Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 6

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

Two further records and data for Haworthia mirabilis.

Kobus Venter drew my attention to a second population of H. mirabilis on the eastern boundary of the farm Schuitsberg, which is the origin of the var. beukmannii of von Poellnitz. But the real motive for exploration in that area was a photograph sent to me by Messrs. Daryl and Priscilla Hackland of a plant on the Zigzag Path just east of the northern end of the town of Greyton. It was their son Andy Hackland who observed the plants and thought I might be interested – indeed. The bright green colour of the plant struck me as most unusual for that area where most of the populations known are south of the river in shale and they are of the brown and red hues. This is not strictly true because records of an expedition by Messrs. Beukman, Otzen and others mentions a small “black” species just before the entrance to Greyton. I have never found that.

However, it is well known that Haworthia mirabilis occurs along the course of the Boesmansrivier on the way to MacGregor. I once observed it there myself hiking part way from the northern end of the walking trail down the river to Greyton. Kobus Venter has also seen it while walking from the southern end. I included this variant under the varietal name ‘consanguinea’ that is actually based on populations on the north side of the mountain in the Dwarswaterkloof west of MacGregor. Ms. Dawn Schwegmann once showed me plants from that general area but I never did establish exact origin. What did strike me about the Boesmansrivier plants is the very close resemblance to Haworthia retusa ‘turgida’ when I still considered populations that occur in Table Mountain Sandstone in the Tradouw Pass and north of Riversdale as a discrete species. The only difference to me was the summer flowering time and the resemblance of the flowers to those of H. mirabilis from the Bredasdorp/Napier area. This observed similarity was largely based on a very small sample, colour, and the fact that the flowers were available simultaneously. I must have assumed that this similarity was unlikely to include ‘turgida’. Unfortunately photography was expensive and almost unmanageable for this sort of detail in that era and I had to observe and record from memory.

While I now have only the memory of the turgida-like element in the pass and a myriad of varying populations of H. mirabilis at the northern end and around MacGregor, I have had no evidence of transition to the red-brown plants (eg ‘rubrodentata’) south of the Riviersonderend River from east of Genadendal to at least Lindashof east of Riviersonderend town. This is as the species occurs in putatively Bokkeveld strata.

The Hacklands saw the plants at the top end of the Zig Zag path and the geology here will need a better description than I can give without a geology map. The vegetation is transitional to Fynbos and the stratum an argillaceous one (clayey) not obviously Sandstone nor shale. But the plants are so different. They are smaller than in populations in the area that I know south of the river, fairly bright green and becoming rather yellow in summer stress dress. A physical description of the plants defies description and I would be a loss to refer to the plants as anything but a variable lot. In the amazing context of Latin names in Haworthia I would like to refer to the plants as Haworthia mirabilis ‘hacklandii’ – if it can be forgotten and forgiven (it unfortunately cannot be) that I question the merit and motives for using personal names for taxa. In any case, the serious limitation is to know how to descriptively and sensible circumscribe such a population. The alternative reference is H. mirabilis MBB8040 or H. mirabilis NE Greyton, or H. mirabilis Zig Zag Path. Whatever name is used, this population is in my opinion quite an awesome demonstration of the morphological continuity that I have come to expect in Haworthia. A wide range of comparisons is possible if one takes single clone after clone. I thought ‘sublineata’, ‘mundula’, ‘ turgida’ (from a range of populations) as well as ‘notabilis’ and even ‘elizeae’ and ‘mutica’). The departure from the wider dark green colour of the mirabiloids is the most unexpected feature although this is just what occurs with ‘consanguinea’. This latter is the ground truth and I fully expect that further populations occur to complete a transition to the even more obviously ‘turgidoid’ variant known from deeper in to the Boesmansriver valley. Later driving eastwards and a little further south towards Schuitsberg, we observed very similar habitats 2-3km further north of the road in foothills of the Riviersonderend Mountains.

Among the pictures of the plants is a view from the top of the Zigzag Path looking north into the Boesmansriver valley (or gorge). The hill on the right front seems to be similar to that of the Path and similar low rocky hillsides occur at several places. Significantly there is one immediately north of Riviersonderend where the river passes by on the north side rather than on the south away from the higher hills away from the main range. Kobus has persistently observed that there must be plants there. The evidence of the Zigzag Path occurrence definitely suggests that this must be so and that many more populations exist unrecorded simply because of lack of exploration specifically for Haworthia. While Andy observed the plants at the top of the Path, they are widespread all the way down to the bottom. It is quite amazing that the presence of the plants has not come in to my ken sooner. It is just an observation of mine that Haworthia distribution may be far wider than we suspect simply because Haworthiophiles have not ventured into unlikely areas.

This is a view northward from the top Zigzag Path to the Boesmanspad (Biushmans Route) that runs towards MacGregor 25km to the NE - and to H. mirabilis 'consanguinea'. The weathered cardboard in the foreground is a very sad but loving tribute by children to their grandfather - messages of love and longing painted on two little stones, on the remains of a shrivelled dried wreath.

Flower profiles, faces, and buds

From Greyton we went to Schuitsberg driving further east than previously. This population seems to have led to the speculation that the type of H. mirabilis as illustrated in Botanical Magazine t1354 (1811) could have come from here. In a recent article in Alsterworthia, Gerhard Marx attempts to ridicule my typification of the name ‘mirabilis’. I frankly think this is much more a point scoring effort than a genuine attempt to arrive a taxonomic truth to which Marx claims to aspire. Apart from speculated similarities of some or other clone to that picture, is the fact that this is an old transport route dating to that era. There is a plaque at that site dated 1988 commemorating a 300year history. The problem for me is the variation among the plants that renders the nomenclatural system and the typological approach to naming dismally doubtful. There is just no Haworthia mirabilis var. mirabilis.

Schuitsberg is the origin of H. emelyae var. beukmannii von Poellnitz .I associate that name and description with an exceptional robust, compact and retused version of H. mirabilis (a version with much longer erect leaves with spined margins viz var. rubrodentata {red teeth} was named from further west along the river). I visited Schuitsberg and adjacent farm Nethercourt in the early 1970s. The plants I saw were indeed robust. However I visited there again 2012 and found the place previously visited destroyed and no plants among the many in the adjoining rocky slopes that resembled what I perceived to be ‘beukmanii’. This is repeated in my experience of this second locality on Schuitsberg east (MBB8041) of where I knew the plants. One can refer to the many variants illustrated with this article. Are these all individually or collectively closer to any early illustration on which the name ‘mirabilis’ can be based? It was only a single large very robust plant with leaves nearly 30mm wide and 20mm think that I would have said also agrees with the original acceptance of the “element”. So what can we say here of all these variants? This is a fact of the retusoid species and close relatives. They are simply highly variable with respect to leaf shape, arrangement, markings, armature, and colour, as well as flower characters. The consequence of these is gross aberration of the formal nomenclatural system and whole host of Latin names that are very useful to collectors, commercial nurseries and any other activity where a formal impressive name adds value. What we have at a place like Schuitsberg is that we have plants that can be labelled ‘beukmani’ because they might look ostensibly like the original described plant or its image, or just because it happens to come from Schuitsberg.

Flower profiles, Faces, and Buds.

Regarding the flowers of both localities that I illustrate here, there is again the high variability that I discuss and illustrate in all the preceding parts of Haworthia Update 8. What we now need is a computer wizard who can perhaps explore the possibility of computerised pattern recognition. In this way to look at trying to arrive at a composite single image that captures the identification of a population. It boggles my mind that someone might think, say ‘beukmannii’, is an array of plants scattered through many populations to so constitute a species.

I have tried to approach this whole problematic, provocative, disputatious subject from a rational objective view based on my own education, experience and acquired knowledge to place it in an environment acceptable to formal botany. That environment has not been all that helpful and conducive to a solution either.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Dr. Daryl and Mrs. Priscilla Hackland, and Andy Hackland for information and assistance in visiting the Greyton Zigzag Path population. Mr. P.G. Viljoen not only kindly allowed us access to Schuitsberg but took the trouble to drive us there to show us a wider view of the localities and also the commemorative plaque that mark the old travel route. ♦

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 7

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

Three further records and data for Haworthia mirabilis.

The populations covered here are:

6631 H. mirabilis ‘mundula’, Mierkraal, SW Bredasdorp.
6635 H. mirabilis ‘badia’, NW Napier.
6639 H. mirabilis ‘sublineata’, S Bredasdorp.

There has been some published comment about the distinctiveness of these three populations stating that I do not recognise this because I treat them as variants of single species. The implication is that I do not see any difference. This is quite bizarre. At the present moment I have a digital library of 165 H. mirabilis populations and this is by no means all there are. There is an enormous amount of variation both in and between these populations. If the specified three are to be recognised as species, it means that there is a wholly unrealistic number of species quite out of keeping even with an already highly diverse set of species of the Cape Flora. Furthermore, as I point out in appendix 6, there is no typical variety of H. mirabilis in any practical sense because the variability in the population designated by me, as well as that of Schuitsberg apparently preferred by another, precludes it.

6631 Haworthia mirabilis ‘mundula’, Mierkraal, SW Bredasdorp.
6631 as a variant ‘mundula’ is only known at this one locale. However, similarities can be found elsewhere. The name was introduced by G.G. Smith without any existing recognition of the prior name H. mirabilis and where that may have been applied. Because only illustration exist for which artistic license must be invoked, there is some doubt about just where the original plant may have originated. Frankly I do not think this even matter because the fact of the individual variation that renders the automatic recognition of typical varieties in Haworthia meaningless.

6635 Haworthia mirabilis ‘badia’, NW Napier.
6635 as a variant is generally thought to be only one locale too. It in fact can be seen to be part of a continuum that extends nearly 4km westwards in the same geological stratum. Furthermore it is complemented by quite different variants in at least seven known populations to the north and east. Exploration is by no means complete.

6639 Haworthia mirabilis ‘sublineata’, S Bredasdorp.
6639 as a variant is known immediately south of Bredasdorp, but has been reported further to the southeast in the same stratum. However, there were two populations north of the town no longer extant. Illustrations are available in the literature and herbarium. Based on these, the same illogic that suggest separation of the three specified above would suggest that these are also discrete species. Further populations exist to the near north and northeast of Bredasdorp that intensify and add to the problem of rank. This population, its variation and the statistical difficulties of explaining this variation is discussed in Haworthia Update Vol.4:62-77.

[ed.] flower files names are 6635, but are 6639.

The present appendix represents another set of plant illustrations and also flower photographs. Unfortunately 6631 did not flower very well and only two photographs could be taken. The habitat has changed in the 43 years since I first observed the population. The plant clumps were considerably smaller and there was none of the colour range that I observed in my first visit in 1969 when the plants showed green, yellow and orange.

Observations
The differences in the plants at the three localities are based on three very simple criteria. ‘Badia’ has fewer leaves and no marginal spines, ‘mundula’ has more abbreviated and also numerically more and smaller leaves with a shorter end-area; and ‘sublineata’ has long slender leaves often with prominent venation and larger marginal spines. By these criteria one can nearly always be sure of identification. Nevertheless wider considerations and similarities of one degree or another are so widespread that I consider a stipulated taxonomic distinction impossible and unrealistic. Flower morphology is as variable as the leaf appearances and it is virtually impossible to arrive at a single word or imaged representation of what represents each population. It in fact suggests the restricted view of formal taxonomic recognition that I suggest.

Acknowledgement
I appreciate the co-operation of Mr. E. Conradie of Mierkraal and Mr. P. deKok of Napier for their forbearance. I would be very remiss not to acknowledge the interest in the subject, and input, by Lawrence Loucka who has generated the HaworthiaUpdates.org website and the ISSN 2306-0956 archive for my writings on Haworthia. ♦

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 8

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

A report on Haworthia mirabilis ‘badia’ / ‘subtuberculata’

I cannot claim that I have resolved the nomenclature niceties around the use of this name and its many varietal names and synonyms. If critically examined even the use of the name “mirabilis” is in doubt and the very original epithet of “Aloe atrovirens” may be nomenclaturally correct. This would create havoc because then the name H. herbacea as typified by W.T. Stearn may best apply. So I put that all aside and use names as I have in my Revision and subsequent publications. I am well aware that there is a problem with the use of H. mirabilis var. mirabilis where it may be thought that the name “mundula” is therefore redundant. I cover all this up with the explanation that there is no typical variety “mirabilis” and actually use just the name H. mirabilis to cover all those populations and variants to which no Latin names exist. I use names like “badia” and “sublineata” as it is generally possible to recognise all or most of the variants from those populations. But names like “magnifica”, “maraisii”, “heidelbergensis”, “rubrodentata”, “beukmannii” and “depauperata” (among others) have no clear and direct application in respect of a population or even a group of variants of any kind. In my Revision I attempt the use of the name “triebneriana” to cover all the variants that are not included under the typical varietal name “mirabilis”. This does not actually work either because the name has its origins at Stormsvlei and there are other populations that are very different from those occurring there too.

My conclusion was, and is, that it is not possible to formally name and describe all the variants in H. mirabilis. Firstly this is true at population level and very much more so in respect of the incredible variation that exists within those populations.

In this appendix I present images of plants and flowers for just two populations…

MBB6987 Haworthia mirabilis ‘badia’. Sandfontein.
MBB7091 H. mirabilis ‘subtuberculata’. Mierkraal, Napier

(Note: – this is not MBB6631 Bredasdorp ‘Mierkraal’ where ‘mundula’. I use now the name ‘subtuberculata’ as one of two generally for that area Northwest of Napier. These are plants with generally erect to suberect leaves, fairly strongly triangulate and tubercled. The von Poellnitz and Triebner names ‘multituberculata’, ‘napierensis’ and ‘turgida’ are also available).

1. MBB6987 Haworthia mirabilis ‘badia’. Sandfontein.

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Bud.

2. MBB7091 H. mirabilis ‘subtuberculata’. Mierkraal, Napier

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Buds.

The first population is approximately 2.8km west of the “typical badia” population and in almost the same geological stratum and habitat viz. Table Mountain Sandstone with grassy fynbos. The second population is approximately 2.7km northwest of the first and it is on a small ridge of vertically orientated Bokkeveld shale with Renosterveld. There are several populations west and north from here with similar plants. To the east at Napier and north of Napier the plants vary towards smaller and darker versions of H. mirabilis that very loosely indeed have been covered by the name “maraisii”. This is a complete myth and about as accurate as the use of the name “magnifica” to cover all the H. mirabilis variants around Heidelberg and Riversdale. It must be noted that the name “heidelbergensis” is drawn into the arena too and in Appendix 9 I will explain one aspect of the situation with respect to that name.

What this particular report is intended to convey, is the dramatic change related to firstly location, and secondly habitat. I maintain that there is no prescribed species definition in botany and that this is the prime reason for the confusion that exists at every level in botany. Therefore I have arrived at my own view of species as dynamic systems that are not necessarily recognisable in terms of tangible visible characters. There are two important considerations in the way I classify Haworthia. The first is there geographic spatial positions, and secondly the way in which apparent systems relate to each other with respect to those positions. Therefore what I am showing here is that H. mirabilis ‘badia’ is the sandstone version (ecotype) of the species northwest of Napier, and H. mirabilis ‘subtuberculata‘ the shale version a little to the north and then west. H. mirabilis ‘sublineata‘ is a sandstone ecotype south of Bredasdorp and H. mirabilis ‘mundula’ a fairly unique population on tertiary gravel southwest of Bredasdorp. In Appendix 9 I will give an inkling of what happens to H. mirabilis in the shale and tertiary formations north and then west from Napier.

Acknowledgement
Mr. Wynand Wessels kindly accompanied us to the population at Mierkraal. It was difficult to establish just who owns the property at Sandfontein where H. mirabilis occurs and while we met two landowners in the area we were not sure if we were trespassing or not. ♦

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 9

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

A report on Haworthia mirabilis and Haworthia rossouwii ‘minor’, Rooivlei, NNE Bredasdorp.

In Appendix 8, I explain some of the rationale of my use of names. A detailed report on H. mirabilis can be found in Haworthia Update Vol.3. and in various chapters of the subsequent Updates. It is shown why I consider the possibility that H. mirabilis and H. retusa are in fact the same species.

In this report I will show just one population of many from Napier northwards and westwards for which no broad name exists. There is simply a transformation from elements that I refer to as H. mirabilis ‘subtuberculata’ in Appendix 8, to a very wide range of populations in the central Southern Cape. Both the names “maraisii” and “heidelbergensis” have been applied to populations in this area. The name H. maraisii var. simplicior from Napky may even be relevant but its application, simply irrational.

The populations for which data is presented here are…

7334 H. miriabilis NE Bredasdorp
6638 H. miriabilis Rooivlei
KG36-70 H. miriabilis ‘minor’ Rooivlei
7821 2013 H. mirabilis x rossouwii ‘minor’
7822 H. miriabilis Rooivlei E of Rd
8044 H. miriabilis with H. rossouwii ‘minor’ KG36-70
8045 H. rossouwii ‘minor’ Rooivlei

The population 7334 H. mirabilis is covered in a general way by the name “maraisoid” that simply denotes smaller darker green versions of H. mirabilis. It is not accurate and the terms “floribundoid” and even “heidelbergensoid” are applicable. A complication among many is “hammeroid” for what appears to me as introgression of H. mutica with H. mirabilis. It is just not possible to simplify and summarise the range of populations and variants that lead on from this close to Bredasdorp (and “sublineata”) on to Rooivlei, then north and eastwards to eventually cover “hammeri”, “bobii”, “paradoxa”, “jakubii”, “Windsor”, “magnifica”, “atrofusca”, “toonensis”, “scabra”, “vernalis” and so on ad infinitum. So these pictures together with 7822 just serve as a reference point for what follows.

1. MBB7334 Haworthia mirabilis, NE Bredasdorp

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Bud.

It is Rooivlei approximately 26km NE Bredasdorp that concerns me here. It is quite a high-lying area in the wheat growing area of the southwestern Cape. The geology is primarily Bokkeveld shale with inselbergs of later tertiary origins. At Rooivlei the highpoint has tertiary remnants and the Bokkeveld strata include sandstone among the truly clay derived shales. While the vegetation is broadly renosterveld, there is even a remnant of what Acocks’ described as Valley Bushveld. Curiously is the presence of Acrodon quartzicola first described from there as well as Gibbaeum austricola much more widely distributed even to southwest Heidelberg. From the Haworthia aspect, H. marginata is present. It is the presence of a vicariant population of H. retusa ‘turgida’ that is really odd because it is known again about 40km away to the east and in the Breede River river channel.

What is significant is a plant illustrated as no.12 in 6638. I have seen a plant just like this where H. mutica occurs in the immediate vicinity of H. mirabilis at Klipbankskloof about 20km north of Rooivlei. The illustration referred to my well be a hybrid involving H. retusa ‘turgida’. H. mutica is not known closer than Hasiesdrift (Soesriver) about 6km away.

2. MBB6638 Haworthia mirabilis, Rooivlei

Still more significant now is what I refer to formally as H. rossouwii var. minor. This is KG36/70 originally described by me in my Revision of 1999 but as H. heidelbergensis var. minor. I did explain at the time that there were similarities to H. mirabilis var. sublineata. Since then when I did not know all that much, I have explored a great deal and it is clear that the greater picture is that H. heidelbergensis is truly a variant of H. mirabilis. Because the variant ‘minor’ occurs with H. mirablis it forces a rethink. I did this eventually when H. rossouwii was re-discovered at three locations north-northwest and north of Bredasdorp (forcing the abandonment of the name H. serrata) and not very far from Rooivlei. This is really odd in respect of the distribution and variability of Haworthia because I had described H. serrata from near Heidelberg far to the east. I now have records for 12 populations in that area. This distribution brackets that of ‘minor’. My suggestion thus was that it was better a variant of H. rossouwii than H. mirabilis that now included H. heidelbergensis.

3. KG36/70 Haworthia rossouwii var. minor, type locality

KG36-70 looking northwards

KG36-70 habitat viewed from the west.

4. MBB7821 Haworthia mirabilis x rossouwii ‘minor’

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Buds.

View looking east of north

A few years ago I revisited Rooivlei to assess the presence of H. marginata there. I did not find it, but instead noted a population 7821 west of KG36/70 that was very unusual and I suspected it had something to do with both H. mirabilis and H. rossouwii ‘minor’. The object of my recent visit to Rooivlei was to examine this a bit more closely with H. mirabilis in flower. I do not have a record for the flowering time of H. rossouwii ‘minor’ but have memorised it as November. In my visit of 12^th Feb. Almost the first plants we found were 2 plants of H. mirabilis (8044) in flower in the immediate vicinity of KG36/70 that was not in flower. The population (7821) west of this is very extensive and the plants extremely variable. They were mostly in flower and there were odd large plants suggesting hybridization with some other species. To the northwest we again found plants (8045) like those at KG36/70 in the same more prominent vertical shale ridges as at the original locality. There was an indication that these plants were not flowering in synchronicity with 7821 and had in fact already flowered. But the plants overall were intensely variable as can be seen from all the illustrations.

5. MBB7822 H. mirabilis Rooivlei, east of Road

6. MBB8044 H. mirabilis with H. rossouwii ‘minor’ KG36-70

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

Bud.

7. MBB8045 H. rossouwii ‘minor’ Rooivlei NW of type locality

Flower profiles.

Flower faces.

I therefore hypothesize again that what is occurring at Rooivlei was/is introgression of H. rossouwii and H. mirabilis. The area is quite extensive and I have not explored it in its entirety. I would not be surprised if H. rossouwii in its more “typical” form is found there.

Acknowledgement.
I would like to thank Mr Francois Uys for access to Rooivlei. Florent Grenier accompanied us there. Lawrence Loucka kindly and patiently brought some loose ends together.

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 10

Posted on May 12, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

Appendix 10 – An additional report on Haworthia mirabilis and Haworthia rossouwii ‘minor’, Rooivlei and Brakkloof, N and, NNE Bredasdorp.

The previous report indicated the necessity for further exploration of Rooivlei. I had observed H. mirabilis, but not reported it in Update 3, at Brakkloof to the west in 2004. So the object of this appendix is to remedy this oversight and to also cover more area of Rooivlei. At Brakkloof there are several small remnants of rocky shale and we located several populations, while at Rooivlei we actually explored the very western boundary. This constitutes the same topographical area as the Rooivlei populations but the plants we observed were factually on Brakkloof.

The populations reported on here are:-

6537 H. mirabilis, Groudini, W Napier
7285 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 3
8046 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 2
8047 H. mirabilis, Brakkloof 1
8048 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 1
8049 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 2
8050 H. mirabilis, W Rooivlei 3
8051 H. mirabilis, E Rooivlei
8045+ H. rossouwii ‘minor’, NW type locality
8052 H. mirabilis, S.Welgegund
8053 H. mirabilis, Welgegund SE 8052

Continue reading →

A myth corrected – part 5

Posted on May 22, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

Set 10. Map point 18. H. herbacea ‘submaculata’. Brickfield, Brandvlei Dam.
Figs. 10.1 to 10.20 MBB7995 H. herbacea, S Brandvlei Brickfield.
Figs. 10.21 to 10.53 MBB7996 H. herbacea, E Brandvlei Brickfield.

I have associated this locality with von Poellnitz H. submaculata and treated it as a synonym of H. herbacea. However, here I first illustrate a population about 600m south of that where the plants are in the usual size range for the species ie.30-40mm diam. At the locality east of the Brickfield and next to the Breede River, the plants are 1/3 to 1/2 as large again and can form huge clumps. North-west from this is a population of H. maculata at the extreme end of Die Nekkies and only about 300m distant, and this population I have always regarded as somewhat intermediate. What is interesting to note is the huge variation in leaf shape and armature within each population. In both cases the plants are in Witteberg Sandstones and at the first site this is both in a very shale-like stratum as well as in a highly quartzitic one. This is unusual for H. herbacea. Both populations wedge in geographically between H. maculata populations and in no known case do both occur.

Set 11. Map point 19. H. mirabilis. Droogerivierberg.
Figs. 11.1 to 11.11 MBB7984 H. mriabilis, Droogerivierberg.
Figs. 11.12 to 11.24 MBB7985 H. mirabilis, Sandberg S.
Figs. 11.25 to 11.31 MBB7988 H. mirabilis, Trappieskraalkloof.

In this area H. herbacea is common in the Dwyka Tillite but not in the Witteberg Sandstone. But instead of H. maculata, H. mirabilis is present there and commonly so. Where at one time I considered that H. pubescens was very probably an extension of H. mirabilis to a western and northern limit, this does not seem to be the case as it is so closely linked to H. maculata and H. herbacea. On the other hand I have wondered about the similarity of the Moddergat H. maculata to H. mirabilis. H. mirabilis is in the eastern areas of the Ouhangsberg and now we know that H. maculata occurs not far away on the western slopes. The centre area remains unexplored and this needs to be done as it may also help understand the idea of two principle role players viz. H. retusa and H. mirabilis as precursors of a very complex Southern Cape assemblage.

Set 12. Map points 20. Unknowns.
Figs. 12.1 to 12.7 MBB7865 H. cf. arachnoidea. Keurkloof, SE Dedoorns.
Figs. 12.9 to 12.15 EA1441 unknown, Hex Pass.

I have only two sets of pictures for this set. These are…(a) MBB7865 that Ernst van Jaarsveld drew to my attention at Keurkloof, south east of De Doorns in the Hex River Valley. There is a continuum of suitable habitat between there and Sandhills/Kanetvlei; (b) EA1441 and this number may be incorrect, but it is at the near-base of the Hex River Pass still further east than Keurkloof. In between is Osplaas Station where there are dramatic forms of H. arachnoidea with very spotted leaves, not to forget the nortieri-like form of H. arachnoidea at Kanetvlei about 200m north of MBB7994 H. maculata.

H. cf. arachnoidea. Keurkloof, SE Dedooorns 008

Conclusion
The nature of the populations of H. maculata on Die Nekkies varies quite considerably in that there is an area east of the Resort where the plants form huge clumps. Individual rosettes can be quite large. But there are also points where the plants tend to be solitary, hidden in rock cracks or even truncated into the soil. The plants in the Southern populations are smaller and tend to be solitary. There may be differences in flowers and flowering time but this will really be significant in relation to H. mirabilis rather than between the populations recorded here or to H. herbacea. Attention must be paid to the way in which H. herbacea is geographically wedged in between populations of H. maculata. Equally significant is the character of H. pubescens southwest of Sandberg (Dewetsberg) where the plants have less spinuliferous leaf surfaces and also spotting (maculation). This is one of the best pieces of evidence I have for the geographic continuities that exist throughout the genus both in respect of species of how I think species can be recognized and of how difficult decision making is. In essence this report only dismisses the idea that the Lemoenpoort population can be assigned to H. pubescens. I doubt if it is rational to even formally recognize it as different to H. maculata as “variety” itself is a mythical status. Fragmentation by names is a rather archaic approach to classification that serves hardly anything but a semi-commercial need.

Acknowledgement
Many people contributed in one way or another to this report … Mr Hentie deWet of Moddergat, Messrs Poffie and Hettie Conradie of Sandberg (South), Mr Pieter Naude of Vreesnicht, Mr Johan and Marie Fourie of Buitenstekloof, Mr Nico Marais of Worcester (Brandvlei) Brickfield, Mr A. Groenewald of Cilmor Cellar and Stefan Hugo of River Farm. Messrs PD and Anso leRoux provided much logistic support, interest and company as did Kobus Venter, Etwin Aslander and Werner Voigt. Lawrence Loucka has managed and facilitated the archiving of publications and pictures.

♦

Still another view of Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Set 1. MBB7998 H. floribunda Kruisrivier

Set 2. MBB7999 H. retusa Kruisrivier

Set 3. JDV92/65 H. retusa Kruisrivier

Set 4. MBB8000 H. retusa Wegwyserivier

MBB8000 flower faces

MBB8000 flower profiles

MBB8000 flower bud

8000 H. retusa, Wegwysersrivier. Flower bud.

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

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

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

Fig. 1. JDV95-62.9 H. retusa, Kruisrivier

♦

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

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 1 An overview of the Kruis River Valley.

Fig. 2 Some indication of the topography of the south bank.

Fig. 3 View northwest from a central position.

Fig. 4 View to the northwest across the flood plain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A further report on Haworthia mirabilis in the Greyton area.

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Bruce Bayer

Appendix 11 to Haworthia Update Vol. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

View 2 looking northeast from within hiking trail — View 1 over Greyton from the northeast

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

The Haworthia species of the Bontebok National Park

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Bruce Bayer

M. B. Bayer (MSc), Kleinbegin Farm, Kuilsriver, South Africa
Mrs. Carly Cowell (MSc), Regional Ecologist, Cape Research Centre, Conservation Services, South African National Parks, Cape Town, South Africa.

Objective: The significance of the Bontebo National Park occurrences.
The occurrence of members of three aloid “genera” (the three sub-genera of the genus Haworthia could indeed be genera) and the absence of any other member of the Aloids (bar the ubiquitous Aloe ferox) must surely be indicative of the driving forces that determine the flora of the Bonte National Park. This also must surely help establish the significance of the park as a conservancy of considerable merit. The complex interaction of the species enhances even that. The purpose of this report is to examine more closely the variation and nature of a small segment of the Park flora, and demonstrate how much more can be done.

Note: This report has several constraints. Firstly is the situation in which there is no formal general definition and hence understanding of what a plant species is. Secondly there is the generally understood view that there is an evolutionary process at work by which organisms evolve from a common distant origin by genetic mutation and adaptation. Thirdly there are serious flaws in the classification of the Aloid genera. Several essays dealing with these issues by DNA sequencing are weak because they rest on those flaws and consequently do not address some serious questions of relationships that the results pose. Fourthly of course is the reality that the knowledge or intellectual capacity to overcome these deficiencies may be absent. Thus the report is written in the context of all the publications as the original genus revision (Haworthia Revisited, Bayer; Umdaus, 1999) and others available on the internet (HaworthiaUpdates.org).

Introducing the subgenera.
There are 6 species of Haworthia that occur in the Bontebok National Park representing each of the three subgenera. These subgenera are not real and have no closer relationship than that between any of the other genera in the Asphodelaceae however these are, or have been recognised.

Subgenus Hexangulares. There are 15 species in this subgenus. Two are in the northwest of South Africa and the others in the Eastern Cape or across the Karoo. In respect of other Aloid genera it seems to be close to Chortolirion. Only one species occurs in the Southern cape viz.H. venosa.

Subgenus Haworthia. Here there are 37 species by my account. Non-botanists raise this figure to as much as 600. By their methodology and ideology it is a great deal more. This subgenus is at odds with all the other Aloid genera and has an unusual internal diversity suggesting very recent speciation. Three species occur in the Park viz. H. retusa (turgida), H. mirabilis and H. floribunda.

Subgenus Robustipedunculares. There are 4 species all in the Southern cape with spill-over into the Little Karoo. One species, H. pumila also occurs in the southern Great Karoo. There is a very close affinity with the genus Astroloba. The four species have a very close affinity and while H. kingiana in the eastern Southern Cape appears to be discrete, the other three definitely are not. The Park occurrences are evidence of this and these seem to represent two species viz. H. marginata and H. minima. See more under the treatment of H. minima below.

Introducing the species.
Illustrations are of a general form for the species. Clonal variability is so high that use of the term “typical” can be misleading.
Haworthia venosa. (Fig. 1)

This species occurs primarily along the lower course of the Breede River with its upper river limit just beyond the northwestern corner of the Bontebok National Park. Its lower limit is just north of Malgas. Two populations are known to me off the river and a small way to the west. The species also occurs at Die Eiland in the Gouritz Valley. Its nearest affinities are with H. tessellata that is very widespread across the northern Karoo and Cape; and with H. granulata. The latter is certainly more closely allied to H. tessellata and the separation may just be on the basis of geographic separation rather than on the morphological characters that could be cited. This may be true for H. venosa as well but in my opinion this would conflict with the general evidence of species geography.

Haworthia retusa (turgida). (Fig. 2)

The name is written in this form because in the existing situation where species are confounded by definition, lesser categories are even more so. The bracketing thus suggests that this is a variant of H. retusa. This species is very widespread and abundant east of the Park with one vicariant population just north of Bredasdorp. The (turgida) variant is one I regard as a riverine cliff ecotype and occurs in the park only along the Breede River at the northwest limits of the Park. It is also downstream along the Breede River. H. mutica is a closely related species that in my opinion actually just extends the distribution of H. retusa (retusa) westwards. My opinion further is that an “evolutionary” process is not complete and that H. retusa and H. mirabilis may be the same “species” separated primarily on the basis of a different flowering season. H. mutica does occur just east of the Park (Rotterdam, Mullershof), and my observation is that H. floribunda is involved with H. retusa and H. mirabilis in this occurrence. It is in fact one of the objectives in this report; to ask if this might be true. Flowering time is spring.

This species and its variants appears in various of my publications and often linked to H. mutica and H. pygmaea.

Haworthia mirabilis. (Fig. 3)

This species is very common and widely distributed from Genadendal, Caledon and Napier all the way to east of Albertinia. It is generally summer flowering and extremely diverse. As its interaction with H. retusa in the west generates H. mutica, so I believe the same interaction produces H. pygmaea in the east. H. retusa is spring flowering but hybrids with H. mirabilis are present in the field and there are populations that suggest that these two species are involved. Flowering time is summer.

Extensive records are discussed and illustrated in various publications but primarily in the Update series, specifically Update Vol.3, part 1. The species is incredibly variable and the floral variations are discussed and illustrated in a flower report as Haworthia Update Vol.8 (Alsterworthia 2012).

Haworthia floribunda. (Fig. 4)

This species is also summer flowering and has a curious relationship with both H. retusa and with H. mirabilis also with evidence that such “introgression” is evidenced in populations. It is at its western limit at Swellendam and the variants in this area are extraordinary. Flowering time is summer.

Also incredibly variable with hybridization with both H. mirabilis and H. retusa and it is hypothesized that some Haworthia populations are derived from such introgression (see also Haworthia Updates Vol.5 ,part 1, Chapter 6).

Haworthia marginata. (Fig. 5)

This species occurs from Ashton eastward to east of Riversdale in a rather narrow eas-west band that widens near Bredasdorp. It interacts with both H. pumila and H.minima. The species in this subgenus flower essentially in mid-summer. The Park population together with that of the adjacent Rotterdam population flowers in spring. At Rotterdam there is hybridization with a version of H. minima.

Haworthia minima. (Fig. 6)

This species distribution generally complements that of H. pumila and then follows, but more widely that of H. marginata. In the southwest it extends to near Elim and is common along the near-coastal strip as far east as Hartenbos. The inland distribution is not well known in the area west of the Breede River. It is probable that it was common in the area now extensively cultivated but it is not known to me inland in that area north of Tarentaal. West of Swellendam there are only two records known to me at Sanddrift, Drew and again furher west of Drew. In the one case there is hybridization with H. marginata. In the second case a short distance west of this is the variant ‘poellnitziana’ and I suspect that introgression with H. pumila may have occurred there The essential differences are that H. pumila has a colour range in the brown-green range, the flowers are generally olivaceous, and the tubercles are larger and rougher. The colour range for the smaller H. minima plants is in the blue-green range, the tubercles are smaller and smoother, and the flowers whiter and greener. H. pumila hybridizes naturally with Astroloba corrugata. Also at Sanddrift, H. pumila hybridizes with H. marginata . It is almost inconceivable that it has not hybridized with H. minima and it will be very difficult to superficially judge if plants were indeed hybrids or not without resorting to DNA sequencing (when that technology is advanced enough). H. minima hybridises with H. marginata at Heidelberg (S. Hooikraal) and in the past with H. marginata just northeast of Bredasdorp. Flowering time is summer.

Some variation is presented and discussed in Haworthia Updates Vol.5. part 1, Chapter 7.

The geology of the Park
Bontebok National Park (BNP) is home to three main land types listed in the National Land Type Database, the first land type consists of conglomerate, sandstone and mudstone from the Uitenhage Group (Thamm and Johnson, 2006), which are overlain with Tertiary terrace gravel and can be found on the upper slopes of the north-western section of the park. The second land type is mainly tertiary and quaternary terrace gravels and covers the majority of the park, central and eastern sections. Within this there are high-level gravel terraces with silcrete and ferricrete outcrops, alluvial flats of loam and sandy loam. The final land type consists of siltstone, shales and sandstones of the Bokkeveld and Witteberg Group, these are found along the Breede River section in the western corner of the park. Soils comprise mainly of alluvial sand along the low-lying areas and undeveloped podzols in the main portion of the park. (Chief Director of Survey and Land Information 1993).

BNP_Geology — Map 2 – The geology of the Park

The vegetation and flora of the Park
Originally established to protect the threatened Bontebok antelope the Bontebok National Park is situated in the Cape Flora Region, a Global Biodiversity Hotspot (Goldblatt and Manning, 2000). BNP occurs in an ecotone (transition zone) between Fynbos and Renosterveld and the national vegetation map lists it as Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos (Rebelo et al., 2006) having a mix of both Renosterveld and Fynbos species. The conservation status of this vegetation type is Endangered with the largest portion being formally conserved within BNP. Along the Breede River banks Cape Lowland Alluvial vegetation occurs in the park and is listed as Critically Endangered (Driver et al., 2005), only 1% is formally conserved. A total of 650 floral species are listed as occurring in BNP, from 280 genera and 85 families (Kraaij, 2011). Of these twenty-nine species are listed on the Global threatened species list and a further 23 are recognised as species of conservation concern. The families with the largest species occurrence in the park are the Astercaeae, Iridaceae and Fabaceae (Kraaij, 2011), while the families of Asphodelaceae, Crassulaceae, Poaceae and Cyperaceae were well overrepresented in the park. There are also two species endemic to the park (Aspalathus burchelliana and Diosma fallax) and largest of only 2 populations of Erica filamentosa can be found in Bontebok. Succulents only comprised 8% of the total growth forms within the park with geophtyes being the majority (23%) (Kraaij, 2011). BNP flora is one of the richest in the region and conserves flora that are not conserved elsewhere. It is an area of high conservation priority and diversity and forms a major part in the conservation of Renosterveld in the Overberg region.

BNP_Vegetation_2012_03_22 — Map 3 – The vegetation and flora of the Park

The scope and coverage of this report
Three of the Haworthia species are known from single populations, and these are indicated on the distribution map (see map 1).

The report therefore covers those species with multiple records, recording their whereabouts and the pictorial plant body and flower variations. Localities are numbered according to M.B. Bayer accession numbers.

A. Haworthia mirabilis.
Accessions 6644, 7704, 7744, 7805, 8035, 8043.
In Jan 2013 population 7704 was in flower, buds were observed at 8035 but not at 7744.
As in my flower report (Update Vol 8) the flowers are not convincingly different from those of H. floribunda. The variation of the plants in especially 7704 and 7805 suggest introgression with H. floribunda.

MBB6644 – Haworthia mirabilis

Flower profiles and faces

2. MBB7704 – Haworthia mirabilis

Flower Profiles, and Faces

3. MBB774 – Haworthia mirabilis

4. MBB7805 – Haworthia mirabilis

Flower profiles, faces, and bud

5. MBB8035 – Haworthia mirabilis

6. MBB8043 – Haworthia mirabilis

B. Haworthia floribunda.
Accessions 8017. In flower Jan 2013.
A record 3439 exists for the Park, but the precise whereabouts is not recorded. The plant colour and form do not accord with 8017.

7. MBB8017 – Haworthia floribunda

Flower profiles and faces.

Habitat requirements of Haworthia can be so specific as to defy my describing them. Here is a picture looking north of the habitat for 8017 H. cf floribunda. The rocky ridge extends a long way further north and then west, as well as a long way south. Much of it is of course unexplored in enough detail to know if there are Haworthia there or not. At the southern end of the ridge about 1km away H. mirabilis occurs. To the west the ridge continues, rises and then transforms into steep but low cliffs along the Breede River running northwards. On those cliffs one finds H. retusa (turgida). H. mirabilis is again present on north slopes east of the cliffs. H. venosa is on low river cliffs to the south and it may also be where this ridge abuts the river and turns north.

C. Haworthia minima.
Accessions 7743, 8036, 8037

In Jan 2013, a single weak inflorescence was observed at 8036. 8037 was flowering well. No flower or buds were observed at 7743. The plants are not the characteristic blue-green colour of regular H. minima, and the tubercles also seem to be rougher. The flower colour is that of H. minima without the olive-green associated with H. pumila. Note has to be taken of a now non-existent population just south of Swellendam on the N2 that flowered in late Spring with an abnormally large flower, and then a population to the near east at Rotterdam that appears to flower in Summer and where there are hybrids with H. marginata. One cannot exclude the possibility that there is a genetic continuity with either or both, H. marginata and H. pumila.

8. MBB7743 – Haworthia minima

9. MBB8035 – Haworthia minima

10. MBB8037 – Haworthia minima

Flower profiles and faces.

D. Haworthia retusa (turgida).

Accession 2420. This is the cliff-dwelling form of H. retusa and it is only known from the steep riverine cliffs on the northwest boundary of the Park. Expected to be in flower in September.

The significance of the population is the similarity of some clones to H. reticulata that is only known eastwards along the Breede River until Drew from Worcester. It also tends to be a clump-forming species favouring steepish rocky slopes as opposed to its geographic sister species H. herbacea that tends to be more solitary and occupying a wider range of habitat.

11. MBB2420 Haworthia retusa ‘turgida’

References:

DRIVER, A., MAZE, K., ROUGET, M., LOMBARD, A. T., NEL, J., TURPIE, J. K., COWLING, R. M., DESMET, P., GOODMAN, P., HARRIS, J., JONAS, Z., REYERS, B., SINK, K. & STRAUSS, T. (2005) National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. . Strelitzia 14. South African National Biodiversity Institute.

GOLDBLATT, P. & MANNING, J. (2000) Cape Plants. A conspectus of the Cape Flora of South Africa, Cape Town, National Botanical Institute of South Africa Missouri Botanical Garden Press.

KRAAIJ, T. (2011) The flora of the Bontebok National Park in regional perspective. South African Journal of Botany, 19.

REBELO, A. G., BOUCHER, C., HELME, N., MUCINA, L. & RUTHERFORD, M. C. (2006) Fynbos Biome. IN MUCINA, L. & RUTHERFORD, M. C. (Eds.) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Sterlitzia 19. Pretoria, South African National Biodiversity Institute.

THAMM, A. G. & JOHNSON, M. R. (2006) The Cape Supergroup. IN JOHNSON, M. R., ANHAEUSSER, C. R. & THOMAS, J. R. (Eds.) The Geology of South Africa. Johannesburg, The Geological Society of South Africa.

Bontebok Park Haworthia floribunda and SW Klipport Haworthia mirabilis

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Bruce Bayer

I was at Bontebok Park south of Swellendam this week specifically to get another look at Haworthia floribunda there and why it is so different. On the way I did some exploring at Stormsvlei about 25km west of Swellendam where I know H. mutica Klipport in a shale environment, and a very odd H. mirabilis growing on a small patch of manganic conglomerate. But going south onto the northern slopes of the Bromberg we found three populations of H. mirabilis in sandstone that are again “different” in the sense that “H. groenewaldii” could be different from H. mutica. This is just a local geological phenomenon and fully sequential with H. mirabilis to all compass directions. If you extrapolate this to Swellendam you have to conclude that the Swellendam mix of H. floribunda, H. marginata, H. minima, H. floribunda, H. mutica and H. retusa is the way it is because of the unusual geology of the area. The Bontebok Park is a relatively massive area of tertiary gravel of mostly river origin and derived from Table Mountain Sandstone. Tertiary gravels east and south are derived from silcrete and ferricrete. I do not know the detail of the mineralogy but it most definitely forms the basis of the soils, vegetation and habitat across the Southern Cape. I specifically looked at H. marginata in the park and see that it was in seed i.e. September flowering with massive capsules and seed. Now if Marx can persuade someone that this is a different species, I accept that I am a monkey’s uncle and that the differences in H. marginata elsewhere e.g. Drew, Bredasdorp and Heidelberg or Riversdale, mean there are several similar species. Oh, I forget – that means H. floribunda would also be several species, and so is H. minima. But then H. mutica is of course several species and H. retusa several dozen. H. mirabilis several hundred.

This is 8017 from the Bontebok Park Swellendam. In some circles I am expected to get excited and see this as something new. In the context of the Haworthia in the wider area, this is a variant of H. floribunda. In my flower report it is evident that there is not much difference between the flowers or flowering time of this species and H. mirabilis. It hybridizes with H. retusa, H. retusa (turgida), and H. pygmaea despite differences in flowering time, and also with H. mirabilis. There are populations that I think are an older product of such hybridization (or failure to have ever separated).

Typical – an over-used comment. A white small glass ball is found and named “Marble alba”. Then a red one is found and named “Marble rosea”. Then several other colours turn up and “rosea” is lumped under “Marble alba” as a variety. Automatically all the others become “Marble alba var. alba” if they are not specifically named or not put under “rosea”. If “rosea” had started as “Marble alba var. rosea”, there would automatically have been a “var. alba”. All other glass marbles known and unknown would have been “var. alba” even if no another white marble ever turned up. A type just establishes a name and the best way to determine how that name is used by an author is by ALL the illustrations and pictures he/she notes. A type that establishes a name may be an oddity or a single variant that does not easily establish a use. The advice handed to me by a group of taxonomists in 1972 was that it would be best to scrap all the old Haworthia names and start again from scratch. The group was led by Prof. Schelpe, one of the few professors who as a taxonomist headed the department. He had explained this view in a published article in respect of Gasteria and why he rejected the idea of personally revising the genus. He had no solution for types and names that could not be directly linked to a set of herbarium specimens or similar evidence. Now substitute H. mirabilis for marbles alba and where the contrast of white and red is absent.

————————

Just what is the type form of H. mirabilis and what constitutes H. magnifica? That is the subject of my question about the way in which the typical variety is recognised. There are 4 populations of H. mirabilis in the Park and many to west, east and south. Imagining that there is also a “maraisii” is just crackpot even more so to say “magnifica”. There is quite definitely one system that you can see from many populations and that system inter-twines with two others also on the basis of many populations. At this stage of the available information on these populations there are a lot less species – see also the article Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source published in Haworthia Updates Vol. 8 by Alsterworthia International. I also started off thinking that there was an H. maraisii and an H. magnifica but changed my mind quite early. In the last ten years I have come to see that both they and H. heidelbergensis are nothing but parts of one system viz H. mirabilis. Ask the authors who think otherwise to present some clear evidence based on good random sampling and statistics. See the Haworthia Updates Vol. 4 article Some variation in Haworthia mirabilis var. sublineata by Loucka and Bayer on the stats of H. mirabilis (sublineata).

—————–

Klipport is a farm a bit off the beaten track on the north side of the Bromberg low range. Bromberg is the eastern end of the Riviersonderend Mountains and is cut off from them by the Riviersonderend River that changes direction to the north to do so and then east again to join the Breede River. Bokkeveld shale is strata-wise above the sandstone of this mountain range and a small amount of shale is present here on the south bank of the river. At Klipport it is a narrow sloping stretch of about 500m long and about 75m wide with white gravel and clays. The vegetation it totally different to the grassy fry Fynbos and renosterveld of the Bromberg and has karoid succulent vegetation with the endemic Gibbaeum esterhuysdeniae and a Brianhuntleya species. The site is also home to a smoothish form of Haworthia pumila, and also to a range of H. mutica variants that might have a name attached by now. Another very interesting species there is Drosanthemum micans. This species has an extraordinary range of variation that parallels that of Haworthia and at Klipport is moving to another face as D. lavisii. It would be very instructive if other Haworthia taxonomists could, or would, take note of this kind of parallel and recognize that there are significant clues to how Haworthia species and their variations are part of a larger pattern.

This small shaly area has a very patchy distribution of the species on it with patches of a restioid and Pteronia. Through some weird quirk a German immigrant ploughed up a vast area of very marginal virginal land and planted gums and pines that after 30 years are still far from harvestable. I doubt if they will ever yield anything. This happened under the eyes of Nature Conservation and the Dept of Agriculture that is supposed to manage land use. The area on the river itself was paradoxically a source of timber in the early Cape days and is now severely infested with exotic gum and wattle. It is this riverine growth that sustains the timber enterprise of the adjoining farm Vaandrigsdrift. Not far away between the shale and the sandstone is a manganese deposit that is now being mined. At the end of this deposit is a tiny set of large conglomerate-like rocks with a variant of H. mirabilis. This species also occurs as an interesting ecotype a short way further east where the shale is less transformed along the sandstone interface. In fact I do not know exactly what it it is that has driven this decay of Bokkeveld shale to kaolinic and bentonitic clays where it has been covered with Tertiary marine deposit at some stage in geological history. Whatever it was, is certainly significant with respect to island-like habitats and “conserved” vegetation remnants.

MBB8028 H. mirabilis SW Klipport

MBB8030 H. mirabilis SW Klipport

MBB8031 H. mirabilis SW Klipport

♦

17. H. mirabilis and groenewaldii

Posted on July 19, 2019 by Bruce Bayer

50. 2019.7.9 – While I have dwelt a bit on the oddities that comprise H floribunda, I have said very little about H. mirabilis. In my early days I recognised things like H. maraisii, H. magnifica, H. heidelbergensis and how specimens cited from von Poelnitz’ H. nitidula may have actually been drawn from 10 different species of the time! I have since written extensively about H. mirabilis and pointed out several times the “problem of H. magnifica”. The population that this “species” was drawn from is so variable as to stagger the mind, and yet not that different for each of the many other populations. Yet the biggest purveyor, and one of the supposed all-knowing experts on Haworthia tells me that the binomial H. magnifica makes sense to him. Nothing can be more bizarre than this. A truly mental distortion. Influence of the moon. : ) So please bear in mind that H. floribunda is not some out-of-the-ordinary mix of unlike things. Here are just a few variants from the “magnifica” source, and one (at least) definitely infused with H. retusa. Call it hybrid if you insist.

It should perhaps be remembered that it has been mistakenly assumed (particularly by G.G. Smith) that Haworthia could be revised in the same way that Reynolds did with the genus Aloe. In Aloe, the individuals in the population are close to identical and in fact also from population to population. Haworthia taxonomists use the same approach today and it does not work. It is plain fraudulent to base a description on what is essentially an unrepresentative specimen or sample. Hence the absurdity of a statement that any description could have been reasonably made of a population like that of H. magnifica, and make sense.

51. 2019.7.10 – So let us look now at these amazing plants that comprise H. groenewaldii without confusing respect and deep consideration for the persona, the equally remarkable quality of the plants, with the problem of a classification that is true. The habitat on the east bank of the Buffeljags River needs to be noted as quite unlike any other occupied by the retusoids/mirabiloids/emelyoids. It is shallow alluvium over a very old shale layer.

Lawrence Loucka: Is the pointy tipped one from the same population?

Bruce Bayer: Yes Lawrence, I am glad you asked – and this is how amateur taxonomists depart from basic principles. A basic principle is that a species is a universal truth and all inclusive – so this must be H. groenewaldii too just as are all the other variants that are side-lined. There is absurdity and incongruence in the way these things are described and typified. This is what I highlighted in the case of H. magnifica. More to come.

52. 2019.7.11 – On the east bank there are 3 fairly discrete populations and it was obvious that looking across the flood plain that they must also be on the opposite west bank. Sure enough, also 3 and more discrete populations. Now there is a difference between east and west bank. The erosion/deposition cycles are or were, quite different. The east bank is abutted by wheat fields while the west bank is a nature reserve (Bontebok National Park) precisely because it was unsuitable for agriculture!! Thank goodness for non-arabiity. But like the east bank there is a veneer of alluvium of probably equal age. You can determine if the plants on the two banks are strictly the same by the same criteria “new species” is touted. Mirabilis, floribunda, and Tulista marginata. T. minimima in proximity but all in discrete habitat. There is some pupping but the plains dwellers are less prone to pupping than cliff occupants anyway.

53. 2019.7.12 – Now a second population from the west bank and from these few pictures you now know what groenewaldii unmistakably is? You also have a good image of H. floribunda? and H. retusa? and H. mirabilis? and you think H. magnifica is a good species? And of course like the author of the H groenewaldii you know H. mutica intimately. Some surprises in store for you. Perhaps from the limited array of pictures posted here you are better equipped than some of these taxonomists who proclaim names. ♦

31. Mirabiloids

Posted on August 28, 2019 by Bruce Bayer

87. 2019.8.22, MBB7285 – Starting from the west now is H. mirabilis and again with no two plants quite the same, i.e. Mirabiloids.

88. 2019.8.23, MBB8048 – Skipping out, in a change of mind, 8947, 8052 and 8053, here we are about 800m W of “minor”. It was late February – the mirabiloids (as a general rule) do not like direct sun and are often well hidden and protected in shale cracks and crevices and under sparse or even dense but short plant cover.

Why the impatience? I had some recent interesting correspondence where my correspondent referred to various writers and their respective opinions and followings. Well this is where the problem lies. We ask “who is right?”, instead of “what is true?”. Instead of thinking for ourselves we rely on others to do it for us.

Lawrence Loucka: Have your correspondent read all of Haworthia Updates, then have the conversation again. If your correspondent isn’t willing to make the intellectual investment, then any further dialog would be a waste of time for both of you.

At the very least, read the introduction to Haworthia Revisited.
https://haworthiaupdates.org/…/haworthia-revisited…/

Bruce Bayer: It does not appear to me that any writer has taken my introductions seriously and there does not appear to be anyone who has proposed an alternate species definition either. As Dr Manning wrote, there is just a blind acceptance of a zoological species definition based on inter-species sterility without any consideration of that issue. Usually the thoughts about the constitution for species is dismissed as personal vagary on the part of past writers and excluding the present author. 😄

89. 2019.8.23, MBB8050 – About 400m west of “minor”, skipping 8049 is 8050. Rather surprising to see how much resemblance there is to H. floribunda? But I was reflecting a bit on history and the first journeys into the interior ca 1652 plus. Have we really learned anything? Lawrence sagely posted the introduction to Revisited written in 1966. Even with all the DNA sequencing, has anything since been said that adds anything to our knowledge of Haworthia? I do not think so. The probability that all these things I suggest are a species “H. retusa“, may indeed be a step closer to reality without actually getting there.

90. 2019.8.25, MBB7821 – Now about 150m west, and the transition to greener, more, and more erect leaves is stronger. These are all just subtle effects on a small scale that occur among all these populations that I suggest are probably the same species. No amount of sequencing, quantification, acrobatics and verbal gymnastics to please collectors and irritate alternate experts, is going to remove the element of doubt and consequent confusion.

91. 2019.8.26, MBB8045 – About 15m away from the original mini-habitat of minor. This multi-leaved habit is not characteristic of the mirabiloids but then just what is?

92. 2019.8.27, KG36/70 – Finally back to the original locality for “minor” using the original collecting number more than 30 years later. What does one make of this? I ended up placing it, rather desperately as a variant of H. rossouwii. There is no better reason than the curious resemblances one finds in various mirabiloid populations to that species. I know H. rossouwii from 9 populations and nowhere is it in the company of any other species. What I have shown is how intimately involved H. floribunda is with this greater retusoid raft of populations. H. rossouwii much less so, but one cannot doubt that there are cross connections. Does it get subsumed into H. mirabilis also despite different flowering time? Depending on DNA sequencing to provide answers when the sampling, analysis and interpretation is done without good insight into the nature of the problem, is not going to provide a satisfactory answer. Especially so when the DNA results so far available suggest so little difference between species.

Jakub Jilemicky: I have once seen rossouwii and mirabilis together – on Oudekraalkop farm.

Bruce Bayer: Thank you Jakub – that is really interesting. ♦

33. Stormsvlei mirabilis

Posted on September 2, 2019 by Bruce Bayer

93. 2019.9.1, MBB7719 – East of Stormsvlei – when you doubt if mirabilis can still present itself as any different, it manages to do so. No retusoids in the near vicinity either.

94. 2019.9.2, MBB7513 – Yes this is also H. mirabilis, and it is not surprising that Haworthia classification is so controversial. Variation within and between populations is just incredible. These particular plants were on very large lumps of manganese concreted rock. ♦

Species, what species?

Posted on May 15, 2021 by Bruce Bayer

Here are maps attempting to illustrate relationships and a reality of “species”. The BW map was the one presented in Salisbury 1976. The colour map was done a few years ago and I may (need to) work on the legend along the lines of the MTR model. But I do feel disturbed by Gerhard’s unnecessary and unkind remarks. The fact is that I said long ago that Haworthia as was, would not be understood until the generic problem was resolved. At least PRE accepts that. But there is a bigger and deeper problem that I cannot get through to anyone despite the obvious. We have a classification system that is antiquated and dysfunctional based on a philosophy and methodology that does not work for Haworthia and MANY other genera. There is no general and precise species definition and there cannot be while we are restricted to a mechanistic world view that wholly ignores the fact that the physical world we occupy is a projection from a far greater metaphysical reality that we are programed to forget. Species are not just mechanistic products of a whimsical nature. Books like Sheldrake’s Morphogenesis, or Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis, and Capra The Turning Point (many more) are not sucked out of thin air. Neither are the Bible, The AdiGranth, the Baghavad Gita and also many more. But we do not need to go to that level to realise that we are getting nowhere pursuing a mindless argument. We do not even have to know the metaphysical reality while we think we can use a two dimensional clado- or phylo-gram to illustrate a three-dimensional issue of time and space.

For the sake of clarity, red is retusa and pink is turgida but do not make a mistake and think there is a clear separation.

The dotted lines are really a guess at a situation before the Younger Dryas? 12,000 years ago They suggest a southern connection of the mirabiloids were I have no doubt that mirabilis ‘bobii’ directly connects to mirabilis ‘paradoxa’. I would love to paste my updates stuff all over again. Trouble is I only got a digital camera about 2006 and as it is, posting one population a day would need about 3 years.

I understand there are people who are offended by my opinions and the frustrations that I generously express. But there are real problems that commercial and lesser needs prefer to wish away. Seeing H. fusca did not require for me to wait months to see any connection to H. retusa. It simply confirmed what I have been tediously trying to explain to an audience that has an element reluctant to listen. Or reluctant to read and think objectively. Why do these people want to lead enthusiasts away from what may be true? The fact is that DNA sequencing has not been able to resolve the nature of species in these retusoid/mirabiloid populations. I do not think that next-generation sequencing is going to change anything either. Here is a very rough map I drew to try and explain the situation of a single gene pool (one system = one species). I use R in the map for retusa for nomenclatural priority when it is actually turgida (thus T) that dominates. True retusa is centered on Riversdale and Heidelberg in the centre. Rather than throw rocks at me, I would be grateful for constructive ideas based on observable and quantifiable facts. If I add a smile will it alkalise the dyspepsia?

Here is a map to show the phytogeographic regions of the South African southwest – the Fynbos area. The fact is that vegetation classification like this is no easier or better than plant classification. It is full or errors and omissions. I wish I had the time, the skills, the knowledge to produce an accurate map of the distribution of the aloid species as an overlay. The map here used in a book on the Cape bulbs, comes from a book for the Fynbos as a whole. The discussion reads that these areas are primarily determined by rainfall but it sure is more complicated than that. The areas demarcated all lie within a greater area that is actually a winter rainfall one. Temperatures are never truly continental, nights are generally mild and actually there seem to be two main non-growing times viz July/August when its cold, and then Jan/Feb when it is hot and dry. What I do know is that the Haworthia genera and species can be mapped and understood in exactly this way. Nature has not just haphazardly sprinkled stuff about and had a randomly orchestrated ball.

From my point of view, you need to understand that retusa is not a separate unit. It is part of this one system = one species, Look at my coloured map and ask what names go to what colours? In fact the colours merge into each other and it is difficult to say where a name stops and starts. Again it is a problem that you might not have been able to see much of the literature where this is explained. It was about 1972 I discussed the sequence of populations from N Heidelberg from the sandstone mountains (turgida caespitosa) all the way to the sea then east and up to Riversdale where it was retusa. Atrofusca is not a separate unit but you can use atrofuscoid because there are populations you can characterise as atrofusca. You cannot do that for magnifica for example. ?? It is not funny to see what the relationship is between atrofusca and floribunda that I have also described in the literature. ??

MBB7998 – Even if this IS a species, how do you collate all this variation into a single meaningful, usable species description and which plant do you select as a “type”. G.G. Smith fell at this hurdle long before (fortunately he had finished his manuscript) Except some never learned nothing and continued in the same vein – taking one plant to cook up a description?

MBB7999 Kruisriver. These plants all fall on an interface of turgida and mirabilis.

MBB8000 Kruisriver. I am sure this is formally named somewhere. If these guys are honest it is several times. Fabulous place and people. To our amazement they had a pet chameleon and also a pal with a dozen pet tarantulas. Our one regret is having met so many great people who were so friendly and hospitable that it was awful to experience this as a kind of one-off and never see them again!

Goodness me a floodgate of thoughts and a spider waiting to catch me in its web ?? This is turgida ‘pallidifolia’ growing nearly cheek by jowl, with dekenahii (var. of retusa or pygmaea?). The classic cliff face/flat terrain situation that marks the difference between the generally clump-forming turgida and the solitary flatter withdrawn retusa? But this is not the only place. Throughout the Southern Cape we have these juxtapositions of M R and T. Old methods have not solved these problems and old ideas will not either. If critics or doubters would please just kindly and coolly, look in an unprejudiced or jaundiced way at the published information. I have tracked all of mirabilis in a really large scale operations like at Kruisriver, Komserante, Kewietsvlakte, Vermaaklikheid, Potberg, Malagas, Haarwegskloof, Napier, VanReenens Crest etc. (North of this locality by about 1km used to be another turgida population on a cliff face was that more retusoid than this one).

I would so love to post each population in the spider web map of relationships. It would take months/years at a population/day. My good friends fellow Haworthia name appliers and commercial outlets hate me for this. You need to know that Daphne, Kobus and I explored the greater area thoroughly and found about 15 populations or more. Only in one other location did we find two species and they were also contiguous but floribunda and retusa – also a cross season hybrid observed. How other Haworthia pundits evade these realities and the classification issues would need Einstein or Heisenberg or Jung or Kinsey to explain. Note Kinsey was a famous psychologist of a more recent era.

MBB8003 from the area NE Riversdale as circled on map. Yes you guessed right. I did not know whether to file these as H. retusa or H. mirabilis because it is in a dramatic series that forms a continuum turgida ‘caespitosa’ (=mirabilis) to a more mirabiloid thing.

Yes you guessed right, again. I did not know whether to file these as H. retusa or H. mirabilis. Why for example is H. vernalis seen as a more useful name than H. turgida ‘vernalis’ or H. retusa ‘vernalis’ (to observe rules priority). It is because it is more profitable I guess.

H. retusa and H. mirabilis are a dramatic series that form a continuum of turgida ‘caespitosa’ (=mirabilis) to a more mirabiloid thing.

A real problem is that people just can’t keep up. Sometimes they form strong opinions but are unable it seems, to maintain a discussion or keep relevant. We have seen 8003 and 8005 and now 8004. still in that small circled area NW Riversdale I refer to as Kruisriver. I have these under retusa but would be equally happy with them in mirabilis and with the best of intention, very confounded if someone suggested some other name. Thank goodness for emojis where people read venom dripping fangs where there is simply a plea for common sense.

These are upstream from that last lot in the same circled area but to the west 2km? Note the floribunda hybrid! I filed this under turgida!!! But I am immensely frustrated by Emile’s excellent post. Take my map for example. It has been around since 1976 and not a soul of all these potential collaborators has so much as whispered a syllable to suggest where it might be right or wrong. That has not stopped them from littering the web with names with no explanation of how they might fit and why? The name “magnifica” makes sense!!! I cannot even use it as “magnificaoid” – I will get to post pictures of this ? “species” “variety” “hodge-podge “. If you give me time. Emile can you tell where there are discontinuities in this lot – even where floribunda or rossouwii are concerned? Who do consider an authority on Lithops? Is there a communal solution or is there a truth? It is said that the camel is the product of consensus.

Taxonomy and Fieldwork

Posted on May 31, 2021 by Bruce Bayer

James Deacon asked Bruce Bayer, “What is this thing at Brandrivier?”

James – you have no idea how significant this picture is. It is an emelyae variant and I really need to know a lot more about precise whereabouts. Multifolia comes from a few km to the east and there was a very very rossouwii-like multifiolia on Brandrivier. It is pictured in Revisited. But it is not there anymore. What is there are plants like your picture indicate. Did you perhaps observe Tulista opalina?

Jakub Jilemicky added “This plant was described by Gerhard Marx as H. obserata. It occurs mainly at Brandrivier, but as well at Springfontein. It flowers with all the magnifica type plants, not with emelyae group.”

May 19 – 7888 Brandrivier. H. emelyae ‘obserrata’. It raises an interesting issue. Names may have to change every generation as the plants may change? It used to be ‘multifolia‘. Actually my species definition includes the matter of space and time. In which case the name ‘obserrata‘ is taxonomic malfeasance.

May 19 – 7846 Between Springfontein and Brandrivier. Flowering August. Surely the type loc for “H. obserrata” that I see as H. emelyae. But this is just a distraction. When you still have commentators making comparisons to the magnifica types and flowering times, you realize that the absurdity of Haworthia classification is going to continue for the next 80 years as well.

As a point of interest. There seem to be many different ideas of what species are. From the typological concept of things that look near identical, to a list of the species one thinks makes up a genus. In the latter case the genus is considered to be what is made up from the species one imagines. My own species concept is very well defined and my map (this spider web of colours) indicates the way factors of space and time are involved in only one small group of Haworthia.

Still paradoxa Vermaaklikheid but the first few were June and this is September.

Let me try this as no 3…What we have is a post of three pictures to show three “species” paradoxa, bobii and joleeniae and to ridicule Bayer for suggesting they are the same. Firstly those pictures are NOT the species. They are specimens taken to illustrate the species but by what is recognised in botanical taxonomy as the “typological concept”, i.e. a species consists of individuals that all look the same. I wish I could copy here what I wrote in the New Haworthia Handbook (1976) where I use the name H. magnifica var. paradoxa and discuss affinity with H. turgida, H. emelyae, H. retusa and H. mirabilis. I ended the discussion there with this… Consideration of the variability of this species and distribution of variants, is very helpful towards understanding variability in the genus as a whole. What I conclude is that the species are systems with any number of populations and individuals that vary enormously. The typological concept creates mayhem in the minds of critics, growers and collectors alike. So let us start with the paradoxa, but first dismiss H. magnifica as a species. That name is a total myth. The myth ghosts around probably a single plant I collected with J. Dekenah at the type locality. It proved very amenable in cultivation and plants ended up at Sheilam nursery to go world-wide. It is actually difficult to now find a clone quite the same at the original locality where there are several discrete “populations” in quite a small area – and countless variants. It is senseless to say that H. magnifica can be a species if in every aspect of such a decision it is topologically based, as is the unfortunate case. The name in SANBI is H. mirabilis. Paradoxa is a synonym. SANBI are not my friends or my clients. Some very bright and competent people are employed there. The element paradoxa is thus in my view a variant in the species H. mirabilis and illustrated here by three populations viz. at Vermaaklikheid, Osplaas and Koenserus.

Just get something clear about type specimens and the system. A specimen is only anchor for the name. It does not prove anything about where it comes from. It is just representative. A second point is in that the nomenclatural rules uphold chronological discovery (better still – description) over reality. This mad rule of priority totally confounds the prime aim of a classification that follows and explains the genetic history (phylogeny). If in fact evolutionary theory is even valid. Generally the rules provide fertile ground for confusion, argument and publication credits that do little to promote their purpose.

Two Vermaaklikheid picture sets have been posted. This is another. A cooler west facing outlook but also on those limestone rocks. I must confess to a bit of apprehension that some may claim this is a different species when my opinion will be a great deal more conservative in what lies ahead.

What is the problem? I suggest we have an antiquated, outdated, dysfunctional classification system so that our knowledge, philosophy and methodology does not allow explanation of groups like Haworthia. So I will try and demonstrate it like this…Gerhard posted pictures of paradoxa, bobii and joleeniae. One of each! So let us just see how this can be interpreted. Here are several pictures of ‘paradoxa‘ from Vermaaklikheid east of the village. I first saw it at a site north of the village.

There is so much still to explore. Here is a map just to indicate the scale that has to be exercised. Initially I was happy to stop every 50 miles to see what might be there. Now it is every 25meters! Just note an interesting phenomenon here. 3 species and as many populations as there are recorded habitats. M = mirabilis, R retusa and F floribunda. Yes we covered most of the ground between too.

Mukesh Vaid asked – What does these four digit numbers signify

Bruce Bayer – Just my collecting numbers. This map is only intended to show intensity of search to demonstrate anything. I did have a collecting permit strictly adhered to. Often, as I do now, I do my searching with camera!

Every collector should have an accession book to record what you record and find where and when. I idiotically did not get this right to start with. Even as an entomologist I did not keep proper numbers. When I started at Karoo Garden I used the garden accession system KG with number/year. No good. In the end it is the quality of accession record that indicates the credibility of the work! I did not have the luxury of digital camera or GPS that is essential nowadays. At one time it was enough to just say “collected between the Cape and the diamond fields! With plant theft and cadaverdog-like shadows, it is a bit stressful to even produce the maps that I show! Sometimes I have mentioned something and the next moment a new species is described directly connected??

Mukesh Vaid – Where is H. turgida in this?”

Bruce Bayer – This not actually about turgida but just to show level of search necessary. But let me take the opportunity to try and get this message/hypothesis across. There is a single gene pool (a system) that produces mirabilis, retusa, turgida, pygmaea, mutica and emelyae. It can be simplified if it recognised that retusa is really a offset of turgida in among 5 main lines. So let us try and get something else straight. Science (i.e. scientism actually) is a system of reductionism that supposes that everything can be explained by breaking things down to their smallest parts. So we mess up in Haworthia by thinking the smallest parts are species when in fact it is a system of many things. Does that help?

This is where I think Mukesh rightly has a problem. That bottom pink line should not be there. That is why I refer to them as intervals. These bureaucratic scientists lay down the law that this should be seen for what it is and call it an interval – because it is a break in distribution continuity e.g.. The Knysna interval is a serious break between SE coast flora and S Cape flora. That coast line area is not easily explored and the geology is limestone with a different vegetation. There may well be Haworthias there. There is a record of a mirabiloid(?) on the sea cliffs at St Sebastian west of the Breede River mouth.

There is a really weird intimation that bureaucrats have determined what species names apply on Haworthia! It is actually a very democratic process based on 4 tenets of science. Universal truth, communality – no secrets, no private gain, and organised scepticism. If you have the data and you have the facts, you are free to organise and present your case. I have no privileged access to anything and certainly no sycophantic following with commercial interests in mind. I often wonder that not a hair sticks up from the trenches of my defense when so much garbage is thrown on attack

On this map…. There is actually no known connection across from L = longebracteata (also a mirabiloid area), to P = paradoxa, to B = bobii. Historically the shore line has changed and there may have been. Variegata seems to have jumped the gaps. So now we have populations a = Buffelsfontein, b = Sandfontein, c = Sandhoogte and d = Infanta. A and b are in the De Hoop Reserve and it is quite difficult to access so I have not been there with a digital camera unfortunately. Buffelsfontein I owe to Chris Burgers, Sandfontein to Adam Harrower and Sandhoogte to Jakub Jelimicky. Infanta I owe to mesemb research and what “bob” had to do with it is anybody’s guess. Certainly I did not remotely think it was or is a new species, as excited as I was to first see it. The overall complexity of the spider web does not do justice for the problems of variability among the floribundoids, the variegatoids and the mirabiloids. Turgida seems to hold its own. Holistically I can conceive of only the one solution that excludes adding another few species to an impossibly and unrealistic list. It would be nice if the culprits owed up to the chain of events that led to “bobii” and a few other names. Including the authorization for collecting that is so uncomfortable and dehumanizing. I make no apology for suggesting the association of bobii and paradoxa , even beyond a greater issue of the mirabiloids. I do not doubt that it is a difficult “ask”. The two pictures are of ‘a’ and do not do justice to the plants in the field at all.

Arthur Dixon posted these .. Bruce Bayer replied “All ‘paradoxa’.”

These are the plants at ‘b’ where Adam Harrower recorded them. I named the place as Sandfontein or “Sandhoogte N”. Makes me long to go and drool over them again!

These are my pictures of ‘c’ in the ‘bobii’/paradoxa/joleeniae/mirabilis milieu. Funnily enough I really do sympathise with the doubters and unbelievers and am very apprehensive about further showing you what I think is the same. (remind me if I forget!). I have not mentioned “muticoid” in this lot where I say turgida is real. I suggest that mutica does come in to the picture and I will touch on that when I get to ‘joleeniae’.

Arthur posts…”It seems to me that endless discussions and reasoned arguments supported by habitat shots whilst life-affirming and endlessly enthralling are not advancing the discussion in any way as (returns to main point) WITHOUT that definition of ‘species’ the cycle continues to revolve (Personal point)”. Yes yes yes. It has been ongoing for the last 80 years. Like I said – I get credit for my great contribution to Haworthia while effectively been told I know nothing. I am happy to accept that, if some intelligence is put in place of what I have written over the years. Contrary to general belief, I do not like offending or hurting people. Therefore I am very limited in what I can actually say and tell. What we need is a dimensional shift in how we think, how we reason and in what we are really wanting to achieve. We have a societal crisis and we see it not!

Tony Brook wrote “My apologies Bruce I am not a Botanist but surely the definition and description of Bobbi should precluded the 2 plants which are relatively hairless. Otherwise many other Haworthia would be included in the “species”.”

Bruce Bayer replied “No Tony. this is essentially the problem. I did not consider bobii to be a species. H. mirabilissii the species and the best way of defining species at the moment is by DNA sequencing but rather also by what my definition of species requires. Viz a holistic view of its relationships, similarities whatever, with possible and probable relatives.”

Here is another ‘joleneae‘ population that demonstrates how observations can be slanted to re-enforce propaganda. Someone also sent me an article on Haworthiopsis that is a piece of real modern day journalism. Unable to tell left from right or right from wrong, the writer sits on the fence like a Fiscal Shrike impaling worms on the barbs, i.e. hoping to have his believers (us ordinary worms) accept him as an all-seeing eye of truth. This has plagued me all my writing life! No joleneae is not definitely and distinctly, always glabrous. Some of these pictures even show the mutica shiny speckled appearance those plants can have. Differences between populations are in my observation as much due to the skeletal soil differences (geology) as they are to spatial isolation. I think. Some amazing individuals here.

So let us move on because there are still surprises and unpalatable truths. While we have seen mirabilis ‘bobii‘ from the sandstones of the Potberg itself, we need to see what mirabilis does on the geological confoundment of the flats north of the Potberg. First there is Melkhoutfontein and I assume that this is included in the concept of “joleneae” (that I usually misspell). It really should be H. mirabilis ‘joleneae‘ and just forget formal process. It is not possible to regulate and manage the welter of names. An attempt was made to register Aloe cultivars, but if this is practical I doubt. It is senseless to argue there is no continuity from ‘bobii‘ to ‘joleneae‘. This just upholds a nonsensical humongous heap of formal binomials to argue about and ignores the many more things that attract either no aesthetic attention or commercial interest. Joleneae is on the terrace cobbly sandstone as a simply descriptor.

It occurs to me. Joleneae is claimed to be consistently glabrous. This comment disregards the electron microscopy “work” done by Dr. David Cutler of Kew that I reported on in Updates. It is obvious from these pictures that the plants are incipiently hairy or spinose whatever is correct. we simply cannot properly assess the real nature of individual characters like this. Just for recall – there was an amazing paper written on the cladistics of the Aloids published in Taxon (about 30 years ago). Whoever peer reviewed that paper prior to publication deserves serious censure. Barely a character state is correctly stated.

What it needs to is for the thought leaders, like editors, society committee members, media notaries etc. to get their act together and seriously consider what their role is in the mess of argument and infighting. I have suggested now a solution where at least in Haworthia we can (if we so choose) admit the spider web and set-out how to communicate about it. Perhaps we need to identify the mafia who have vested interest or are just too intellectually lazy or impractical to even want agreement.

Defining ‘species’ is a fuzzy art

Is this and that getting too much for you? Still ‘joleneae‘. It is a useful name, but not actually the issue. At this place Tulista minima (I am gobsmacked that some over zealous mind has decided it is actually T. minor – I suppose this name change in intended to avoid confusion!!! ) as does H. variegata ‘hemicrypta’. So I include hybrid pictures. The two species do not directly share habitat. Stoffelsriver.

Here is a map of the north Potberg area to highlight the significance of geology and its impact on floristics/vegetation/plant species. It is a complex situation with deposited materials overlying basic formations and erosional effects. The white material to the higher left are eroded and decayed shales that result in banks of white clay much like elsewhere towards Riversdale and Heidelberg. Is it surprising that the retusa/mirabiloids adjust and adapt accordingly. Why do these plants differ so much from joleneae/bobii/paradoxa and switch to resemble atrofusca and floribunda?

Snakes and ladders. Background noise! I have 206 folders for populations of which most are this unphotogenic ilk. Their lack of appeal and hidden nature is why H. heidelbergensis was spawned. The more conspicuous and bigger forms were H. maraisii and H. magnifica. The only attention I know they ever got from collectors was the complaint that they never could own or get a proper idea of what H. mirabilis looked like. Shades of the great doyen of Botanical Latin and plant taxonomy W.T. Stearn who destroyed the foundation of Haworthia taxonomy with his typification of the name Aloe atrovirens, spinis herbaceus numerosus ornata and choosing the herbaceus part for the epithet. H. atrovirens should be H. mirabilis! I do not think the name mirabilis was even used in von Poellnitz and Smith’s time? So I can see that my chances of putting Haworthia taxonomy to rest are zero. No herbarium can ever hope to hold a proper record of variation within a single population. Whoever wants to quarrel with me needs to now that their classification includes all the stuff I have tried to contend with! My pictures of this background noise are disappointing and I have none for stuff seen before ca. 2005 or so. Emoji of laughter or tears? And who wants to know what a species is anyway?

Nothospecies or notaspecies? That is the big question. Why bother to ask difficult questions, just call this H. mirabilisXmutica H. hammeri instead. It consists of one population occupying an area less than 500sqm among surrounding mirabilis and mutica populations. Will it ever be a system? (Nothospecies is coined for the offspring of two other species that in the absence of a definition become a new species. It really applies to readily seed propagating and readily dispersing plants – agriculture and horticulture!)

Here is my 2009 baby I think written in 2009 before DNA sequencing proved to us that there were 3 genera where we saw only 1. I said so when? First handbook 1976? The thing that really got me is that the results of the sequencing were actually fudged (again). The discussion and conclusions were written long before the introduction and methods, to ensure that there was a match up of results to hypothesis being tested.

Haworthia the problem child of taxonomy

Yes my favorite critic had something to say about this fishtail bud as well. Or at least the fact that I considered it at all. It is actually a feature of virtually all of the retusoid mirabiloids varying from zero in the east to nearly dramatic in the west. So herbacea and reticulata have the most exaggerated version. In these two systems the flower is nearly “regular” (as in pentagonal) hence reticulata ‘subregularis’. H. herbacea is characterised by the beige colouring while reticulata flower is pinkish. The Wolfkloof Villiersdorp herbacea has an enormous (close to 3cm long) very pink flower to fudge the issue. H. herbacea ‘paynei’ near McGregor has a bicoloured flower, hence ‘luteorosea’.

6509 H. mirabilis meiringii, W Bonnievale – Flowers are problematic because the flowers are not static things. They change by the day. In this case I pictured most open flowers on every single stem from 1-5 open.

6089 NW Potberg – some of the background noise to mirabilis. Many many populations of these small black things (“klein swartetjies” according to Michael Malherbe founder of Sheilam, in imitation of the Little Brown Jobs of bird-watching)). Not as enchanting as the larger and less common variants, they are not covered by popular classification.

H. mirabilis ‘notabilis’. This is a place in the mountains midway between Robertson and Worcester. Both arachnoidea and reticulata occur here as well in different habitats. There are shale, dolomite and sandstone formations. The countryside is formidable. How does one describe the plants here and link them adequately to a host of populations running all the way east to Ashton, and to the oddities of the NE Worcester area. Not only that. There are continuities southwards as well.

Lets try something. First the chaos formula imaging. Like a DNA seq. phylogram it is two dimensional and cannot adequately represent a spacetime issue (that species are whether evolutionary or independent creation of ‘species’. Secondly imagine a continuation of the fractal image with 6 species in a particular time frame continuing on to eventually end up as 3 species in a third frame? The frames are geographic space. The brackets demonstrate how species may overlap in distribution and/or characters. The chaos formula demonstrates overlap of characters in time or space but not in both as is needed. That is called linearity as opposed to actual reticulate reality? I am no intellectual wizard but am quite sure that plant taxonomy has got things WRONG.

Guan Tan-Amo Lim wrote “Haworthias are a little bit like domesticated dogs… they come in all shapes and sizes and can breed with each other readily. Yet dogs are all of one species. Could the many Haworthia species similarly be reduced to if not one species then to only a few? With many “breeds” corresponding to the natural populations in habitat?”

Bruce Bayer replied “Guan Yes. but we shift the problem from one level to another. I have a spider web of five species (turgida/retusa, emelyae, pygmaea, mutica, emelyae that could be one. But there is another spider web in the upper left of herbacea, reticulata, maculata and pubescens. So where do we stop? Things like wittebergensis, pulchella and marxii seem totally separate but there is chaos among all the other true Haworthia. Funny I was just browsing an article on a math issue that claims that there are things that are true but they cannot be proved to be true? Life is a conundrum.”

A fairly random lot? Actually no. This is a place a few km from ‘hammeri‘. Their is a rounded hill with small nondescript LBJs (little black jobs) most places, but at one spot quite large plants like this. Atrofuscoid? The floribunda-like leaf tip is common in the small mirabiloids. I should add… a note on fieldwork. Did I do field work? Walking around with nothing to measure and itemise but an eyeball assessment and some pictures.

6638 from NNE Bredasdorp. Mirabilis. This is a place where turgida also occurs, and with rossouwii and mutica within a few km. Also home to the ‘heidelbergensis minor’ that I suggest has rossouwii genetic material. One of these clones is very reminiscent of what I observed and considered a true hybrid between mutica and mirabilis where populations were in very close association. Does anyone really have problems with names used in an informal way like this rather than behind a facade of deep science and a degree of fraud?

From 6638 pictures. This weirdo strikes me as reminiscent of more obvious hybrids retusa/mirabilis or mutica/mirabilis where they are in close enough proximity to support a hybrid presumption. Turgida is an estimated 400m away from here.

Soumen Aditya comments “I didn’t see a features of natural hybrid … Most probably the polymorphic evolution…” Here is what IS most probably hybrid. Where mirabilis and mutica are in two populations meters apart. SO I think what would be features of a natural hybrid may just be a subjective opinion? I have mentioned before how problematic the issue of hybrids is and have often been asked – How do you tell it is a hybrid? Credibility in classification barely exists at the best of times.”

What do I ask? I once was in a meeting with a group of top managers discussing a topic they had been dealing with for over 20 years viz. rangeland production. I was suggesting a method of assessing potential. The group seemed so lukewarm to my suggestion that I felt the need to establish if they really did know what I was talking about. So I sent around a problem and asked if it could be solved using the available knowledge they had been debating for over the previous 20plus years. Deadly quiet. No wonder they were so indifferent. Now I feel exactly the same about Haworthia classification. People have been arguing and debating this since Herre’s time (1930). Here in SA nothing has changed. Perhaps I also do not know what I am talking about! The spider web for the retusoid/mirabiloid plants is a small part of the whole, and fairly straightforward compared to the bigger picture. But my suggestion for a systems approach is met with the same deadly quiet, especially from where it matters. What do I do next?

These are a few pictures of 30 from a population in a vast expanse of a no go area for any but the most intrepid. What is it? It is from an aloid sparse space and while I do have pictures for another 5 populations in the area they are not more informative. From my limited (is it that bad?) experience of mountains and the way succulent exploration has been done, I shudder to think how the Haworthia community, led as it is, is going to be able to digest what is still to be learned.

I mentioned that vast no-go area (6694). Here is one of the other 5 populations I know that happens to be only about 500m away (7994).

7994 Yes the flowers are significantly different. 7994 I attributed to maculata and the fishtail bud indicates that it is an extension of the retusa/mirabiloid web. The rounded bud tips of 6694 suggest arachnoidea or nortieri, as geographic candidates and the most probable system affinities.

June 4, 2021 – Something useful I can do is amplify H. mirabilis meiringii. I described this to draw attention to very herbacea like forms of mirabilis. This is in the Bonnievale area where the mirabilis variants seem like a system within a system, within a system. Westwards they are less spinescent and similarly eastwards. 6509. The name was not to honour someone so much as to record a time when plants were perhaps first harvested and sold from the field.

Silly me. I say these are the same (species)

H. mirabilis meiringii 7269

Mirabilis meiringii 7327

meiringii 7882

H. mirabilis Klipfontein

♦

Mirabilis Travels Introduction

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

Mirabilis Travels was a series of Haworthia shucked Facebook posts in 2022.

There is not much that I can now usefully do so I am going to switch attention to H. mirabilis. If any one species exemplifies the complexity of the genus it must be this. When I first started organising field information I ran headlong into host of names with very little to relate them to in the field. Now I recognize that it is that mirabilis forms a dark coloured summer flowering half of a single system that extends from southwest of Bredasdorp all the way to east of Mossel Bay, while also extending into the Little Karoo. In no particular order, here is the “var. notabilis” from east of Worcester. My great regret is that I have no digital record of a great stretch of exploration prior to about 2002.

Wheeeee!! It really stretches the imagination. Just randomly diving in was a bad idea. So I add fuel to the fire by showing these in the no-man’s-land between “systems”. This mirabilis is west of Swellendam and both this and the previous “notabilis” cast light (or shadow) on the relation of the retusa (turgida)/mirabilis system and that of herbacea/reticulata/maculata/pubescens of the Worcester/Robertson area. The near presence of a floribunda variant is added value. One could almost argue for a restatement of the situation where mirabilis and turgida are established as generic names with many species (population variants) attached. Notice how I interchange turgida and retusa – I explain that the taxonomic system trips itself with its own rules. Priority means that retusa holds sway over turgida, when in fact it is more probable that turgida is the genetically and historically dominant.

I have over 200 folders of mirabilis localities just since 2000 and no picture records for the 30 preceding years. Much posted for this species in HaworthiaUpdates.org, but nothing can help dismiss the unbelief that these could all be one species. Here is just a blind selection of 7 pictures to show how improbable it all seems … imagine another few hundred variants!

2. Meiringii

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

These are mirabilis “meiringii” from east of Bonnievale. There must be something significant in the similarity to H. herbacea? Bear in mind we are dealing with many populations strung out over the landscape in what Essie and I recognise as continuities. But, mirabilis is not continuous with herbacea. Flower and flowering time as well as geographical location and continuity with many other populations show “mirabiloid”.

A little further east = still “meiringii”

… some more from a bit further east before the more traditional fewer leaved forms occur …

This is what I wanted to post – more meiringii from almost at Bonnievale. Curiously this is also the only place in the Robertson Karoo where Aloe glauca occurs. It is salutory to compare the taxonomy of Aloe vs. Haworthia because the scales are quite different. However, A. glauca also has a range of variants that never seem to have been examined. I can’t imagine what the classification of either will look like after another 50 years of this limited one-man-band style of taxonomy. Meiringii does seem to have some degree of independence but just how much and guessed at by whom? It diffuses to a spineless spotted form westward, which in turn diffuses to three different versions following compass direction.

3. Mirabiloid

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

How does one get to grips with H. mirabilis? If you take all the available names for this lot of dark coloured February – March flowerers and match them up against the 400 or so known populations, you are going to have to explain why most of the mirabiloid populations are in a nameless limbo? This is a population from North Ashton is quite out of character for that area.

These are at the southern entrance to Cogmanskloof and fairly similar to plants northwards as well as to the general ensemble of mirabilis in the Worcester/Robertson Karoo, but I am having fun putting together a general perspective of H. mirabilis. It was not even considered known in the field until I started messing with the classification. That is another story I do not want to see unfold! So far there are 44 names that cover the story of the mirabiloid to help explain why so few have any idea of what the name mirabilis conveys.

I have had a bit of fun in taking all the names relevant to H. mirabilis to show what a taxonomic nightmare it has been and will remain. Those 50 extant names only represent about 75 populations at the most. In the majority of cases they do not cover even the variants in the designated populations. So not only do we have another possible 200 or more populations to consider, but also the variation within them.

This is about the most westerly record for mirabilis in an almost ecological desert. There is clear pattern in how the populations relate to one another, with just enough exceptions to overturn expectation.

4. Napier

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

There are about 10 known populations of this type of mirabilis between Caledon and Napier that gave rise to the varieties of triebneriana viz. napierenis, turgida and multituberculata. Grasping what the situation is with this system of species would go a long way to resolving the differences of opinion about the entire genus.

As we move eastward to north of Napier the plants change a bit as they get smaller. It is worth looking for that floribunda-like leaf tip!

At Napier itself the plants are smaller. Just keep in mind we are considering just what constitutes this species mirabilis. It is a questioning of trying to reconcile about 300 or more populations across a very wide area AND accommodating them each and everyone in a rational system. Remember history gives us about 50 names many of which are alternate species names. How do we make sense of this? So I am taking what pictures I have and local area by local area presenting the problem as it is – not what I imagine it to be.

5. Badia

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

Badia is a particularly striking variant of mirabilis and occurs as several populations along a 3km stretch of a recent geological surface west of Napier. Forming a part of the southwest border of distribution of the species.

These are badia from the western population – rougher surfaces.

6. Mundula

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

Bredasdorp is only 15km east of Napier and has its own odd set of mirabilis. Mundula is from southwest of the town. In 1969 when I first saw the plants, there were large clumps of 30 to 40 rosettes, highly coloured. Over the years the clumps collapsed, the surrounding vegetation aged and the plants were scattered about and either single or in much smaller clumps.

7. Sublineata

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

In sandstone just south of Bredasdorp there is quite a strange population of mirabilis we know as var. sublineata. With narrow upright leaves it can have some resemblance to H. rossouwii and even to H. emelyae var. multifolia. I once grew it from seed and had over 70 plants that were all different. Some variation in Haworthia mirabilis var. sublineata

8. Rossouwii

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

About 6km northeast of Bredasdorp March 2006. This is what mirabilis is really about – a whole host of populations from Riviersonderend in the west to well east of Riversdale in the east. From inland of Montagu in the north to a report of these plants on the cliffs shore west of Infanta. Small unglamorous, cryptic, often non-descript, infinitely variable, beneath interest to many wannabees. This particular population of rossouwii is a tiny remnant that survived a massive road building program in the 1970s that vandalised surface rock. Do check those leaf ends!

H. rossouwii occurs as 3 populations WNW Bredasdorp with no close presence of mirabilis. Then it jumps a huge distance to SSW Heidelberg where it also never has close association with mirabilis. But at Bredasdorp, east of rossouwii there are a heap of small mirabilis populations that include some curious variants between stubby leaved and elongated leaved, as also degrees of spination. This population is directly north of Bredasdorp.

These plants are not very photogenic as they avoid light and are invariably tucked away in tight spots. Each plant seems to have its own microhabitat and will look different if grown anywhere else. So it is always difficult to fully grasp or describe some kind of common denominator for a population. In cultivation they grow out of character too.

9. Heidelbergensis

Posted on August 26, 2022 by Bruce Bayer

While generally presenting the things that constitute mirabilis, I have mentioned rossouwii. It seems to be generally assumed that the species are real discrete things that can be fitted into some sort of classification structure. This is definitely not true. At one stage I thought there might be a species heidelbergensis, and consequently named a population north of Bredasdorp as its var minor. So let us look at the issue. Before I get to that particular population, look at these plants to the west …

When my hard drive crashed I was just going to start the mirabilis heidelbergensis conundrum. It is not an area I like at all because there is no clarity as already indicated. So here is a population close to the origin of Smith’s “heidelbergensis” – but these are big plants and I file them as retusa/turgida when they could better be turgida/mirabilis or retusa/mirabilis. It is so easy to generate opinion and comment when there is not much information available. So I made a selection of photographs of 20 or so populations to indicate what has to be incorporated in a classification – somehow or other! Often pictures are poor and then I only have since about 2004. Another problem is seasonal difference. One is not always lucky to get to a population when the plants are filled out and actively growing, while they are not the same year by year either. Much is made of growing and observing these plants in cultivation. Bananas! All very well for ten, twenty even 100 populations. But impractical for hundreds.

About 800m west of the type locality for “heidelbergensis” and 400m N of the previous post of large plants, these are small and roughly equate to ‘heidelbergensis’. Here the plants are turgid and greenish coloured as opposed to the much darker and shriveled in the dry season or spell. Being dark coloured they are invariably well sheltered under other vegetation.

H. mirabilis is generally a dark coloured plant. Thus mirabiloids are dark coloured vs. the retusoids(turgidoids) that are lighter. Of course in shade or cool conditions the plants green up. Here is a “light coloured” mirabilis from Greyton to just demonstrate that making any statement to distinguish mirabiloid from retusoid is difficult. My conclusion is indeed, because they are the same species! “To avoid confusion” I must also add that when I say that plants that look different are the same species, some critics get highly apoplectic? This is the problem my posts are addressing and there is not much evidence available to me that the message gets received or is welcome. Perhaps the latter sentiment is most true because I find it uncomfortable myself.

Just east of Heidelberg is another population of these small plants that fall in the ambit of what actually is heidelbergensis. Growing in think moss and lichen it is a slightly different habitat. These pictures are of plants in cultivation.

These are a few km S Heidelberg. Now I am enthralled by what my own pictures are telling me. I write to find out and establish what my observations mean! I just deeply wish I had prepared sufficiently for the end stage when the pieces fall into place. What is happening here in floribunda is included in the compromise. Nearby we have a retusa var. ‘nigra‘ for which the story has been told. ‘Heidelbergensis’ is for me a deep insight into the connection between the mirabiloids and the retusoids (turgidaoids). Colour is a significant character, so is the bend back of the leaves as well as the rounded leaf-tip. A thing to note is that “retuse” as originally used was to mean “bent back like a thumb” and NOT the modern usage for a flat leaf in which the margins grow ahead of the leaf point. So erect vs retuse leaves is also significant, but in Haworthia it is not a species determinant and more than colour or rounded leaf-tip OR even flowering time. These pictures help to demonstrate this fact. If just one population did this we could perhaps dismiss the issue as hybridization. And this is my greatest regret. I just do not have enough or good enough pictures taken at all seasons and of more variants, or for all the populations I have been so privileged to enjoy. Because i am going to be succeeded by “taxonomists” intent on imposing their own opinions for the sake of effect rather than reality?

Eastwards the ‘heidelbergensis’ form extends half way to Riversdale where it merges with the atrofuscoid/magnificoid versions of mirabilis. But this population is further south down the Duiwenhoks growing in close proximity to retusa ‘nigra’ and the putative parent for that viz H. turgida. There is now so much evidence for the unifying of formal names and especially considering Essie’s exhaustive exploration and opinion, independently validating what I have to say.

Still further down the Duiwenhoks are these two populations for which there are sadly not enough pictures to remotely demonstrate the variation. What is perhaps worth noting is leaf shape, colour and translucency. Still further down the river is a major conundrum in the form of a population of dark unvariegated could be variegate. This is a problem of distribution because along the coast there are no haworthia between Stilbay in the east and the Duiwenhoks and then to Infanta in the east, apart from paradoxa. It is a major issue as there is no continuum as for the inland strip.

A few kilometers SE Heidelberg is this population of ‘heidelbergensis’ and I will follow with a further one nearby that demonstrates the transitions from retusoid to mirabiloid. This population is nevertheless already mirabiloid as is evident by the darker colours and the summer flowering time. In the last post I mentioned an aberrant population of presumably variegata. While trying to explain the complexity of species generally, I have avoided some serious issues with populations that simply do not fit anywhere, while they, only in their oddity. can they be claimed to fit a rational species definition. I hope to come to those.

Moving about 1km further SE is this population that also demonstrates variability and the nature of population differences. This population is more magnificoid in that there is a tendency for retusion of the leaf, for more textured surfaces and for less translucency coupled with more blackish-green coloration.

Before continuing with ‘heidelbergensis‘ just look at these magnifcoid/atrofuscoids from west of Riversdale where there is no turgida. Different habitats and also it is the retusoid version that does occur just here but infrequently.

These non-descript mirabiloids also from west of Riversdale can only roughly be distinguished from what I refer to as Heidelbergensoids. They occur from well east of Riversdale all the way to north of the Potberg, Bredasdorp, Riviersonderend, into the Worcester/Robertson area to south of Worcester, to Ashton, Robertson and then into the Little Karoo at Montagu and Barrydale. If you scrambled different quantities of varied colour thick paints on a board and scratched them around with a stick, heidelbergensis would appear as a thin web within the middle of the outcome.

In my Revision I recognised 4 varieties of heidelbergensis and this was really because I did not know what to do with these troublesome variables. Twenty five years later and with a lot more information, I can only consider a sensible explanation to be that they are part and parcel of a single system viz. H. mirabilis (and of course intimately linked to retusa/turgida). Here are two pictures of my first var. toonensis from SW Heidelberg. Unfortunately only two cultivated specimens and no idea of variation, but there is a lot better to come. Essie may have more because these are down the Slangriver that he knows well. What is so valuable about Essies conclusions is that he has arrived there on the basis of a wholly different set of populations and individual plants – and without herbarium support or influence.

Haworthia Updates

Thoughts and observations on Haworthia

Category Archives: Mirabilis

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 6

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 7

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 8

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 9

Haworthia flowers – some comments as a character source, Appendix 10

A myth corrected – part 5

Still another view of Haworthia retusa and Haworthia mirabilis

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

A further report on Haworthia mirabilis in the Greyton area.

The Haworthia species of the Bontebok National Park

Bontebok Park Haworthia floribunda and SW Klipport Haworthia mirabilis

17. H. mirabilis and groenewaldii

31. Mirabiloids

33. Stormsvlei mirabilis

Species, what species?

Taxonomy and Fieldwork

Mirabilis Travels Introduction

2. Meiringii

3. Mirabiloid

4. Napier

5. Badia

6. Mundula

7. Sublineata

8. Rossouwii

9. Heidelbergensis