Haworthia Revisited – 8. Haworthia cooperi

8. Haworthia cooperi Baker, Saund.Ref.Bot. 4:t.233(1871).  Bayer :109(1976).  Bayer :33(1982).  pp. Scott :103(1985) as to Adelaide.  H. arachnoidea (Haw.) Duv. sensu Pole-Evans, Flow.Pl.S.Afr. 7:t.248(1927).  Type (B&M): Cape, Cooper (K):  H. vittata Baker, loc.cit. :t.263.  Type: Not preserved.  Lectotype: icon t.234, Saund.Ref.Bot. cooperi: for Thomas Cooper.

Rosette to 120mm φ, often proliferous, stemless. Leaves 20-40, fleshy, swollen, oblong-lanceolate, quickly tapering, acuminate or truncating, marginal spines <2mm long if present.  Bluish-green in colour, slightly translucent, with veins usually reddening and leaves developing purplish hues in exposed situations.  Inflorescence compact, firm peduncle with many closely arranged flowers, to 20cm long.  Flowers 20-30, perianth white.

1982 – This species is beautifully illustrated in Refugium Botanicum and two other species, H. pilifera and H. vittata, were also described and illustrated here.  The name H. pilifera has been most commonly used for plants with relatively blunt leaves which occur in the Eastern Cape particularly around King Williamstown.  The name H. vittata was similarly applied to the longer-leaved forms in the Thomas River and Cathcart areas which probably intergrade with H. bolusii.  However, the name H. cooperi can equally be applied and has page preference over the other two names.  H. cooperi is very common widespread and variable as the synonymy suggests.  It is logical to suppose that in this case Haworth must have received specimens at some time or another.  Uitewaal attempted to apply the name H. obtusa Haw. which has since been refuted by Bayer and Pilbeam (1974).  Scott similarly implemented H. altilinea Haw. but uses the name in a restricted sense to exclude all three of Baker’s names, as well as names such as H. limpida and H. mucronata.  The writer’s contention is that the name H. altilinea is a source of confusion and should for the present at least, be rejected. There are thus the four species with translucent bluish-, or greyish-green leaves as indicated in the key.  H. cooperi is distinguished by its generally less hairy or shortly haired leaves.  The leaves are obtuse to obtuse-ovate although forms with longer, more acuminate leaves also occur.  These usually have thicker leaves than corresponding forms in H. bolusii and the leaves are also less hairy.  Scott comments on the withdrawal of plants into the ground, and the question of exposure and soil substrate are responsible for much of the variability in the species.  In ‘stayneri’ collected at Bethelsdorp near Port Elizabeth, and in several other populations, the leaf veins actually become necrotic and the leaf-ends truncated.  In ‘gordoniana’ from Hankey this does not occur.

H. cooperi is a species of the dry grassveld areas of the Eastern Cape and occurs in the high-lying sourveld of the Zuurberg to the dry Valley Bushveld of the Fish River.  Size varies enormously from small glabrous plants less than 40 mm in diameter southwest of Grahamstown, to enormous hairy specimens over 100 mm in diameter at Keiskamma.  The variety leightonii is exceptional in that it occurs on the edges of exposed granite slabs west of East London.  This variety is very proliferous and is characterised by the persistence of reddish coloration in the leaf veins.

1999 – One of the difficulties with this species is in its relationship with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, and here the typical variety is applied to that intermediate element in the Thomas River area.  This does not represent the main body of the species at all, which is a product of the nomenclatural system.  Also the previous Handbooks do not present any idea of the variation in this species.  There is an additional problem in the association with H. cymbiformis.  Uitewaal really exposed the problem with his recognition of the name ‘obtusa’ of Haworth for this species.  Bayer and Pilbeam refuted this by suggesting that Uitewaal had misinterpreted Haworth’s description and the illustration associated with it.  Scott similarly refuted Uitewaal and also applied the name as a variety of H. cymbiformis.  However, he illustrated a blue-green variant which we regard as H. cooperi var. obtusata, a new name, in this work.  There is clearly a problem in finding a point of origin for ‘obtusa’ as variant of H. cymbiformis rather than of H. cooperi, and that is answered under the former species.  However, herbarium records indicate a problem in the broader Alicedale/Adelaide areas where truncation and abbreviation of the leaves of both species seems to be evident, together with the problem of green versus blue coloration.  The essential difference between the two species – which generally have the same distribution range and very often co-occur – is that H. cooperi is an open ground species, whereas H. cymbiformis occurs on rocky shelves and cliffs. It is interesting that even a variety like leightonii has a tendency to resemble H. cymbiformis, by acquiring an opaque yellowish-green coloration as opposed to the required blue-green for the species cooperi.  This is a common problem in trying to absolutely circumscribe the species.  But even outside of that, there has been a massive problem in the plethora of names attached to either species.  Both extend into the mountains north and west of Port Elizabeth and it is not clear just how this relates to other species which do the same.  The following varieties are recognised.

M-08-cooperi

a. var. cooperi.
The typical variety occurs in the Thomas River area and is along the transition zone to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana.  The distinction is that the leaves are slightly more acuminate and the venation tends to acquire reddish tints, while general coloration tends to a purplish hue.  The leaf spines are also generally less than 2mm long.

Distribution:
3225 (Somerset East): 30km S. Cradock (-BD), Smith 5194 (NBG); Bruintjieshoogte (-CB), Britten in PRE 34923, Bayer 2024 (NBG); 11km S. Somerset East (-DC), Smith 2841 (NBG).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): Bobbejaanrivier, Bedford (-CA), Smith 2244 (NBG); Koonap Bridge (-CD), Bayer & Bruyns 6563 (NBG); Elandskop, Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2687, 2797, 2799 (NBG); Adelaide (-CD), Krynauw in NBG270/43; Katberg (-DA), Herre in STE6607 (BOL), Read in BOL71291, Smith 2773 (NBG); Warfield (-DB), Venter 91/82 (NBG); Woburn (-DB), Smith 578 (NBG); Alice, Stewart Memorial (-DD), Smith 5211 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Thorn River near Cathcart (-AC), Acocks 11003; W. Cathcart (-AC), Bayer in KG 392/70 (NBG); Thomas River (-AD), Smith 3631 (NBG), Scott 1720 (NBG), Stayner in KG402/61 (NBG); Tsomo (-BB), Branch 13 (NBG).

Inadequately located: ex hort. Stanford (BOL).

b. var. dielsiana (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb. nov. 
H. dielsiana V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 28:103(1930).  H. pilifera var. dielsiana idem. 49:27(1940).  H. obtusa var. dielsiana (V.Poelln.) Uitew., Succ. 29:50(1948).  Type: Cape, Sheldon, H.H. Hutton 489. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325(Somerset East): Sheldon (-BB), A.J. van der Merwe in Smith 1140 (NBG).  H. joeyae Scott, Bradleya 13:80(1995).  Type: CAPE-3225( Somerset East): a few kilometers NE. of Cookhouse (-BD), Scott (GRA).

dielsiana: in honour of Prof. Diels of Berlin, Dahlem.

There appear to be two elements within the species with very truncated leaf ends.  The first is this variety from the western area in which the leaves are variously truncated and obtuse. Smith records a wide range of forms with or without leaf spines and some with very rounded leaf-ends.  Sometimes the leaf-margins are almost ridge-like. The leaf-tips do not appear to become necrotic as happens in the var. pilifera. The leaf awn is virtually absent and the leaves tend to have marked venation.  The keel and margins tend to be rounded.

Distribution:
3225 (Somerset East): Sheldon (-BB), Smith 1140 (NBG), Hutton in Herre 489 (BOL); 5km E. Somerset East (-DA), Bayer & Bruyns 6565 (NBG); Glen Avon (-DA), Smith 5790 (NBG); Merantes Kloof (-DB), Smith 3492 (NBG); Eastpoort (-DB), Smith 3491, 3493 (NBG), Reynolds (BOL), Bayer & Bruyns 6558, 6559, 6560 (NBG); Little Fish (-DC), Smith 5550 (NBG).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): 10km N. Adelaide (-CB) Krynauw in NBG267/43, Krynauw in NBG687/41; 19km NE. Adelaide (-CB), Krynauw in NBG269/43 (NBG); Chancery Hall (-CB), Bayer & Bruyns 6564 (NBG); Kagasmond (-CC), Krynauw in NBG273/43; Paardefontein, SE. Adelaide (-CD); Brakfontein, Kroomie (-CD), Smith 5112 (NBG); Koonap (-CD), Smith 7131 (NBG); Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2687 (NBG); 30km S. Adelaide (-CD), Smith 2240 (NBG); Somerset East (-DA), Fouche in PRE 34919; Woburn; Tyumie river (-DB), Acocks 13575 (PRE); W. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6592 (NBG); S. Fort Beaufort (-DC),  Bayer & Bruyns 6591 (NBG); E. Fort Beaufort (-DC), Smith 3489 (NBG); 16km N. Cradock road (-DC), Britten in PRE 34918.

Inadequately located: Ross’ Mission, Smith 7492 (NBG); Zaysdorp NBG1019/25; ex hort Whitehill (NBG), Ross-Frames (NBG), Stanford (BOL).

c. var. gordoniana (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb. nov. 
pp H. cooperi (Bak.) Bayer :119(1972).  pp. Bayer :33(1982).  H. gordoniana V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 42:269(1937).  H. pilifera var. gordoniana V.Poelln. idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. gordoniana (V.Poelln.) Uitew., Succulenta 29:50(1948).  Type: Zuurbron, Hankey, Long 814. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3324 (Steytlerville): Patensie (-DD), Smith 3028 (NBG).

gordoniana: in honour of Gordon King.

There are many variations of small glabrous and spined plants in the Hankey/Patensie area and it is rather problematic to decide to which species they really belong.  Von Poellnitz associated his species with H. cooperi as recognised in this work and it is thus the small blue-green element which is nearly identical to his H. stayneri.  Unlike the latter which is made synonymous with H. cooperi var. pilifera the leaf tips do not truncate on exposure to direct sun.  It differs from similar plants which are regarded as H. gracilis, in that the outer leaves stay incurved and are sparsely spined.  Also the leaves are usually more thickly turgid than in that species.  The plants are less proliferous and tend to be withdrawn into the soil.

Distribution:
3323 (Willowmore): Redcliffe (-BA), Bruyns 7062 (BOL); Uniondale Poort (-CA), Bayer 4404 (NBG); Damse Drif (-CA), Bruyns 1651, 1652 (NBG); Nuwekloof (-CA), Bruyns 1840 (NBG); Saptou (-CB), Bruyns 7079 (BOL); Studtjes (-DB), Bruyns 2190 (NBG).  3324 (Steytlerville): Enkeldoorn (-CB), Perry 1427 (NBG), Bean (NBG); Holgat Kloof (-CC), van Jaarsveld 6885 (NBG); Moordenaarskloof (-CD), Stayner in KG673/71 (NBG);  Grootriver Poort (-DA), Bruyns 2202 (NBG); Quagga to Cambria (-DA), Smith 2912 (NBG); Cambria (-DA), Smith 2904 (NBG); Ouplaas (-DB), Bruyns 7043 (BOL); 2km E. Hankey (-DD), Rossouw 141 (NBG); Patensie (-DD), Smith 3025 (NBG); E. Patensie (-DD), Smith 2908 (NBG); S. Hankey (-DD), Smith 3186 (NBG); Hankey (-DD), Smith 2905 (NBG); 5km N. Hankey (-DD), Bayer in KG193/73 (NBG); N. Hankey (-DD), Smith 2883, 3687 (NBG); NE. Hankey (-DD), Bayer 4474 (NBG), Stayner in KG180/71 (NBG); E. Hankey (-DD), Smith 2597, 2893, 2980 (NBG); Stayner in KG180/71 (NBG); 7km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Smith 3671 (NBG); 5km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6553 (NBG); 8km N. Zuurbron (-DD), Bayer & Bruyns 6554 (NBG); N. Joubertina (-DD), Venter 91/64 (NBG).  3325DC Coega Kop(-DC), Long 1132 (PRE).  3424 (Humansdorp): Jeffrey’s Bay (-BB), Bayer & Venter 6597 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Herre STE6609 (BOL).

d. var. leightonii (Smith) Bayer
:128(1976).  Bayer :34(1982).  H. leightonii Smith, JS.Afr.Bot. 16:10(1950).  Scott :107(1985).  pp. H. cooperi Bak., Scott, Cact.Succ.J(U.S.) 53:70(1981).  Type: CAPE-3327 (Peddie): Kayser’s Beach (-BA), Smith 6938 (NBG).

leightonii: for I. Leighton.

There are several populations of this variety and the circumscription is enlarged to include those from further to the northwest in which the leaves are also more lanceolate and untruncated.  It is almost certainly an ecotype associated with the granitic slabs of the coastal area near Kayser’s Beach, where the plants are very proliferous indeed.  This, and the strong purplish coloration, characterise the variety.

Distribution:
3327 (Peddie): Kaysers Beach (-BA), I.H. Leighton in NBG 68362, Smith 6938 (NBG), Bayer in KG6/72 (NBG), Venter 91/105 (NBG); SW. Paynes Hill (-BA), Smith 514 (NBG); Bayer 1621 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Kingwilliamstown, Taylor 3039 (NBG), Leighton in NBG662/34.

e. var. pilifera (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb.nov. 
H. pilifera Baker, Saund.Ref.Bot. 4:t.234(1871).  V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44:236(1938).  Scott :104(1985).  H. obtusa var. pilifera (Baker) Uitew., Succulenta 29:50(1948).  Type: Not preserved.  Lectotype (here designated): icon, :t.234, Saund.Ref.Bot.:  H. stayneri V.Poelln. loc.cit. 42:270(1937).  H. pilifera var. stayneri idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. stayneri (V.Poelln.) Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: 14m Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage, F.J.Stayner. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): 13.8m Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage (-DD), F.J.Stayner in KG 2/70 (NBG):  H. stayneri var. salina V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 42:271(1937).  H. pilifera var. salina idem. 44:237(1938).  H. obtusa var. salina (V.Poelln.)Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: Cape, Bethelsdorp Salt Pan, Mrs King. Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3325 (Port Elizabeth): Bethelsdorp salt pan (-DD), Smith 5817 (NBG):  H. pilifera var. dielsiana fa acuminata V.Poelln. loc.cit. 49:27(1940).  H. obtusa var. dielsiana fa acuminata (V.Poelln.) Uitew. loc.cit.  Type: 4m from Kingwilliamstown, F.A.Fouche.  Not preserved.  Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3227(Kingwilliamstown): 5km Kingwilliamstown to Pirie Dam (-CC), Smith 3913 (NBG):  H. altilinea Haw. sensu Scott, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 34:53(1979).  Scott :84(1985).

pilifera: with hairs.

This variety constitutes the main body of the species which is centred about Kingwilliamstown and Grahamstown.  It is characterised by the obtuse acuminate end-area with a pronounced point to the leaf.  The margins and keel are sharply angled.  It is very closely drawn into the soil surface and, on exposure to direct sunlight truncates to form a necrotic end-area.

Distribution:
3128 (Umtata): Viedgesville (-DA), Rush in KG87/80 (NBG).  3225(Somerset East): Little Fish (-DA), Smith 5551 (NBG); Cookhouse, Patryshoogte (-DD), Long 1462 (PRE).  3226 (Fort Beaufort): 24km S. Bedford (-AC), Bursey in KG335/70 (NBG); Good Hope, Alice (-DD), Smith 5496 (NBG); Fort Hare, Cressey in NBG2132/26 BOL); Alice (-DD), Smith 5210 (NBG); Middledrift (-DD), Smith 5342 (NBG).  3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Peddie (-AA), Smith 5654 (NBG); Fort Murray Bridge (-BD), Bayer (NBG); E. Kieskammahoek (-CA), Smith 6065 (NBG); Kieskammahoek (-CA), Smith 5309, 7350 (NBG); Stayner (NBG); 5km Kingwilliamstown to Pirie Dam (-CC), Smith 3110, 3913 (NBG): (-CC), Dyer 2079 (PRE); Golf course (-CD), Scott 1980 (PRE), Crampton in NBG1096/28 (NBG), Taylor in NBG250/34 (NBG); Line Drift (-CD), Smith 5434 (NBG); Balazi (-CD), Smith 3574 (NBG); St Johns Drift (-DA), Bayer 1623 (NBG); Near Komgha (-DB), Flanagan 1116 (BOL, PRE); Brigadoon (-DC), Bayer 4460 (NBG); Buffalo River (-DC), Smith in NBG343/35 (NBG); Bridal Drift (-DC), Smith 386 (NBG); Cambridge (-DD), Grenfell in NBG872/35.  3325 (Port Elizabeth): Cookhouse to Zuurberg (-BA), Smith 3494 (NBG); Shenfield (-BB), Blackburn in BOL71305; Kommadagga (-BB), Bruyns 1651 (NBG); 18km N. Zuurberg Inn (-BC), Stayner in PRE 57676; Enon (-BC), Dyer 498a (PRE); Zuurberg (-BC), Stayner in KG685/71 (NBG); Addo Park (-BD), Branch 31 (NBG); Bauerskraal (-CB), Bayer & Venter 6559 (NBG); Despatch (-CD), Muir 13133 (PRE). 1km W. Uitenhage (-CD), Smith 5818 (NBG), Britten (BOL); 22km Port Elizabeth to Uitenhage (-DC), F.J.Stayner in KG 2/70 (NBG); E. Uitenhage (-DC), Smith 3582 (NBG); Bethelsdorp salt pan (-DC), Smith 5817 (NBG), Stayner in KG2/70; Redhouse (-DC), Paterson 431 (BOL).  3326(Grahamstown): E. Riebeek East (-AA), Smith 5219 (NBG); Willowfountain (-AA), Bayer 1622 (NBG); Blaauwkrantz (-AC), Dyer 2306 (PRE); NW. Salem (-AD), Bayer 4450 (NBG); 8km N. Grahamstown (-AD), Smith 5628 (NBG), Britten in BOL71290;  The Fort (-BA), Smith 5065 (NBG); Keiskamma near Breakfast Vlei (-BB), Acocks 11871 (PRE); Debe Nek (-BB), Smith 3545 (NBG); N. Committees (-BB), Smith 5435 (NBG); E. Committees (-BB), Smith 5430 (NBG); Committees (-BB), Smith 2428, 5352, 5353, 5366 (NBG), 16km N. Cradock road (-BC), Marloth 12607 (PRE); Grahamstown (-BC), Whitmore in NBG1238/24 (NBG), Erens in PRE 34929; Bothas Hill (-BC), Smith 5355 (NBG);  Frazers Camp (-BD), Smith 5215, 7413 (NBG); Peninsula (-DA), Bayer in KG383/70 (NBG); Brigadoon (-DC), Bayer in KG382/70 (NBG).  3327(East London): S. Kingwilliamstown (-AB), Krynauw in NBG684/41 (NBG); E. Chalumna (-BA), Smith 5773 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Cape ex hort, Marloth 5861 (PRE); Grahamstown, Dyer 1 (BOL), Britten in BOL71289; Leighton in NBG662/34, in BOL71301 (BOL); Kingwilliamstown, Sim 1030 (BOL), Herre in STE6619 (BOL); Mquakwebe, Leighton in BOL20734-6, in Smith 6938 (BOL).

e. var. truncata (Jacobs.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov. 
H,. obtusa var. truncata Jacobs., Nat. Catt. Succ. J. 10: 81 (1955). Type: Not preserved. Neotype: (B&M in ms.): icon in Jacobsen, Handbuch der Sukk. Pfl. 724, f644 (1956). Epitype: CAPE-3227 (Stutterheim): Runlets, Mgwali (-DA), Smith 5295 (NBG).

truncata: with obtuse leaves.

Rosette proliferous, to 70mm φ, Leaves 20-25, 20-25 x 8mm wide, pale blue-green, erect, truncated, translucent and lightly veined above.  (A var. cooperi foliis parvioribus truncatis differt).

I am grateful to I. Breuer for drawing attention to the possible correct application of this name. The important arbiter would actually be colour, which Jacobsen does not stipulate.  However, Breier suggests the plants from the Bolo Reserve distributed under I.S.I. No. 1762 represent Jacobsen’s variety; otherwise I would have incorporated it with H. cymbiformis var. obtusa. This is a smaller variety than the western var. dielsiana with similarly truncated leaves, and the distinction is largely on geographical grounds.  Other differences are the smaller size, the rapid off-setting, and the almost unlined leaves of the var. truncata as opposed to var. dielsiana.   The var. truncata is at the northeast of the distribution range of the species where it extends into the Transkei.  Both Bayer and Pilbeam, and Scott have attempted to refute Uitewaal’s interpretation of H. obtusa Haw. as an earlier synonym for H. cooperi.  This is a case in which the option is entirely an open one.  How and why Uitewaal chose to depart from the general application of the name seems to be the norm for Haworthia.

Distribution:
3227 (Kingwilliamstown): Hunts Drift (-AC), Smith 5175 (NBG); Inerbolo (-BC), Bruyns (NBG); Mgwali (-BC), Smith 5193 (NBG); Runlets, Mgwali (-DA), Smith 5295 (NBG).

g. var. venusta (Scott) Bayer comb.nov. 
H. venusta Scott, Bradleya 14:87(1996).  Type: CAPE-3226 (Grahamstown): NE. Alexandria (-DA), Britten 781 (GRA).

venusta: charming, and for Miss Grace Britten. Her excellent herbarium sheet led to the recent rediscovery by Gerhard Marx.

This very handsome variety is, surprisingly, coarse white-haired, exaggerating the slightly hairy tendency foundin the other varieties. It offsets sparsely if at all, and remains quite small.

Distribution:
3326 (Grahamstown): NE. Alexandria (-DA), Britten 781 (GHS, NBG), Britten and Archibald 781 (BOL, PRE).

Volume 1, Chapter 1:- Haworthia gracilis, H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi in the greater Baviaanskloof area

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 HaworthiaAstroloba does not occur in the Humansdorp area. There is instead the curious Haworthia pungens. The Baviaanskloof is home to several endemic Gasterias as well as to Aloe pictifolia. Haworthia viscosa 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 cooperivar. 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 gracilisvar. gracilis
var. tenera
var. isabellae
Haworthia cymbiformisvar. 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 decipiensH. 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.

MBB6826-25 Rooikloof, mid-Baviaanskloof. Steep conglomerate face, clustering plants – isabellae.

MBB6825-26 Lower Geelhoutboskloof. Cool shaded, steep riverine rock faces.  Clustering – transiens-picturata.

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 cymbiformisGordoniana 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 isabellaeIsabellae 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. ♦

Volume 1, Chapter 4:- Haworthia cooperi and Haworthia bolusii var. blackbeardiana

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:-

  1. 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’).
  2. 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:

  1. Consensus on the issue of species definition.
  2. Consensus on the issue of a set of names.
  3. Familiarity with herbarium records and what these represent in terms of fact and fixed reference points.
  4. Familiarity with the written record.
  5. Familiarity with South African geography and the ability to interpret populations in that context.

Volume 1, Chapter 5:- The Haworthias of Kaboega

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. ♦

M. B. Bayer, Cape Town.
Ian Ritchie, Somerset East.

Volume 2, Chapter 7:- Continuity of Haworthia on the Zuurberg

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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. cooperigraciloid’ 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.

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. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 9:- New Names and Combinations in Haworthia

This essay was published in Haworthiad 16:62, 2002.

Introduction

Subsequent to my revision Haworthia Revisited (1999), I have done much more fieldwork, particularly in the Eastern Cape. This has revealed even more striking evidence of the intense inter‑relatedness of the so‑called species in Haworthia. Classification and revisionary classification is a sampling process. As this progresses and more material is collected, so the classification firms up. A extensive discussion explaining the following combinations and two new varieties is provided in Haworthia Update Vol.1 and an insight into the taxonomic problems to be solved is provided by the illustrations with another article, “Small Hairy Things”.

My classification had some problem areas that were anticipated to a degree in Haworthia Revisited. The following sentence appears in the discussion of H. cymbiformis var. transiens: “Thus H. mucronata can be allied with equal facility to either H. cymbiformis or H. cooperi, when in fact in the field it is more intimately related to H. decipiens. The location of this note is a powerful reminder that distinctions between species are highly blurred and that alternative solutions are possible.” I also make repeated references to the nature of the relationship of species and variants. Many of those are specific to, or apply to, or are predictive of the following changes. The basis of the following combinations is thus laid in Haworthia Revisited.

Although collections are cited, these are not always now represented by herbarium specimens. The reason for this is simply one of resources: herbarium space, the impracticality of trying to represent all the variants in such herbarium state, and the effort required to manage living collections and their preservation as specimens. A photographic record is being maintained in lieu of dried specimens in herbaria, where the record extant is deemed to be otherwise inadequate.

The following new names and combinations are published below:

1. Re‑arrangement of Haworthia pringlei and H. xiphiophylla within H. bolusii and H. decipiens
H. bolusii var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. decipiens var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. decipiens var. virella M.B.Bayer var. nov.

2. Goodbye to Haworthia gracilis
H. cooperi var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. picturata (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. viridis (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.
H. cooperi var. doldii M.B.Bayer var. nov.

3. A familiar new species, Haworthia transiens
H. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer stat. nov.

4. Where does Haworthia helmiae belong?
H. helmiae transferred to H. arachnoidea var. nigricans in synonymy .

1. Re‑arrangement of Haworthia pringlei and H. xiphiophylla within H.bolusii and H. decipiens

H. bolusii var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. pringlei C.L.Scott, Bradleya 12: 103 (1994). H. decipiens var. pringlei (C.L.Scott) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 67 (1999) in respect of the type only. Type: CAPE‑3224 (Graaff Reinet): Adelaide district (‑DD), Scott in PRE8970 (holotype).

Collections:

3224 (Graaff Reinet): Adelaide district (‑DD), Scott in PRE8970.

3225 (Somerset East): Baviaanskranz (‑DB), Bayer 6561; Ripon (‑BB), Bayer 6556; W. Ripon (‑BB), Bayer 6927.

All the other specimens and collections cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. decipiens var. pringlei are transferred to a new variety, H. decipiens var. virella.

My collection from east of Somerset East (Baviaanskranz) MBB6561 supported by the two Ripon collections above, and by several other collections pertaining to H. aristata, indicates that H. pringlei C.L. Scott is in fact better related to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. This is suggested by its interactions with H. cooperi var. dielsiana at Ripon, and complicated both by interaction with H. aristata south of that and extending to the new variety H. decipiens var. virella. This new combination is explained further in the discussion following var. virella.

H. decipiens var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

Haworthia xiphiophylla Baker, Fl.Cap. 6: 354 (1896). H. arachnoidea var. xiphiophylla (Baker) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 36 (1999). Type: Cape-3325 (Port Elizabeth); near Uitenhage, Howlett s.n. cult. Kew (holotype): icon (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): N. Coega Station (‑DA), Mrs E.B. King (NBG).

My earlier transfer of the element xiphiophylla (Figs.1, MBB6604 2a, b & c MBB6616) to H. arachnoidea in Haworthia Revisited was done with some reluctance and based on two main collections by Venter (Fig.3 JDV91/122 and JDV91/117, both vicinity of Mentz Dam). (Note: I do not regard an earlier transfer by J.J. Halda to H. arachniodea as valid. Halda put forward many nomenclatural changes which are so ridiculous that I do not accept their publication as serious botanical work – Halda’s folly is summarised in Haworthiad 14:35, 2000. How decisions are made can be questionable at the best of times and mine are made from a deep instinctive response arising from wide experience. Mistakes are excusable in view of the inherent difficulty of making decisions in Haworthia, but not excusable if made in total ignorance).

This change now follows my own fieldwork and particularly the collection MBB7028 (Figs 4a & b). from Darlington Dam (Lake Mentz. Other recent collections by principally Philip Desmet of University of Cape Town, and by me, show that xiphiophylla must point in the direction of H. decipiens as H. arachnoidea is present as a very distinctive dark green entity with minimum translucence, in the Steytlerville area. On the other hand there are many collections from the Groot Winterberg linking the Uitenhage/Coega xiphiophylla with H. decipiens variants in the Jansenville and Steytlerville areas. This also impacts on the question/problem of the relationship of H. gracilis var. viridis (transferred to H. cooperi in this paper) and H. cooperi to H. decipiens. To facilitate communication and discussion, I thought at first that it would be advisable to widen the application of the name xiphiophylla to incorporate a wide range of collections from the vicinity of Pearston, extending to north‑west of Jansenville and southwards to Willowmore and back to Kirkwood. These are decipiens‑like plants. Instead, I have reluctantly described these as the new variety H. decipiens var. virella, with the var. xiphiophylla transferred from H. arachnoidea to H. decipiens.

H. decipiens var. virella M.B.Bayer var. nov.

Holotype: CAPE‑3224 (Graaff Reinet): Ebenezer (‑DB), Bayer 2070 (NBG) (Figs.5 JDV87-81, 6a & b MBB7023).

virella: greenish, somewhat green.

From var. decipiens, it differs with broader flatter leaves, incurved resembling H. arachnoidea and with inter‑veinal translucence. Includes populations transitional to H. decipiens var. minor M.B.Bayer and to H. cooperi var. viridis M.B.Bayer. (A var. decipiens differt foliis latioribus, planioribus, incurvis similis H. arachanoidea et interveniis translucidis. Includet populi transitionum ad H. decipiens var. minor M.B.Bayer et H. cooperi var. viridis M.B.Bayer.)

Collections:

3223 (Rietbron): S. Aberdeen (‑DC), Perry 659 (NBG).

3224 (Graaff Reinet): Aberdeen Road (‑CD), C.A. Smith 2806a (PRE); Oatlands (‑CD), G.G.Smith 907 (NBG); Ebenezer (‑DB), G.G.Smith 7245 (NBG), Bayer 2070 (NBG); Harefield (‑DB), G.G.Smith 7244 (NBG); Meerlust (‑DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6580; Welgelegen (‑DC), Bayer & Bruyns 6581 (-DC) (Fig.7) (NBG); Jansenville (‑DC), Stayner in KG 188/62 (NBG); Langollen (‑DD), Bayer 7043 (Figs.8a & b); DeRust, Lootskloof (‑DD), Bayer 7047 (Fig.9); Palmietfontein (‑DD), Bayer 7041 (Fig.10).

3225 (Somerset East): SE. Pearston (‑CC), Bayer 7022 (Figs.11a & b).

3324 (Steytlerville): Klipplaat (‑AB), Branch (NBG); SE. Mt. Stewart (‑AB), Bayer & Bruyns 6582 (Fig.12) (NBG); Waaipoort (‑AB), Bayer 6583.

3325 (Port Elizabeth): Lake Mentz (‑AA), Bayer 7028 (Figs.4a & b)

I have included Bayer & Bruyns 6580 from Meerlust, previously cited under H. decipiens var. decipiens and MBB6583 from Waaipoort, previously cited under H. decipiens var. minor. These changes may seem flippant and frivolous, but they should be seen as evidence of complex continuities that may not ever be resolved.

These plants have longer more attenuate leaves than H. decipiens, but with the brighter green of the typical var. xiphiophylla. The spination is generally coarser and firmer than H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. These are the plants I had in mind when I decided to absorb Scott’s H. pringlei in H. decipiens. I wish to stress that doing so was not as mindless as may be suggested, because there is still a greater inherent problem in this new arrangement. There are populations, particularly south of Cradock, of H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, which cannot be distinguished from populations of H. decipiens var. virella. Ironically, such latter populations near Pearston, grow with and discrete from H. bolusii var. bolusii (Figs.11 a & b).  I also include illustrations of three collections from E. Steytlerville (Figs.13 JDV5-68, 14 JDV91-118 & 15 JDV93-40).

I do recognise that H. decipiens is a species that I do not know well enough; despite all the material I have seen. It perhaps occupies a geographical pivotal role in the interpretation of particularly H. cooperi, as I have now constituted that species. Pivotal in that it occupies the geographic centre stage between the south‑western Cape, the Karoo and the Eastern Cape; and is to some degree continuous with “species” in those areas. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that H. mucronata is actually directly involved with either H. cymbiformis or H. cooperi. There is no doubt that there is visual similarity, but I expect and regard the geographic association to be via H. decipiens.

2. Goodbye to Haworthia gracilis

It is difficult to reconcile recent field observations with my Haworthia Revisited concepts of H. cooperi and H. gracilis. However, there is a solution that can be offered for the classification problems, as discussed in depth in Haworthia Update (in press). If the concept of H. cooperi is enlarged to incorporate H. gracilis (a relatively recent von Poellnitz name), a more practical solution is presented.

This new concept of H. cooperi as a super‑species only excludes H. cymbiformis and H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana with some difficulty. These are important issues, but which I think are largely addressed by the changes made in this paper. It should be recognised implicitly that H. bolusii var. pringlei and H. decipiens var. virella, in terms of their history and present treatment, point directly at a connection between H. cooperi, H. bolusii and H. decipiens, as well as at wider associations.

H. cooperi var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 27: 133 (1929). Idem 41: 201 (1937). Non C.L.Scott, The Genus Haworthia: 69 (1985). M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 75 (1999). Type: Graaff‑Reinet, Amalienstein, Willowmore, Stellenbosch. Not preserved. Lectotype (Breuer, World of Haworthias 1:150 (1998): unpublished photographic icon :H. gracilis v.P. in (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3326 (Grahamstown): Hellspoort (‑BA), Britten (PRE).

H. cooperi var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. isabellae v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 44: 226 (1938). Non C.L.Scott: 76 (1985). H. gracilis var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 77 (1999). Type: Cape, near Port Elizabeth, Mrs I. King.  Not preserved.  Neotype: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Humansdorp, Gamtoos Bridge (‑CC), H. Hall in NBG  68799.

H. cooperi var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. tenera v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 31: 86 (1933). C.L.Scott: 76 (1985). H. gracilis var. tenera (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 77 (1999). Type: Cape, Pluto’s Vale, Grahamstown, Miss Blackbeard 15. Not preserved. Neotype (Breuer & Metzing, Taxon 46(1):3 (1997): CAPE‑3326 (Grahamstown): Glenelg (BA), G.G.Smith 5416 (NBG).

H. cooperi var. picturata (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis var. picturata M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 78 (1999). Type: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Enon (‑BC), Thode 21507 (NBG, Holo.).

H. cooperi var. viridis (M.B.Bayer) M.B.Bayer comb. nov.

H. gracilis var. viridis M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 79 (1999). Type: CAPE‑3325 (Port Elizabeth): Perdepoort (‑AC), G.G.Smith 6867 (NBG, holotype).

H. cooperi var. doldii M.B.Bayer var. nov.

Holotype: CAPE‑3327 (East London): Chalumna (‑BA), Dold 3961 (GRA) (Figs.16a & b).

Rosettes small to 30mm diameter with 25‑30 slender, attenuate leaves to 50mm long, erect spreading, dark purplish green and with firm white marginal spines 2‑3mm long. (Rosulae parvae 30mm diametro, foliis 25‑30 gracilibus, attenuatis, 50mm longis, erecto‑expansis, atropurpureo‑virdibus et spinis marginalibus firmis albis 2‑3mm longis.)

Collections: Only known from type locality.

This new, small form of H. cooperi is in the geographical orbit of the var. leightonii at Kaiser’s Beach and the more graciloid forms of the latter at Payne’s Hill, also nearby. It is named for Tony Dold of the Schonland Herbarium, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, who first collected it. I am recognising it as a distinct variety because of its geographic separation from other isabellae‑like plants and because it also has coarser spination and a darker purplish‑colour than the other small varieties of H. cooperi.

3. A familiar new species, Haworthia transiens

H. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer stat. nov.

H. planifolia var. transiens v.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45: 163 (1938). H. cymbiformis var. transiens (v.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer, Haworthia Handbook: 162 (1976). M.B.Bayer, New Haworthia Handbook: 36 (1982). Type: Cape, Prince Alfred’s Pass, Archibald 327. Not preserved. Lectotype (Breuer & Metzing, Taxon 46(1):3 (1997): icon 5479 “H. planifolia var. transiens v.P.Typ.” (B).  H. cymbiformis var. translucens Triebner et v.Poelln. idem 45:166 (1938). C.L.Scott: 94 (1985). Type: Cape, Prince Alfred’s Pass, Lategan in Triebner 1137. Not preserved.  Neotype: CAPE‑3323 (Willowmore): Prince Alfred’s Pass, G.G.Smith 5709 (NBG).

Additional collections: (private photographic record, and living plants, not necessarily herbarium specimens):

3323 (Willowmore): Adamskraal (‑BC), Desmet 2077; Horee (‑DB), EvJ15548; Brandhoek (‑DD), MBB6726a.

3324 (Steytlerville): Geelhoutboskloof (‑CA), MBB6825; Diepriver (‑CB), EvJ15342.

The collection 3324 (Steytlerville): N Komdomo (‑DA), MBB 6789 includes plants which are this element, and the population intergrades to H. cooperi var. picturata and H. cooperi var. gordoniana. Similarly 3324 (Steytlerville): Grootriverpoort (‑DA), EvJ15927 is approximately transitional to H. cooperi var. isabellae. This intergradation is not only according to physical similarity but also geographic and ecotypic.

In raising this element to specific status, I am now suggesting that specimens cited in Haworthia Revisited as H. cymbiformis vars. brevifolia Triebner et v.Poelln. and multifolia Triebner from Uitenhage (Hellsgate) do indeed belong in H. cymbiformis.

All the variants of H. transiens that I am aware of, link this species with variants of H. cooperi as now constituted. That is where the continuity is. Thus I am recognising the fact that H. transiens is more directly connected to a broad concept of H. cooperi and less to any such one for H. cymbiformisH. transiens is most closely continuous with H. cooperi var. picturata, which can be shown to be also continuous with the vars. gordoniana and isabellae. This is said within the context of my report on the variation of Haworthia at Kaboega in Haworthia Update (in press), where H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis are also said to be continuous. The difference from the case of those ex‑gracilis varieties, is in the distribution and number of populations in the Baviaanskloof which can be reasonably identified as H. transiens.

4. Where does Haworthia helmiae belong?

In M.B. Bayer, Haworthia Revisited: 117 (1999), both H. helmiae and H. integra were cited under H. mucronata, although the word ‘integra’ was erroneously omitted, and thus also omitted from the index. In a manuscript with Aloe (in press), I correct my citation of H. mucronata and let H. integra revert to the status of excluded names, because it was so poorly known and confused for so many years. I did however, leave the citation of H. helmiae under H. mucronata, which is a mistake ‑ especially as I cite the specimen and discuss the population as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans. My interpretation is still based on Scott’s statement that Mrs. Helm had collected this at a specific site in Schoemanspoort, near Oudtshoorn, where I subsequently collected. Had it not been for Scott, H. helmiae would also have been assigned to the ranks of the excluded and insufficiently known. The correct citation for H. helmiae v.Poelln. sensu Bayer is:

H. arachnoidea var. nigricans (Haw.) M.B.Bayer

Syn. Haworthia helmiae v.Poelln., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 41: 201 (1937).  C.L.Scott: 99 (1985). Type: Cape, Heidelberg, Smithers in Triebner 891, Great Brak River, Mrs Helm in Triebner 901. Not preserved. Lectotype: icon “H. helmiae v.P.”, Great Brak, Triebner 898 (B). Epitype: CAPE‑3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (‑AC), M.B.Bayer 171 (NBG).

I have to point out that formal nomenclature is not my forte and that I have little enthusiasm for it. One of the reasons is that, in my opinion, it spawns authors and spurious authority recklessly and needlessly. Breuer, World of Haworthias 2: xiii (2000), states that I do not demonstrate ambiguity when I have cited epitypes where lectotypes had been selected. The fact is that in Haworthia just about any type is self‑evidently ambiguous and it seems hardly worth repeating the entire literature to prove this obvious point.

In the case of H. helmiae, von Poellnitz cites four Triebner numbers for four different collections. These were cited as from Heidelberg, Great Brak, George and Brandwacht (Brandwacht could also be said to be Great Brak ‑ Mrs. Helm lived actually nearer Little Brak at Brandwacht). I said in Haworthia Handbook: 60 (1982), that there is one photograph for Triebner 898 (Great Brak!) that could be taken to agree with plants from Schoemanspoort. Breuer (Idem: 512) repeated this as lectotypification. The fact is that it could be taken for anything. Breuer (Idem: 511, Haworthiad 15(3): 84 (2001) and private communication) now suggests (apparently on the basis of a photograph of Fourcade 5407 and one by Brown in Cact. Succ. J. (US) 18: 39 (1946)) that my H. outeniquensis is in fact this species. This is not convincing evidence in the paradigm of the Haworthia literature, nor in the face of the Fourcade photographs. My contention is that it is misleading to attempt to rewrite literature and interpret types without an adequate understanding of biological diversity and the problems of variation and species delimitation.

Where next for Haworthia description?

It must again be stressed that these new combinations and varieties will facilitate discussion, but will not eliminate the intrinsic problem of continuity. Although H. cooperi here seems to become a huge unwieldy entity, this better expresses the field situation, while still falling short. The recognition of species often requires the extension of a concept, which is the nomenclatural one derived from a single plant or from limited sampling. This may or may not be really representative of anything. It is very destructive and confusing if this nomenclatural aspect overrides the functional way in which names come to be used and are meant to be used.

There are real problems in attempting to classify Haworthia. In Haworthia Revisited, I stated that I tried “to practically identify nodes in a complex interlinked web”. The definition of “node” in physics is “a point of minimum displacement in a standing wave” ‑ and this is the meaning I transfer to Haworthia. The species should be seen as a series of standing waves superimposed over one another and they generally do not separate. My names are intended to be used to identify the principal groups of plants and populations that may be meaningful for identification. These names also relate those plants to geographic factors and to other plant species and vegetation.

The element H. transiens has always been problematic for me, as it does merge into H. cooperi var. picturata. There is a similar mergence of H. cooperi var. gracilis to H. cymbiformis var. incurvula at Pluto’s Vale, but which is localised. At Kaboega, the mergence of H. cooperi with H. cymbiformis is similarly complex, but it is here where there is real benefit from incorporating H. gracilis into the former. Thus the brighter green forms of the continuum are thus equated with H. cooperi var. viridis, the smaller spined forms with H. cooperi var. isabellae, and others either with H. cooperi var. gordoniana or H. cooperi var. cooperi. The difficulty is at the departure from the tight geographical boundaries of those variants, as well as from the implied or actual concomitant genetic variation. It is impossible to find consistent degrees of difference.  There is a difficulty in explaining the relationship of all the Baviaanskloof elements and particularly the way H. cooperi var. gordoniana relates to H. decipiens from the Zuurberg in the east, to Uniondale in the west.

It is also not possible to find a classification solution that satisfactorily explains the extension of the relationships of H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis to H. decipiens and H. aristata. To do so would mean incorporating them within either species, and this would only lead to still further combinations and problems. I must personally resist any further proposals to combine the species that I regard as discrete. In the opposite direction, adding names for all the existing variants of already recognised elements will result in an unmanageable plethora, with the prospect of new names for further variants still to be found and this also cannot be supported.

In such a horticulturally popular group as Haworthia, there is an unfortunate pressure for classification which may have nothing to do with botanical realities. Often this has been done early in a learning process, rather than as a consequence of accumulated knowledge. Thus different opinions may be expressed with insufficient experience and sampled material. I think that it will be foolish in the extreme for anyone to make pronouncements or attempt to alter what has now been done without extensive additional field data and a greater understanding than my own.

I hope this discussion will drive other authors towards a more considered attitude to classification and the application of names.

Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed in one way or another to the above. Among them, I would like to express appreciation to J.D. Venter for ongoing support; to Mr. and Mrs. G. Hobson of Ebenezer for their kindness and hospitality; P.V. Bruyns and Gerhard Marx for locations; to Tony Dold for the Chalumna find and for other assistance and support. Also, to Alan Butler, Gretchen Loucka and Derek Tribble for assistance with this text. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 10:- Small Hairy Things

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.

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.

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. gracilis cooperi) 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.

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.

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. cooperipuberula). 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…) ♦

Volume 4, Chapter 10:- Post-closure

This note is not strictly after closure because Cameron MacMaster (Cameron knows the plants, especially the bulbs, of the E Cape intimately and was instrumental in the re-location of H. marumiana many years ago.) sent me a picture (Fig.1) of a Haworthia from Glen Avon Falls east of Somerset East some time ago and this has been a lure to me ever since I saw vdW287(PRE). It should be noted that this specimen is cited, I must note a sentiment of considerable reservation which was not conveyed by the rigidity of print, in Haworthia Revisited (p.67) under H. decipiens var. minor… “3225 (Somerset East): in valley behind Bosberg (-DA), van der Westhuizen 287 (PRE).” I have visited the Bosberg in a weak attempt to locate such a plant after a fruitless attempt to determine who and where the collector was and is. The area is intimidating in its vastness as are so many of the hills and mountains of the Cape and with so much still to explore, this area has not been a priority. In fact I have just recognized that while I wrote Revisited in response to pressure, my subsequent exploration has been to seek validation for my own comfort rather than to try and impress anyone. This recent visit to the Bosberg is only because an odd opportunity arose for me to revisit my friends (Ian and Sandi Ritchie) on Kaboega, coupled with interest from a distant botanist acquaintance in Prof. Richard Cowling. Prof. Cowling is one of those rare botanists from whom I have really learned something to think about rather than just to remember. I had contacted him because in my correspondence with Jan Vlok about the vegetation of the Mossel Bay area, he had copied responses to Prof. Cowling. The outcome was that I was introduced to Dr. Syd Ramdhani who is now contracted under Cowling to study the biogeography of Bulbine as a post-doctoral task. Dr. Ramdhani studied Kniphofia and works in the molecular-biology laboratory of Rhodes University managed by Dr. Nigel Barker. Dr. Ramdhani is now also tasked and occupied with a feasibility study of Haworthia as a target group for extended biogeographical research where H. cooperi has been suggested by me as a possible fruitful area of interest. (These botanists have been warned not to be influenced by Bayer!)  So I have been aware that the MacMaster plant could signify a replicate of the Kaboega/Helspoort/Plutos Vale/Baviaanskloof/ complexes which suggest that H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis may be one species. My visit to Glen Avon Falls was then added to the familiarization of Dr. Ramdhani with Haworthia on Kaboega.

With the kind assistance of Bill and Allison Brown of Glen Avon farm and then Bill Playdon of Glen Craig, we gained access to the waterfall which is now a National Heritage site. The road cannot be described as suitable for anything but a rugged 4X4 but we took it on in our less suited vehicle to save time (cost = 1 tyre!). We found just 5 plants and photographed three (figs. 2, 3 & 4). The terrain is really rugged and I have no doubt that the plants will occur in greater abundance nearby and also in the greater area of the Bosberg – and that such populations will follow the same pattern now so familiar to me and so seemingly strange to so many haworthiophile writers of my acquaintance. The plants call to mind an article that I wrote in conjunction with John Pilbeam (Cact. Succ. J (US) 46:166, 1974) where we ironically considered H. obtusa to be a variant of H. cymbiformis rather than of H. cooperi. The latter species is everywhere about the Bosberg while H. cymbiformis is to my knowledge far further to the south and east at Alicedale.

Returning to Kaboega, we took a brief look at some of the populations recorded and discussed in Haworthia Update Vol.1. Dr. Ramdhani left us there and we continued our holiday. We had been intrigued by Ian Ritchie’s discovery of a second population of H. sordida (figs. 5, 6 & 7) and while exploring that took a different route back to the vehicle. On the way we found another population of H. cooperi cf cymbiformis (I will be accused of inconsistency here because I have referred to these variants as graciloid, cf viridis, cymbiformoid if not also by some other name. Figs, 8, 9 & 10). I am not going to try and discuss or describe these plants any further than already done in the literature and because the following considerations come to mind.

A botanist acquaintance is most scornful of my opinions and my solutions for Haworthia and wrote to me… ”I believe taxonomy is an explicit, precise discipline governed by certain rules, if they are obeyed, things will fall into place. If they are ignored, you land up in a mess.” This botanist who might well have been raised on Enid Blyton and the famous five, or Bryce Courtenay and Aloe brevifolia in the Barberton hills from Power of One or the BIG tree in The Four Fires, when it comes to secrecy and drama, field botany and field familiarity in particular. The ICBN is no doubt hot-stuff where nomenclature is concerned but pretty damned useless when it comes to what these are used for. If things are going to fall into place it will be because we all make a more concerted effort towards mutual understanding and common purpose.

Secrecy in respect of localities I do sympathize with. The question is if this serves any purpose. My opinion is that, quite apart from the fact that secrecy has no place in science, it does not have any merit. Where secrecy is practiced there can be no organized skepticism and no shared reality or truth. I see it used to obfuscate and obstruct the healthy organization of skepticism by others and possible alternate solutions. There may be a down-side in that unscrupulous individuals may decimate populations or remove valuable genetic material and diversity from the field. The reality is that this is happening all the time at far greater scale than that of a few collectors. If it were not for collectors our knowledge base would have been infinitely smaller and who knows what the negative impact of the dwindling numbers of taxonomists is going to be. My negative view of conservation is that it is a sentiment with its origins in collectors and that it is now functioning to discourage the very interest that gave birth to it.

On our travel home from Kaboega, I kept looking towards the hills and mountains that accompanied us all the way on a 12 hour drive to complete about 1200kilometers. All of those offer suitable habitat and perhaps 2% or a great deal less of the area has been explored with an eye for Haworthia. This brings me finally to a sort of postscript. Russel Scott writes of his encounter with Poellnitzia rubriflora in the Robertson District. What is odd and welcome too no doubt, is that he does not mention the fact that officially the name is Astroloba rubriflora. Over a 6-hour hike he has to suggest that the plants were relatively rare – where he walked of course. His hike could have covered more than 20 miles and perhaps a 20yard wide band – calculated at a total search area of about 2.2% of one sq. mile! It is quite common south of the Breede River between Eilandia and just east of Bonnievale and as Russel mentions seeing H. herbacea I conclude that he was thus within the 600sq mile area I would say is its range. Thus even a 6-hour hike along what must be conceded was a narrow band, has not provided a lot of insight into quite a large area. Very little indeed as to what all there is to be seen. Yet I do not think it is possible to be looking specifically in species and succulent-rich habitat in the said search area without seeing H. mirabilis. Russel has exposed a reality that for someone to really become familiar with any plant group in the field is a dedicated life-time. Only a select few South Africans seem to have achieved that and then only in respect of particular interests. In my life-time of plant interest and field experience, I think I am personally only beginning to have an idea of what it means to really know what field familiarity can be. ♦

Volume 6, Chapter 3:- Still more about Haworthia on Kaboega

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.

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.

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. ♦

Volume 6, Chapter 7:- Taking Haworthia cooperi further – Kliprivier

It is very difficult to write about particular plants when one has to contend with the fact that one is not sure what Latin names may mean to the reader. I wrote a piece with closure in mind and thought I would send it to a non-taxonomist botanist whom I think is a tribute to the profession. Extracts from his response are “I am an ardent supporter of your species concept and couldn’t agree more strongly with your statement that without variation, there would be no evolution… I do agree that the pervasive species concepts force us to ignore the most interesting and productive research avenue: documenting and understanding variation in the field.”

It is worth considering what he has said about “pervasive species concepts” and just what he might mean when he says they force us to ignore documentation and understanding of variation in the field. It seems to me that the converse is the truth. Failure to properly understand and document variation has contributed to the pervasiveness of false concepts which fly in the face of science. I keep harping away at this question of lack of definition, because it is not apparent to me that any reader appreciates my point of view. To my mind a key issue is made of nomenclature and the rules that govern it, and very little attention at all is given to whether these Latin names help our understanding at all. I feel that my contribution contributes mostly to documentation of variation and that I cannot do much in respect of understanding. This short article should explain why.

I have tried to explain what I have observed in the three species Haworthia cooperi, H. cymbiformis and H. transiens as I understand the various populations that might be seen to constitute three discrete systems. My problem is that they do not necessarily constitute such discrete systems at all. Even considered together as one system, it is not entirely sure in my mind that they are truly separated from any other species belonging in the same sub-genus Haworthia.  It is not improbable that they diffuse into H. decipiens and into H. mucronata that are in turn diffused into other elements. If one considers that a species definition based on breeding true has been “… used by most taxonomists since 1682.”  (I quote this from a prominent taxonomist), one must recognize that taxonomists have then been ignoring the innate variability which drives change, adaptation and evolution. I am not sure that I have not been making the same mistake although I have consciously tried to recognize that discontinuities of any kind do not necessarily suggest discrete species.

Someone once wrote that “specialization leads to extinction”. If species become too specialized, they lose the capacity to adapt and evolve according to an ever-changing environment. At the other extreme, species that can maximize variation within their individuals and populations will benefit most in those changing circumstances. If taxonomy has been guilty of paying insufficient attention to variation as a concomitant of evolution in present time, it may mean that we may generally be recognizing species at the wrong level. We may collectively be attaching far too much attention to morphological and even genetic differences without due account of distribution and potential for change both internal to the species and external from the environment.

Therefore, I am deeply skeptical that my classification of Haworthia is a true reflection of the situation in respect of actual species. I have been influenced by a paradigm in taxonomy that genera and higher taxa were largely artificial and determined by arbitrary choices that they should be approximately equal in size and number. Without taking this too seriously, there is a huge problem when it comes down to species and to consider that some in a genus may be tightly grouped in terms of limited variation and distribution, while others form vast complexes.

Jan Vlok kindly sent me a picture of a Haworthia from the Little Langkloof. This is the upper reaches of the Keurboomriver Valley which runs inland from Plettenberg Bay, turning west north of the Knysna area and cutting across the Prince Alfred’s Pass road between Knysna and Uniondale. The only Haworthia species in the area are H. transiens and H. scabra and they are abundant there. Jan said the plant was in Karoid vegetation and was generally solitary. I suggested that it was probably an ecotype of H. transiens and that otherwise it may have been H. cooperi var. gordoniana. I have written an account of the interaction of those elements in the Baviaanskloof to the north and west, and it is quite evident to me that there is a close relationship. It should be noted that there is also a major variant of H. scabra closer to the Prince Alfred’s Pass road, so that there is a precedent in adaptive change. I was recently able to visit the area myself and confirm that the plants are in this very same category of interaction between H. cooperi and H. transiens. Thus, in my opinion, they parallel the kind of relationship other variants of H. cooperi has with H. cymbiformis, and in a changed dispensation for taxonomy it may be agreed to regard these two species and H. transiens as one species. It is possible that continuity may still be found with H. mucronata further west. While I write “changed dispensation”, I regard it as essential that it first be understood that there is still a vast amount of exploration and recording to do and that any final solution will only be achieved by collaborative effort and agreement. Professional taxonomists will have to make the decisions, but they will have to first prove themselves competent to do so.

Kliprivier plants in cultivation.

The above was the article as printed in Haworthiad. It deals with my collection MBB7586 (see figs. 1a-e) from east of Die Vlug in the Prince Alfred’s Pass south of Uniondale. My conclusion was that H. transiens was but another expression of H. cooperi at the western end of its distribution zone and possibly transition to H. mucronata.

I had collected seed that I asked Etwin Aslander to grow, which he did very successfully.  The seedlings were initially extraordinarily variable and there were some striking plants that gave indications of reticulate marking that would have shamed H. cooperipicturata’. After Etwin transplanted them the plants looked much more ordinary and I selected a few to grow myself. So this short note is just to present pictures of these and demonstrate the badly beaten horse of variability.

Figs. 1 are a series of pictures of plants in the field that can be said to be representative without leaving out too much. Figs. 2a  and b are of my permit limited collection grown in my outside rockery in relatively full sun. Figs 2c. to 2h are the selected clones that I grew on to show readers what happens between field, nursery and greenhouse table. Any wonder that you can justifiably complain when you do not get what you think you ordered?

I originally omitted names and would now use the name H. cooperitransiens’.

Figs. 1a-l. MBB 7586. Hawortha cooperi ‘transiens’. Kliprivier

Figures 2a and b are of my permit limited collection MBB 7586 of Haworthia cooperi ‘transiens’. Kliprivier grown in my outside rockery in relatively full sun.

Figs. 2c to 2h. Selected clones of plants grown from habitat seed in cultivation, grown on to show readers what happens between field, nursery and greenhouse table.

Acknowledgement
Jan Vlok very kindly informed me of the existence of this locality east of Die Vlug. ♦

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.

Zuurberg cooperoid

I have seen about 35 Zuurberg cooperoid populations in the vicinity of the Kaboegapoort, N Kirkwood. None of these are quite the same and reflect an interaction of at least 4 megaspecies (in this case decipiens, cymbiformis, cooperi, bolusii (blackbeardiana) and aristata. Please note – it is taking a conservative middle ground opinion to say they are discrete!!! This is MBB6940 and the variation in just one of the Kaboega populations. Do not let it be lost on you that it was (and more than probably is still the case) that a species was too often described from a single specimen. Think of Rafinesque. There is absolutely no way these things can be regarded as distinct species in their own right. I have seen too many of these local variants linked not to just geographical separation, but also to local habitat difference and usually geologically associated.

7870 and 7586 It will have some dinosaurs climbing the wall when I say the probability of these both being H. cooperi is 98%. Unfortunately it is TRUE. the bobii, paradoxa, joleneae, hammeri, groenewaldii issues are minor compared with this. Closed minds will struggle and someday taxonomic botany itself is going to have to face not having a proper species concept and definition. The Haworthia community would do well to properly acknowledge the fact that it has a problem.

Lawrence wrote … And the problem is these Zuurberg cooperoid need names?
Bruce relied … They sure do. The science of botany is not going to do it and we the people have to fix it. Trouble is we reduce the issue to personality disorders around the issue of Latin binomials instead of applying our energy to thinking communally of how to find a solution. ♦

Cymbiformis Cooperi

I was musing over a whole lot of plants in a nursery all labelled cymbiformis and ignoring the formal classification and recognition of varieties. Gordon Rowley was very critical of my work because he felt that the lesser names were just being dumped. I agree that it is a problem and I was thinking of posting pictures that would facilitate the use of old existing names e.g. planifolia. I was very quickly disenchanted as I looked for pictures.

The field situation regarding cooperi and cymbiformis is as complex as the retusa/turgida/mirabilis/emelyae/pygmaea/mutica issue as well as the fact that each such species assemblage runs over in to still other species. I did google cymbiformis and planifolia to see what the internet had to offer and was amazed how poor and confusing that is. I welcome any questions that cooking up an answer for, may help rationalise and enlighten troubled minds.

The picture is from one population at Kaboega where it is evident to me that there is no distinction between cymbiformis and cooperi, and it gets worse.

There is a problem with the name obtusa as a variant of H. cymbiformis, and I think it, with the name translucence, that really covers the transition between cymbiformis and cooperi. Both those names obtusa and translucens can be applied to a large number of populations that belong in a twilight zone of neither “this nor that”. As I was pondering the other day, plant taxonomy is NOT good science. It is largely treated as a field for nomenclatural rules and recommendations and a stage for intellectual display. There is little connection between the minutae of nomenclature and the reality of what occurs in nature. These pictures are of plants in the Bosberg NE Somerset East and are in a geographical cooperi environment far from the range of cymbiformis. They could fit the concept of “obtusa” as so many other cooperoids do.

Let me add – cymbiformis are those green things that grow as clump formers on steep (rock faces, cooperi are those bluish plants that grow solitarily on the flat. They are the same!!! The names are just at the extremities and the more we know the more names we need??

When I posted those two items about cooper and cymbiformis, I had left gracilis somewhere in the closet. It is just a very difficult pill to swallow that all these amazing variants have (?) to be lumped under one species.

I had another look at the 3 DNA phyllograms in the work by Manning et al, and it can be noted that cooperi, cymbiformis and decipiens all see to pan out in the same lineage. So as I said it is far worse than imagined – although there are some improbables in the various lineages of the phyllograms. But this is just as far as sequencing has got and we have yet to see results from “next generation sequencing”. Here are two images of cooperi from different populations west of Uniondale pass that shocked even myself in saying they are the same species.

Many years ago you gave me a challenge to sort out the cymbiformis cooperi and so off I went to the Eastern Cape; many times. I didn’t understand then how plastic, how variable, the plants were and how rigid the names and descriptions. Some I couldn’t type.

Cymbiformis – Rosette to 130mm φ, partially stemmed, proliferous. Leaves broad ovate to lanceolate, flat to slightly concave, generally <1/3 as thick as wide, usually opaque, green turning yellowish to pink hued on exposure. Inflorescence to 250mm, 10-15 flowers, lax. Flowers white.

Cooperi – Rosette to 120mm φ, often proliferous, stemless. Leaves 20-40, fleshy, swollen, oblong-lanceolate, quickly tapering, acuminate or truncating, marginal spines <2mm long if present. Bluish-green in colour, slightly translucent, with veins usually reddening and leaves developing purplish hues in exposed situations. Inflorescence compact, firm peduncle with many closely arranged flowers, to 20cm long. Flowers 20-30, perianth white.

Maybe it’s time to come back for more field work.

Lawrence Loucka

Yes writing those descriptions was a really funny experience but actually they are remarkably as good as you can get. Cooperi is only distinguishable from cymbiformis by colour, inflorescence and habitat. So what do you do with all those other populations that fall in the small cracks between. The “fieldwork” necessary to establish a workable boundary is to weed out the vast majority of plants that will not fit these artificial strictures of botanical classification and nomenclature. And just what is this stuff we weirdly say is “fieldwork”?

Really! I put it best I think in Update Vol 2 or 3 where I wrote about the need for a starting hypothesis for field work and reporting. I can tell you right now what more unplanned field work will produce – more names and more confusion. I have shown time and again that planned field work shows the interconnectedness of all these “species” we so anxiously claim. But we are also very limited by our perceptions and our expectations. We are taught mechanistically and we are not taught about the illusion of time and space or what reality is or might be. We do not live in a finite fixed world that is the same for each of us. We live within our own perceptions and dreams of what we think is real? We work with definitions of words and things and if we do not agree with each other on these, we will not understand each other. The word “species” is the great catch point hen it comes to biology. Science presently defines it for us by default, as a measure of the similarity of DNA in some sort of sampling (ill-defined and inadequate) process. This is going to create serious problems into the future. The polymath who asked plant taxonomists if they knew what they are doing, is going to have his doubts proven too right – they do not.

Bruce Bayer

I am always on about definition, usually of “species”, but checking up some DNA information reveals that even things such as nucleotides, DNA, and what-not are not actually adequately defined. DNA is said in some meanings, to be the nucleotide chains in the cell nucleus. The nucleotides are said to be the four amino-acids that link the paired strands in the chromosomes. But how are the strands constructed?

Then there are different molecular combinations effectively forming short strands in all tissues and these are also referred to as DNA. The Haworthia sequencing used to establish the recent changes within the aloids is based on up to 7 molecular regions, some of nuclear DNA and some on extra-cellular DNA. It bothers me that the sequencing does not actually tell me very much that I was not aware of simple observing the plants. But I see things in each of the phyllograms for the different regions that persuade me that we have a LOT to learn about DNA sequencing. The lineages for each region are not the same and there are some very weird anomalies that people who do not know the species are clearly not aware of. If they were they would be less confident in their conclusions and their faith in the technology (as it stands to date).

Glad that Lawrence posted that DNA paper Manning et al, because those interested can now see the phyllograms and make up their own minds about what they tell us. My personal experience makes me highly suspicious of all this stuff as even in the paper the authors say they opine that the results give a reliable overview – despite limited sampling and despite the variations in the different lineages the phyllograms illustrate. I would actually like to see phyllograms for each of the 5 DNA regions as well as concatenated ones, for just H. floribunda sampled from many populations. also not just single specimens from each population.

Here we have a case where the plastid sequences do not agree with the nuclear. I also do not like using both regional sequences AND concatenated results. Either concatenation is better or it is not. It seems like the statistical ploy viz. if a test does not give you significance, you keep using different statistical tests until you get one that does. The most critical element is that while these results are used to arrive at a generic classification in the aloids, the exercise was initiated to examine the species relationships in Haworthia only. Had that initial intention been observed (using 3 specimens per population) it could have made a really significant contribution instead of leaving us all in vacuum of opinion and belief.

My present view is that classification has devolved into an intellectual exercise that perpetuates confusion and uncertainty, ensuring endless name changes! Posted (above) is a nice retusaXcooperivenusta‘ hybrid. It does not darken when exposed to direct day-long sunlight.

It is interesting to look at the DNA lineages for H. marxii, H. semiviva, H. pulchella var. globifera. H. mutica and H. marumiana var. archeri. They are, in the three data sets, very conflicting. For me highlight the problem of sequencing where sampling is so limited and based on an identification or classification process itself not based on sequencing. Particularly so when the original intention of the project was to examine that very problem.

This might have been called Haworthia dekenah var. argenteo-maculosa! In my opinion all the retusoids east of the Gouritz river are referable to H. pygmaea. But the truth is that one cannot separate retusa, turgida, mutica, mirabilis, pygmea or even emelyae on the basis of any physically observable evidence.

Indeed there is a problem with correct and consistent naming. The fact is that it can be much like pinning the tail on the donkey. It is all very well having a nomenclatural system that can be a juristic nightmare and an intellectual challenge, but does it work? 

Haworthia cymbiformis is a case in point. According to the system, if a variety is recognised and described, automatically every other variant becomes the variety cymbiformis. This creates an amazing treadmill and we then have to accommodate all those other variants in a practical working system. How does one deal with this when, apart from the problems of one complex system, H. cymbiformis is inextricably tied into H. cooperi.

My conclusion has to be that the system does not work. While there is the fancy intellectual footwork in the upper echelons of botany, there is also the difficulty of dealing with countless variations that are conveniently set aside because they do not fit. Looking at my own attempts to deal rationally with H. cymbiformis and its variants boggles my mind. How did I set the name ‘planifolia’ aside, or renege on an earlier decision to abandon the name ‘obtusa’, and subsequently change my mind again? No matter how one juggles these names, one is faced with the embarrassment of dealing with many more variants that are neither one nor the other of the names one does decide to recognise and use. Let us say that this picture above is typical of H. cymbiformis and then look at some others …

What I tried to do in Haworthia was establish what groups existed that satisfied some rational species definition in also geographic terms. So I abandoned many of the old names for that reason alone. “Planifolia”is a case in point. I could find no clear geographic evidence and recognised the difficulty of actually separating cymbiformis and planifolia as distinct groups. But it is a subjective decision as so many taxonomic decisions are despite the desperate efforts to hide the doubt and the justify them as objective. as you can see from the two pictures, “planifolia’ has broader and flatter leaves rather than the keeled “boathull” shape of cymbiformis. I did not intend that names in synonymy be abandoned and did suggest that such names be considered available for use by collectors and growers.

Quote … ”The location of this note is a powerful reminder that distinctions between species are highly blurred and that alternative solutions are possible”. This answers my question of the previous post and it comes from Haworthia Revisited after tortuous explanations of the varieties in H. cymbiformis. Here is a photo of a cymbiformis in cultivation that could have come from anywhere, including Plutos Vale where H. cooperi var. tenera (?) and H. cymbiformis var. incurvula obfuscate the difference between the two species.

At this late stage in life, I think an honest submission is called for. My life experience with identification of plants is that botanical classification and naming is largely delusional. Taxonomists name things in relation to their experience and seldom get to truly know all the species and variants. Herbarium cupboards hide scores of unusual specimens filed in doubtful places and many unidentified. I have found it very difficult to deal with variations as this posted picture demonstrates. It is a variant of H. cymbiformis that I initially recognised as var. umbraticola in the belief that it substituted for the name var. obesa. At the time I thought that was a name confused with H. cooperi. I did eventually change my mind and recognise obesa as a variant of cymbifomis. But the fact is that cymbiformis is a riverine cliff hanger versus cooperi that is a grassland element.

There fall is a large spectrum of populations occur in different habitats that are neither one nor the other. This situation is also represented in H. retusa and H. turgida where there is further complexity in plant appearance and behavioural character viz. H. mirabilis, H. pygmaea, H. mutica, H. emelyae and more. These are realities of plant classification that taxonomists seem to dismiss or are unable to recognise. Things simply do not follow the tidy branching nature that fancy evolutionary theory, cladograms, phylograms and revisions illustrate.

This is now from an area in the Prince Alfed’s Pass where H. cymbiformis var. transiens, and H. planifolia var. translucens originated. It is to the west of general distribution of where more characteristic H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi occur. But my experience of these two species is that anything that resembles H. cymbiformis is actually a habitat derived variant of H. cooperi, which includes what was a very complex set of variants that I had treated as yet another species viz. H. gracilis. ♦