuurbron.3 c. MBB6553 & MBB6793 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, type locality, Zuurbron.3 d. MBB6553 & MBB6793 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, type locality, Zuurbron.4 a. MBB6784 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, southwest of Patensie.4 b. MBB6784 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, southwest of Patensie.5 a. MBB6786 H. cooperi var. gordoniana to H. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Patensie.5 b. MBB6786 H. cooperi var. gordoniana to H. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Patensie.6 a. MBB6826 H. gracilis var. isabellae, a tiny form, Rooikloof, mid-Baviaanskloof.6 b. MBB6826 H. gracilis var. isabellae, a tiny form, Rooikloof, mid-Baviaanskloof.7. MBB6825 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, lower Geelhoutboskloof.8. MBB6827 H. gracilis var. picturata to H. cymbiformis var. transiens, east of Geelhoutboskloof.9. EvJ14680 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Vetmaakvlakte, south of Rooihoek.10 a. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).10 b. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).10 c. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).10 d. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).10 e. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).10 f. MBB6789 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. picturata, Groot River Poort (Komdomo).11 a. MBB6830 H. gracilis var. gracilis, east of Komdomo.11 b. MBB6830 H. gracilis var. gracilis, east of Komdomo.11 c. MBB6830 H. gracilis var. gracilis, east of Komdomo.12. JDV93/86 H. gracilis var. gracilis, 2km northwest of Andrieskraal.13 a. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.13 b. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.13 c. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.13 d. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.13 e. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.13 f. EvJ15927 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northern Groot River Poort.14 a. MBB6790 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andreskraal.14 b. MBB6790 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andreskraal.14 c. MBB6790 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andreskraal.15 a. MBB6791 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andrieskraal.15 b. MBB6791 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andrieskraal.15 c. MBB6791 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andrieskraal.15 d. MBB6791 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andrieskraal.15 e. MBB6791 H. gracilis var. picturata, Andrieskraal.16. 1 a. MBB6930 H. gracilis var. picturata, east of Andrieskraal.16. 1 b. MBB6930 H. gracilis var. picturata, east of Andrieskraal.16. 1 c. MBB6930 H. gracilis var. picturata, east of Andrieskraal.16. 1 d. MBB6930 H. gracilis var. picturata, east of Andrieskraal.16. 2 JDV90/55 H. gracilis var. picturata, also east of Andrieskraal.17 a. MBB6928 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Nuwelande, east of Andrieskraal.17 b. MBB6928 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Nuwelande, east of Andrieskraal.17 c. MBB6928 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Nuwelande, east of Andrieskraal.18. JDV94/115 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Paul Sauer Dam Wall.19.1. EvJ13809 H. gracilis var. isabellae, upper Paul Sauer Dam.19.2. EvJ11076 in JDV90/118 H. gracilis var. isabellae (smooth), upper Paul Sauer Dam.19.3. EvJ11076 in JDV90/118 H. gracilis var. isabellae (= MBB6932, Ripon), upper Paul Sauer Dam.20. MBB6932 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Ripon, Krom River.21 a. J.G.Marx298 in JDV94/30 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Paul Sauer Dam.21 b. J.G.Marx298 in JDV94/30 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Paul Sauer Dam.22. 1 a. MBB6799 H. gracilis var. isabellae, northwest of Patensie.21 b. J.G.Marx298 in JDV94/30 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Paul Sauer Dam.22. 1 c. MBB6799 H. gracilis var. isabellae, northwest of Patensie.22.2. MBB6799 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northwest of Patensie – a clone resembling H. aristata.23 a. MBB6801 H. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Hankey.23 b. MBB6801 H. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Hankey.24 a. MBB6802 h. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Hankey.24 b. MBB6802 h. gracilis var. isabellae, southwest of Hankey.25 a. PVB7128 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Holrivier, far south of Patensie.25 b. PVB7128 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Holrivier, far south of Patensie.26. D.Clark1050 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Kouenek, Geelhoutboskloof.27 a. MBB6773 H. gracilis var. isabellae, north of Kareedouw.27 b. MBB6773 H. gracilis var. isabellae, north of Kareedouw.28 a. MBB6771 H. gracilis var. picturata, Moordenaarskloof, north of Kareedouw.28 b. MBB6771 H. gracilis var. picturata, Moordenaarskloof, north of Kareedouw.28 c. MBB6771 H. gracilis var. picturata, Moordenaarskloof, north of Kareedouw.28 d. MBB6771 H. gracilis var. picturata, Moordenaarskloof, north of Kareedouw.29 a. MBB6805 H. gacilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northeast of Hankey.29 b. MBB6805 H. gacilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northeast of Hankey.29 c. MBB6805 H. gacilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, northeast of Hankey.30 a. MBB6804 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var isabellae, north of Hankey.30 b. MBB6804 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var isabellae, north of Hankey.30 c. MBB6804 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var isabellae, north of Hankey.31 a. JDV97/3 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, east of Hankey.31 b. JDV97/3 H. gracilis var. gracilis to H. gracilis var. isabellae, east of Hankey.32.1 a. MBB6808 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Gamtoos Bridge.32.1 b. MBB6808 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Gamtoos Bridge.32.2 a. W.R.Branch in MBB6555 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Longmore Forest, east of Loerie.32.2 b. W.R.Branch in MBB6555 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Longmore Forest, east of Loerie.33 a. MBB6798 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Houtkloof, Upper Elandsriver valley.33 b. MBB6798 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Houtkloof, Upper Elandsriver valley.34 a. JDV96/95 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Forest Glade, Elandsriver.34 b. JDV96/95 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Forest Glade, Elandsriver.35 a. JDV92/136 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Oaklands, Elandsriver.35 b. JDV92/136 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Oaklands, Elandsriver.35 c. JDV92/136 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Oaklands, Elandsriver.36 a. MBB1404a in JDV86/13 H. gracilis var. tenera, Groendal Dam, west of Uitenhage.36 b. MBB1404a in JDV86/13 H. gracilis var. tenera, Groendal Dam, west of Uitenhage.37. D.M.Cumming6831 H. gracilils var. isabellae, south of Groendal Dam.38 a. PVB7040 in JDV97/8 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Ouplaas, east of Cockscomb.38 b. PVB7040 in JDV97/8 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Ouplaas, east of Cockscomb.38 c. PVB7040 in JDV97/8 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Ouplaas, east of Cockscomb.39. PVB7043 in JDV97/7 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Ouplaas, east of Cockscomb.40 a. JDV93/41 H. decipiens var. minor, north of Campherpoort.40 b. JDV93/41 H. decipiens var. minor, north of Campherpoort.41. JDV87/180 H. decipiens var. minor, south of Campherpoort.42 a. JDV91/136 H. decipiens var. minor, north of Wolvefontein.42 b. JDV91/136 H. decipiens var. minor, north of Wolvefontein.43.1. JDV92/140 H. decipiens var. minor, Wolven near Wolvefontein.43.2. JDV94/45 H. decipiens var. minor, Wolven near Wolvefontein.44 a. JDV97/6 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, west of Braamrivier.44 b. JDV97/6 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, west of Braamrivier.44 c. JDV97/6 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, west of Braamrivier.45 a. EvJ5342 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Dieprivier, northeast of Kareedouw.45 b. EvJ5342 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Dieprivier, northeast of Kareedouw.45 c. EvJ5342 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Dieprivier, northeast of Kareedouw.46. EvJ15748 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Horee southeast of Uniondale.47.1 a. PVB7077 in JDV97/5 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Oshoek, east of Uniondale.47.1 b. PVB7077 in JDV97/5 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Oshoek, east of Uniondale.47.1 c. PVB7077 in JDV97/5 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Oshoek, east of Uniondale.47.1 d. PVB7077 in JDV97/5 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Oshoek, east of Uniondale.47.1 e. PVB7077 in JDV97/5 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Oshoek, east of Uniondale.47.2. MBB6729 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, De Vlugt, Prince Alfred’s Pass, south of Uniondale.48. J.N.Reddi in JDV93/54 H. cymbiformis var. transiens, Kabeljouwsriver near Jeffrey’s Bay.49. E.Aslander1247 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Kabeljouwsriver near Jeffrey’s Bay.49. E.Aslander1247 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Kabeljouwsriver near Jeffrey’s Bay.50 b. PVB7093 in JDV97/1 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. viridis, Skrikrivier, north of JDV97/6 [44 a-c].50 c. PVB7093 in JDV97/1 H. cymbiformis var. transiens to H. gracilis var. viridis, Skrikrivier, north of JDV97/6 [44 a-c].51 a. MBB6600 H. gracilis var. viridis, Paardepoort, Kleinwinterhoek mountains.51 b. MBB6600 H. gracilis var. viridis, Paardepoort, Kleinwinterhoek mountains.51 c. MBB6600 H. gracilis var. viridis, Paardepoort, Kleinwinterhoek mountains.52.1 a. PVB5402 in JDV97/20 H. decipiens var. minor, Palmietrivier, east of Steytlerville.52.1 b. PVB5402 in JDV97/20 H. decipiens var. minor, Palmietrivier, east of Steytlerville.52.2 a. MBB6589 H. dicipiens var. minor, Dorschfontein, east of Steytlerville.52.2 b. MBB6589 H. dicipiens var. minor, Dorschfontein, east of Steytlerville.52.2 c. MBB6589 H. dicipiens var. minor, Dorschfontein, east of Steytlerville.53.1. JDV91/17 H. gracilis var. viridis, north of Glen Connor.53.2. JDV91/116 H. graciis var. viridis, south of Lake Mentz.54 a. JDV91/115 H. aristata to H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Sundays River Poort.54 b. JDV91/115 H. aristata to H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Sundays River Poort.55 a. MBB6810 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Joubertina.55 b. MBB6810 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Joubertina.56 a. MBB6811 & JDV90/80 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Uniondale Pass.56 b. MBB6811 & JDV90/80 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Uniondale Pass.57. PVB7079 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Saptou upper Longkloof.58. PVB7062 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Redcliffe northeast of Willowmore.59. JDV91/80 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Engelandkop, Baviaanskloof.60 a. JDV94/95 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Nuwekloof, western Baviaanskloof.60 b. JDV94/95 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Nuwekloof, western Baviaanskloof.61 a. J.G.Marx194 in JDV91/81 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Apieskloof, east of Geelhoutboskloof, Baviaanskloof.61 b. J.G.Marx194 in JDV91/81 H. cooperi var. gordoniana, Apieskloof, east of Geelhoutboskloof, Baviaanskloof.
One of the greatest difficulties in Haworthia is that of trying to recognise discrete species. This translates into confusion which can be attributed to writers. The initial source of confusion is without doubt the nature of the plants themselves, and this is not a problem confined to Haworthia. The species are often not easily recognisable and discrete entities. I abhor the statement that the genus is in a state of active evolution, but this does at least seem to convey a message that readers understand, even if it is somewhat hackneyed. My observations on Haworthia are based on a definition of species as a system of living organisms which are continuous in time and space. In my New Haworthia Handbook, I suggested that a primary problem lay in separating H. bolusii and H. cooperi, and for the purposes of that work I largely discounted the secondary problems. My first concern was to identify core areas and names as working postulates. This did not mean I was unaware of lesser problems contained within the recognition of those two species. The purpose of this paper is to present my current understanding of the problem.
In my opinion the publication of Scott’s book and whatever merit it had, broke the foundation for understanding. As Bruyns said (Kew Magazine, 1986), it set taxonomy in Haworthia back by 40-50 years. This is because Scott did not attempt to examine what I had done, and was doing, in any objective and cognitive way. Thus there was no progression from a common hypothesis, or from a common concept of ‘species’. In my opinion his work was written in the paradigm of Reynold’s work on Aloe, or of Von Poellnitz and G.G. Smith, and was thus anachronistic. My work was in the intellectual climate of the day, was influenced by researchers of the time and was based on a definition of ‘species’. Scott’s thoughts and actions were both understandable and excusable. His classification reflects the same problems, but differently to mine. Where I recognised H. bolusii he recognised H. bolusii. Where I recognised the var. blackbeardiana he recognised H. cooperi and H. batteniae. Where I recognised cooperi he recognised H. pilifera and H. altilinea. Except for his contention that these latter are separate species, there is really concordance. We recognised different markers along the same continuum.
Essentially I considered that there were two species with two major facies, thus:-
1. H. bolusii – var. bolusii the smaller very densely spined typical variety which seems to diffuse into the species H. semiviva in the west of its distribution range.
– var. blackbeardiana a larger less densely spined element to the south and east which seems to diffuse into H. cooperi. Scott used the name cooperi for this element. There is merit in this, but he had to describe another species, batteniae, because of the inherent tension in the solution (I must point out here that Scott’s problem may have been the inadequate herbarium record that he used for his work, plus the fact that he made few specimens. Thus there is no way of assessing his decisions. Had he had to physically file specimens as I have done, he might have had great difficulty with batteniae and his cooperi, and also in separating his altilinea and pilifera). I regarded bolusii as a more spinose species than cooperi, with thinner and wider leaves. Cooperi then generally less spinose, squatter and with thicker leaves.
2. H. cooperi – var. cooperi itself, with relatively erect slender leaves, and including all the forms with more truncated abrupt leaves.
– var. leightonii – the coastal form with even more attenuate leaves than the typical form, and also very proliferous.
The solutions offered by either myself (1982) in respect of my cooperi and blackbeardiana, or in the case of Scott (1985), altilinea and pilifera, cooperi and batteniae, do have problems. These arise from the nature of the terrain in the area between Graaff Reinet to Queenstown and down to Fort Beaufort. Rugged broken terrain difficult to explore. Like the Baviaanskloof it offers many different classes of habitat, and thus potential ecotypes. The relationship between the varieties is complex and compounded by continuities with other species e.g. gracilis, cymbiformis, and decipiens. It should also always be remembered that any decision is a product of the collecting record and must emphasise that this is the context in which this article is written. Initially I did think that the typical variety of H. cooperi may possibly prove to be well-defined geographically. It has not proved indisputably so, but my classification nevertheless does allow good expression of the continuities which occur. I used the name to cover forms with erect slender leaves as well as forms with relatively blunt truncated leaves. Such plants do occur within the same populations and this is evident in the J.G. Marx collection from Fort Brown. The corresponding Scott names were altilinea and pilifera. To make my system more workable, in my new book (1999) I recognised H. bolusii and its var. blackbeardiana as before, but in H. cooperi, several more varieties, thus:-
– var. dielsiana – a more truncated version of pilifera, the leaves often without end-awns. (Scott’s “joeyii” is synonymous).
– var. truncata – a eastern lighter coloured, proliferous and smaller version of dielsiana.
– var. leightonii – the pinkish, proliferous, slender leaved form growing on granites at Kaisers Beach (Scott maintained this as a separate species).
– var. gordoniana – the erect, slender leaved form in the Hankey and Patensie area, which is very like the typical variety cooperi. In truth var. gordoniana from the type locality is a small very compact plant with short incurved and finely spined leaves.
– var. venusta – a very localised hairy variant from the coast near Alexandria.
I hoped this would explain the variations and resolve the tensions in the solution in an economical way. There is no doubt that Scott’s argument of cooperi sensu Bayer, and blackbeardiana sensu Bayer being the same (and he used only the name cooperi in this context), is correct in the nomenclatural sense. The Thomas River specimen he cites in his book as representative (although Scott does cite the Kew specimen as type, which I have not seen), would have been attributed by Bayer (myself, using the Saunder’s Refugium illustration as type) to my concept of H. cooperi, as also the doubtful gracilis-like elements for the Adelaide and Kingwilliamstown citations. I would have named the Cradock specimen H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. To bridge the difficulties inherent in his solution, Scott had to later recognise three species viz. batteniae, pringlei and joeyii, with the potential for many more. I have said elsewhere, that a classification which grows with the description of new species, is indicative of a weak system. As in the case of bolusii, the Scott solution is not as economical as mine. His concept of an altilinea and pilifera is essentially the image of my problem in recognising a cooperi/blackbeardiana interface. It would have helped had I initially recognised pilifera as a variety. However, Scott’s interpretation in the sense of the geographical relationships of his various species is problematic throughout his revision, where specimens are not cited and full use has not also been made of the available herbarium record.
I was predicting that an element, namely H. cooperi var. cooperi occurred which could be defined in a geographic context. The essence of my classification is that of co-occurrence and to examine its merit it can be tested on that basis. Botanists would probably prefer the use of the terms sympatric and allopatric, but I think technical language does often just strain goodwill. This article thus is written to expand on the problem and indicate where the difficulties lie. These are not difficulties that I was oblivious of, or tried to obfuscate. I have many times said that we can find solutions which work in one area, but they may not work in another. This will again be evident in this paper.
In my revision (Haworthia Revisited, 1999) I made the combination H. decipiens var. pringlei and resurrect the old species name H. aristata. These two elements, and an explanation for the tensions which these two names create and try to address, will be touched on here but will follow in more detail in a later article. As in this immediate case, new material has been seen and collected since the revision was drafted, and a better explanation can now be made.
For this particular issue, the key questions to the hypotheses of Bayer and Scott are difficult to formulate because they are confounded by the different use of names. Therefore I frame the questions in terms of my own classification like this:-
Does an element we can identify as cooperi grow in the same close geographic context as blackbeardiana? (Bearing in mind the assumption that the hypothesis regarding continuity between bolusii and blackbeardiana in fact is valid. Also noting that to maintain the classification hypothesis that there is a difference at the rank of species, the answer must be ‘yes’).
Does the element we can identify as cooperi grow in the same close geographic context as pilifera? (Bearing in mind that to maintain the classification hypothesis of a difference only at the rank of variety, the answer must be ‘no’).
Results The answer to question 1:- has never been a strong point of my classification because I saw cooperi in a broader sense to include pilifera (and altilinea of Scott). The recognition of varieties now strengthens the classification in one respect but weakens it in another. It strengthens the classification in respect of recognising the extent of the variability within my concept of H. cooperi. It weakens it in suggesting both a strong geographical separation of the varieties and a weaker relation with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. In Nov.1996, I went with Peter Bruyns to the Eastern Cape and we spent some time in the greater Somerset East area. In Dec.1996 I travelled with Kobus Venter. In Dec.1997, Dec.1998, in Sept. (with Tony Dold, Dez Weekes and Steven Hammer) and again in Oct.1999, I travelled with my wife to these areas. We made many significant collections.
The first of these concerns Scott’s species, H. joeyii and H. pringlei. In the case of joeyii my contention that it is continuous with pilifera barely needs discussion, and I do not think the presence or absence of an end-awn is necessarily diagnostic for such an element – hence synonymy with var. dielsiana. We found three discrete populations within a small radius around Eastpoort (MBB6558-102, 6559 and 6560-103) which support this observation. I do not think there are strong grounds for separating it from pilifera, although I have now done so. At Bedford (there are plants with the similar abrupt leaf-tip as well as plants without. I currently have four batches of seedlings which I want to examine for variation. One from Slagtersnek, south-east of Somerset East (MBB6778-104) is particularly variable. I even have a collection of H. cymbiformis (MBB6847-100,-105) which has the same truncated, awnless leaftips as Scott’s joeyii. Regarding Scott’s pringlei, my conclusion that it is related to decipiens is possibly geographically and otherwise incorrect. (It should be noted that no specimen of pringlei has to date been deposited in the Pretoria herbarium. My understanding of the species is from the description, from two plants sent to J.D. Venter by J.N. Reddi (JDV93/46-106) who collected the plants for Scott, and from two plants given to G. Marx (JDV93/52-107) also by Dr Reddi). It is a problem of ‘look-alikes’ and I will deal with that a little later as a separate issue.
Further south and east of Eastpoort, at Patryshoogte (MBB6561-108 also -4), we found a different population not to my knowledge co-occurrent with a cooperi variety, which must be comparable with Scott’s species i.e. pringlei. It has narrower and more elongate leaves than blackbeardiana generally has, and the keel may be more pronounced. Nevertheless I am sure it has a connection with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. In terms of a much wider knowledge of other populations, I decided to link pringlei to decipiens, to emphasise the evident and probable continuity between that species and H. bolusii. This is particularly so in the area north and east of Jansenville.
To the south-west at Somerset East (MBB6776-109, Glen Avon), we found a population of bluer green plants with rather more attenuate leaves than in the vars pilifera and dielsiana. These plants are very like an Adelaide (Koonap Bridge, MBB6563-110) collection, these both satisfy my concept of the var. cooperi. It was not much further to the south (-104), and also not far south of Eastpoort, where we found forms of the vars pilifera and dielsiana in the same population. Thus it seemed that a hypothesis maintaining the species cooperi and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, was well supported, but not so the contention that pilifera and dielsiana were good varieties.
The most significant discovery up to Dec.’97 was of two different elements growing together towards the south, near Ripon Station. By together, I mean as populations occupying different niches in the same close proximity – not growing as a common medley of individuals. One population was clearly the typical blunt-leaved pilifera (MBB6557-111) which included dielsiana, but the other (MBB6556-112) was with more slender and erect leaves viz pringlei, and possibly the leaves being broad and spinose enough to even represent blackbeardiana. Thus the added complexity is that it is not possible to separate those two elements. After two years in cultivation as field collected clones and as seedlings, the difference from pilifera (as -111) is maintained. The collected clones grown in Kobus Venter’s collection convincingly demonstrate that the one population is identifiable with pringlei/alias blackbeardiana and the other with cooperi var. pilifera. Thus the answer to the first key question is “Yes, they do grow together in the same geographical context, because there is that obvious connection of blackbeardiana with pringlei. It seems probable that both these elements could, and perhaps should, be interpreted as varieties of H. cooperi. It is a complex problem which cannot be separated from consideration of other elements such as H. gracilis and H. aristata, and these are the issues I am addressing in these papers.
There is not much further evidence that cooperi var. cooperi is a strong, discrete and valid element. There is a collection by J.G. Marx of plants in the Hogsback area (in JDV91/82-113, Woburn) which may be identified as this variety, as can the two collections already mentioned viz. -109 Glen Avon, and -110 Koonap Bridge (originally a Marx collection). However, there are collections generally (one is D.M. Cumming8489-114 of plants south of the Waterdown Dam, Upper Chilton), where the plants can be confused with H cooperi var. gordoniana (in the context of the problem in the Baviaanskloof), whereas geographically they should be blackbeardiana. I also made a collection at Waterdown Dam itself (MBB6569-115), of a plant which is very like a spineless smooth gracilis. These plants tend to be much more blue in colour than the southern look-alikes. There is also JDV96/89-116 Gladhurst, Adelaide; and JDV96/4-98 and MBB6603-99 from Glen Craig, north-east Grahamstown, which pose a similar conundrum. These are gracilis-like and while exploring that problem, the issue became very much more prominent, and is even expressed in the discussion regarding H. cymbiformis var. incurvula. Kobus Venter and I had both re-collected H. gracilis var. gracilis at Hellspoort (JDV89/42-117, MBB6614-118), although we had not concerned ourselves with a search over the whole of the valley. What is now becoming more evident is that there is an archetype which is gracilis-like. Thus Hellspoort needs to be examined as closely as Pluto’s vale.
A later collection of mine (Oct.’99, MBB6927-119, W Ripon) influences the picture dramatically and may further prove a statement of mine true. This is that there instances where there are no real boundaries between species. My collection is further west of -111 (pilifera/dielsiana) and -112 (pringlei/blackbeardiana). Here in -119, the plants include individuals which could be either identified as the vars cooperi or pilifera, with the former collection equally well representing pringlei/blackbeardiana.
The answer to question 2:- has not really been a problem. What we found was what we expected to find and more. South of Adelaide one finds populations of plants which satisfy the tendency towards slender leaves ie. var. cooperi (-109 Glen Avon or -110 Paardefontein, Koonap Bridge); and populations which satisfy the tendency to short obtuse leaves ie. var. pilifera eg. MBB6564-120 Chancery Hall or MBB6591-121 The Tower, S. Fort Beaufort. The same applies just east of Somerset East where in the broader geographical context we can identify var. cooperi (-109, Glen Avon), var. dielsiana (when mostly or wholly without end-awn, MBB6565-122, W. Somerset East, -111 W. Ripon Statio, and vars dielsiana and pilifera as geographically complementary and even in admixture (-104, Slagtersnek). Thus “No, the varieties cooperi and pilifera do not grow together in the same close geographical context as discrete entities.” In fact they are often represented as forms in the same collections as in -119 (far west of Ripon) where both varieties are present as single plants as well as a longer leaved form representing blackbeardiana as decipiens var. pringlei.
The answers given to these two questions thus do still not solve the problem as there remain populations which can not confidently be ascribed to either of the names here used. There are populations which may thus be assigned to cooperi or to blackbeardiana or pringlei. An example is the Marx collection from north-east of Grahamstown (W Fort Brown, in JDV91/85-123) which is ascribable to pilifera although some of the clones are inseparable from blackbeardiana. JDV98/39-124 from Brakkloof, northwest of Grahamstown poses a similar problem with the leaves of the plants tending to lengthen in cultivation. The ultimate difference then between cooperi and blackbeardiana becomes a very subtle one of degree of spination and leaf bulk. The issue is further complicated by the fact that four other elements are involved in the total geographical context, namely H. cymbiformis, H. gracilis, H. decipiens, H. aristata and H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla.
My most recent field work, was in following up information and collections concerning H. gracilis. Tony Dold of Rhodes University gave specimens of an Haworthia from the Annsvilla area to Gerhard Marx (MBB6851-125). He thought they may have some bearing on the existence and reality of my interpretation of H. aristata, and this is indeed the case. The plants are small, the darkish blue-green of the cooperi/blackbeardiana elements, and with more, smaller, and quite spinose leaves. Annsvilla is close to three localities for that species cited in my revision viz. Verdun, Stonefountain (re-collected in MBB6852-126 also -4) and Kommadagga. Following Dold’s find, recollection in the vicinity of each of those sites, produced plants which can be interpreted and identified in the light of the Ripon collections. While they equate in some way to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, they also do to H. cooperi and to H. decipiens var. pringlei. An (unfortunately doubtful) Kommadagga collection (EvJ sn.-127) is very similar to the long-spined gordoniana-like plants from the eastern Joubertina -74, Uniondale -75, Longkloof -76 and Baviaanskloof (Geelhoutboskloof -78, Nuwekloof -79). The leaves of the plants are rather flatter and broader, and so closer to blackbeardiana. In Sept.’99 Dold and Hammer found a small plant with shorter and squatter leaves than my concept of aristata, south-east of Kommadagga (in MBB6897-128). We also saw plants from the area east of Jansenville which seem to link the greater H. bolusii (i.e. var. blackbeardiana) complex with either H. decipiens or H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla. Included in that broad statement is an explanation for the specimens which I have cited as H. decipiens var. pringlei in my revision. These include recent collections from north of Jansenville (MBB6580-129), north-west (MBB6581-130), and south-east of Mt Stewart (MBB6582-131 also -6, 6583-132, also -7). When I first saw a specimen of pringlei my first reaction was recall of plants I had collected at Mt Stewart, and of plants said to have been from Jansenville. Thus I created H. decipiens var. pringlei, expecting to find this east-west continuity between blackbeardiana and decipiens. I did not think that the connection between Middleton (pringlei) and Jansenville would be found to be as evident and as strong as it is. There was already some evidence that there is south to north-east connection between Jansenville and, say, Cradock. This is of a connection between H. decipiens and H. bolusii.
A complicating issue is that MBB6587-133 (further SE Mt Stewart than -132) is a population which is H decipiens var. minor. A small plant with a tendency for incurving leaves but with the widely spaced large spines I associate with the more classical view of H. decipiens. The next collection was MBB6589-71.2 (a little south-east of -133) and it throws us into the H. gracilis context of smaller plants, clustering on cool south-facing rock faces. There are many collections which continue this trend to gracilis, and in fact I suspect to xiphiophylla too, and that will be dealt with as a separate issue. The field-work also revealed populations (J.G. Marx in MBB6845-134, east of Alicedale, and MBB6847-105, also Alicedale) which link cooperi to cymbiformis. This also can be dealt with together with two collections from near Kagasmond (MBB6562-135, south of Adelaide and JDV96/89-116, Gladhurst) as a slightly different issue.
Regarding H. aristata, I resurrected this name for several collections from the Eastern Cape, and somewhat justified by the Dold collection at Annsvilla (-125). However, it seems quite certain that the issue is clouded. Re-collections at the Soutkloof (JDV96/90-136, Addo, Dead Man’s Gulch) were more like pilifera, but there is evidence of deviation. Here D.M. Cumming (DMC3870-137 collected pilifera-like plants, whereas Venter, Marais and Bayer (-136) collected a variant – there was a more typical bluish-green pilifera and a plant tending to the opaque yellow-green of xiphiophylla. I returned there in Oct.1999 because I still had not seen anything like the plants I had seen there on an earlier visit, or like W.R. Branch’s original (WRB459 in JDV87/53-138), and the other cited collections. On this occasion I did find a small population (MBB6920-139) of this kind, and these confirm a relation to the more northern collections mentioned above. At the nearby village of Addo itself, there is the fairly normal pilifera (JDV86/117-140). The Annsvilla collection (Dold and Marx -125) and the recent collection of my own from Stonefountain (-126 also -5) seem also to be in the context of the Ripon collection (-112) of pringlei. These are, however, collections of much smaller plants than from Ripon. Thus it confirms for me that the Haworth names aristata and denticulata could easily have had their origins in plants from this area between Ripon and the Zuurberg, or further south to Soutkloof. My collections MBB6916-141, MBB6917-142 and MBB6901-143, from Kaboega and Hopewell are of the same order.
Discussion and conclusions There is still a very large area unexplored. There are several like collections from the greater area Kirkwood to Uniondale which I have generally ascribed to H. cooperi var. gordoniana. None of these are the short-leaved pilifera type. The teasing probability is that it is in fact blackbeardiana, pringlei, gracilis or aristata (as variants of H. cooperi) which are the main role players. They differentiate (clearly?) in the east to pilifera or cymbiformis and in the west into decipiens. In the south they pass to xiphiophylla, cymbiformis and varieties of gracilis. North-westwards it is to bolusii. My opinion now is that we have an archetype which is in the mould of H. gracilis and this is the root of all the elements I have named here. Curiously Tony Dold has recently sent me specimens from Chalumna (T.Dold3961 in MBB6921-144) which suggest that an aristata-like element is also associated with H. cooperi var. leightonii. Other Chalumna collections (MBB1621 and G.G.Smith 514) bear a very close resemblance to plants (-99, -116) which I have said are gracilis-like.
The above statements all have to be seen in the overall statement about continuity. It barely seems practical (nor legally possible) to sample and analyze plants on the scale that will be necessary, using whatever technique, to get a more definitive answer. The best answer will be continual exploration of the simple kind reported here, which explains occurrences on a smaller and smaller scale. There are herbarium records which need to be corroborated in the field but these do not suggest to me a better solution. Ultimately each recorded population will have to be assigned unequivocally to a taxon (or taxa!) and this is the next necessary step in Haworthia classification. Another revision based on less exacting field observations and a lesser record, will simply exacerbate the regression in time which Scott’s work precipitated, and the consequences which we now suffer. My recent collections are only preserved as living collections and photographically. Specimens need to be made.
I am very conscious of other tensions in my classification and I think it is imperative that we stay with one nomenclatural arrangement and hypothesis to resolve these. The confusion which arises from nomenclatural changes which are nothing but pretentious and cosmetic, is not worth any price. Any difficulties in respect of nomenclature can be resolved by a process of explanation and conservation without formal name change. These changes can be made when it is expeditious to do so and when changes can really offer a better explanation of the genus and hence better communication.
What this discussion should demonstrate is the problem of really observing and discussing variability in Haworthia. There are many possible arrangements of names which can be presented as conclusions in themselves – but done like this they simply cloud and destroy any hope of a broader understanding and good communication. Haworthia is now so much in the public domain, that I would suggest to editors that they move in the direction of encouraging authors to adopt a conserved nomenclature. I regret to be so straightforward and blunt. I see nothing but further confusion if persons feels that they can contribute to an understanding of the situation in the field without:
Consensus on the issue of species definition.
Consensus on the issue of a set of names.
Familiarity with herbarium records and what these represent in terms of fact and fixed reference points.
Familiarity with the written record.
Familiarity with South African geography and the ability to interpret populations in that context.
♦
102 a. MBB6558 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, north of Eastport.102 b. MBB6558 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, north of Eastport.103 a. MBB6560 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, south of Eastport.103 b. MBB6560 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, south of Eastport.103 c. MBB6560 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, south of Eastport.103 d. MBB6560 H. cooperi var. dielsiana, south of Eastport.104 a. MBB6778 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Slagtersnek, southeast of Somerset East.104 b. MBB6778 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Slagtersnek, southeast of Somerset East.104 c. MBB6778 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Slagtersnek, southeast of Somerset East.104 d. MBB6778 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Slagtersnek, southeast of Somerset East.104 e. MBB6778 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Slagtersnek, southeast of Somerset East.105 a. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.105 b. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.105 c. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.105 d. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.105 e. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.105 f. MBB6847 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa, southwest of Alicedale.106 a. J.N. Reddi in JDV93/46 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northeast of Middleton.106 b. J.N. Reddi in JDV93/46 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northeast of Middleton.107 a. G. Marx in JDV93/52 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northeast of Middleton.107 b. G. Marx in JDV93/52 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northeast of Middleton.108 a. MBB6561 H. decipiens var. pringlei, Patryshoogte, E. Somerset East.108 b. MBB6561 H. decipiens var. pringlei, Patryshoogte, E. Somerset East.108 c. MBB6561 H. decipiens var. pringlei, Patryshoogte, E. Somerset East.109 a. MBB6776 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Glen Avon, southwest of Somerset East.109 b. MBB6776 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Glen Avon, southwest of Somerset East.109 c. MBB6776 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Glen Avon, southwest of Somerset East.109 d. MBB6776 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Glen Avon, southwest of Somerset East.109 e. MBB6776 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Glen Avon, southwest of Somerset East.110 a. MBB6563 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Koonap Bridge, Adelade.110 b. MBB6563 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Koonap Bridge, Adelade.111 a. MBB6557 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Ripon station.111 b. MBB6557 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Ripon station.111 c. MBB6557 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Ripon station.112 a. MBB656 H. decipiens var. pringlei, west of Ripon station.112 b. MBB656 H. decipiens var. pringlei, west of Ripon station.112 c. MBB6556 H. decipiens var. pringlei, west of Ripon station.112 d. MBB6556 H. decipiens var. pringlei, west of Ripon station.113 a. J. G. Marx in JDV91/82 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Woburn, Hogsback.113 b. J. G. Marx in JDV91/82 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Woburn, Hogsback.114 a. D.M.Cummings H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, south of Waterdown Dam, Upper Chilton.114 b. D.M.Cummings H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, south of Waterdown Dam, Upper Chilton.115. MBB659 H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, Waterdown Dam.116 a. JDV96/89 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Gladhurst, Adelaide.116 b. JDV96/89 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Gladhurst, Adelaide.116 c. JDV96/89 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Gladhurst, Adelaide.116 d. JDV96/89 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Gladhurst, Adelaide.116 e. JDV96/89 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Gladhurst, Adelaide.117 a. JDV89/42 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Helspoort.117 b. JDV89/42 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Helspoort.117 c. JDV89/42 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Helspoort.118 a. MBB6614 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Helspoort.118 b. MBB6614 H. gracilis var. gracilis, Helspoort.119 a. MBB6927 H. cooperi var. cooperi, west of [112 a-d], Ripon.119 b. MBB6927 H. cooperi var. cooperi, west of [112 a-d], Ripon.119 c. MBB6927 H. cooperi var. cooperi, west of [112 a-d], Ripon.120. MBB6564 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Chancey Hall, south of Adelaide.121 a. MBB6591 H. cooperi var. pilifera, The Tower, south of Fort Beaufort.121 b. MBB6591 H. cooperi var. pilifera, The Tower, south of Fort Beaufort.122 a. MBB6565 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Somerset East.122 b. MBB6565 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Somerset East.122 c. MBB6565 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Somerset East.123 a. J.G.Marx in JDV91/85 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Fort Brown.123 b. J.G.Marx in JDV91/85 H. cooperi var. pilifera, west of Fort Brown.124 a. JDV94/39 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Brakkloof, northwest of Grahamstown.124 b. JDV94/39 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Brakkloof, northwest of Grahamstown.125 a. T. Dold in MBB6851 H. aristata, Modderfontein, west of Commadagga.125 b. T. Dold in MBB6851 H. aristata, Modderfontein, west of Commadagga.126 a. MBB6852 H. aristata, Stonefontain, s. Somerset East.126 b. MBB6852 H. aristata, Stonefontain, s. Somerset East.126 c. MBB6852 H. aristata, Stonefontain, s. Somerset East.126 d. MBB6852 H. aristata, Stonefontain, s. Somerset East.127. EvJ H. aristata, Aalwynspoort, east of Commadagga.128 a. MBB 6897 H. aristata, southeast of Commadagga.128 b. MBB 6897 H. aristata, southeast of Commadagga.129 a. MBB6580 H. decipiens var. pringlei, north of Jansenville.129 b. MBB6580 H. decipiens var. pringlei, north of Jansenville.129 c. MBB6580 H. decipiens var. pringlei, north of Jansenville.129 d. MBB6580 H. decipiens var. pringlei, north of Jansenville.130 a. MBB6581 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northwest of Janesville.130 b. MBB6581 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northwest of Janesville.130 c. MBB6581 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northwest of Janesville.130 d. MBB6581 H. decipiens var. pringlei, northwest of Janesville.131 a. MBB6582 H. decipiens var. pringlei, southeast of Mt. Stewart.131 b. MBB6582 H. decipiens var. pringlei, southeast of Mt. Stewart.132 a. MBB6583 H. decipiens var. pringlei, waaipoort, southeast of Mt. Stewart.132 b. MBB6583 H. decipiens var. pringlei, waaipoort, southeast of Mt. Stewart.133 a. MBB6587 H. decipiens var. minor, Die Bordjie, south of Baroe.133 b. MBB6587 H. decipiens var. minor, Die Bordjie, south of Baroe.134 a. J.G.Marx in MBB6845 H. gracilis var. gracilis?, east of Alicedale.134 b. J.G.Marx in MBB6845 H. gracilis var. gracilis?, east of Alicedale.134 c. J.G.Marx in MBB6845 H. gracilis var. gracilis?, east of Alicedale.135 a. MBB6562 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa Kagasmond, south of Alicedale.135 b. MBB6562 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa Kagasmond, south of Alicedale.135 c. MBB6562 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa Kagasmond, south of Alicedale.135 d. MBB6562 H. cymbiformis var. obtusa Kagasmond, south of Alicedale.136 a. JDV96/90 H. cf. aristata, soutkloof, Addo.136 b. JDV96/90 H. cf. aristata, soutkloof, Addo.136 c. JDV96/90 H. cf. aristata, soutkloof, Addo.137. D.M.Cumming3870 H. cf. pilifera, Soutkloof, Addo.138 a. W.R.Branch459 in JDV87/53 H. aristata, Soutkloof, Addo.138 b. W.R.Branch459 in JDV87/53 H. aristata, Soutkloof, Addo.139 a. MBB6920 H. aristata, Soutkloof, Addo.139 b. MBB6920 H. aristata, Soutkloof, Addo.140. JDV86/117 H. cooperi var. pilifera, Addo.
Introduction Kaboega (also spelt Kabouga) is now an assemblage of farms (De Plaat, Wilgerfontein, Vygeboomfontein, Klipfontein) nestled against the north slopes of the Zuurberg mountains, north of Kirkwood. It is only about 15km away from Kirkwood as the crow flies, but 150km away by road. Oudekraal is about 20km east and it is the source of Haworthia angustifolia var. baylissii and Gasteria baylissiana. There are several records of Haworthia for the Kirkwood area, and von Poellnitz named H. stiemiei (Regarded as insufficiently known and not recognised by Col. C.L. Scott or myself) from there. He also identified plants from Kaboega and Uyepoort, both described as “at Kirkwood”) as H. altilinea var. denticulata (Haw.) v. Poelln. These plants are all in the melange that I attribute to H. cooperi var. gordoniana (the subject of another long essay). The Kaboega farm lies on the Kaboega river which drains an area of about 1m ha and then flows through the long Kaboegapoort into the Sundays River just north-west of Kirkwood. The terrain is very broken with the sandstone Zuurbergs themselves dominating the southern boundary at about 850 to 950m above sea level. The lowest point on the farm is at about 300m and the northern lesser shale or dolerite peaks reach 550 to 650m. The vegetation on the sandstones is Dry Mountain Fynbos. North of this is Karoo Valley Bushveld. Thus Kaboega is at an ecotone of the karoid veld, Eastern Cape grassland and the Noorsveld (Euphorbia thicket) of the Jansenville area.
The name Kaboega means ‘the Big Hole’, referring to the deep gorge which the Kaboega River cuts through the Zuurberg. This river joins the Sundays River where it skirts the eastern end of the Kleinwinterhoek Mountains. Thus Kaboega Gorge is about 20km east of the Sundays River Gorge and 20km west of Oudekraal where the Witrivier also cuts through the Zuurberg flowing southwards.
The only known Haworthia collections from Kaboega prior to this report are two collection by Gerhard Marx (JDV91/14-145, JDV91/15-146) from the easterly part of the farm (DePlaat, north and south aspects), and a similar collection by Peter Bruyns (PVB5002 in JDV92/33-147) from Kaboegapoort itself. Discounting the strange (expected) internal variation in the latter, these three collections are fairly similar. Plants with the brighter yellow-green of H. cymbiformis, but with more terete and slender sub-erect leaves. The plants are quite robust and in cultivation reach about 80mm diam. with leaves up to 90mm long. Look-alikes are found in the gracilis, cooperi and cymbiformis var. transiens complex of the Baviaanspoort, and I have generally referred these all to H. cooperi var. gordoniana. However, that variety is actually quite a distinctive one from the Hankey Pass, north of Humansdorp and perhaps I should never have adopted it for general use in the way I have. Thus in my discussion about H. cooperi and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, I speculate that gracilis is an archetypal form which may lie at the root of the Eastern Cape species here being discussed.
The species H. aristata poses similar problem, and so does H. decipiens var. pringlei (Scott) Bayer as well as two collections which I and Bruyns made at Ripon station which is north-east of Kaboega. One of these latter collections is H. cooperi var. pilifera (-111) and the other is H. decipiens var. pringlei (-112). Largely because of that collection, I felt pressured into believing that the latter would best be coupled with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana rather than with H. decipiens, and I was contemplating a major change of this kind. This would also have involved subsuming that element in an enlarged H. cooperi var. cooperi. There are, however, some other collections from the greater Darlington Dam (Lake Mentz) area to the west, which are relevant to this problem. These include older ones which suggested the link of pringlei with decipiens which I was thus also predicting, and new ones which confirm that this does in fact happen.
Because of the extent and complexity of the problem, this report deals specifically with the Kaboega area. In conjunction with it, a manuscript regarding H. cymbiformis var. incurvula, was written to give another indication of the nature and scope of the problem of classification of Haworthia. However, the chief reason for the visit to Kaboega was somewhat fortuitous. I was intending visiting Pluto’s Vale again, also the farm Thornkloof where Col. R. Bayliss had collected; the place Aalwynpoort to check on an Ernst van Jaarsveld collection and also hoping to cast light on a collection from the Bosberg at Somerset East. Peter Bruyns was hoping I would recollect a Stapelia aff. kougabergensis which he had seen on the Zuurberg, and there are also some other Haworthia records in that general area which need verification. What also materialised was a visit by Steven Hammer to South Africa, and contact with Tony Dold of the Schonland Herbarium at Grahamstown. The best of all was contact by my wife Daphne, with the gracious managers of the Kaboega farming enterprise, Sandy and Ian Ritchie. Through their kindness and hospitality we came to spend four days on the farm and briefly explored what it has to offer. One day there was spent with Steven Hammer, and with Tony Dold and Dez Weekes of Grahamstown. My wife and I returned for a second visit in Sept. ’99, when we also went to Oudekraal via a direct farm road from Kaboega to the east.
Results On our first visit we first explored the western side of the farm known as Wilgefontein. Tony and Dez went up the slopes of the Spekboomberg on the north side of the valley, and the remainder of the party climbed to near the top of the Zuurberg. We climbed straight to the grassveld where the grass was very long and thick. We soon found a solitary-growing greyish-green plant in flower (MBB6904-148), and then higher and on vertical rocks, a less translucent clump-forming plant with a velvety texture – also in flower (MBB6905-149). The plants looked rather different and we were quite excited about it being something apparently out of the ordinary. It is possible in the context of later collections, that these two collections are ecotypes. Looking at similar rocks about 200m to the south-east, we found what at first was obviously H. coarctata var. adelaidensis (MBB6907). This turned out to be a big population of plants which can, as such, be collectively regarded as intermediate between H. glauca and H. coarctata. This is a very significant collection because of the occurrence of glauca in its typical form at Zuurberg Pass, and nearer at Oudekraal, both to the east. Var. coarctata itself is not known nearer than at Patterson 70km eastwards and var. adelaidensis from east of Riebeek East which is still further away. (see also ‘Haworthia Revisited’ p179). What we did hope to see was H. angustifolia known at its western limit from Oudekraal. It must be on Kaboega and we just have not seen it yet.
Across the valley Dez Weekes had collected three specimens from a south facing steep cliff (MBB6903-150). These had long stems with bright green terminal rosettes and I have identified these as H. cymbiformis (with reservations! as I think this could again be a local ecotypic adaptation) without seeing the plants in habitat myself. This species is also not known from nearer than Hell’s Gate 50km to the south, but – it almost certainly has affinities with the plants collected by Marx and Bruyns. Steven, Tony and Dez had to leave after the first day, but Daphne and I continued the exploration the second day with a long climb up the hill east of DePlaat. We soon found Gerhard Marx’ (MBB6909-151) plants at the base of the mountain and continued eastwards and upwards. We came across a very extensive and dense mass of H. glauca (MBB6908). The plants were variously tubercled and lacked the distinctive grey colouration of the species. Any affinity with “coarcata” was less obvious than at Wilgefontein. Another interesting plant there was a dwarf form of Aloe tenuior. We crossed over to the steep north slopes and on the way down came across three plants (MBB6910-152) of what appeared to be similar to the velvety plant of the previous day (-149). It was in the same rocky situation. We looked further for it, but failed to find it again probably only for lack of concerted effort. The terrain was very difficult and we were getting a little hot and tired. We came across the Marx plants again. These were further down the hill and looking rather bleached in the sun.
149 a. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 b. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 c. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 d. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 e. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 f. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 g. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.150. MBB6903 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis. south-facing rocks, Wilgefontein.151. MBB6909 H. cooperi var. cooperi, southwest fo De Plaat farmhouse.152 a. MBB6910 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, east of De Plaat farmhouse.152 b. MBB6910 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, east of De Plaat farmhouse.
On the way home we were travelling across some very stony ground covered with scattered bush and a low-growing Felicia, probably filifolia. Underneath these, in algae and moss, and with Euphorbia stellata and Tylecodon reticulatus were single plants of a cryptic small blue-green species (MBB6917-142). This I relate to collections from Stonefountain and Verdun cited in my revision under H. aristata, again collected as MBB6852-126 and Dold in MBB6851-125 (Modderfontein).
142 a. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.142 b. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.142 c. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.
The following day, accompanied by Sandy Ritchie, we ventured into the Kaboegapoort itself. We walked to the boundary with the Addo National Park. On the way we had seen inaccessible clumps of an Haworthia on a very steep cliff and we tried to reach these on the way back. We were lucky to be able to sample four clumps on the first of the rock faces where some plants had established themselves off the face (MBB6911-153). On the other cliff we could not reach anything. The plants were not cymbiformis but relate rather to the Marx plants except that they were clump-forming and bleached. A better comparison is with (-148). They were also in flower.
148 a. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 b. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 c. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 d. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 e. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.153. MBB6911 H. gracilis var isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, rock faces in Kaboegapoort.
Peter Bruyns collection (-147) is of six clones from this poort and each of these plants is different. However, one clone (-147.1) resembles gracilis var. viridis from Perdepoort (-70) and also resembles a collection of Bruyns of cymbiformis var. transiens (-69) from the Langkloof. (This latter collection is involved in the issue of that species or gracilis var. picturata). Kobus Venter also has a collection of similar plants from south of Lake Mentz (-72.2). A second clone (-147.2) was an aberrant plant with very terete, abruptly mucronate leaves which were also unusually translucent. Another clone (-147.3) was of a plant identical to the big gracilis var. isabellae of the Krom River Estuary (Ripon, WRB1, recollected by myself -39), and comparable with a collection (MBB6855-154) from Waterford, east of Jansenville. That collection could be identifiable as H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla and perhaps hinting at a link of that element with H. decipiens var. minor. Two clones (147.4, 147,5) are the same as the DePlaat collections (-145, -146), resembling the Gladhurst (-116) and Glen Craig (-98,-99) forms of gracilis. Thus representing my view of an archetype.
147 a. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Kaboegapoort cf [51 a-c].147 b. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Kaboegapoort cf [51 a-c].147 c. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 aberrant.147 d. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf [20, 154 a-c].147 e. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf.095 [96 a, b, 116a-e].147 f. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf.095 [96 a, b, 116a-e].154 a. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.154 b. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.154 c. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.
On our last day, Ian Ritchie kindly took us on a drive to territory which had looked quite visitor friendly from the top of the Zuurberg. On closer contact they are anything but so. On the Spitzkop, which is on the northern boundary of the farm, we found aristata (-141) growing on bluish shale in a situation favoured by H. cooperi var. cooperi. It was a little bigger than our previous collection, but smaller than plants we subsequently collected northwards on the road between Riebeek East and Jansenville (Paddafontain, MBB6899-155), which I refer to pringlei). Driving to the east of Spekboomberg we saw plants (MBB6914-156) similar to the Marx plants of DePlaat (-145) in profusion, some of them without the softer translucence of the Marx collection. The leaves were occasionally much flatter and ovate and distinctly reminiscent of cymbiformis. Daphne and I walked down the hill from that point seeing the plants for most of the descent. Ian in the meantime drove back and further to the south-east and then found very similar plants on a steep slope also facing south-east (MBB6915-157). These plants can also occur in large clusters.
141 a. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.141 b. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.141 c. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.145 a. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 b. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 a. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 d. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.155. MBB6899 H. aristata / H. decipiens var. pringlei, Paddafontein, north of Kaboega.156 a. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.156 b. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.156 c. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.157 a. MBB6915 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, Kok-se-dam, Kaboega.157 b. MBB6915 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, Kok-se-dam, Kaboega.
Daphne and I drove to Somerset East to reconnoitre the Bosberg and on the way back saw aristata again about 10km north-east of Kaboega (-143). We had looked at the Paddafontein (-155) plants on the way out and they quite obviously can be linked to aristata too. Unlike the other collections of aristata, however, the Paddafontein plants have a large robust inflorescence with many flowers open (usual in decipiens) as opposed to say the Commadagga (-128), aristata, but with fewer and stumpier leaves) dwarfs with only 8-10 flowers per stalk and one open at a time (thus more pilifera-like).
128 a. MBB 6897 H. aristata, southeast of Commadagga.128 b. MBB 6897 H. aristata, southeast of Commadagga.143 a. MBB6901 H. aristata, Hopewell.143 b. MBB6901 H. aristata, Hopewell.155. MBB6899 H. aristata / H. decipiens var. pringlei, Paddafontein, north of Kaboega.
During our second visit, we again went to the top of the mountain at Wilgefontein, after Ian had shown us H. glauca in the Kaboegapoort itself. This population was not typical of the species and also more like the De Plaat plants. We revisited the site of -148 and -149. Both were in flower and on this occasion we found the grassy ecotype within about 75m of the stone-face plants. The latter had flowered but seed-set was very poor, as opposed to the grass element which had well-formed capsules. From there we went to the Dez Weekes’ slopes via a different route and collected (MBB6925-158) plants ranging from the same greenish cymbiformis-like plants of -156 to specimens which could be nothing else but typical of true cymbiformis. We saw the same plants again at the dam to the north-west of the homestead, and again on the south slopes (-159) behind the previous De Plaat collection (-151). We completed the stay with a visit to Soutkloof where we saw again the true aristata (-139), and also to the office of the Addo National Park on top of the Zuurberg. Here we saw specimens of H. cooperi var. pilifera from that vicinity, and similar to a collection by Ernst Van Jaarsveld from Oudekraal (I had seen these plants when I collected H. angustifolia var. baylissii there many years ago). On our visit to Oudekraal we stopped to the west of my previous visit and probably also west of where Ernst had collected. We found the cooperi-like plants (MBB6922-160) again growing among rocks in dense grassland. The plants had very pronounced reddish-lines in the leaves and this was evident in all the Kaboega collections.
158 a. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 b. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 c. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 d. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 e. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.159 a. MBB6935 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, south of De Plaat farmhouse.159 b. MBB6935 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, south of De Plaat farmhouse.160 a. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.160 b. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.160 c. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.
Curiously a post-graduate botany student busy with a study of succulent endemism brought in a number of plants for identification. This is P. Desmett, and among his collections, two are relevant. One is PD2310-161 from Boplaas. This is north-east of Kirkwood where the Kaboega meets the Sundays River. The plant is a small spinose specimen which could relate to the arachnoidea-like (as von Poellnitz compared it) stiemiei. It could alternatively, and because of its colour and translucent patterning of the leaves, be more probably compared with H. decipiens var. minor represented by several MBB collections from Sapkamma (MBB6618-162, MBB6619-163, MBB6620-164) to the west. The other is PD2309-165 from the southern end of Kaboegapoort. It is the apparently puberulous-like element resembling -148, and also -153. Kobus Venter also collected and aristata-like plant from the Sundays River Poort (-73) which I think compares very favourably indeed with a large number of collections from afar afield as Redcliffe (north-east of Willowmore), the Baviaanskloof, Uniondale, down the Longkloof to Humansdorp and Hankey/Patensie. These are all collections which I have identified as H. cooperi var. gordoniana, and considered in the context of another paper.
161. PVB2310 H. decipiens var. major, Boplas, northeast of Kirkwood.162 a. MBB6618 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma, south of Perdepoort.162 b. MBB6618 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma, south of Perdepoort.163 a. MBB6619 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.163 b. MBB6619 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 a. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 b. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 c. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 d. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.165. PD2309 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, southern end of Kaboegapoort.
Discussion It is apparent to me that there are can be only two elements (species) of the sub-genus Haworthia present on Kaboega. These are from either of the geographical elements cymbiformis, aristata, gracilis and cooperi, and they are directly continuous. In cultivation it is apparent and obvious to me, that aristata from Spitzkop (-141) is mirrored by the gracilis-like -152, which is continuous with the more gracilis-like -151. This latter element leads through several collections to the cymbiformis-like plants in -150, -158 and -159. Similarly a very cooperi-like element in -148 is the apparent ecotype of the very gracilis-like -149. But -148 (and -165) must also be compared with -152 and to -153, which take us back to the gracilis-like archetypes. More significantly these seem to be the elements which best relate to the collections from Oudekraal, and with what occurs still further east at Zuurberg. These collections are considered to be H. cooperi var. pilifera.
There is no doubt that the Spitzkop aristata (-141) must be compared with -155 at Paddafontein and thus connecting aristata to the greater Jansenville area, and to the western elements of H. decipiens var. pringlei. There is the Waterford collection north of Lake Mentz (MBB6855-154) which is problematic as it does not have the opacity nor darker blue-green colouration of pringlei. It is better compared with xiphiophylla (or perhaps this is H. decipiens var. minor) in 72.2 south of Lake Mentz. It also bears a remarkable likeness to the Krom River collection of gracilis var. isabelllae (-39) as indicated above.
Conclusions I conclude that at Kaboega we have a situation where cooperi is excluded by the fact that the archetypal gracilis is represented by an advanced version of gracilis from which aristata and cymbiformis are extended. This pattern of identifications and classification true for one area, are not true for another. Already fully aware of the complex interaction between species like H. bolusii, H. cooperi and H. decipiens, and fast becoming even more aware of the extension of this complexity to H. gracilis, H. cymbiformis, H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla and even H. marumiana, I have to express conclusions very guardedly. Any classification of Haworthia will undoubtedly have tensions within it. It has been long apparent to me that sophisticated technology is unlikely to prove of much value in dealing with the nuance of variation between populations. If it is, it has going to have to first take into account the kind of variation one sees at the scale covered by this article. My belief was, and is now confirmed, that this is indeed the scale at which observation is now required. It can still be a lot closer. We did not spend sufficient time at Kaboega to explore the area thoroughly, and neither have we yet made any permanent record of our observations other than this report and accompanying illustrations. The point may now have been passed at which casual generalisation from a memory bank of images is possible. Extensive photographic and herbarium records are going to be essential to create a physical record which can be studied and manipulated. There is a series of eight mountain ranges from near the coast, with the Zuurbergs being the last of these in the north-east. If I calculate how long it would take to explore that area on the scale of our limited survey of Kaboega, I reckon on at least three years of continual search.
At this point I realise that the expectations of “Haworthia Revisited” are not going to be met. There are already snivels and meuls because there is no “data” in my revision. My experience tells me that this is not because the average reader would in fact take any cognisance of such data – but it is part of the illogical and faulty paradigm of modern “science” (“materialism”, the Theosophist would say). My conviction is that I have in my revision presented there a very comprehensive picture of the genus. This can definitely meet the time-worn wishful thought of the platitudinous foreword that “this book will stimulate/encourage/direct/guide further research”. Classification of Haworthia is not simply sorting a few single specimens as they are represented in collections or on herbarium sheets. It is trying to understand a complex system of closely interrelated and similar looking elements, as populations, which do not fit a classic and static image of a genus and so-many discrete species. My contention is that this is not only the case for Haworthia, but for many other genera too. ♦
141 a. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.141 b. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.141 c. MBB6916 H. aristata, Spitzko[, Kaboega.142 a. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.142 b. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.142 c. MBB6917 H. aristata, Kaboega.
143 a. MBB6901 H. aristata, Hopewell.143 b. MBB6901 H. aristata, Hopewell.144 a. T.Dold3961 in MBB6921 H. cooperi var. leightonii to H. arista, Chalumna. (H. cooperi var. doldii – ed.)144 b. T.Dold3961 in MBB6921 H. cooperi var. leightonii to H. aristata, Chalumna. (now H. cooperi var. doldii – ed.)145 a. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 b. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 a. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.145 d. J.G.Marx in JDV91/14 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, north aspect, Zuurberg.146. J.G.Marx in JDV91/15 H. cooperi var. cooperi, De Plaat, south aspect, Zuurberg.147 a. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Kaboegapoort cf [51 a-c].147 b. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 H. cooperi var. cooperi, Kaboegapoort cf [51 a-c].147 c. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 aberrant.147 d. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf [20, 154 a-c].147 e. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf.095 [96 a, b, 116a-e].147 f. PVB5002 in JDV92/33 cf.095 [96 a, b, 116a-e].148 a. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 b. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 c. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 d. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.148 e. MBB6904 H. cooperi var. cooperi, in amongst grass, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 a. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 b. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 c. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, on rock face, Wilgefontein, westof Kaboega.149 d. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 e. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 f. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.149 g. MBB6905 H. gracilis var. isabellae, Wilgefontein, west of Kaboega.150. MBB6903 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis. south-facing rocks, Wilgefontein.151. MBB6909 H. cooperi var. cooperi, southwest fo De Plaat farmhouse.152 a. MBB6910 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, east of De Plaat farmhouse.152 b. MBB6910 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, east of De Plaat farmhouse.153. MBB6911 H. gracilis var isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, rock faces in Kaboegapoort.154 a. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.154 b. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.154 c. MBB6855 H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla to H. decpiens var. minor, Waterford, east of Janesville.155. MBB6899 H. aristata / H. decipiens var. pringlei, Paddafontein, north of Kaboega.156 a. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.156 b. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.156 c. MBB6914 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, east of Spekboomberg, northwest of Kaboega.157 a. MBB6915 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, Kok-se-dam, Kaboega.157 b. MBB6915 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, Kok-se-dam, Kaboega.158 a. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 b. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 c. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 d. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.158 e. MBB6925 H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis, Kok-se-pad.159 a. MBB6935 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, south of De Plaat farmhouse.159 b. MBB6935 H. cooperi var. cooperi / H. cymbiformis, south of De Plaat farmhouse.160 a. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.160 b. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.160 c. MBB6922 H. cooperi var. cooperi. Oudekraal, Zuurberg.161. PVB2310 H. decipiens var. major, Boplas, northeast of Kirkwood.162 a. MBB6618 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma, south of Perdepoort.162 b. MBB6618 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma, south of Perdepoort.163 a. MBB6619 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.163 b. MBB6619 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 a. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 b. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 c. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.164 d. MBB6620 H. decipiens var. minor / H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla, Sapkamma.165. PD2309 H. gracilis var. isabellae to H. cooperi var. cooperi, southern end of Kaboegapoort.
M. B. Bayer, Cape Town. Ian Ritchie, Somerset East. ♦
This problem of continuity is one I seem to have difficulty in conveying to my readers and listeners. The difference between one species and another is a discontinuity and, if we believe in evolution, it is the resultant of a break-up of continuity in its ancestral parent species. The “model” we have in our minds, is of progressive change from one recognisable entity to another by evolution. Geographic distribution and re-distribution are key elements in this process. But we do not seem accept this in the way we try to classify plants or interpret classifications. Apart from recognising that change could be gradual and therefore manifest continuity, the change may be from a complex variable system which contains different levels of continuity within itself, and not from a simply understood uniform ‘ancestor’.
The result is that in a genus like Haworthia, which is by no means exceptional, the differences between species i.e. the discontinuities between “species”, may be very difficult to either recognise or rationalise. It in fact becomes a statistical operation in which all the characters should be involved i.e. multiple variate analysis. If all the characters could be measured and quantified it is statistically possible to subject all the data so obtained by one of several statistical methods to measure “distance” and “significant difference” between groups of plants which we want to ascertain are species, varieties or even just hybrids. The process of “cladistics” is the use of a system to generate a branching “tree” of relationships base on characters which are also evaluated and loaded for chronological priority (primitive versus advanced). In using such a mathematical package, it is pretended that the classification becomes “objective” and hence replicable to satisfy the scientific requirement. In my estimation, the cladistic process assumes that a two-dimensional “tree” adequately represents the spatial and temporal changes of evolutionary processes, and it does not work.
Somebody might one day try to apply such methods to Haworthia and I say “Good luck to you”. My experience of characterisation and variation in the biological systems I have experience of, and including Haworthia, suggest to me that sensible, practical, experienced “eye-balling” will prove the better bet. Ultimately in Haworthia, I expect that technology and cladistic methods will be testable on the result of my classification. This is not a conceited and arrogant claim. It is a simple reflection on what classification actually is and what it is for. Much of botanical classification has been done by amateurs with no, or minimal, specific training and qualification for that field at all e.g. G.W. Reynolds, L.C. Leach, T.L. Salter, J. Lavranos, C.L. Scott, G.G. Smith, M.B. Bayer etc. Their classifications form the basis of many scientific observations, sometimes by scientists who have no conception of the significance, or insignificance of the names they use or what they may actually mean. The classifications may have little to recommend them except the fact that they appear to conform to the approved nomenclatural style.
Putting that all aside I want to just demonstrate by means of a series of illustrations, what occurs in Haworthia. I have described several situations before but what follows is another account of the continuity which occurs in the southern districts of Somerset East, Eastern Cape. The main area concerned is Kaboega at the north and western Zuurberg near where it fades away north of the Klein Winterhoek Mountains (see map Fig.1). One thing should be engraved on the mind. The following comparisons are made on field impressions and on multiple plant samples. This at least takes note of statistical requirements and considerations and it would be wrong to try and use the individual illustrations to arrive at some other conclusion.
Fig. 1. Map of the western Zuurberg, Kaboega Farms.
Determining a starting point is quite difficult because there simply is none unless a second problem is addressed. This is the one of typification in which names are fixed to a specimen of some kind. After this is done there is the question of how the name is applied to the body of the plants from which it comes. In this article, the question of the application of the names cooperi, pilifera, vittata and blackbeardiana is involved and so I reproduce the illustrations accompanying the origins of these names (Figs.2, 3, 4 & 5). It is my experience that in the field, it is possible to find resemblances to these illustrations in a large number of geographically disparate populations, and hence quite a problem to apply them in a consistent and sensible way. Only the name blackbeardiana can unequivocally be said to have been derived from any particular field population and this is at Bowe’s Farm near Imvani, south of Queenstown, and the single illustration by no means represents all the variants of the many populations which can be said to belong together here. Some of those variants invoke the use of the other names. How all these names are used is something of a personal choice and mine is laid out in the book Haworthia Revisited which I wrote in 1999.
Fig. 2. H. cooperi Baker. Refugium Botanicum, 1871.Fig. 3. H. pilifera Baker. Refugium, Botanicum 1871.Fig. 4. H. vittata Baker. Refugium Botanicum, 1871.Fig. 5. H. Blackbeardiana VPoelln.,1937.
In this chapter I will take a collection (originally by G. Marx) from east of Alicedale and call it H. cooperi var. cooperi ([1]…denoting position on map Fig.6. MBB6845). In doing so I will have to point out again that there are further intrinsic difficulties in the requirements of nomenclature, which is that there is such an entity as a “typical” variety. My belief is that any plant which is not directly assignable to a variety of a species should simply be referred to as that species. Thus the Alicedale collection is H. cooperi var. cooperi and geographically in the distribution area of H. cooperi var. pilifera. The plant illustrated is of a single clone, but the plants in this particular population relate better to populations in the geographical area of the typical var. cooperi. The plants occurs here together with H. angustifolia and H. cymbiformis (in the same indeterminate varietal format as the H. cooperi, but for geographical reasons mainly, this population is referred to as H. cymbiformis var. obtusa. A similar form of H. cooperi depicted recurs on the Zuurberg and I saw it at Oudekraal when I explored there for H. angustifolia var. baylisii ca 1982. I have plants in cultivation from there which were collected by Ernst van Jaarsveld, and I made a new collection MBB6922 slightly west of there in 1999. I saw it again at Vyeboomfontein ([2]Fig.7 MBB6949) much further west and again just north of that at Klipfontein [2] MBB7049. I am unsure if the identification should be var. cooperi or var. pilifera but choose the latter.
Fig. 6. MBB6845 H. cooperi var cooperi. E Alicedale.Fig. 7. MBB6949 H. cooperi var pilifera. Vyeboomfontein.
Slightly further west at DePlaat, the problem starts with plants which are greener (particularly on the south slopes) and with longer more attenuate leaves. There is first the collection from north slopes ([3]Fig.8 JDV91/14) that I attribute to H. cooperi var. gracilis, and then mine from the south slopes ([4]Fig.9 MBB6935). Near the Kaboega farmhouse at Koksedam there is also a greenish element and two plants are illustrated ([5,6]Figs.10a & b MBB6915) to show that it is partly cooperoid and partly cymbiformoid. I propose calling these, with MBB6935, H. cooperi var. viridis because it is complicated (it could invoke the name gracilis of von Poellnitz, but I described a smaller green variant from near west as var. viridis, and this name seems more appropriate). I have, in Haworthia Update Vol.1, described that there is this greenish archetypal form which is quite widely spread and often in an indeterminate zone, between forms of H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis. On Kaboega these plants take three elemental directions:
Fig. 8. JDV-14 H. cooperi var gracilis. DePlaat.Fig. 9. MBB6915 H. cooperi var viridis. De Plaat.Fig. 10a. MBB6915 H. cooperi var viridis. KokseDam.Fig. 10b. MBB6915 H. cooperi var viridis. KokseDam.
1. Directly west to Spekboomberg ([7]Fig.11 MBB6914) and then to Wilgerfontein ([8,9]Fig.12a & b MBB6925) at. At Fig.11 the plants are consistent with Fig.9. At Fig.12a & b the plants resemble H. cymbiformis. Some clones are more similar to that species than others while odd clones are entirely indistinguishable from it. I find it difficult to determine what species it is, never mind add a varietal name, because of its obvious intergradation with H. cooperi variants and its geographical disassociation with H. cymbiformis. My suggestion is that this is where the case calls for the use of the species name, without the addition of the typical variety epithet. But even that is unsatisfactory here because I think the plants, despite their outside similarity with cymbiformis, are actually in the same genetic bag as cooperi var. viridis. It is worth stating that there is a transition from sandstones at DePlaat and eastwards, to Dwyka tillite westwards to Wilgerfontein.
Fig. 11. MBB6914 H. cooperi var viridis. Spekboomberg.Fig. 12a. MBB6925a. H. cooper var viridis=cymbiformis. Wilgerfontein N.Fig. 12b. MBB6925 H. cooperi var viridis=cymbiformis. Wilgerfontein N.
2. Slightly to the south-west, entering the Kaboega gorge is JDV92/33 ([10]Fig.13). This is indeterminate and I would label it “graciloid”, although there is evidence of other variants in the gorge which do not agree with the concept of var. gracilis. That name itself presents problems as described in Update Vol.1. Fig.14 is in sandstones, and on the steep north facing slopes (also sandstone) of Wilgerfontein a little to the west and south of MBB6925, is MBB6904 ([11]Fig.14). I would suggest that this resembles H. cooperi var. gordoniana (subsequent to drafting this manuscript I did a limited exploration south of the Zuurberg, and found a fairly similar populations occurs at [=11] in the Addo National Park. But it is an astonishing ecotypic variant too, as 25 meters away is MBB6905 ([12]Fig.15) which is “isabelloid“. I have coined the name “puberula” for it. Bear in mind that these pictures represent only samples of many plants in small discrete habitats.
Fig. 13. JDV93-33 H. cooperi ‘graciloid’. Kaboega Gorge.Fig. 14. MBB6904 H. cooperi ‘graciloid’. Wilgerfontein S.Fig. 15. MBB6905 H. cooperi ‘puberula’. Wilgerfontein S.
3. In a north-westerly direction from DePlaat is MBB6943([13]Fig.16), which is slightly spinose and indeterminate like the MBB6915 (Fig.10) collection. But it gets very curious. If we ascend the DePlaat hillside towards Klipfontein and [2]MBB7049, we find first MBB6910 ([14]Fig.18) almost indistinguishable from MBB6905 and close to MBB6904. A little further, and less than 250meters from MBB7049 is MBB7017 ([15]Fig.19), a small graciloid=puberula population in which the plants are very small and the leaves have surface spination. If we cross the valley and go now north of Klipfontein to the upper slopes, we find MBB6940 ([16]Fig.19). It is indistinguishable from MBB6904! If instead we stick to the low lying areas and move north of Koksedam, and northwest of DePlaat, there is first MBB6942 ([17]Fig.20) and then MBB6917 ([18]Fig.21). This latter is a relief because I have several collections from widely dispersed points [=18] to suggest these are my version of H. aristata. Not forgetting that the initialisation of that concept at Soutkloof near Addo, also involves H. cooperi. If we look at one collection from Commadagga ([19]Fig.22 MBB6897) we see a plant which is a variant of H. aristata (it could be cooperi var. pilifera!) that has look-alikes at Kirkwood in the arena of H. cooperi var. pilifera. But at Kaboega, the plot thickens further. Going still northwest from DePlaat and now north of MBB6943, is MBB6916 ([20]Fig.23). There is a problem again, and one has to go quite a way (about 20km) to find MBB6899 ([=20]Fig.24). The latter is quite a large plant in the mould of H. aristata. To find a better home for it among several other collections, including some dubious ones to the east and north at Ripon, and including Col Scott’s H. pringlei, I added it there while reducing Scott’s species to H. bolusii var. pringlei. This problem is elucidated elsewhere but I have not decided where best to place MBB6916 I think for practical and geographic reasons they could be placed under H. aristata, but they could equally be put under H. bolusii var. pringlei. I described H. decipiens var. virella to lessen tension on my use of the name pringlei and its relation to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana and to H. cooperi var. dielsiana (includes Scott’s H. joeyi). While it does so in some areas of the classification, some tension does remain.
Fig. 16. MBB6943 H. cooperi var viridis. Dassieklip.Fig. 17. MBB6910 H. cooperi ‘puberula’. DePlaat.Fig. 18. MBB7017 H. cooperi ‘graciloid=puberula’. Klipfontein.Fig. 19. MBB6940 H. cooperi ‘graciloid’. Klipfontein N.Fig. 20. MBB6942 H. cooperi’graciloid=aristata’. DePlaat Weir.Fig. 20. MBB6942 H. cooperi’graciloid=aristata’. DePlaat Weir.Fig. 21. MBB6917 H. aristata. Kaboega.Fig. 22. MBB6987 H. aristata=cooperi var pilifera. Commadagga.Fig. 23. MBB6916 H. bolusii var pringlei=aristata. Spitzkop, Kaboega.Fig. 24. MBB6899 H. aristata. Paddafontein.
This link to the above variants is enhanced by MBB7012 ([21]Fig.25) from Buffelsnek, overlooking Lake Mentz and west of Wilgerfontein. This collection is also labelled H. cooperi ‘graciloid’ as I have done for MBB6904, but it could just as well be H. aristata or even bolusii var. pringlei (because of the nature of continuity offered by other populations to the northwest [=21]. To show just how complex the situation is, I illustrate JDV92/44 (Fig.26). This was initially a P.V. Bruyns collection from Inverbolo, far distant and northeast of Cathcart. I specifically went there to confirm (MBB6942) that this is H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. I have said elsewhere that there is a problem of this question of continuity and that H. decipiens can be indistinguishable from H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. To add insult to injury I illustrate MBB6730 (Fig.27). No! It is not H. aristata, it is H. mucronata var. habdomadis from Seweweekspoort in the Little Karoo, and from an entirely different set of populations. It is in fact extremely disconcerting to have to admit that the green plants of Figs. 9 or 10 can similarly shown to be indistinguishable from H. mucronata var. morrisiae, also from the Little Karoo.
Fig. 25. MBB7012 H. cooperi ;graciloid’. Buffelsnek, W Kaboega.Fig. 26. JDV92-44 H. bolusii var blackbeardiana. Bolokei, NE Stutterheim.Fig. 27. MBB6730 H. mucronata var habdomadis. Seweweekspoort, E Ladismith.
In writing this, I hope that readers will now get to understand that in apparently attacking the work of aspirant Haworthia taxonomists, I am not trying to defend myself or my system. I simply recognise that these persons do not have the competences or the insight to follow and understand the difficult choices that have to be made any better than myself. The main point is, that I know that if we explore still further west of Kaboega (and there are collections which prove this), and then into the Klein Winterhoek mountains to the south-west, still further problems are going to unravel (us) as we roller-coaster between H. decipiens and H. cooperi all the way to Uniondale and beyond. These same problems bedevil most of the species systems in the southern and western Cape. Unless one understands and respects the intricate geographic relationships, the use of the names in the way I recognise them will perhaps not make sense and I truly see no other way in which a nomenclatural system and classification, which will work in the field, can be derived for Haworthia. ♦
This article was published in Haworthiad 16:43, 2002. Since then I have implemented name changes and I indicate these in bold type.
When I have written about Haworthia, I have generally taken as a subject a particular species, in the sense that people regard a species as a kind of thing universally and unmistakably recognisable. It is not always easy to find such things in the lower life forms, and this is also true for the sub‑genus Haworthia. Here I am just writing about a few odd plants, without going into the many ramifications that are actually involved.
I am also using the classification, and system, rationalised and explained as best I could in my book “Haworthia Revisited” (1999). Since that was written, I have been on many more exploratory journeys and have learnt a lot more. Much of this new information has been published in Haworthia Update Vol.1. There are several essays there, one devoted to the Baviaanskloof and one to the northern Zuurberg (Kaboega). I explain that the name H. gracilis is probably redundant. (I limit its use to H. cooperi var. gracilis as it occurs at Helspoort, Grahamstown.) It may actually be better to regard most of the Baviaanskloof populations all as one species ‑ variants of a greater species that will be H. cooperi. I will implement the necessary name changes in another paper (This was done in, and the article is copied, in a preceding essay).
Thus one of the dominant variants will be the old H. gracilis var. isabellae as H. cooperi var. isabellae, along with H. cooperi var. picturata, plus H. cymbiformis var. transiens as H. transiens. I will also use here the name H. decipiens var. pringlei which will transfer to H. bolusii. There are populations that can then be identified as:
* var. gracilis ‑ plants with erect incurving simple leaves with few marginal spines * var. picturata ‑ plants with relatively opaque, green incurving leaves in a compact rosette * var. gordoniana ‑ plants with blue‑green stubby leaves also relatively opaque * var. isabellae ‑ plants with slender erect leaves which are fairly densely spinose, usually only on the margins * transiens ‑ plants with more stubby, relatively translucent and reticulate leaves
The difficulty with the existing system is that the continuities which we see in the Baviaanskloof and Longkloof, are also evident in surrounding areas. For example, at Uniondale there is difficulty in excluding H. mucronata from the discussion, although there is no evidence to convince me that there is geographical continuity between these Uniondale plants and H. mucronata west of Calitzdorp. The problem is more in respect of H. decipiens and the variation of this species north and north‑east of Uniondale, then westwards north of the Klein Swartbergs (to meet both H. lockwoodii and H. mucronata from Prince Albert westward), as well as south of the Swartberg (with H. mucronata) north‑east of Calitzdorp. Similarly the Baviaanskloof populations have affinities across the Springbokvlakte area east of Steytlerville, meeting with cooperoid elements from north‑east of Uniondale, all the way to the Zuurberg around the greater Kirkwood area. These cooperoid elements have continuities with the H. decipiens complex of that area.
I write this article to show that neither “lumping” nor “splitting” offers any solution to how we talk about, explain and communicate about these plants. Opinions have been expressed that certain Haworthia varieties and species should be “lumped”. We want to talk about distinctive individual recognisable things, but this is simply not possible, however desirable it may be. When I say a plant name, I have to make it clear that I am usually talking in general terms of many individuals, which collectively have created an image in my mind, and this is not the way the nomenclatural code works.
If one attaches varietal or species names to every local variant, it means that so very many names will be needed. It is a difficult decision ‑ many names which are independent, untrackable and meaningless, or fewer names which are connected, interdependent and usable. The variants I mention comprise a range of networked forms that are different from one another to a greater or lesser degree. This then means there is no formula, diagnostic or descriptive key or method by which these can all be documented and classified and identified with any degree of certainty. There never will be.
Here I am taking some of these small hairy plants and showing how similar they can be and how they may link up to each other.
Commentary ‑ on Figures 1a & b: H. cooperi var. gordoniana.
Fig. 1a. MBB6553 H. cooperi var gordoniana. N Zuurbron.Fig. 1b. MBB6553 H. cooperi var gordoniana. N Zuurbron.
These are small plants which have the characteristic blue‑green colouration of H. cooperi but the spines are smaller, more numerous and more closely spaced. It is very distinctive where it occurs in the Hankey Pass near Zuurbron. There is intergradation in the Baviaanskloof from var. gordoniana, to H. gracilis var. isabellae, to var. picturata and on to H. cymbiformis var. transiens. It does not end there. I have suggested that a solution, which would also solve problems in the greater H. cooperi arena, would be to absorb H. gracilis into H. cooperi, and perhaps H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana as well. However, it does not end there either, and we would logically have to extend this to include H. cymbiformis and H. decipiens. This also does not exhaust the possibilities, exacerbated by the fact that field exploration is by no means complete.
on Figures 2 to 9: H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae.
Fig. 2. JDV97-58 H. cooperi var gordoniana. N Zuurbron.Fig. 3. MBB6773 H. cooperi var isabellae. N Joubertina.Fig. 4. PVB7128 H. cooperi var isabellae. Holriver, S Hankey.Fig. 5. EvJ14080 H. cooperi var isabellae. Vetmaakvlakte, Baviaanskloof.Fig. 6a. MBB6826 H. cooperi var isabellae. Baviaanskloof.Fig. 7. H. cooperi var isabellae. Philips Tunnel, Hankey.Fig. 8a. MBB7021 H. bolusii var bolusii. SE Pearston.Fig. 8b. MBB7021 H. bolusii var bolusii. SE Pearston.Fig. 9. MBB6583 H. bolusii var bolusii. Lootskloof, E Jansenville.
There are a number of populations that are fairly close in appearance, usually becoming paler in colour and with more translucence and longer and coarser spines. I also include a number of populations in this category that have relatively few leaves, which are often without spines and are too robust to be regarded as H. gracilis (hence driving change to the name cooperi). Curiously, what happened was this. I produced and grew some seed of a collection by Ernst van Jaarsveld from north of Joubertina. Ernst’s find is H. graciliscooperi) var. isabellae by virtue of the many slender leaves and dense spination. It is also special in that the leaves have surface spination. Then I lost the seedlings and was puzzled by a batch labelled JDV97/158, which looked like H. cooperi var. gordoniana (fig.2 –note JDV97-58) without surface spination. That was until I discovered that JDV97/158 is Kobus Venter’s accession number for my MBB6773 (fig.3), which is also Ernst’s find but collected by myself. At the time of writing, I am still not sure that these seedlings really are MBB6773, because at this stage they have fewer, shorter, less‑spined leaves than their parents. Perhaps there is a mistake, although I have grown several other collections in the same way. While disconcerted by the difference of the seedlings from the parents, it has never been to this degree. (There was in fact a mistake – a transposition of digits – the seedlings were JDV97-58)
MBB6773 has a few look‑alike collections that are very similar e.g. PVB7128 (fig.4) from south‑west of Hankey. This is a very blue‑green finely spined version of H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae. There is also EVJ14080 (fig.5) from Vetmaakvlakte along the Couga River, where it turns south from the Baviaanskloof to the Longkloof. Then there is MBB6826 (figs.6a & 6b) from Rooikloof, further west along the Baviaanskloof, or MBB6802 from south‑west of Hankey at Philip’s Tunnel (fig.7). Triangulated between these three, are populations which are either better placed with H. cooperi var. gordoniana, or with H. gracilis (cooperi) var. picturata, or with H. cymbiformis var. transiens (transiens).
In the case of MBB6826, I have illustrated two plants; one is half the size of the other, to show that there is a great deal of variation within populations too. Often many plants in cultivation are vegetatively propagated clones which obfuscate the degree of variability. Using one plant does not help very much, because all too often one finds that, although the overall appearances of populations may be different, there are individuals common to both which are very similar. In the field, it also happens that the plants may look different, whereas in cultivation these differences are lost.
on Figures 8 to 10: H. bolusii var. bolusii and H. decipiens var. virella.
Fig. 8a. MBB7021 H. bolusii var bolusii. SE Pearston.Fig. 8b. H. bolusii var bolusii. SE Pearston.Fig. 9. MBB6583 H. bolusii var bolusii. Lootskloof, E Jansenville.Fig. 10. MBB6583 H. decipiens var virella. Waaipoort, NE Steytlerville.
If one takes, say, the Philip’s Tunnel illustration (fig. 7), one can compare it very favourably to MBB7021 (fig.8a & b) from far away Pearston, which is a completely different species, viz. H. bolusii var. bolusii. The reservation is of course that the above‑mentioned chain of continuity extends geographically through the Eastern Cape from Hankey across several mountain chains into the interior. I have again given two illustrations to show that even in relatively homogenous populations, one can still find distinctive variants. MBB7046 (fig.9) is a smaller version of var. bolusii from east of Jansenville (Note: Breuer has described this as a new species viz. H. odetteae, done in ignorance of the collection MBB7021 and also the fact that similar plants occur at Hinchinbrook close to the northeast. These with other records, strongly suggest continuity with bolusii var. bolusii at Graaff Reinet itself.) There it grows with another element, which I have included in my extended version of H. decipiens. This is actually a variety occurring in many populations, which I need to explain links H. cooperi, H. decipiens and H. aristata. While occurring in a distinctive form and populations together with H. bolusii var. bolusii (three such localities have been seen by me), it also has an extension MBB6583 (fig.10) from north‑east of Steytlerville, which is a look‑alike except for a deeper green colour. This population is presently classified with H. decipiens var. pringlei (decipiens var. virella), which I am planning to re‑structure.
on Figures 11 to 14: H. aristata and H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae.
Fig. 11. MBB6902 H. aristata. Hopewell, N Zuurberg.Fig. 12. MBB6917 H. aristata. Kaboega, Zuurberg.Fig. 13. MBB6905 H. cooperi ‘puberula’. Wilgerfontein, Kaboega.Fig. 14. MBB7017 H. cooperi ‘puberula’. Klipfontein, Kaboega.
One can then again take the Philip’s Tunnel illustration (fig. 7), always remembering that it is one of a variable population, and compare it with MBB6901 from Hopewell (fig.11) or MBB6917 from Kaboega (fig.12), both from north of the Zuurberg. These are both variants of the geographic complex that constitute H. aristata. That complex has extensions such as MBB6905 (fig.13) from Wilgerfontein and MBB7017 (fig.14) from Klipfontein, which are both from on the northern edge of the Zuurberg (I discuss these in preceding chapters and refer to them as H. cooperi ‘puberula’). The former is remarkable for its fine spination and the fact that twenty‑five metres away, it has an ecotype, which has the fewer stumpier leaves of what could be taken for more typical H. cooperi var. gordoniana. The latter (i.e. Fig.14) is remarkable because its small size likens it to H. gracilis var. isabellae; firstly to MBB6826 (fig.6a & b) and secondly to MBB6773 (fig.3), because it also has unusual surface spination. The plants illustrated in figs.13 &d 14 are several kilometres apart and occur in two very small, localised populations. They are related to each other through many other populations that in many respects suggest a cooperoid or cymbifomoid archetype. (see Chapter 7 Continuity…) ♦
Kaboega is a set of farms on the northeast of the Zuurberg Mountain range, north of Kirkwood and off the Addo National Park. I wrote about the haworthias that occur there in Haworthia Update Vol.1. There is also an article in Aloe 40:10 (2003) in which there is a discussion of the variation of those haworthias as related to geology and topography. My wife and I frequently visit Kaboega to renew relationships with Ian and Sandy Ritchie who live there. Each time we go we try to explore some different area. We generally end-up with something that is notably new.
Part 1.
There is a real problem in trying to reconcile the populations we see with the names that are available and the way in which I have tried to formalize them myself. The problem is that Kaboega seems to occupy some sort of central and neutral position and it is by no means easy to arrive at any clean rational classification. Three of my species are involved, and I have to say they are “mine” because other authors are in strong disagreement. The three species I see are H. cymbiformis, H. cooperi, and H. aristata. It is firstly necessary to explain that I interpret the name H. aristata in Haworthia Revisited quite differently from what I might have done earlier; and quite differently from other authors who have simply taken the easy route and associated the name with Little Karoo elements for which I use the name H. mucronata. My interpretation of the name will be quite evident from my writings and from the pictures submitted with this article. The use of the name H. cymbiformis with respect to Kaboega is a major problem for someone like myself who is firmly convinced that geographical relationships are foremost in the recognition of species as living systems. On Kaboega, plants that look like H. cymbiformis seem to proceed out of a complex that is surely H. cooperi. If one properly considers all the populations that I ascribe to H. aristata one is seriously confronted with the reality that it is also a geographic variant of H. cooperi.
During June 2008 we were again at Kaboega and found two further populations of ostensible H. aristata. One of these viz. MBB7698 (see figs 1a-d) is only about 1km east of Buffelsnek on the western boundary where I recorded MBB7012. We did also see the same plants on a ridge still further east and north of Wilgerfontein where the very green and proliferous cymbiformis-like plants seem to reach their western limit. MBB7698 is effectively on the top of the Spekboomberg ridge, whereas the cymbiformoids are a little to the west and on the south slopes. It would be really interesting to know what occurs further westwards towards Darlington Dam.
We found H. aristata again practically central to the farm and about 1,5km south east of the Weir (MBB7703, see figs 2a-c, and these plants may have been illustrated before elsewhere incorrectly as MBB7697, a Gasteria). This is still about 1km north of the east-facing riverine cliff that houses the very green cymbiformoid plants (MBB7636, see figs 3a-c) of which other populations have already been reported to the east at De Plaat (3 populations) and also to the west at Koks Dam and Spekboomberg.
I have probably argued for recognition of H. aristata as separate from H. cooperi. Such an entity can probably be recognized as occupying the lowlands to the north of the Zuurberg. Both H. cooperi and H. bolusii var. pringlei occur to the north at Ripon and it appears that the latter may be represented by a population northeast of Stonefountain. There is a problem with proper, as opposed to the formal way either Breuer or myself may have done typification of the name H. gracilis, where we have both apparently just guessed that the name applies to the Helspoort variants of H. cooperi. In fact von Poellnitz’ name H. gracilis rest on the citation of a really mixed bag from not just Hellspoort, but from five quite disparate locations across almost the entire Cape. I use the name ‘gracilis’ only in reference to Hellspoort and it is evident to me that H. aristata is in the H. cooperi continuum. Look at the pictures and see what you think. I have added three pictures (MBB7701, see Figs 4a-c) taken of plants above Klipfontein at the eastern end of Kaboega that I refer to as H. cooperi ‘puberula’ and related to another record MBB6908 at Wilgerfontein.
1a. MBB7698 H. aristata E Buffelsnek, Kaboega1b. MBB7698 H. aristata E Buffelsnek, Kaboega1c.1d.2a. MBB7703 H. aristata N Swartkop, Kaboega2b. MBB7703 H. aristata N Swartkop, Kaboega2c. MBB7703 H. aristata S Swartkop, Kaboega3a. MBB7636 H. cooperi cf. cymbiformis N Swartkop, Kaboega3b. MBB7636 H. cooperi cf. cymbiformis N Swartkop, Kaboega3c. MBB7636 H. cooperi cf. cymbiformis N Swartkop4a. MBB7101 H. cooperi ‘puberula’ S Klipfontein, Kaboega4b. MBB7101 H. cooperi ‘puberula’ S Klipfontein, Kaboega4c. MBB7101 H. cooperi ‘puberula’ S Klipfontein, Kaboega
Part 2.
Variants of H. cooperi on Kaboega
The various populations of H. cooperi are discussed or referred to in several of my essays published in the Haworthia Updates and elsewhere. I have also been privileged to go back to Kaboega several times and further explore there. Each visit generates something new and different and evokes thoughts of what is still unseen, unreported and unknown.
On this occasion Daphne and I were actually hoping to find and photograph perhaps a chameleon, as workers had reported seeing one abut six months previously in the vicinity of the Klipfontein guest house on Kaboega. This is in the northeastern end of the set of farms that now constitute Kaboega. We thought we should explore the upper slopes where there was more sunlight and basking opportunity for the chameleons in the cold winter sun.
We climbed up the mountain via a very overgrown route that served as a passage for stock to access the higher mountain slopes, but also serve as a donkey pack route for the transport of supplies over the mountain in earlier days. This is of course peripheral to plant exploration. Nevertheless it is so fascinating to dwell on the fact that the enlarged game farm is actually comprised of about seven smaller farms that once were home to farmers and family. All abandoned as circumstances have changed over the years. It is as though man invaded this rich treasure house of natural beauty, sucked it dry and abandoned it again leaving nature to now heal the wounds. This is very unlikely because of the game fences and the absence of predators. Rainfall is marginal and the Kudu population is huge. Nature will have to respond in some dramatic and drastic way if she has anything in mind, and she is perfectly capable of that.
We moved east of our original visit to the mountain top where we had seen and photographed a few scattered plants before. We know that if we find one plant, to ask “Now where are they?” This confinement to such discrete, small habitats is so characteristic that we laugh off the notion that to explain the vicarious distributions over great distance, the plants were wider spread at some distant time in the past. Something else is at work and these populations maintain pattern and coherence beyond material means.
Eventually Daphne, whose eyes are now better than mine, did find the first plant and the body of the population we had only touched before. So these are the pictures. The first three pictures are of MBB6901 H. aristata (See figs 5a-c) on the lower country north of the mountain about 3km away on a neighboring farm Doornkloof, the next one would be a cultivated plant of MBB7701 H. cooperi ‘puberula’ nom. nud. (See fig. 6) in sandstone and Fynbos vegetation in the mountain south of Klipfontein. The rest are H. cooperi (no appellation – MBB6940, See figs 7a-p) just east of my previously reported site north of Klipfontein, also in sandstone and transitional Fynbos. This term is used to simply imply one of these strange anomalies where karoid and Fynbos elements mingle. Many more pictures are really needed to indicate that each plant looks different and we spent a long and enjoyable time calling back and forth to come and observe one more gem.
Some of the clones would correspond to clones in the parent population of H. cooperi ‘viridis’ at Perdepoort about 20km west while others to H. cooperi ‘gracilis’ from Helspoort north of Grahamstown, 50km east. Thus to my mind there is no satisfactory solution to the naming of these plants in our conventional understanding of Latin names.
The last photograph is a view across the Klipfontein valley and over the old greater farmyard to a mountain ridge and over that to the Zuurberg Mountain itself. Between is the Vyeboomfontein farm. The black arrows mark a point on the near ridge where there is a Bushman painting site and a large quartz rock that is home to plants like MBB7101. That mountain ridge extends westward 1-2km to the abandoned DePlaat farmhouse where there are again populations of H. cooperi on northwest and south aspects, at different altitudes and with their own variants. More conventional H. cooperi ‘pilifera’ can be found on the far mountain while Kaboegapoort is a gorge through the mountain with still another set of populations and variants.
It is all a wondrous never ending drama.
5a. MBB6901 H. aristata Doornkloof5c. MBB6901 H. aristata Doornkloof5b. MBB6901 H. aristata Doornkloof6. MBB7701 H. cooperi ‘puberula’ S Klipfontein in cultivation.7a. MBB6940 H. cooperi N Klipfontein7b.7c.7d.7e.7f.7g.7h.7i.7j.7k.7l.7m.7o.7p.7q.
Part 3.
General comments on the plants on Kaboega.
The southern end of Africa is home to one of the six or seven plant kingdoms of the world. This is the so-called Cape Floral Kingdom. Botanists in the past seem to have misinterpreted this flora and not realized that it maintains its integrity for two reasons. The first is that it is on the table Mountain Sandstone formation and the second is that it is in a winter rainfall zone. Its origins are no doubt ancient, but in present day terms it is part of a present day winter rainfall area which includes the Succulent Karoo. Kaboega sits on the eastern verge of this biome and is therefore in a huge tension zone between inland, upland, summer and winter rainfall (and the stress of dryness) vegetation groupings.
Apart from annual rainfall stresses, broken topography, skeletal soils and an enormous range of exposed geological formations and rock series, contribute to an extraordinary range of varied habitats. Thus South Africa and especially the Cape, offer plant species huge opportunities to adapt and change according to ecological differences and stresses. Kaboega is a wonderful example of the way in which plant species have adapted to these different habitats.
Kaboega has plant species from all of the biomes in the Cape, and the vegetation ranges from upland grassy fynbos, renosterveld, succulent karoo, valley bushveld and countless variation of these. The main rocks are quartzitic, dwyka tillite (of glacial origin) and shales. In addition there is a small amount of alluvial terrace.
What is so dramatic is that the different species occupy sometimes very limited habitats and despite this tight habitat choice (requirement) it is very difficult to specify what those requirements are for any group of species.
The genus Haworthia is represented by two of its subgenera. The Subg. Hexangulares is represented by three species:-
a. H. glauca, which is present mostly on the upper quartzitic ridges where Euphorbia polygona and the asclepiad Huernia brevirostris occur. This form of H. glauca includes some evidence of apparent interaction with H. coarctata which comes from further east.
b. H. sordida is an isolated population south of the Zuurberg and then westwards to Steytlerville. It was known on Kaboega from only one small hill where it grew under renoster bush. It was only while researching this visit that a second group was found.
c. H. nigra, which is very widespread in the greater karoo, but rare this far south and so far it is only known from one small population on the river terrace gravels.
The second subgenus Haworthia is only represented by many varieties of but one species viz. H. cooperi and this recognition of one species is only arrived at by discarding the traditional view of plant taxonomy that has no definite and decisive definition for the word species. The Kaboega plants are known from about 30 populations. These vary dramatically, but continuously, according to habitat and this has to be considered in terms of continuing similarities from Kaboega outwards into the Karoo, the Western Cape and the Eastern Cape. This suggests that there are very complex species systems and species cannot be as easily identified and described by visible characters, as a loose definition has in the past allowed. The Kaboega populations are very different from each other, and could be said to be from four or more species if fancy rules. In fact they are probably adapted by habitat and are evidence of the continuity of them all in one species complex.
It is population structure which is so significant and if one considers all the plant species that occur on Kaboega, one comes to realize that they occupy often unique habitats. There is one level of generalists such as Acacia karoo, Olea africana, Aloe ferox, etc which seem to be ubiquitous. But actually most of the species can be seen to have a “home”. There are about seven species of Aloe on Kaboega and seldom do more than two share habitat. As one goes through a general list of names, one finds that one has to visit very specific places to find the plants. One can also find places like this one spot at Klipfontein that can be described as a “hotspot” for Kaboega. These are small species rich areas, which host species which do not occur generally and may in fact be very rare for Kaboega. By also occurring on Kaboega like this, they represent a genetic entity and resource which may be quite unique
Acknowledgement. I am most grateful to Ian and Sandra Ritchie for their generous hospitality and interest for the many times and hours we have spent fossicking in the wilderness of Kaboega. ♦
Kaboega is located in the Zuurberg Mountains north of Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. Read more about this in Haworthia Update Volume 1, Chapter 5:- The Haworthias of Kaboega. There are a mind-boggling array of Haworthia populations here in an area considered to be the meeting point of several vegetation biomes. There is much exposed rock, and the soil is very skeletal, composed of three major groups: sandstone, mudstone, and glacial deposits. These pictures are of a Haworthia cooperi variant that occurs high up on sandstone. I went to this spot because researchers had sent me a picture of a cycad festooned with Haworthia. I did not get to the exact spot but have seen the way it forms hanging bundles in other situations.
Haworthia glauca!! can also be found here. On Kaboega these plants often have a very close resemblance to H. coarctata and it is no co-incidence that the distributions of these two species complement each other. An essential element of species recognition is their juxtaposition and if they occur in very close association or not. Darwin said as much.
I visited four populations of this greenish cooperi. One can find plants like this from east of Grahamstown right through to the Little Karoo. Here they are on Dwyka (glacial) skeletal soil.
These next are in the shales low down in the valley on Kaboega – I name it H. aristata. It is very common in the area but complements H. cooperi while there are populations that are neither. Populations cannot be treated in isolation and there is a distinct possibility/probability that I have been too generous with species. The attempts to find answers via DNA sequencing should make the vendors of that technology thoroughly ashamed.
More of these green things. I would guess that these would class as the simple progenitors of cymbiformis and cooperi. Perhaps even of mucronata?
This is Haworthiopsis sordida that does not occur, as far as I know, north of this. H. nigra also occurs here at it’s most southern at this longitude. Altogether it is quite a complex network of distribution patterns that relate to greater plant geography.
From another population as variants on a theme. have seen about 30 such just on this small mountain area and it just suggests what is still unseen on the length and breadth.
Not a great diagram but a way to appreciate the drammatic choreography of plant distribution and how it impacts on classification. Without it Haworthia names make no sense other than as imagined and fantasized. Cooperi and cymbiformis occur as intertwined species to the east and south. In the south they extend westwards to get lost in H. mucronata. Cymbiformis as an independent species does not enter Kaboega except as an observable variant of H. cooperi. The cooperi gets lost westwards as variants of H. decipiens. Perhaps close northwards as H. aristata. H. glauca does cross the Zuurberg but is here confused with H. coarctata that may occur in recognosable form on the eastern tip. Angustifolia is on the eastern end too but does not enter Kaboega. Neither do H. monticola or H. zantneriana from the west. This is also closely tied to the intrigue of winter vs summer rainfall and still further to the massive geological changes of the very recent.