Haworthia Revisited – 23. Haworthia mucronata

Posted on January 23, 1999 by Bruce Bayer

23. Haworthia mucronata Haw., Haworth, Suppl .. Pl. Succ.: 50 (1819). Type: Cape, exhort. Kew. Not preserved. Lectotype: icon (K): H. helmiae V.Poelln., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 41: 201 (1937). Scott: 99 (1985). H. unicolorvar. helmiae (V.Poelln.) M.B.Bayer: 121 (1976), Bayer: 59(1982): Type: Cape, Heidelberg, Smithers in Triebn. 901, Gt Brak River, Mrs Helm in Triebn. 901. Not preserved . Lectotype (B&M): icon, (B). Epitype (designated here): CAPE-3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (-AC), Bayer 171 (NBG): H. V. Poelln., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 44: 233 (1938), Scott: 98 (1985). Type: Cape, Little Karoo, Mrs E. Ferguson. Not preserved. Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3321 (Calitzdorp): On the Gamka East road (-DA), Scott 1050 (PRE): H unicolorV.Poelln., Kakteenkunde 10: 133 (icon), 154 (1937). Bayer: 165 (1976). H. unicolor var. unicolor (V.Poelln .) M.B.Bayer: 59 (1982): Type: Cape, Barrydale, A.J. Joubert in STE5230. Not preserved. Lectotype (B&M): icon in Kakteenk. & Kakteenfr.: 133 (1937): Epitype (designated here): CAPE-3320 (Montagu): Barrydale (-DC), J. Dekenah 234 (NBG): H. mclarenii V.Poelln., Des. Pl. Life 11: 107 (1939). Type: Cape, near Barrydale, G. McLaren in Triebn. 1160. Not preserved. Lectotype (B&M): icon (B): H. aristata Haw. sensu. V.Poelln., Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 43: 92 (1938). Ibid. 49: 27 (1940). Sensu Jacobsen 2: 537 (1954). Sensu CL.Scott, Nat. Cact. Succ. J. 35: 11 (1980). Ibid.: 110 (1937): H. serrata M.B.Bayer sensu CL.Scott: 62 (1985).

mucronata: pointed.

Rosette stemless, proliferous, 6-12cm φ. Leaves 30-45, soft, incurved, broadly ovate-lanceolate, slightly pellucid, with translucent margins and keel, both often spined. Inflorescence simple, robust. Flowers many, compact on peduncle, broad across upper tube, white with green venation.

NOTE: Considerable confusion surrounds the above and following synonymies. The species H. unicolor and H. rycroftiana are now included here, and one variety of the former, var. venteri, is transferred to H. arachnoidea. Haworthia habdomadis and its varieties are also subsumed in this new arrangement, under H. mucronata.

1982 – The original specimen of H. unicolor was from the town of Barrydale and pale green plants of this kind can still be found in that immediate area. However, von Poellnitz also included citations from Montagu and Ockertskraal. In a later publication (1938), he included the species in synonymy under H. aristata on the basis of plants received from Long from the Cango Caves. These plants included forms which von Poellnitz felt represented both his H. unicolor and H. aristata. However, in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 43:92(1940), he continues the discussion and cites specimens, one later to be described as H. mclarenii. It seems clear that these citations by vn Poellnitz refer to the better known and highly variable H. unicolor var. venteri. The locality of H. mclarenii cited by Von Poellnitz as Tulbagh was patently erroneous. G.G. Smith records that W.E. Armstrong wrote “I had sent away a batch of plants, some from Mr McLaren and others from Miss de Klerk of Tulbagh and of the batch L693, Arm. 180 and Trieb.1160 actually collected by Miss de Klerk of Uitzicht, P.O. Tulbagh, at Barrydale, was erroneously named H. mclarenii”. There is thus no doubt that this species is synonymous with H. unicolor. A photograph by Fourcade (no.224) of H. mclarenii also confirms this view. The type locality for H. venteri was recorded by Smith as ” 3/4m. Barrydale‑Lemoenshoek” although Major H. Venter’s localities are very broadly stated in publication and practically valueless. Only Smith’s notes give any better clue to these but in this case there is still no certainty. However, there is a very common species extending from Barrydale to Oudtshoorn from which this variety is clearly drawn. At Barrydale itself the plants are rather pale green with elongated sparsely setate leaves ‑ this is regarded here as the species H. unicolor. Eastward the plants are more robust and often glabrous, usually distinguished by particularly dark‑purplish coloration towards the leaf tips. The further eastward one progresses the more setate the plants become until at Oudtshoorn, south of the Cango Caves, the plants are comparatively small and more softly setate (H. unicolor var.helmiae). It is not in the least clear what the relationship is between H. unicolor and H. arachnoidea. They do not appear to cohabit which suggests that they may be conspecific and only differentiated on an ecotypic basis. This is borne out by the pale arachnoidea‑like population at the northern entrance to the Tradouw Pass, south of Barrydale. However at Ladismith H. arachnoidea is present as a very distinct heavily setate form, and similarly south of the Cango Caves it occurs near to H. unicolor var. helmiae as a softer haired but also highly setate form. Cognisance must also be taken of H. integra from apparently west of Ladismith. The species H. unicolor is therefore not well‑known or properly understood and this solution must be regarded as suspect. Von Poellnitz’s citations of localities for the var. helmiae are highly confusing and in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. 44:223(1938) are totally disparate. The type is cited in 1938 as “Great Brak River, Mrs Helm” and three Triebner numbers are added to this. Mrs Helm’s strong personal recollection (private communication, and acknowledgement to Col. C.L. Scott) is that the original plants were collected at a specific site south of the Cango Caves, Oudtshoorn. The photograph extant in the Botanical Museum Dahlem (which must serve as the type) is of a very poor specimen, but it can be reasonably allied with plants from the site given by Mrs Helm. It is concluded that it is an extension of the complex to which it is here referred. J.R. Brown’s illustrations in Cactus Succul.J(U.S.) 18:39(1946) are not of this variety.

1999 – The confusion here is not only due to human error and perversity. The problem lies in trying to explain the difficulties of the situation itself, and then in the light of all the different perceptions about the species which may or may not be involved. Col. Scott distributes elements of the single typical variety into four species (including his perception of H serrata Bayer) in three different sections, and this exemplifies how difficult it is to arrive at a consensus. To understand the changes effected here, one should read the synonymy thoroughly. The changes are consistent with the explanations given in 1982 and it is felt that var. venteri should in fact go under H. arachnoidea under an older name nigricans. Similarly var. helmiae is subsumed under H. arachnoidea as well. The remnant, H. unicolor, correctly belongs to H. mucronata Haw. but not in the sense used by Scott where elements of H. bolusii, H. cooperi, H. aristata, H. arachnoidea and possibly two other species are also included.

Three factors are important in ringing these changes:-

A collection from northeast of Montagu (cited under the var. inconfluens) in which the plants are highly variable and which could be assigned to var. habdomadis, var. mucronata, var. integra and possibly to H. arachnoidea var. nigricans.
The relationship of H. arachnoidea to this species via its varieties.
The relationship of H. rycroftiana to H. integra V.Poelln. as interpreted by Scott (the name integra is now upheld over the former).

Apart from these factors, the characteristic of the species is the translucence along the margins and keels, which separates it from H. arachnoidea. Unfortunately the confusion within the ambit of the species itself confounds interpretation of relations with other species. Hayashi (unpublished) repeats and emphasizes the probable relationship of the species with H. cymbiformis through its var. transiens, as conjectured in 1982. One cannot exclude a similar relationship with H. cooperi as also conjectured under the var. habdomadis. The inclusion of all those diverse elements in H. mucronata sensu Scott, does not hint at the real relationship of the species with H. decipiens and H. lockwoodii north of Seweweekspoort. There is considerable difficulty in unequivocally designating specimens.

a. var. mucronata.
The typical variety occurs around Barrydale and it is clear that there are many variants including the transformation to arachnoidea-like plants in Tradouw Pass. It was these variants which initially suggested to me that the variation to H. arachnoidea var. nigricans was continuous. However, the glabrous forms of the latter should always be distinguished by the characteristic of non-tranlucent keel or margins to the leaf. The leaves of this variety (the argument can be extended to the varieties integra and nigricans) may become very spiny. The loss of marginal translucence, particularly in the northwestern Little Karoo makes it very difficult to distinguish it from H. arachnoidea.

Distribution: 3320(Montagu): Barrydale (‑DC), J. Dekenah 234 (NBG), Smith 3911, 3992, 6572 (NBG), Smithers (BOL), Bolus in NBG697/32 (BOL), Hurling & Neil (BOL), Jordaan (BOL), Villet in KG180/61 (NBG), Stayner in KG119/71 (NBG); 18km W. Barrydale (-DC), Scott 6200 (PRE); Hills S. Barrydale (-DC), Scott 5089 (PRE). 3321(Ladismith): Algerynkraal, Brakkloof (-AD), Curator PRE Bot. Garden 3628 (PRE).

Inadequately located: Montagu, Rogers in BOL15478.

Haworthia mucronata var. mucronata JDV92/53 north of Barrydale. This typical variety has a thinner, less turgid leaf than the more widespread var. inconfluens.
Haworthia mucronata var. mucronata JDV92/55 south of Barrydale. At the original locality the plants are mostly without marginal spines to the leaves.
Haworthia mucronata var. mucronata JDV92/50 Perdekop. Here, as at most localities other than the type, the plants have spines on leaf margins and keels.

b. var. habdomadis (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb.nov.
H. habdomadis V.Poelln., Desert.Pl.Life 11:88(1938). Scott :106(1985). H. inconfluens var. habdomadis (V.Poelln.) Bayer :121 (1976). H. habdomadis var. habdomadis (V.Poelln) Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977). Bayer :41(1982). Type: Cape, Seweweekspoort, A.J. Joubert in Stellenbosch 7692. Not preserved. Neotype (B&M): Seweweekspoort , Barker & Lewis in NBG2764/32 (BOL).

habdomadis: referring to Sevenweekspoort.

1982 – Haworthia habdomadis is a species of the Little Karoo and it extends from Anysberg in the west to as far as Uniondale in the east. Three varieties are recognised as in H. unicolor and these two species have a puzzling relationship. Apart from a locality south of Vanwyksdorp, they are not known to occur together. H. habdomadis var. habdomadis is an element occurring in the sandstone mountains between Sevenweekspoort and just west of Ladismith. The var. inconfluens is more opaque and is usually spineless. This variety occurs in a form at Anysberg barely distinguishable from H. cymbiformis var. transiens, in that it has the same rounded leaf tips. The var. morrisiae is generally a brilliant green colour and occurs in the Oudtshoorn/Volmoed areas. However, it also occurs at Prince Albert and at Van Wyksdorp. It has both pointed and unpointed leaf forms and the distribution does not seem to strictly complement that of the var. inconfluens. Furthermore the form at Van Wyksdorp has the purple tinges associated with H. unicolor var. venteri. The form at Van Wyksdorp has the characteristic leaf shape of H. unicolor var. venteri with the same well‑defined keel and terminal bristle, and at this locality it grows practically in conjunction with that species. The two species flower simultaneously and there do not seem to be significant differences in the flowers. The presence of H. habdomadis var. inconfluens north of Uniondale needs confirmation of identification.

1999 – The circumscription here narrows this variety down to the sandstone forms with a more compact translucent rosette. Although also known from just west of Ladismith, very little further information regarding its distribution is available. Spined forms of this nature are known north of Seweweekspoort and also east of De Rust and presumed to be the var. inconfluens. The recurrence of such soft, short leaved forms north of Montagu is surprising and perhaps re-enforces the perception of ecological adaptation, in this case to low-nutrient sandstone. If this is the case, similar forms should occur on the south facing rocks of the Touwsberg, Anysberg and Warmwaterberg.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): Dwarsrivier (-AC), Bayer 1618 (NBG); Swartbergkloof (-AC), Joubert 182 (BOL); Seweweekspoort (‑AD), H. Hall in NBG69371, Hall 2199 (PRE); Smith 7524 (NBG), Malherbe in NBG654/41, Compton & Lamb in NBG2340/27 (BOL), Barker & Lewis in NBG2764/32 (BOL); Lower Seweweekspoort (-AD), Smith 6991 (NBG).

Haworthia mucronata var. habdomadis JDV97/120 Seweweekspoort. The leaves are shorter and broader than in the typical variety or the var. inconfluens.
Haworthia mucronata var. habdomadis JDV97/120 Seweweekspoort. There are several sandstone mountain ridges in the Little Karoo, and where H. mucronata or H. arachnoidea occur on them, they occur as smaller, softer variants.

c. var. inconfluens (V.Poelln.) Bayer comb.nov.
H. altilinea var. limpida fa inconfluens V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:169(1938). H. mucronata var. limpida fa inconfluens idem. 49:29(1940). H. inconfluens (V.Poelln) Bayer :121(1976). H. habdomadis var. inconfluens (V.Poelln) Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977). Bayer :41(1982). Type: Cape, Ladismith waterfall, H. Herre in STE7695. Not preserved. Lectotype (B&M): icon, Triebner 1031 (B): H. bijliana var. joubertii V.Poelln., Cactus J 5:36(1936). idem., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 41:196(1937). H. setata var. bijliana sv joubertii idem. 44:224(1938). H. setata var. joubertii (V.Poelln.) Jacobsen, Hand.Succ.Pl. 2:593(1960). Type: Cape, Ladismith, A.J. Joubert in Triebn. 878. Not preserved. Neotype (designated here): CAPE-3321 (Ladismith): N. Ladismith (-AD), Smith 5734 (NBG).

inconfluens: coming together.

It is not known to what von Poellnitz alluded when he named this form. Presumable he was referring to the lines of the leaves joining towards the leaf-tips, or he may have been alluding to the coming-together of different geographic forms. The var. joubertii was collected north of the town of Ladismith where spined forms of this large variety grow. Just south of the town there is a massive population of spineless plants. This variety is not well-represented in the herbarium although it is known as far afield as Hoekvandieberg and Bellair Dam. Eastward it is known to the Huisriver Pass and again northeast of Calitzdorp. From there it is apparently replaced by the green var. morrisiae. A pale grey-green counterpart is found again from Uniondale eastward and this is probably the route to either H. cymbiformis or to H. cooperi. There is another transformation north of Seweweekspoort, already referred to, which involves H. decipiens and H. lockwoodii. Where previous authors have simply confounded H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana with H. mucronata, these populations would surely have driven them finally to a more realistic appreciation of the actual problems involved.

Distribution: 3320 (Montagu): Montagu (-CA), Dymond in NBG2096/32 (NBG); Knipes Bath (-CA), Smith 3990 (NBG); Dammetjies (-CB), Stayner in KG47/67 (NBG); Jakkalsfontein (-DA), Bayer 4438 (NBG); Anysberg Pass (-DA), Bayer 1986 (NBG), Martin 57 (NBG); Warmwaterberg (-DA), Smith 7310 (NBG), 3321(Ladismith): 8km W. Ladismith (-AC), (NBG); Dwarsrivier (-AC), Bayer in KG567/71 (NBG); N. Ladismith (-AD), Smith 5734 (NBG); Ladismith (-AD), Pole-Evans in PRE34908, Malherbe in NBG587/40; Die Berg (-BC), Bayer 159 (NBG); Huis River Pass (-BC), Hardy 320 (PRE), Smith 6887 (NBG); Boerbonefontein (-CA), Laidler 361 (NBG); Noukloof (-CA), Laidler 84 (NBG); 4,5 km south of Ladismith(‑CA), Smith 5503, 5730, 5731 (NBG), Bayer 1628, in KG 590/71 (NBG); 9km SW. Ladismith (-CA). 3322 (Oudtshoorn): Schoemanspoort (-AD), Taylor (BOL).

Inadequately located: Calitzdorp, Blackburn (BOL).

Haworthia mucronata var. inconfluens JDV91/97 south of Langsburg. The plants are normally a paler green with more turgid leaves than the typical variety, and without spines too.
Haworthia mucronata var. inconfluens JDV89/56 Prinsberg, western Little Karoo. The similarity of the varieties stresses the difficulty of circumscribing them even geographically.
Haworthia mucronata var. inconfluens JDV86/102 south of the Ladismith. In some populations the plants are more spinose and the historic confusion with H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana is quite justified.
Haworthia mucronata var. inconfluens JDV91/74 east of Rooinek Pass in the Witteberg. Here the plants may have spinescent leaf margins and somewhat resemble H. decipiens.

d. var. morrisiae V.Poelln.,
Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 49:29(1940). Scott :83(1982). H. altilinea var. morrisiae V.Poelln., Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:168(1938). H inconfluens var. morrisiae (V.Poelln.) Bayer :121(1976). H. habdomadis var. morrisiae (V.Poelln.) Bayer, Natn.Cact.Succ.J 32:18(1977). Bayer :41(1982). Type: Cape, Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp, Mrs Morris in Long 484. Not preserved. Lectotype (B&M): icon (B).

morrisiae: for Mrs G. Morris.

This is a bright, almost emerald-green, variety from around Oudtshoorn and Calitzdorp. It is known westward to south of Vanwyksdorp. Greenish forms of the species also occur further west at Anysberg Pass and from southwest of the Anysberg.

Distribution: 3320 (Montagu): Touwsfontein (-CB), Bayer 5296 (NBG). 3321 (Ladismith): W. Vanwyksdorp (-CB), Bayer in KG568/71 (NBG); Bergplaas (-BC), Bayer in KG323/70 (NBG); Warmbron (-DB), Bayer 1621 (NBG). 3322 (Oudtshoorn): between Oudtshoorn and Mossel Bay (‑CA), J. Dekenah 197 (NBG); Rooikrans (-CA), Van Niekerk 521 (BOL); Volmoed (-CA), Bayer in KG109/74 (NBG); SW. Oudtshoorn (-CA), Smith 5782 (NBG), Taylor 11776 (PRE); Rooikoppies (-CB), Schnettler in KG334/71 (NBG); Hazenjacht (-CB), Bayer in KG120/71 (NBG); Kamanassie Dam (-CB), Bayer in KG151/72 (NBG); 8km S. Oudtshoorn (-CA), Bayer 2099 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Oudtshoorn, Taylor in NBG981/28 (BOL), Vlakteplaas, Frey (BOL).

Haworthia mucronata var. morrisiae JDV94/44 southeast of Vanwyksdorp. In the area it grows in close association with H. arachnoidea var. nigricans.
Haworthia mucronata var. morrisiae KG90/60 west of Oudtshoorn. The chestnut brown leaf tips are characteristic.

e. var. rycroftiana Bayer Bayer, JS.Afr. Bot. 47:795(1981). Bayer :54(1975). Type: CAPE‑3321 (Ladismith): Gouritz River between Van Wyksdorp and Herbertsdale (‑DC), Bayer 1701 (NBG).

1982 – The relationships of this species ( ie. H. rycroftiana) are enigmatic. The locality in the Gouritz Valley supports the view that it is related to the H. turgida complex, especially in view of the reported occurrence of the latter species northwest of Calitzdorp. However, the general facies of the plant and its occurrence north of the Langeberg mountains suggest a more probable affinity with H. unicolor or H. habdomadis. H. unicolor is known at its nearest 10 km south of Van Wyksdorp where is grows with H. habdomadis var morrisiae. H. rycroftiana is distinguished from both of these by its more ovate and turgid leaves. It occurs at its only known locality on a steep slope where it is clump‑forming ‑ also reminiscent of H. turgida. The locality and appearance of the plants suggests that this species is a link between the species of the South‑western Cape and the Little Karoo. This particular area between Van Wyksdorp and Zebra, south of Oudtshoorn is entirely unknown as far as Haworthia is concerned and the middle Gouritz valley is also largely unexplored. (P.V. Bruyns has since collected from two populations in this latter area, which are patently the same species).

1999 – Cognizance must be taken of H. integra V. Poelln. as discussed and explored by Scott. This also helps to explain a population which has been distributed as a glabrous variant of var. habdomadis which occurs within the Gamkapoort. References to H. turgida in the 1982 seem to be quite erroneous because that species does not have the translucent margins and keels to the leaves. It also is not known north of the Langeberg mountains as suspected from records. Also around Calitzdorp, var. integra may include spined forms. There is, and will be, probable difficulty in separating these spined forms from H. arachnoidea var. nigricans and more attention to this problem is required.

Distribution: 3321 (Ladismith): 23km E. Ladismith (-AC), Bayer in KG77/71 (NBG); Kruisrivier (-BD), Stayner in KG857/60 (NBG); Vensterkrans, Algerynskraal (-CA), Laidler 376 (NBG); Muiskraal (-CC), Chisholm in NBG774/38 (NBG); Gamka East (-DA), Blackburn (BOL); On Gamka East road (-DA), Scott 1050 (PRE); Danielskraal (-DA), Bruyns 2219 (NBG); Waterkloof (-DA), Bruyns 2231 (NBG); Badspoort (-DB), Bruyns 3724 (BOL); Gouritz River between Van Wyksdorp and Herbertsdale (‑DC), Bayer 1701 (NBG). 3322 (Oudtshoorn): N. Oudtshoorn (-AC), Smith 5089, 5783 (NBG); Schoemanspoort (-AD), Smith 5085 (NBG), Bayer 171 (NBG).

Inadequately located: Barrydale, Venter 8 (BOL), Bolus in NBD696/35 (BOL); Riversdale, Ferguson (BOL); Riethuiskraal, Ferguson (BOL); Oudtshoorn, Peers (BOL).

Haworthia mucronata var. rycroftiana JDV87/98 Waterkloof, Rietvlei. The leaves are smooth and thicker than in the typical variety. The acuminate leaf tip is also shorter.
Haworthia mucronata var. rycroftiana JDV90/62 Gouritz River Gorge, type locality for this variety.
Haworthia mucronata var. rycroftiana JDV91/6 Gamkakloof. A smaller form with shortis leaves and resembling a glabrous form of var. habdomadis.
Haworthia mucronata var. rycroftiana JDV92/57 Gamka East. This is one of the several populations where H. mucronata and H. arachnoidea are confounded.

Volume 1, Chapter 2:- Haworthia mucronata and its new variety

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

A new variety, Haworthia mucronata var. rooibergensis is described in Haworthiad 13:5 (1999). It raises many questions, and leaves as many unanswered.

What do the authors, Esterhuizen and Battista, mean by Haworthia mucronata? A very curious picture emerges. There are two sources which must be considered recent and hopefully authoritative. These are C.L. Scott, and M.B. Bayer. Bayer does not use the name mucronata and therefore Scott must be presumed to be the authority followed. But Scott regards H. habdomadis as a separate species whereas Esterhuizen and Battista treat it as a variety of H. mucronata. The two authors also say that their new variety, where it occurs east of Vanwyksdorp (and presumably also their mention of its occurrence south of Calitzdorp), is on the southern boundary of the H. mucronata complex. Who do they follow? If they are using Scott (or Von Poellnitz for that matter) they seem to have mistaken the given distribution. Scott’s distribution map gives five points for H. mucronata which must by south of Vanwyksdorp, and one of these is even west of Mossel Bay. There are also two points north and east of Queenstown.

Curiously, Von Poellnitz is considered to have taken the two Haworth species viz. altilinea and mucronata as synonymous. Scott uses the first for what I called H. cooperi (var. pilifera in my revision), where he also recognises H. pilifera with practically the same distribution. He places his two species altilinea and pilifera in different sections. He does cite the direct synonym H. altilinea var. mucronata = H. mucronata var. mucronata, but Von Poellnitz does not. Scott cites Feddes Repert. 45:169(1938) as his source. I have a handwritten translation in which H. altilinea var. typica is distinguished from H. altilinea var. mucronata. The distributions for these two elements is extraordinary viz. typica from Stockenstroom, Seymour, Redhouse, Grahamstown, Cathcart, Zwartkops, Prince Albert, Hankey, Longmore (Loerie), and mucronata from Adelaide, Albany, (Van)Wyksdorp and Wolwefontein (Jansenville). Effectively H altilinea var. typica was left in taxonomic limbo, and I am not sure if my new revision has followed all these devious ramifications. I can only hope it does. Triebner and Von Poellnitz transfer the varieties of altilinea to mucronata in Feddes Repert. 49:23, 1940 but seem to omit both var. mucronata and var. altilinea.

I can now only try to explain the incongruity of the situation in terms of what I know. Firstly, I know that both Von Poellnitz and Scott were confusing H. mucronata and H. bolusii (at least as far as the variety blackbeardiana is concerned). This confusion is itself indicative of the validity of a new variety which “at fist sight looked very much like H. bolusii“! Secondly I know that Scott also recognised H. aristata, H. mcclarenii and was also noting plants from west of Barrydale (mistaking them for my H. serrata), which I currently think belong with his concept of H. mucronata. This is where I think H. habdomadis also belongs. One has to know that the variety H. bijliana var. joubertii (which I believe came from immediately north of Ladismith per communication with A.J. Joubert) comes into contention. This is in relation to the comparison Esterhuizen and Battista make with H. altilinea var. brevisetata. That variety did in fact originate at Vanwyksdorp, but Von Poellnitz also cites H. altilinea var. mucronata from there. He later cites the var. brevisetata from also Albany and Port Elizabeth. This is in Feddes Repertorium 49:29 (1940) where he also cites H. altilinea var. inermis from Halesowen, Queenstown, Ladismith and Hankey. A better comparison could have been made with this concept of inermis or with joubertii of Von Poellnitz, rather than with brevisetata. I personally think either choice is irrelevant given either:-

1. the various localities cited by Von Poellnitz, or

2. the variation that occurs, for one example, just west if Ladismith where the element habdomadis ‘moves’ from sandstone to shale.

In describing the variety in the detail that they do, and in stating that it “at first sight looked very much like H. bolusii“, the authors invite this comment. I personally very much doubt if any descriptive detail has been given and could be given, which could be used by anyone, to identify a plant of this variety with any certainty from variants of the species H. bolusii, H. cooperi, H. gracilis or H. decipiens, let alone from the many variants of H. mucronata itself. These species are themselves interlinked and I have stated that they are only real as systems in their geographical context.

A curious aside is that, I cannot find the transfer of the name var. brevisetata from H. altilinea to H. mucronata. Von Poellnitz made all the other changes in Feddes Repert.49:29 (1940), and Scott cites this reference for the change to H. mucronata var. brevisetata. I cannot find this in my photocopy of Von Poellnitz’ paper, and Breuer (in his outstanding compilation of the literature) also loses the epithet, as a “Nomen dubium” under H. altilinea. I think he also has lost the var. typica. My statement in my Handbook (1983).. “Von Poellnitz in the same year reduced this variety to synonymy with H. mucronata“, is fallacious and I cannot explain it.

There is a further problem with the citation by Esterhuizen and Battista which reads “North of Uniondale plants are found which may also be H. mucronata.” I consider that this is the same citation for H. decipiens which they give earlier in the paper.. “this species..is growing about 20km north west of Uniondale”. They also relate this to their new variety as “showing (some of the same) characteristics”. The problem is that this is all a vast understatement of its true nature. In my newest book which constitutes a formal revision, I have re-described the situation of the species arachnoidea and mucronata. Here I wholly alter the order I had in my previous works and try to accommodate my respected friend Col. Scott as well. The Uniondale references above are not resolved. There is already a massive interaction or interplay between H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata. The same is evident for H. decipiens and H. mucronata north of the Kleinswartberg, between Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn, and for H. mucronata and H. lockwoodii south of the Rooiberg Pass and east of the Anysberg. The Uniondale area is grossly under-explored but is known to be touched by the interplay of H. cymbiformis, H. gracilis, H. decipiens, H. bolusii and H. cooperi. This is all fairly evident in Hayashi’s speculative analysis of Haworthia in the same edition of Haworthiad, and it is also evident from the localities cited by von Poellnitz. Unfortunately that work, although its intrinsic message is excellent, also has severe limitations. I have my doubts as to whether Esterhuizen and Battista are aware of any of the above ramifications relating to their new taxon.

Since I first drafted my revision in 1996, I have recognised the reversal in the fortunes predicted by Bruyns in Kew Magazine (4:148, 1987) where he wrote of Haworthia taxonomy being set back 40-50 years. Consequently I have felt the need to do further exploring and recording to expand my observations and possibly verify the predictiveness of even my latest work. I can here confirm that there is a better solution in at least one area and that relates to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. I am preparing a separate extensive explanation of that solution. The illustrations for this present article also contribute to that new solution.

The photographs submitted, show the variation which extends continuously from Aliwal North (H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, JDV97/62-1), southwards to Queenstown (JDV92/22-2), to Stutterheim (JDV94/60-3), across westwards to Somerset East (H. decipiens var. pringlei, MBB6561-4,-108, H. aristata MBB6852-5,-126), to Jansenville and Willowmore (H. decipiens var. pringlei MBB6582-6,-131, MBB6583-7,-132, H. bolusii var. bolusii! MBB6856-8). Then the illustrations show the continuity from H. cooperi var. gordoniana (it could be H. gracilis var. isabellae) from Hankey and Patensie (MBB6799-9,-10,-41) through Joubertina (MBB6810-11,-12,-74) going westward to Uniondale (JDV90/80-13,-75). From here I switch to H. decipiens var. cyanea in the Beaufort West and Merweville districts (JDV90/105-14, MBB6885-15), H. decipiens morphing to H. mucronata west of Prince Albert (H. decipiens var. decipiens! JDV93/71-16,-17), and finally just two of many H. mucronata variants (JDV86/84-18, JDV91/74-19). ♦

62. JDV97/62 H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana, southeast of Aliwal North.

Volume 2, Chapter 11:- Some of the interplay of H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

If any two species present a particular problem for the taxonomist in terms of their perceived variation, it must be these two. I wrote a short article discussing this in respect of one particular population of Haworthia arachnoidea (Aloe 38:76, 2001). I also wrote on the same problem in my book Haworthia Update Vol.1 (Umdaus Press, 2002). Despite some of the things I said there, there is still some misunderstanding expressed in informal communication regarding my approach, not only to the recognition of varieties, but to the interplay between what have been perceived to be different species. One of the complaints is that if I do not recognise some of the new varieties described by other authors, my own varietal taxa should not be taken seriously. In my Aloe article I wrote… “I have used varieties simply as a communication and descriptive tool to suggest lesser nodes and connections between what I think may be species.” In my revision (Haworthia Revisited, 1999, Umdaus Press), I wrote…”Lesser ranks should not be taken too seriously.”

In about 1972 I was exploring west of Ladismith (Winkelplaas, MBB2716) when I for the first time came upon a problematic population which was neither H. arachnoidea nor H. mucronata. Subsequently the problem this presents for classification has grown with virtually every outing I have made into the Little Karoo. I now have a vast amount of material which is, however, still inadequate in terms of geographic coverage to form the basis of a fully comprehensive report. This short note simply arises out of a curious report kindly sent to me by Ingo Breuer who stated that H. arachnoidea grew together with H. mucronata at Grootrivier, west of Ladismith. I was very dubious about this statement because his locality is at Buffelsdrif which is virtually at east of Winkelplaas.

To explain that I first would like to briefly explain and illustrate my interpretation of what H. mucronata is. The name (note just the name) that designates the species is typified by an illustration in the Kew herbarium (Fig. 2) to which no exact origin is attached. In my earlier works I regarded the name as insufficiently typified and chose rather to use von Poellnitz’ name H. unicolor based on plants from south of Barrydale (see Figs.3a & b MBB7216). Scott preferred to uphold these Barrydale plants as the species H. mclarenii and use the name H. mucronata for a Dekenah collection from Calitzdorp. To accommodate Col. Scott I unwisely used his application of the name mucronata to the system of populations that I considered to be the same one species for which I applied the name unicolor. I should have stayed with the name H. unicolor based on a geographically designated collection and left the name H. mucronata as of doubtful origin and hence uncertain (see Endnote). This is now water under the bridge. I use the name H. mucronata for a system of populations which extends from west of Montagu to east of Oudtshoorn (see also endnote). I should designate an epitype which would be … Cape(3320DC): Barrydale, J. Dekenah 234 (NBG) = MBB7216, to make it quite clear from which field population it is derived and to which I attach the name. But this is also not so simply resolved. My plants in Figs.3a & b (MBB7216) are of large glabrous plants on a warm and dry north slope at Barrydale. There are smaller plants on the cool, wetter south slope only about 100 meters away (Fig.4 MBB7213). Fig.5 (MBB7212) shows two larger, spined plants from Tradouwshoek, a locality about 1.5km north-east of Barrydale on a moderate south slope. In the Tradouw pass a few kilometers away there are plants which could just as well be H. arachnoidea or extensions of these variable plants of H. mucronata from Barrydale itself.

Having said this, I must point out that this article does not seek to explain or illustrate the full extent of the variability of either species. H. arachnoidea is illustrated in Fig.6 (MBB7207). This is of a plant from the site at Buffelsdrif [2] presumed to be that indicated to me by I. Breuer. Had I seen this plant alone I would have said “Yes, this is clearly H. arachnoidea.” I would have been embarrassed to have to add “var. setata” which I use to denote the Little Karoo variants of this species, because there is really no good basis for such a varietal distinction and I never fully believed that there was. The problem is, that as Breuer suggested, there is something else present. This is a smaller fairly glabrous plant with some marginal translucence to the leaves (Fig.7, also MBB7207). Does this then mean that H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata are there growing sympatrically (co-occurring, growing together in one habitat)? Unfortunately the spot we explored was rather confined and time did not permit further exploration. I am not certain this is in fact the exact site referred to by Breuer, but there were no other options in terms of his referral. What does therefore motivate me to write is the information peripheral to the report and what we saw elsewhere on this particular excursion. My old Winkelplaas collection tells me that we have “hybridisation” of the two species. But other collections suggest to me that this “hybridisation” is so extensive throughout the Little Karoo that it cannot be dismissed so simply.

Fig. 06. MBB7207 H. arachnoidea. Buffelsdrif.

In Haworthia Update Vol.1, I indicated how intensively one has to explore to properly account for field variability. The Buffelsdrif/Winkelplaas area has many potential habitats that would have to be searched to fully explain what is there. Just on this one outing we stopped at several places. At Vensterkrans a short distance to the south-west, we explored four hillsides. Figs.8a & b(MBB7205) are of spinose and glabrous plants from west of Vensterkrans [3]. They are paler in colour than H. arachnoidea and they exhibit a degree of translucence. These are actually the two characters by which I would suggest the two species could be generally distinguished i.e. arachnoidea – very dark-green and with no translucence to the leaves, mucronata – paler green and with translucence especially to the leaf margins. The two illustrations by no means indicate the degree of variation at this one site. Fig.9(MBB7206) is of a plant from between Vensterkrans and the first noted Buffelsdrif locality [4]. It is mid-green, spination is reduced, there is no obvious translucence and the plant has very firm margins and keels to the leaves. This gives slightly greater rigidity in the rosette and is a common feature in plants from many populations in the greater area. Also the plant is but one from a highly varied assemblage – none of which resemble either H. mucronata or H. arachnoidea. It is for populations of this ilk that I adopted the varietal name H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, explaining that it was only a device to accommodate plants (largely as populations) that were neither H. arachnoidea nor H. mucronata, but something in-between. One could equally have applied the varietal epithet for these plants under H. mucronata. As proposed with H. cooperi/gracilis, this is once again a case where a series of intermediate populations (in this case called H. arachonidea var. nigricans) blur the distinction between the ‘core’ species (largely because of the vagaries of nomenclature and application of types), H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata, thus invalidating any neatly definable species boundaries.

Fig. 08a. MBB7205 H. arachnoidea var nigricans. Vensterkranz.

Figs.10a & b (MBB7210) are of two smaller plants from east of Vensterkrans [5]. Plants from map site [6] are comparable with sites [3], [4] and [5]. These are similar to the preceding plants illustrated as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, but tend to be more compact, still less spinose, and on some plants there is no marginal translucence. When I first saw plants of this ilk from about 8 kilometres to the east, I speculated that maybe this is where H. marumiana had originated as judged from an old Luckhoff collection from Ladismith designated by Von Poellnitz as that species. The plants from east of Vensterkrans do in fact have some superficial resemblance to H. marumiana var. batesiana. Stressed young plants do suggest the typical variety of that species and I suggest that this accounts for Von Poellnitz’s erroneous reference (note the plant in Fig.7).

Fig. 10a MBB7210 H. arachnoidea var nigricans. E Vensterkranz.

I conclude this note with Figs.11a & b (MBB7211) of plants from Springfontein some distance to the southeast and nearer to the Langeberg. The illustrations are of a spinose and a glabrous plant, neither of which have marginal translucence. I would identify them as H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, and say that this is what I used to denote by the name H. unicolor var. venteri in my 1982 work, The New Haworthia Handbook, Kirstenbosch. I then wrote … “It is not in the least clear what the relationship is between H. unicolor (now H. mucronata) and H. arachnoidea. I make this point again and again to explain that it is pointless trying to name and describe an endless array of taxonomic varieties in the mistaken belief that a better grasp has been obtained of this incredible interplay of natural systems. I think it is fairly useless to suggest that some unfortunate taxonomist in the future will be saddled with the task of deciding the validity of such efforts, when the evidence here in the present is already indeterminate.

Fig. 11a. MBB7211 H. arachnoidea var nigricans. Springfontein.

Endnote: It is perhaps useful to give Scott’s interpretation relating to the above:

1. He had H. mcclarenii in a section Loratae as a name specifically for Barrydale plants.

2. He he had H. mucronata in the section Denticulatae as a name for an array of specimens scattered across the landscape. Included in a wide array of “selected (herbarium) specimens are plants from:

Middelburg, Sterkstroom and Cradock, that are H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana),
Adelaide, Grahamstown, Uitenhage and Humansdorp, that are H. cooperi var. gracilis.

Napier, that is H. rossouwii.

Ladismith, Oudtshoorn, that are H. mucronata var. inconfluens.

3. He had H. aristata in a section Planifoliae on its own, also for plants from Barrydale and comingling with his distributions for H. mucronata.

4. He recognized two species viz. H. helmiae and H. integra from single localities in the Little Karoo, in a section Muticae.

All these five elements of Scott’s, in terms of names and origins, fall into the system/s to which I apply the names arachnoidea var. nigricans or mucronata. Nothing suggests to me that other writers have a better interpretation of very difficult problem in determining the degree of interfacing of this system with that of arachoidea, lockwoodii, decipiens and cooperi (the latter as discussed in Haworthia Update Vol.1).

Acknowledgement
I would like to record the credibility afforded to me by Western Cape Nature Conservation Board in extending permit approval for the limited collecting this kind of investigation requires. Mr. Johan Meyer of Barrydale was generous enough as to accommodate my wife and I, arrange landowner contact, add his own enthusiasm and interest, and accompany us on the excursion. I particularly would like to acknowledge the improvements and alterations to the manuscript suggested by Paul Forster of Queensland, Australia. It is clear that writing in the sphere of Haworthia now requires critical and informed comment before publication, and I appreciate this from Paul. ♦

Haworthia Updates

Thoughts and observations on Haworthia

Category Archives: Mucronata

Haworthia Revisited – 23. Haworthia mucronata

Volume 1, Chapter 2:- Haworthia mucronata and its new variety

Volume 2, Chapter 11:- Some of the interplay of H. arachnoidea and H. mucronata