Haworthia Update Vol. 2 – Table of Contents

Posted on October 25, 2011 by Lawrence Loucka

Haworthia Updates vol. 2

Editor’s Note

Bruce Bayer’s Haworthia Updates 2 & 3 have been long expected and long in print. Too long in fact, but with the benefit that some of the newest findings and literature can now be covered. Bruce has continued, and still continues, with his field research, which never ceases to bring to light new information about haworthias. Since Haworthia Revisited, he has added nearly 1000 new population records and taken innumerable photographs. Over 1000 photographs are published in Updates 2 & 3 which, in themselves, form an informative record of the variability of haworthias and demonstrate the fundamental problem of classifying haworthias. The photographs are referenced to location and topography. They record information which far exceeds that of practical herbarium records, consequently they will be of value, and indeed essential, to anyone engaging in the taxonomy of the genus at whatever level, and especially to the aficionado, grower and collector. Some pictures are substandard for a coffee-table presentation, but these are far in the minority. They have been retained as the images still convey useful, broad information and it is not possible, for a variety of reasons, to retake them.

The two volumes include 33 essays, 1 to 18 in Vol.2 and 1 to 15 in Vol. 3. The chapters are often independent, consequently the very large number of illustrations and maps are numbered sequentially from 1 for each chapter. Many photographs have the same name. What is distinctive for each photograph is the collection number and the location details. Some of the chapters have been published previously elsewhere but, because of the unfortunate fragmentation of the literature, Bruce would like them presented in a single comprehensive publication to make them all more accessible and contextually meaningful. Often there are addenda to these chapters to present additional argumentation and explanation and corrections have been made to compensate for errors in the original printings. There is emphasis on taxonomy as a means to understanding and knowing plants – as opposed to the general view that taxonomy is petty argumentation about names.

Bruce has included relevant references for articles he has commented upon, which some people might wish to consult. Some are not readily available to the general public or are available only though arrangement with libraries. However, as the policy of Alsterworthia International is to promote and facilitate without favour the publication of information about the genera of the Alooideae (Asphodelaceae), a number of these articles can also be consulted in Alsterworthia International publications. They have been reprinted with permission. Alsterworthia International also has a number of the books for sale. Details will be found on pages ii & ii at the back of this book. As editor of Haworthiad from 1995 to 2001 and of Alsterworthia International from 2001 I have had the privilege of printing articles in both journals from a number of authors including Bruce. It is now an honour and a delight to publish Bruce Bayer’s revised Updates 2 & 3. They provide a wealth of information, which he has collected during time-consuming field research over several decades. Few, if any, can equal his field work. The detailed information he has collected about haworthias is now available for all to consult and use, though if the past is any guide to the future, interpretations about the classification of haworthias may still be subject to some divergence. Finally, I would like to express my thanks to Bruce Bayer for checking the first proof and to Steven Hammer for the final check. Any residual errors may be attributed to me.

.~ Harry Mays

Volume 2, Introduction and Acknowledgement

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

I must explain why I wrote and why I write. Reading and writing are inextricably related. I observed Haworthias, I read about them, and I wrote about them. This was to organise and record what I had learned, to refute what I deem to be wrong and to seek verification of the new. I never did feel adequate to the task of formally revising Haworthia. The fact that I did so was because I was asked to. It was quite clear to me that however inadequate I was, there was nobody else who was going to do it any better. The work (Haworthia Revisited, 1999) was premature in the light of what really needs to be known if a good classification is going to emerge. It is a considerable disappointment to me that much of my writing has not served to guide other writers as I hoped it might. The forewords to Breuer’s two volumes by messrs. Ihlenfeldt and Smith confound my sense of what is true that I truly wonder if there are readers who are anxious to share that same ideal. Sometimes I wonder if my writing has served any greater purpose for which it may have been intended other than to help me organise my own ideas and activities.

Species identification in Haworthia is difficult. This is not a new statement, but simply now a self-evident truth which is becoming increasingly so as I extend my field experience. Recently someone commented on the odd flowering time of H. pulchella var. globifera, commenting that the flower was even unusual. The species pulchella was not yet showing signs of flowering, whereas the odd H. monticola var. asema was budding. The similarities of that variety to globifera in terms of leaf colour and shape, proliferation and flowering time are striking. I later looked more closely at the flower of globifera and found that, in the clones I had available, there was no visible difference whatsoever, between the flowers of globifera and H. cymbiformis var. incurvula from Pluto’s Vale. My collections of the latter were also not all in flower, and quite clearly flowering time (useful as it is) is no more an absolute than can be stated in Stephen Gould’s paraphrased … “The strongest statement that one can possibly make in biological science is ‘hardly ever’.” What to say of the similarity of the flowers in two elements which could hardly be further apart in the sense that classification is applied in the genus.

There is an almost universal conviction among laymen that taxonomists are a quarrelsome lot who do no good but argue about names, and change them in the process. This is unfortunately largely a justified observation, but the justification arises from an inexcusable degree of nescience on the part of both botanist/taxonomist and involved observer. As my essays in recent years have substantiated, plant classification seems to offer the lowest level of intellectual entry to science writing. Anyone, without having any qualification or degree of competence, has access to plant description. Nothing more is needed than an existing template and some kind soul to write some Latin words for the required synoptic sentence. Without any kind of overview or experience of biological systems and thus a more general feeling for classificatory criteria, anybody may step forward and claim authority.

These claims cannot be questioned or challenged by the average or even above average botanist, and not even by those odd few who specialise in classification. The adage “experience is what you have acquired after the need has passed” is too true for comfort. Too few botanists know enough outside of their specialised fields to question what is happening in other families and genera. They are too busy defending the integrity of their own beliefs and systems. Publications in prestigious, rigorously refereed botanical journals fail to neuter some really poor science writing. These observations are all substantiated in the following essays or elsewhere.

In Haworthia, the situation is not that botanists have failed to involve themselves. They have. The results are no better than that of the foolhardy amateur. The consequence is that we now have a fair body of interested growers and collectors who cannot know what is true and what is not. These people can make any derogatory statement about taxonomy that they wish to make, with the confidence that they may be right. Some equally ignorant botanist will step forward to agree and may blithely enter the writing arena too. Mutual backslapping is the order of the day with scant regard for the facts and for what might be true.

The question can again be asked … “Is Haworthia a problem genus?” I wrote an article entitled “Haworthia as a problem genus”, which was published in the Cactus and Succulent Journal (6:251,1971). After so many years and so many written words, I am constrained to ask myself how I see the position now.

I recently wrote an article discussing the question “Is classification science or art?”. This was published in Asklepios (77:3, 1999). Then I also wrote a collection of essays published as “Thoughts on Haworthia”, in which I try to show that Haworthia is not peculiarly difficult. Rather, that the problem is how we as writers and readers perceive our respective roles, and how much we know about plants and their plasticity.

My conclusion is that individually and collectively we may not have a very clear idea of what we are doing or trying to do. If one looks really objectively at the issue of classification and all that is written about plants and the names we use for them, it must be apparent that we are not being very sensible.

The binomial naming system in which groups of similar plants are gathered into genera, with subgroups of similar plants as species, is all well and good. But do we understand the actual nature of these groups. If we look at dictionary definitions of the terms genus and species, we find them wholly inadequate.

What appears to be the situation is that each of us has a concept and construct in our personal consciousness of what we regard as a species. Whether or not this is the same for all of us, and if our worded definition for “species” is the same wherever it is used, does not seem to matter. Generally we may use a word with a fairly liberal interpretation of what it may actually mean, in the framework of a limited vocabulary and knowledge.

One of my essays in this volume is an analysis of the book “Rock of Ages”, written by Stephen Jay Gould. Here I try to show that we are experiencing problems with the fullness of our lives. We as human beings are not doing in our limited spheres of consciousness, what we ought to be doing if we wish to understand creation – of which Haworthia is a very tiny part. My wish thus in submitting these essays for publication is that some silent majority does exist and that my work will in a small way perhaps satisfy their own inner wish to know what is true and real. A deeper wish is that someone better equipped will pick up from where I will leave off.

Acknowledgement
I acknowledge that a better and more satisfying discussion and explanation of Haworthia is desired. Unfortunately the competences, interest and opportunity do not seem to be vested in anyone else that I would gladly submit to. I am extremely grateful to the many people who have simply taken me on trust. There are many individuals who could expect to find themselves listed here as a simply matter of fact rather than a measure of personal satisfaction. Most of them are unlikely to ever see this publication and I thus record my enormous appreciation to a faceless multitude for kindnesses and consents that made access to the plants possible. I find it curious that Conservation bodies demand to be acknowledged when their contribution is largely passive and permit aquisition a demeaning process. I am grateful to the law enforcement officer who in a kind aside commented that their regulations were not for people like my self. I think it is necessary that Conservation recognizes a constitutional right of individuals to engage themselves in study of nature, and not condescension on their part to allow it. I have tried to comply with Conservation legalities and have certainly done so in respect of intent. I am not sure that authorities are achieving what they may aspire to as I have seen too much degradation of this great natural resource of ours and alienation of people to be convinced they are properly directed or motivated.

I would particularly like to thank Kevin Belmont for his interest in the manuscript, and to Harry Mays for much more than just the labour of bringing it to press. We have had a long association in which he has never been less than helpful and consistent in his view that the platform should be accessible to all. Bob Kent, Steven Hammer, and Gerhard Marx have patiently endured my ranting. Other contributors are acknowledged at various places in the essays. I truly regret that Kobus Venter has not had the time to participate as fully as he would have liked, as the work would have been better for the benefit of his wisdom, interactive personal skills and interest. ♦

Volume 2, Catalyst and Consequence

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Steven Hammer

Steven Hammer

Twenty-one years ago Bruce Bayer invited me to work at the Karoo Garden. I realize now that Bruce’s invitation was characteristic of the man. Generous, wholly unexpected and wonderfully timed, it solved major problems as neatly as possible while also being horrifyingly irregular. (I was nearly tossed out of the country for exceeding my visa and was only saved because the allseeing computer had blinked.) During my nine months in Worcester I got to know Bruce and his garden – it really was his garden – quite well.

For a place so out-of-the-way, Karoo Garden was remarkably active and original. Everyone who had a cogent connection to South African succulents had visited, worked, or volunteered there. They came to study and snip the collections Bruce and others had amassed, they came to see Bruce and his family, and they often rested in the half-spartan guest quarters. Altogether it was a beautiful place, filled with colour and life. The central display rockeries were the most convincing failures I’ve ever seen. The formal part of garden was surrounded by a large circle of nearly uncontrolled nature. Rudimentary paths led one through wildly diverse tangles and back to the formal garden and several greenhouses.

The houses – hot, green and lath – were filled with a wide range of collections from several families. In a tiny glasshouse the usually elusive Anacampseros bayeriana, then unnamed, swelled so happily that its gravel-topped tray regularly erupted in babies. Between two houses, some admirable Gethyllis found a perfect niche; Heaven should smell so sweet. Adromischus toughened up under lath and a shimmering riot of Oxalis made me wonder at their rarity. A long and narrow house topped with ageing yellow fibreglass provided the conophytums with filtered light and also made a haven for the curling night-feasting worms which loved them as much as I did, for other reasons. The same house harboured a first-rate collection of haworthia. Though large, it was actually skeletal and symbolic. Four exquisitely sombre plants of H. mutica var. nigra stood in for their pressed, fallen brethren and for concatenationary relatives as well. There were also two magnificent plants of H. marumiana var. dimorpha, blacklaced tarantulas. Nearby, in a wide but shallow tray, H. bruynsii actually multiplied.

Fertilizer use was rare. Lean plants and anorexic budgets were the order of the day, yet research proceeded well. Larry Leach had an assistant, as did Pauline Perry, along with space and peat for her bulbs; I had a morning maid(!), and Daphne Bayer cooked delicious vegetarian meals. (It was our shared vegetarianism that brought us together in the first place.) The situation allowed me, as it had allowed many others, the precious luxury of time, time to think, read, and wander. Small wonder I miss it.

In Bruce’s view the core collections at KG lay in the sheets, records, and photographs – not an attitude I appreciated at first. But one of the reasons he wanted me there was to assist in the making of specimens, along with revamping the living collections. Those activities, not as contrary as one might think, occupied much of my time. We also took trips, short and long; Robertson, Ceres, Springbok – and Montagu, where I first saw the fascinating, wax-striped Ruschia [Brianhuntleya] intrusa. Bruce not only knew this hyper-obscure mesemb (and myriad others); he could tell me exactly where else he’d seen it, what conditions fostered it, and could speculate sensibly on its affinities. Bruce had an exact recall for habitat and life-style, for colour and texture. I realized that I was expected to develop such recall as well; it was part – by no means the hardest part – of the necessary equipment if one actually wanted to attempt an understanding of such grand mosaics as the Ceres Karoo.

Bruce was not a boss one liked to disappoint. He could be spookily severe but was sly as well. One day one of the big overbosses ventured up from Kirstenbosch. I overheard Mr. Big querying Bruce in the kitchen. “So how many boys do you have?” “Seventeen – at the moment.” Bruce had just three real boys but, pre-post-apartheid, “boys” still meant labourers. Bruce’s reply conveyed his discomfort with the term in a way that registered without, so to speak, excess force. The position of Karoo Garden rested on nuances of funding, culture, and politics – at odds, often enough, with Bruce’s forthright nature. “Words were given to us to speak the truth” — so Charlotte Bronte tells us.

Before Bruce left the garden we took a reflective and productive trip to Namaqualand. When we returned it was time for Bruce to leave the garden, but in a sense he took it with him. When next in Worcester I saw that Bruce had set up a flourishing collection downtown: a seedling factory, a forest of leaf props (including a perpetually polished and blushing form of H. emelyae var. comptoniana), a tray of the satiny Tylecodon atropurpurea, then new; the works! The salient pivots, love and curiosity, had been privatized. Those who craved paint-by-the-numbers botany wouldn’t find it there, and indeed they won’t find it in these pages either. What they will find is the work of a man with an absolutely unusual gift from, for, and to nature. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 1:- The curious variability of Haworthia floribunda

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Introduction
Haworthia Revisited was drafted in 1996, and since then the first author has undertaken a number of field excursions in an attempt to clarify uncertainties. The putative nature of species of Haworthia as recognised by Bayer (listed in Haworthia Revisited, Umdaus 1999) and the importance he attached to geographic distribution are stressed in all his publications. This is because these so-called species seem to vary continuously with one another in that context of geography. Classification seeks to portray relationships and origins. Hence when a species has been recognised, a cognitive attempt has been made to speculate on phylogenetics, where distribution must be significant. In the case of Haworthia floribunda this proves rather difficult, and this article is a discussion of the relationship of this species to its possible relatives. The point we do make is that the Linnaean binomial system, as well as cladistic methods, seem neither to deal with nor portray the problem of reticulate relationships. In other words, the nomenclatural system and the way we classify plants and analyse their relationships assumes linear dichotomy in those relationships.

Considerations
H. floribunda was described by von Poellnitz in 1938. It was preceded by H. parksiana in 1936. Other species which need to be considered are H. chloracantha Haw. (1821), H. variegata Bol. (1929), H. magnifica VPoelln. (1933) and H. maraisii VPoelln. (1935). Each of these species, although H. parksiana to a lesser degree, has complex variability within assignable geographic space. The difference with H. floribunda is that it is peripheral to all of them.

Bayer, in his Haworthia Handbook (1976), writes of H. floribunda ” … It is not certain what the relationship is between this species and H. chloracantha var. denticulifera which is found north and south of Albertinia on the west of its distribution range. Thus H. chloracantha abuts on H. floribunda and may be geographically continuous with it.” In the New Handbook (1982) Bayer writes “There is a known population north of Albertinia in which the plants have more and shorter leaves, as well as another similar population near Gouritzmond. These two populations may suggest an affinity with H. chloracantha (here an unpublished comment by A.E Speechley is added which probably has its origins in Bayer’s note of 1976, or in private communication between the two persons). There may be such a relationship, but it seems likely that H. floribunda and H. parksiana are in fact related. They both tend to grow well‑shaded and in moss and lichen.”

The problem is not resolved in Bayer’s more recent revision (1999). He does recognise three varieties of H. floribunda. These are:

Fig. 01. MBB158 H. floribunda. Type locality, N Heidelberg.

a. the typical one comprising a single population north of Heidelberg (Fig.1 MBB158).

b. a similar single population near Swellendam representing the var. major (Figs.2a & b MBB6859).

Fig. 02a. MBB6859 H. floribunda var major. S Swellendam.

c. the remainder, the var. dentata (Figs.3a & b JDV89/17).

In the discussion of H. chloracantha, it is also stated that a population north of Albertinia (i.e. Draaihoek, Fig.4 MBB2311) considered as chloracantha in 1976, considered non-commitally as chloracantha in 1982; ” … includes plants which resemble H. parksiana and it may best be related to H. floribunda“. This collection is cited under H. floribunda var. dentata. Thus there is a degree of uncertainty for which the author offers an apology, and here attempt to summarise the situation a little more comprehensively.

There are some red herrings in various comments made by Bayer. These include reference on p48 of Haworthia Revisited to the lower Gouritz population (Fig.5 MBB5460) “previously being assigned to H. floribunda“, possibly referring to a Smith identification on a photograph and cited under H. chloracantha var. denticulifera. There is a similar population nearer Albertinia (Fig.6 MBBsn). Also there is a citation of a specimen from the Duiwenhoks Causeway (Muller-Doblies 89/098) under H. chloracantha var. denticulifera, which may be the same population sampled by Venter and Esterhuizen (Figs.7a & b JDV92/31) from a site named as Dassieklip also on the Duiwenhoks River (the geographical grid references differ and these may be incorrect), but cited under H. floribunda var. dentata.

Fig. 05. MBB5460 H. chloracantha var denticulifera. NW Gouritzmond.

Haworthia parksiana is known from at least five different sites of which two are recorded by Mr Jan Vlok, viz. at Outeniqua Siding, and north-east of Brandwacht, Mossel Bay. No herbarium specimens of these are known to have been lodged. J.D Venter has commented that parksiana-like seedlings were grown from H. magnifica seed (parent plants ex near Heidelberg). It is doubtful if this can be used to support a claim that this is the origin or relationship of the two species. Bayer has also grown small stunted forms of magnifica from seed of an H. magnifica population south of Riversdale. Such dwarfed individuals have been observed among seedlings derived from other populations. The connection of H. magnifica to the Mossel Bay area is just too tenuous. At Albertinia itself we have the variation to H. magnifica vars. dekenahii and splendens, while to the south west we have the var. acuminata. This is assuming that Bayer is correct in making these combinations which are known to be complicated by consideration (among many) of H. emelyae north of the Langeberg mountains.

H. chloracantha is treated in Haworthia Revisited, as three varieties. The typical variety is considered to consist of the known single population north of Herbertsdale (Bayer in KG411/75). However, Paul Vorster drew my attention to a population at the Wolwedans Dam north of Great Brak which is almost identical and which invalidates varietal distinction defined by geographical considerations (Fig.8 MBB7425). A specimen of this collected by C Burgers is also cited for the Gouritz Gorge where it exits the Langeberg Mountains. P.V.Bruyns and E.A.van Jaarsveld have also made collection from further north in the same gorge, which are uncited. These three populations cannot be categorically included in the typical variety and could be just as at home in the var. denticulifera. The only consideration is probably size and the greenish colour – as opposed to the usually smaller and purplish-green of the var. denticulifera. The var. sub-glauca also does not have a clear geographical base in terms of difference or distribution range, and may just be a much localised ecotype in the vicinity of Great Brak. It occurs close to the Wolwedans population both to the south and to the west. The recognition of these varieties makes it a little difficult also to include the Albertinia and Cooper Siding populations as cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. chloracantha as they are so closely similar, and located, to H. floribunda. The geographical considerations, however, argue for their inclusion.

Fig. 08. MBB7425 H. chloracantha var chloracantha. Wolwedans, Great Brak. MBB7425

The Great Brak/Mossel Bay area contains some endemic species which suggest the operation of a mechanism which could have isolated the vegetation of that area at some time in the past. H. parksiana, H. kingiana, H. pygmaea, H. chloracantha and species like Euphorbia bayeri and Duvalia immaculata suggest this. The Langeberg mountains are an east/west barrier separating the more arid Little Karoo and its succulent Karoid vegetation from the Southern Cape where Renosterveld and Karoid Valley Bushveld are more strongly represented. The Gouritz River Gorge may have been, or is, a similar north/south divide. Westwards, the Swellendam area seems to provide a vegetation interval that H. turgida seems to bridge with difficulty, and which also marks some kind of a break for the H. magnifica/H. maraisii complex. This divide may be a function of inadequate collecting or the lack of adequate habitat. The Breede River valley may, like the Gouritz, present a north/south barrier. It is the home for H. venosa subsp. venosa and also for an endemic asclepiad Stapeliopsis stayneri. West of Swellendam is also the start of the Worcester Robertson Karoo which is vegetatively much closer to the Little Karoo than is the eastern part of the Southern Cape. This area also has its own Haworthia endemics or near-endemics.

The physical commonalities of the three species floribunda, chloracantha and parksiana, are that the leaves are in a stemless rosette, having from 20-40 leaves per rossete. The lowest numbers are in floribunda with parksiana and chloracantha generally having more. The leaves are firm and slightly scabrid. H. chloracantha is more spinose than the other two species and the leaves are triangular in cross-section with a conspicuous keel. In H. parksiana the leaves tend to be short and sharply recurved. In H. floribunda the leaves are more erect, although spreading. Characteristically the leaves are twisted and there is no keel, so the leaf is more effectively strap-shaped particularly towards the apex. The leaf-tip is also rounded with a short point. In H. chloracantha, the leaves are erect and spreading, not twisted. They are keeled and thus triangular in cross section. The leaf tip is attenuated and pointed. The leaf surfaces of the three species are variable. Both H. floribunda and H. parksiana can exhibit quite tuberculate surfaces, although parksiana never has the relatively glabrous surface that may occur in either chloracantha or floribunda. Colouration is also variable across the three species, although parksiana does not occur in the lighter colours that the other two species may exhibit. A hatched pattern of the under-leaf surface may appear. All three species make offsets although parksiana is slower and more reluctant to do so – an observation which may just be peculiar to the individual grower and the clones he has under his conditions.

New material
Regarding H. parksiana, the only new records are those of Jan Vlok mentioned above. The writers assume that the identifications are correct and that they establish the discrete identity of that species. Regarding H. chloracantha, there is only one significant new collection. This is one of the var. denticulifera made by Bayer, Kent and Venter. It was made at the same time as a visit to the site of the typical var. chloracantha north of Herbertsdale. Here the plants are on a very steep clay slope (in fact recent rains had caused massive mud-slides). The plants are quite large and form immense chlorotic-green clumps. We were at Herbertsdale to verify a collection of H. pygmaea made by Ernst van Jaarsveld in the same vicinity. This is a short distance away on a steep conglomerate slope. H. pygmaea was present on the dry northern edge. But in the moss and lichen of the cooler eastern overhang were the small single plants of H. chloracantha (Figs.9a, b & c JDV97/136). These were so evidently different from the typical form that we accepted (with reservation) the identification as H. floribunda. One reason for such identification is simply one of informal communication. A similar “floribunda“-like plant grows with H. pygmaea and H. parksiana virtually within Great Brak Township (Fig.10 JBouwer sn). This was collected and referred to as H. floribunda by both messrs. H. Gie and J. Bouwer. It is possible, and probable, that it is in fact H. chloracantha var. denticulifera, as is the new population JDV97/136.

Fig. 09a. JDV97-136 H. chloracantha var denticulifera. Herbertsdale.

The Dassieklip population (Fig.7) remains somewhat of an enigma. A good comparison can even be made with collection of H. monticola from Trompetters Poort, north of Willowmore, as the plants also have an apparently smoother epidermis than appears evident in chloracantha. This is a highly improbable relationship, but it is necessary to make this comparison in view of what has been speculated elsewhere about the possibility of a continuation between H. chloracantha, H. variegata and H. monticola (H. divergens Bayer!). This speculation has been by Bayer and is not significant enough to cite in detail. What is important is that the Dassieklip population may in fact be closer to H. variegata. Hence its citation under both H. chloracantha and H. floribunda is unavoidably misleading. However, that can only be considered in a detailed evaluation of H. variegata in its relationship to the coastal limestones and re-occurrence in shales both west and south of Swellendam.

The newest finds relating to H. floribunda are in the broad area southwest of Heidelberg, and west of Bredasdorp. However, there is one new record by E. Aslander of plants from northeast of Albertinia (Figs.11a, b & c EA1238) in which plants very clearly have the characteristics of H. floribunda. There are also individuals with the leaves of H. chloracantha. There is another collection by Aslander from Snymanskraal west of Albertinia (Figs.12a & b JDV92/2) which resembles the Draaihoek sample and thus may also be H. chloracantha var. denticulifera. A further collection by J.D. Venter is midway between this collection and Riversdale (Figs.13a, b, & c JDV93/56), and is clearly H. floribunda. A feature of this collection is the striated rugosity of the leaf surface in some clones and also the occurrence of short, almost terete, leaves that are evident in a clone of H. parksiana in a JDV collection.

Fig. 13c. H. floribunda var dentata. Plattekop, E Riversdale.

Collections from the western areas include:- from a population reported by E. Esterhuizen on the farm Koppies, southeast of Swellendam (Figs.14a, b & c MBB6879) where the plants tend to H. maraisii; from slightly to the east and south of this at Oudekraal (Figs.15a, b, c & d MBB6881) the plants are very like H. floribunda var. dentata as it occurs at Buffeljachts and at the Bontebok Park south of Swellendam. Esterhuizen commented on the appearance of the twisted and flattened leaf-end of H. maraisii north of Bredasdorp. This is confirmed in populations at Napky (MBB7030) and at Adoonskop (Figs.16a, b & c MBB6640) Adoonskop (maraisii) where the plants do indeed look like very robust forms of floribunda. The same characteristic twisted and rounded leaf-tip is evident in maraisii at Napier (Figs.17a, B & c MBB6973) and especially in the seedlings.

Fig. 14a. MBB6879 H. floribunda var dentata. Koppies, Heidelberg.

Several other collections confound the picture completely either because of intrinsic variability or because they make it difficult to uphold any geographical recognition of variation. Firstly there is a collection attributable to P.V. Bruyns, north of DeHoop (Figs.18a, b & c MBB6539) which has strong resemblance to H. magnifica var. atrofusca.

Fig. 18a. MBB6539 H. maraisii var atrofusca! Tarentaal, N DeHoop.

Secondly there is a series of populations from the northwestern end of the Potberg, south of Swellendam and east of Bredasdorp. These are:- Juliesfontein (Figs.19a, b, c & d MBB6882); Brakfontein (Figs.20a, b, c, d & e MBB6886); northern Potberg slopes (Figs.21a, b & c MBB6889); and north of Brakfontein (Figs.22a & b MBB6890). These complement collections Burgers 2506, Bayer in KG35/70 and Bruyns in KG49/76 cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. maraisii, as well as MBB(PVB)6544 (Figs.23a & b), and MBB6545 (Figs.24a & b) cited under H. heidelbergensis var. scabra.

Fig. 19a. MBB6882 H. floribunda var dentata. W Juliesfontein, S Swellendam.

The influence of other species such as H. mirabilis, H. variegata and H. serrata are in evidence. It can be noted that KG35/70 was of very small plants at Juliesfontein. Returning to the same site 30 years later I could not find these small plants at the original site, and instead found the bigger plants of MBB6882 a short distance away. There are three more collections to be considered:- by Denis DeKok near Swellendam (Figs25a, b & c MBB6644), about 10km west of Swellendam (MBB6861), and from the farm Rondeheuwel south of Stormsvlei (Figs.26a, b & c MBB6882, Bayer in KG326/71). This latter collection has previously been reported (Haworthia Handbook 1976) under one of the populations intermediate with H. mirabilis, and is cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. maraisii. These populations, as well as that southwest of Heidelberg (KG107/74 cited under H. magnifica (Figs.27a,b & c MBB6663, Bayer in KG107/74) confound the issue enormously as we actually have four populations which cannot with confidence be allied with either H. magnifica, H. maraisii or with H. mirabilis. The reality is that neither H. heidelbergensis nor H. floribunda can be excluded from the consideration of these populations. The case for each “species” needs to be dealt with separately. In this case, H. floribunda is reflected in the nature of the leaf shapes. In all the four latter populations given, there are individuals which have the same characteristic leaf shape of H. floribunda, although not necessarily the elongated strap-like leaves of the typical form. In addition to this, seedlings of many different collections of H. magnifica (Kweekkraal, Figs.28a & b MBB6817 – and the reader should refer to the chapter where interplay between H. magnifica and H. floribunda is reported), H. maraisii, H. heidelbergensis, H. mirabilis (Goudini, Caledon, Fig.29 MBB6537), and even H. mutica (Hasiesdrift, Fig.30 MBB6982), have the floribunda-like shape evident in the young leaves. Kobus Venter was especially struck by this phenomenon while photographing H. mirabilis on the Bromberg Mountain near Stormsvlei. These rounded obtuse leaf-tips are maintained until at least the three to five-leaf stages and then largely disappear. Thus there seems to be a distinct sign that the leaf-type is juvenile and that H. floribunda represents a “species” with retained juvenile characters. This may extend to the fact that the seedlings of this species also seem to remain slightly distichous for longer than is the case in other species. In the case of H. floribunda var. major from southwest of Swellendam, the leaves in some individuals may be fully pointed and triangular in cross-section and thus more closely resemble plants in the population of H. variegata var. hemicrypta west of Swellendam. This is the same kind of variation found in the populations about Albertinia, where the speculated differentiation to H. chloracantha occurs.

Fig. 25a. MBB6644 H. maraisii=mirabilis! SW Swellendam.

Flower morphology and flowering time does not appear to offer any solutions. As it is, the flowers have so far been shown in Haworthia to be useful only in so far as recognising the sub-genera is concerned. It can be shown that even at that level, the distinction causes problems for botanists. Most of the species discussed above flower in late summer. While the epithet ‘floribunda‘ was chosen to suggest many-flowered, this is true for other populations considered to be H. magnifica.

Conclusion
The circumscription of H. floribunda remains obscure and the situation is in fact exacerbated by new samples which indicate the labyrynthine relationships with several species previously excluded from debate. H. floribunda may have juvenile characters. It does have distinctive populations in a recognisable geographic area. It does not directly share habitat with any species although it does occur very near to H. turgida (north of Heidelberg, where hybrids are also recorded). Where the chloracantha-like equivalent occurs with H. pygmaea var. argenteo-maculosa at Cooper Siding, hybridisation is also evident. It occurs very near to H. magnifica var. atrofusca northwest of Riversdale, growing on a cool southern slope as opposed to the latter on a hotter north slope. The situation northwest of the Potberg, where as many as seven otherwise apparently discrete species need to be included in the discussion, will be very difficult to explain.

It should be noted in closing that the Heidelberg population MBB6663 (as KG107/74) was instrumental in the initial decision by Bayer in 1976 when H. maraisii and H. magnifica were treated as one under H. maraisii. This was repeated in 1982 when H. magnifica was given its chronological priority over H. maraisii. In Haworthia Revisited these two elements are separated as discrete species and the Heidelberg collection is cited under H. magnifica. This decision was made rather to accommodate the varieties which are attached to them. Thus the additional three collections noted in connection with it viz. MBB6860, MBB6861 and MBB6862 all fall within this same indecisive category.

M.B. Bayer, Cape Town, South Africa
R.W. Kent, Poway, California

♦

Volume 2, Chapter 2:- A population of Haworthia magnifica/maraisii

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Introduction
After writing Haworthia Revisited in 1996, I became aware of just how inadequate readers seem to be to the task of assimilating all the available literature on Haworthia, in the botanical and intellectual climate in which we live. It seems as though the more information we have the more confused we become. In order to generate the material needed to disprove or fortify my classification hypothesis, I have spent a further considerable amount of time in the field and in cultivating plants from seed. Unfortunately the editorial support and speed of publication has not kept pace with my own effort and much of my writing and my evidence is still in manuscript form. This short essay was therefore to put forward only a little more evidence to show just how complex plant species are – not necessarily only in Haworthia.

In my first Handbook (1976), I anticipated H. maraisii and H. magnifica to be separate species – the former west of, and the latter east of Heidelberg, Cape. In the second book (1982), I felt that I was dealing with a single species and referred to a population just west of Heidelberg as H. magnifica var. magnifica (instead of as H. maraisii). I did this transposition quite deliberately in order to suggest that the distinction between the two species was very arbitrary. In my later revision (1999) I separated H. magnifica and H. maraisii again. The rationalisation is given there and I just need to explain that I thought this was a better way of communicating the nature of the variable populations attached to each of two elements. It was then evident that populations relevant to magnifica and maraisii were proving to be more radically different than a single species hypothesis could comfortably accommodate. Also new evidence was accumulating for the nature of:

1. H. heidelbergensis, which was not even included in the previous debates.
2. H. floribunda, also proving to be more variable than predicted.
3. H. mirabilis.

The overall relationship of these three species is far closer to both H. magnifica and H. maraisii than even my original conservative approach suggests.

In the essay which deals with H. floribunda I make two points particularly relevant to this article:

1. The geographic facts, viz..”Westwards (from Gouritz River), the Swellendam area seems to provide a vegetation interval which H. turgida seems to bridge with difficulty, and which also marks some kind of a break for the H. magnifica/H. maraisii complex. This divide may be a function of inadequate collecting or the lack of adequate habitat”.

2. The populations known to me. To quote from the floribunda manuscript “There are three more collections to be considered:- by Denis DeKok near Swellendam (Figs.25a, b & c MBB6644), about 10km west of Swellendam (MBB6861 not illustrated), and from the farm Rondeheuwel south of Stormsvlei (Figs.26a, b & c MBB6882, (Bayer in KG326/71). This latter collection has previously been reported (Haworthia Handbook 1976) under one of the populations intermediate with H. mirabilis, and is cited in Haworthia Revisited under H. maraisii. These populations, as well as that southwest of Heidelberg (Figs27a, b & c MBB6663, Bayer in KG107/74 – cited under H. magnifica, Bayer, 1999) confound the issue enormously. Thus we actually have four populations which cannot with confidence be allied with either H. magnifica, H. maraisii or with H. mirabilis. The reality is that neither H. heidelbergensis nor H. floribunda can be excluded from the consideration of these populations. The case for each “species” needs to be dealt with separately.”

Primarily illustrated here are plants from the population MBB6644 which occurs west of Swellendam. The population is not remarkable for the variation observable there among the individual plants, and I have taken it to demonstrate that there was, and is, predictive value in my classification hypotheses. Much of my recent writing has been directed at the very weak concepts and perceptions that appear in our general understanding of “species” and their variability. This has an impact on individual credibility, plausibility and the truth with which we examine our human condition and pursue our hobbies.

Results
The photographs depicted are all taken at virtually the same distance so that the size of the plants is relatively correct; with the largest plants being near 90mm diam. (The pots are 90mm square.)

The first illustration depicts a conventional form of H. maraisii from a population from north of McGregor Fig. 1 MBB6646 H. maraisii var. maraisii). The species was first described from Stormsvlei where the plants are a little larger and more tuberculate than these pictured. Actually it has become difficult to say just where this species stops and starts, and this will become obvious. There is a degree of translucence in the leaves and there is a conspicuous vein down the centre of the leaf. This is by no means a ‘character’ for the species, and an article could be written about the variation in venation as well as about this single population (MBB6646) too.

The Swellendam plants have been named as H. maraisii=mirabilis in the preceding chapter and are illustrated as follows:

Fig.2, 3 and 4 are the clones 3, 8 and 17 of MBB6644. The surfaces are a little less tuberculate than the McGregor plant shown, but the only significant difference is actually that they are slightly bigger plants, the spination is more obvious and the leaves tend to be fewer and more erect. These are also by no means diagnostic characters. There is little translucence and the venation is inconspicuous. The identification of the population as H. maraisii thus seems obvious.

However, clones 2 and 4 illustrate a narrowing of the leaf (Figs.5 & 6 MBB6644). Clone 15 is a small plant also with smaller narrower leaves (Fig. 7 MBB6644). Were its leaves more erect instead of so recurved, it could be perhaps be taken to be H. heidelbergensis var. scabra.

Clones 1 and 3 (Figs.8 & 9) of MBB6663 are from west of Heidelberg and would easily be lost among the Swellendam plants if unlabeled. In the preceding chapter the population is identified as H. magnifica var magnifica. Clone 2 of this population (Fig.10 MBB6663) is a plant with more erect leaves – but …

Clones 7, 10, 11, 14 and 16 of MBB6644 (Figs.11 to 15) have a similar narrowing and erect bearing of the leaves, not to say that the plants are otherwise identical. This condition of the more erect leaves seems to be the more general one in both populations, MBB6644 and MBB6663. This is almost the crux of the problem in the classification of Haworthia, and in my experience it is not a problem unique to Haworthia. In all of biology there is this variability that requires statistical method to establish what “average” is. When one is dealing with different growing condition, and the nuances of texture, colour, shape, leaf recurvature and number, it is in fact not possible to generate such a “mean”.

Clones 9 and 13 of MBB6644 (Figs.16 & 17) are unusual in either H. maraisii or H. magnifica. The leaves tend to narrow quite considerably, but the leaves can also be unusually narrow and erect in populations of H. maraisii as in a population west of Robertson (Fig.18 MBB6647.8).

I include an illustration of a plant from a population of H. floribunda var. dentata from south of Swellendam (Fig. 19 MBB6881), – a population that tends to link floribunda with either maraisii or heidelbergensis to expose the reality that the link extends to H. mirabilis. (Apparently in a Dutch journal a writer has suggested that H. floribunda var. dentata is a form between H. floribunda and H. chlorocantha var. subglauca! This would be a complete misrepresentation of my classification hypothesis which has been fully explained and there is no reason for such a mistake. The var. dentata is represented by many populations and Chapter 3 details the possible relationship of the species floribunda and chlorocantha without any frivolity about the varieties and forms.)

Fig. 19. MBB6881.6 H. floribunda var dentata. Oudekraal, Heidelberg.

Also illustrated is a plant from a population very close (NW Kweekkraal), both geographically and in appearance, to H. magnifica var. atrofusca west of Riversdale (Fig.20 MBB6817). I have included it here because general colouration and texture are the same and it evidences the typical round-tipped leaves of floribunda which occurs so frequently in maraisii and magnifica (see older leaves in Fig.2 or Fig.8).

Fig. 20. MBB6817.1 H. magnifica var atrofusca. NW Kweekkraal, Riversdale.

Clones 1, 5 and 18 of MBB6644 (Figs.21, 22 & 23) are small rather nondescript specimens, while is clone 64 of MBB6639 (Fig.24) is a plant of H. mirabilis var. sublineata from south of Bredasdorp. These last four illustrations depict a series of smaller plants which bear a resemblance to H. heidelbergensis. The difference in the latter is the lighter green colouration, slightly more translucence and more conspicuous spination. These are significant in the context of these collections and these photographs. However, put into the context of all the populations of H. heidelbergensis, H. floribunda, H. mirabilis, H. maraisii, H. magnifica, also H. emelyae and the total variability among these, it is impossible to stipulate difference.

The four problem populations, MBB6644, MBB6861, MBB6882 and MBB6663 are not as distinctive as suggested by the way in which I have specified them. They have also to be seen in the light of the variability of the individuals in those populations, and the many other populations which abut geographically onto them. Thus where I suggest they confound a clear difference between the two species H. maraisii and H. magnifica, this is not only how it is to be understood. The essay concerning H. floribunda will illustrate how extensive the problem actually is. These four populations can be discussed in terms of each of the species named in the previous paragraph.

One has to come back to biological variation and consider how one is to circumscribe a species in such a way as to facilitate identification. Here we have a single population in which the basic features such as colour, size, texture, spination, venation and translucence, are so variable that it is impossible to establish what the mean or average plant is. The problem is compounded by the fact that the variables can also not be broken down to discrete quantities. I have shown only the whole plant and thus the vegetative features. The flowers are less variable both within and between populations and ‘species’. It is already clear from the literature that species in the sub-genera of Haworthia can barely be separated on the basis of their flowers. To expect that the flower can then provide a ‘signature’ or character by which population variability can be understood, is fallacious. Floral character in fact must persuade one that there are less species than we wish to find from the vegetative characters which attract us to the plants in the first place. Flowering time is useful but it is also not diagnostic. Generally flowering time in the species mentioned in this article lies between September and May. It is no more useful than the geographic location of the population. H. maraisii tends to flower from March to May and H. mirabilis is generally earlier. However, to establish the actual flowering times for each population in terms of different seasons and years, and as a mean for the individuals in each population, must be a herculean task.

What I have done is to take geographic distribution as a key element in the classification. My experience is that distribution reflects the relationship between populations and between species. This is just a logical extension of the processes we should expect from speciation processes associated with genetic interbreeding, and isolation which obviates it. “Genetic drift” should reflect the probabilities associated with pollination across distance and with the nature of the pollinating agent. Similarities between populations should reflect this, as well as the probabilities of distribution by whatever agent such as wind or water. Naturally these will not be absolute, and the classification hypothesis will only be as good as the information allows, with the proviso that it is more information we are going to require if a better hypothesis is to be formulated.

What is striking in all my formal and informal communication with interested parties is the failure to appreciate what judgmental factors may underlie the vexing thing we regard as a “species”. I need to make it quite clear that I take a species to be a system of individuals judged on a very wide variety of factors – including geographical relationships and the influence these seem to have on other similar systems belonging to other genera.

In Haworthia, I do not deceive myself that these systems are as discrete as my classification may suggest. That is why I wrote that I was recognising nodes in a complex interconnected array. Someone put forward their own solution to one such array by suggesting that the intermediate element be recognised as a species. This is particularly unacceptable when one considers the full implication. All the intermediates could be recognised as species and the present species then as intermediates! The position is that my classification was undertaken as a proper revision when a considerable amount of new data was available; sufficient to consider it really representative and adequate on which to base an overview of the genus. For persons now to suggest an alternative classification without a proper and thorough insight into all that old material, and without adding adequately to the known record, will border on the irresponsible and inconsiderate of the purpose of classification.

[1] Breckenridge (Haworthiad 19:4, 2005) for an example among others, admits to being wholly lost in respect of a remark I made (Haworthiad 18:44, 2004) in respect of varietal names. I wrote “… (variety) is a useful rank only if there is no typical variety, and if it is recognized that the species name is used for all the variants both formally named AND unnamed.” I was referring to the practice in nomenclature where the description of an inferior rank (variety in this case) automatically creates a “typical” rank. It is obvious that if a species is described from limited material, it is improbable that the description will include all the variants. Thus any new material of that species may differ from the described. Formally giving this new material a name should in fact broaden the initial description. If the ramifications of this fact are not apparent to the reader, then no amount of writing and explanation will lift the fog of misunderstanding. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 3:- Where to Haworthia limifolia

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

This chapter was published in Aloe 40:2:41-52, 2003, and I have added an addendum with further explanation and discussion.

My first experience of this species Haworthia limifolia, was with a plant brought from somewhere in Zululand by my late uncle Frank Bayer. He was involved with malaria control in then Zululand and Northern Natal. He must have given the plant to my father while we were staying at New Hanover during the period 1950 to 1954. I have always been attracted to Haworthia, but I did nothing more than admire the plant as it flourished in my mother’s care. I never really concerned myself with the origin of the plant other than recalling my uncle telling that he had stopped for lunch by the roadside, and his Zulu assistant had come back to the car with the plant. I had thought he said “near Nkandhla”, while my father later doubtfully remembered “Nongoma”. It could have been “Ithala”. I recall now that my uncle was stationed at Vryheid during that period and this is a small way inland from either Ithala or Bivane Dam, which feature later in this article.

It was only when I had left University that my interest really developed further. By this time the plant had divided and there were two very big plants each measuring 23cm in diameter. I was working at the Cedara Agricultural College when I decided I should try to learn more about this species and perhaps describe the plant(s) now in my possession. It was obviously quite unlike anything pictured that I was aware of, and certainly the leaf surface did not match that illustrated with the original description of H. limifolia by Marloth in 1908 (see Fig.1). His species was supposed to have come from simply “west of Delagoa Bay”, leaving it to the imagination as to when one switched to “east of Walvis Bay”. Certainly in the way Haworthia were regarded as species, these plants of mine were decidedly different from what I perceived to be H. limifolia. It must be pointed out that no one has ascertained just where Marloth’s species originated, or decided just what should constitute the geographic origin or range of the typical variety. This is a classification problem which is not adequately catered for, and Brummit’s paper (2002) may indicate why.

Fig. 1. H. limifolia var limifolia Marloth as illustrated in Trans. Royal Society S Africa.

A colleague of mine was good enough to accompany me on a trip to look for the species in 1962. We started at the Hluhluwe and Mkuzi Game reserves. We had a very adventurous journey that included being shown a place where a plant had been known to grow. Another experience was to be directed into the veld to occupy us while the police were called to query our presence. What puzzles me now in retrospect is that in my later description of the large H. limifolia var. gigantea (figs.2 & 3), which we never found), is the record in that description of a collection I made at Ngeba just north of the Hluhluwe reserve. I have no recollection of such a plant whatsoever.The big disadvantage my friend and I suffered from on our journey was the inability to communicate with locals. A bigger disadvantage was my sheer ignorance of field collecting and the preparation and effort needed to produce results. During our fruitless journey we went as far north as Stegi (now Isiteki) where I met Capt. D.R. Keith. We also saw and collected plants on the Blue Jay Ranch on the Umbuluzi River to the north. Capt. Keith had collected a plant named for him as the var. keithii (fig.4 – note: a clone, fig.5 in cultivation in J.W. Dodson’s collection as a topotype of the var. keithii seems to differ quite radically from the illustration accompanying the description by G.G. Smith. It is a plant with shorter squatter leaves than the illustrated type). Again I did not record properly the origin of that variety – my notes state “Palata Farm”. This is approximately 12km southeast of Stegi, and the farm Ravelston a little further on. Capt. Keith was also the collector of H. ubomboensis (later H. limifolia var. ubomboensis, figs.6 & 7) from south-east of Stegi. This could have been a single clone in an otherwise tubercled population, as several dried specimens from that general area are in the PRE herbarium.

Fig. 2. H. limifolia var gigantea, MBB112 Nongoma, as illustrated in Journal of SA Botany 1962.

Over the years I simply left H. limifolia to history – for which there is some reason. Nature Conservation authorities made it painfully obvious that they were the only true custodians of nature. Nevertheless I did see several plants of H. limifolia in collections, such as:

a. the Mozaan River plant collected by Bruyns-Haylett (fig.8), illustrated with my description of the var. gigantea.

b. a plant from Barberton collected by Frank Stayner (fig.9).

c. a plant from Gollel mentioned in my varietal description (see fig.10, which is ex hort. Mr. Roux),

Fig. 8. Bruyns-Haylettsn. H. limifolia var gigantea (striata nom. nud.) Mozaan River, Pongola.

d. a few clones kindly sent to me by Mrs Tony Pooley then at Ndumu which I was sure she said had come from near the entrance gate – subsequently refuted (personal communication).

f. a plant in the garden of Mrs Mairne Hulme (fig.11) near Richmond, Natal. This was a very dark-green plant with distinctive raised wavy undulations across the leaves. These undulations are unquestionably not tubercles in the sense of any departure from the colour or texture of the surrounding leaf surface. Thus we have evidence that Marloth’s assertive “non-tuberculata” is a reality. In my revision (1999), I illustrate a plant from the Umbuluzi gorge which can be seen also to be “non-tuberculate”.

Fig. 11. H. limifolia var limifolia ex Mrs Mairne Hulme, Thornhill, Richmond

I saw plants reported to have been collected at Louwsburg which were rather like the big var. gigantea with the same tubercles on the leaves, rather than the transverse ridges we usually associate with the species. These plants have been distributed as var. gigantea, but they do differ in having thicker leaves which are sub-erect so that the rosette is more upright.

At one stage I also had a plant from the place Goba in the north-east of Swaziland again collected by someone from Johannesburg. There were also other odd plants with no history whatsoever. I made one further trip to the Pongola area in about 1980 to be shown H. limifolia by Denis DeKok some 20km west of the town. This is a rather tuberculate plant, the tubercles somewhat whitish and the leaves form a fairly closed, almost rounded rosette (fig.12).

Fig. 12. MBB sub Denis DeKoksn H. limifolia var gigantea. 20km W Pongola.

A collection with no good history also surfaced ostensibly from near Malelane east of Nelspruit. The same collection has been cited as from Komatipoort and Hectorspruit. I saw it in the Pretoria National Botanic garden in 1996 (cited from Hoedspruit!), and plants obviously from the same place have been sent to me from the USA – having arrived there by courtesy of ‘friends of a collector’. This population is still extant and known to Nature Conservation. The plant has been described as H. limifolia var. arcana (figs.13, 14 & 15) by G.F. Smith and N. Crouch (2001). A population nearer Barberton was said to have been annihilated by medicine collectors.

Fig. 13. H. limifolia var arcana. Hectorspruit, Ex Pretoria NBI.

From the USA (Peter Alonso), I received a plant from a collection by John Lavranos from Bumbeni “on the southern end of the Lebombo mountains” (fig.16).

Fig. 16. J. Lavranos8387 H. imifolia var gigantea. Bumbeni, Hluhluwe.

This is a very handsome plant with striking white markings. It appeared from John Lavranos’ own communication that the population was now extinct, as was said to be true for another collection he once made near Barberton. These are the extracts of letters by John Lavranos concerning these collections of his:-

re Bumbeni…

It is thrilling to know that a plant collected May 31, 1971 is still in cultivation and proof, if this were really needed, of what contributions the hobby can make to conservation, in the true sense of the term! This plant was collected near a place called Bumbeni, on the southern end of the Lebombo Hills, a range 300 miles or so long, which forms the border between Mozambique and S. Africa (Swaziland) and extends south into Natal. It was growing on very rocky east-facing slopes. The climate is very warm with occasional light frosts at night, in winter. Plants were quite common in 1971. However, all have now disappeared it seems. The reason for this was certainly not commercial collecting for the hobby but rather commercial collecting for medicinal purposes, as the plant is prized by African traditional medicine. Your plant, I am afraid, is now a true museum specimen the more so as the form does not seem to sucker. At the time it was identified as var. keithii. The plants varied substantially. The only thing they had in common was their large size and the fact that I never saw one that suckered. One used (upto the mid-60’s) to be able to buy such plants in the African medicine shops. But I have seen none in the last 30 odd years. They were collected out for the medicine trade.

1. The S. end of the Lebombo hills, near Bumbeni is composed of Rhyplit lava, which is acid. The soil is a scanty mixture of quartz sand and humus.

2. Plants in the wild were solitary. We found none with offsets or suckers. My collection number refers to a number of clones. These were all growing in a limited area.

3. I only collected the species once more, in 1956, east of Barberton, but doubt if it is surviving in cultivation.”

re Barberton…

* “The Barberton limifolia was as you describe it. It was collected on 10 June 1956 above Barberton, on the way to Havelock Mine. I remember finding one single large clump of it. I searched again many times in ensuing years but never saw it again. But of course those hills have been heavily grazed and frequently burned since 1956″.

Charles Craib (writes in the literature of plants he collected east of the Mashongololo mountains near the Paris (Bivane) Dam, north-east of Vryheid (figs.17 & 18). Crouch et al. (1999) record “three small populations”, two of which are within the Mkhuze game reserve. They would have been aware through Geoff Nichols of the third at the Bivane Dam.

Fig. 17. C.Craib H. limifolia var gigantea. Mashongololo Mts. environment. There appear to be plants with discrete tubercles as well as with bars.

A dramatic find was by Fanie Venter, ostensibly from near Barberton (Three Sisters) of also a smooth-surfaced, lime-green coloured plant (fig.19) very like the var. ubomboensis. The leaves are seemingly more glaucous, and the plant is bigger – also producing more stoloniferously rather than the close offsetting of var. ubomboensis.

Fig. 19. F.Venter13700 H. limifolia var glaucophylla. Three Sisters, Barberton.

What is now most disconcerting about H. limifolia is the fact that it is regarded as highly endangered. Crouch and Smith (1999) report an unbelievable 22.5 tonnes of H. limifolia traded through Durban markets per annum – an estimated 479 000 plants. Although these authors give places like Kanyayo, Inanda, and Espofu as sources for these plants, no attempt seems to have been made to locate plants in the field. So the “recovery contribution” in the title of their article is limited to “three small populations” which are all within protected areas. This is not in the least surprising considering the logistic problems of searching other areas thoroughly, and probably the greater problem being of moving freely through a politically and socially divided, and troubled area. Actually it is very difficult to make a search at all when working from established roads rather than according to terrain. Also there is no conventional structure of land ownership in a large part of Kwazulu Natal.

Crouch et al. (1999) suggest that the local and inconspicuous nature of the species may have resulted in under-collection and poor representation in herbaria. This is in stark contradiction to the volume of plants that is reported to be collected each year by the locals. Actually the species is fairly well represented in herbaria by the ordinary standard for succulent plants which do not lend themselves to making herbarium specimens – and better than for many other Haworthia species. It is probably only the fact that H. limifolia is away from the traditional succulent-rich areas, that collectors have not paid more attention to it. It is additionally curious that the species is so poorly represented in collections, particularly in regard to label documentation. I never found it an easy species to grow, although I must have propagated many offsets from the leaves of my original gigantea, and still have such a clone grown from the original collection. Some of the older limifolia collections were identified as varieties of H. pumila or H. minima, and similarly a plant of Aloe aristata from the Drakensberg was once thought to be a relative and given the manuscript name of H. natalensis.

Where a species like this is regarded as critically endangered, it certainly seems unwise to disclose known localities. However, whether this is true or not, I actually think it is counterproductive and against a basic ethic of science – no secrecy. Applications for permits to collect plants are granted with reluctance, and many collectors simply ignore the whole process. The consequence is that information from people who are interested in the plants and who can and do locate them in the field is not fed to where it matters. There is confidentiality about locality records and there should perhaps be more discussion about the merit of this secrecy. On the one hand it does nothing to preclude people from looking for the plants, and on the other everything to keep new information concealed. It overlooks and ignores the fact that it is motivated individuals who have contributed so much to the knowledge of our flora. It also minimises the fact that the plant is known virtually only in nature reserves.

Nature Conservation is perceived to keep an extremely strict and close control over permits in a “hands-off” approach. The encouragement for private individuals, or anyone interested in nature for that matter, to pursue any interest is almost non-existent. The converse is probably true, and so severely so that it must encroach on constitutional rights. A consequence may thus be that there appears to have been no tangible or noticeable effort to locate and assess the conservation status of H. limifolia outside of existing nature reserves. My own report of the species in the Hluhluwe/Umfolozi corridor in 1962 has gone unquestioned although this area is now included in the enlarged consolidated reserve. Ironically while permits have been so parsimoniously granted, field collected plants have been flooding the medicine markets. It does not seem to make sense. For forty years it has been almost impossible for anyone to have legally collected plants of H. limifolia, and now they seem to be regarded to occur only in Nature reserves! Is, and was, anything achieved? It may have been far more sensible to have rather embarked on an educational mission to emphasise the value of sustainable activity and the desirability of maintaining a genetic bank of material in cultivation which is adequately recorded and curated. Thus conservation could be seen as for people, and not a mission to dissuade them from nature as happens now. It should be said that as an impersonal public institution, Conservation Authority is perceived to be heavy and high-handed. The absolute converse applies when one is able to deal with individuals in such organisations and speak on a basis of common interest.

At present the known approximate locations for H. limifolia appear to be these.

Mpumalanga
Hectorspruit (figs.13, 14 & 15)
Kaapmuiden
Barberton (figs.9,19 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46 & 47)
Swaziland
Abercorn Drift
Goba
Isiteki (Stegi) (figs.4, 5, 7, 37 & 38)
Blue Jay Ranch (fig.20)
Hlatikulu
Ubombo (figs.21 & 22)
Vimy Ridge
Kwazulu Natal
Mashongololo Mts. and environs (figs.17 & 18
E. Paulpietersburg – Omdraai (Draaiom)
W. Gollel (fig.10)
W. Pongola (figs.8, 12, 48, 49 & 50)
Near Pongola
E. Pongola
Magud (figs.23, 34, & 36)
Somkhele Mt, W. Mtubatuba
Kozi Bay
Ndumu
Mkhuze
Ithala (figs.24 & 25)
Bumbeni (figs.16, 32 & 33)
Hluhluwe
Nongoma? (figs.2 & 3)

Fig. 23. J. Bronkhorstsn H. limifolia var giganea. Nr Pagamisa, Magud, SW Pongola.

Armed with some of this information I began to contact interested parties to see if I could set about verifying the continued existence of these populations, less hopefully expand the known record, and build on the report in Aloe (1999). I am rather critical of this last cited paper where I thought the authors had failed to even have made an effort to examine the position in the field, if only in respect of the localities cited above, which are all within the general knowledge of the species. My interest was also driven by the fear that the threat to the continued existence of the species in the wild is real, and that there is a need for ex situ conservation and the establishment of a gene bank of some kind. My past experience has not led me to believe that such ex situ conservation actually is workable – and it will not be into the future unless it is done with very strong attention to identification of the genetic elements in any collection and assurance of continuity. This applies also to institutions such as recognised Botanic gardens where my long experience has shown that their collections are too closely tied to temporary incumbents, and that management has had no real direct interest in specific management of endangered species.

Geoff Nichols kindly reported on his experience with the species in respect of the medicine trade and the plants known to him. Dr Pete Goodman and Rob Scott Shaw of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife were also most forthcoming with information regarding known populations at Mkhuze, Paris Dam and Ithala. Similarly Mervyn Lotter and Gerhard Strydom of the Mpumalanga Conservation authority offered their co-operation in respect of the Lowveld. A surprise was to learn of Errol Harrison who had collected the specimen cited for “West of Somkhele” near Hluhluwe in 1956 and who was alive and well at Mtubatuba.

Contrary to what I have written about Conservation attitudes above, the Ezemvelo and Mpumalanga authorities issued me with the necessary permits and my excursion was assured. Several other factors precipitated the decision to go, such as the support of my family, offers of accommodation at Barberton, and a 50-year school reunion back in Natal.

My wife Daphne, and I, started our Haworthia epic at the Queen Elizabeth Park headquarters of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife at Pietermaritzburg. Here Rob Scott Shaw kindly explained the position regarding the only plants they had in cultivation there. This was part of a consignment confiscated from poachers into the Ithala Game reserve north of Louwsberg. Some of these plants had been planted in the open at the Park in Pietermaritzburg where they had flowered well and set seed (figs. 24 & 25). Brigette Church had very successfully germinated and grown that seed. I was allowed to take offsets off the mother plants and, in retrospect, I foolishly did not ask for any of the seedlings. None of the plants were quite like the var. gigantea and I should have considered the variability of the cultivated seedlings more closely.

Fig. 24. MBB7148 H. limifolia var giganea. Queen Elizabeth Park ex Ithala Game reserve.

At Durban I visited their municipal Bridgevale Nursery in the company of Geoff Nichols. Mark Gillmer was the propagator who had done a marvelous job with plants bought at the local herb market. The plants were rather similar to the Ithala plants and I obtained six clones (figs.26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31). Only one of these (fig.31) could I really relate to my original var. gigantea in having the thin leaves, many small concolorous individual tubercles and potential for size. However, the leaves are thicker and more erect than I would have accepted. My conclusion was that, like the Louwsberg (immediately south of Ithala) plants referred to above, the var. gigantea could have originated in that general vicinity but the material I have seen is not sufficiently convincing.

Fig. 26-31. MBB7136 H. limifolia var gigantea. Bidgevale Nursey, Durban Municipality.

From Durban we traveled to Mtubatuba to meet Errol Harrison who had told us that the Somkhele area had now been vastly built up and it was improbable that plants would still be there. We did thus not explore the possibility of plants there or in the now greater Hluhluwe game reserve. This should be done. Errol took us to Phinda where we were disappointed to find that this Resource Reserve did not include the area we needed to see. However, by really good fortune we did find the owners of Pumalanga Game Ranch at home, Mr. and Mrs. Mannie van Rooyen. With the goodwill and kindness that characterised all the people we met on our journey, they took us to a site bordering on the expanded Mkhuze Game Reserve. We found the plants there without too much trouble, but there were only about 20 plants with a total of about 30 rosettes. There was an old ruin nearby which we were told was Bumbeni (a name derived from “bumba” for mud) and the stream which was the source of that mud for building. Thus it appears that this is in fact the same place where John Lavranos had collected more than 30 years before. (See figs.32 & 33 as well as fig.16).

Fig. 32. MBB7137 H. limifolia var gigantea. Pumalanga (Bumbeni), Hluhluwe.

From Pumalanga, Daphne and I went on to Mkhuze where we were fortunate to find Mr M.Gumbe, Technical Assistant, who took us immediately on a long and high-speed walk in the failing light (hence no photograph) to find plants on Inxwala Hill. The plants are comparable with those at Bumbeni. Inxwala is one of the localities on Mkhuze reported in the Aloe (1999) article. From Mkhuze we travelled to Pongola where we again met most helpful people, but which did not materialise in the form of many collections despite our conviction that there must be many populations in the area. Why this conviction? From my experience with landowners in the Cape where there are many Haworthia species, people are simply not aware of small cryptic plants. Even with the local Zulus we found on our first trip in 1962, that generally people are just unaware of the plants. The same applies in the Cape where few farmers or their employees are conscious of what actually occurs on their property. Botanists have confused things like Aloe aristata and H. limifolia, and it is hardly surprising that less knowledgeable people make worse mistakes. This is what happened at Pongola and my opinion is that it is just a general level of nescience rather than ignorance, which clouds our perceptions of rarity. I make the distinction between two ignorances viz. when one is expected to know, and that where one is not expected to know.

Johan Bronkhorst reported that there were plants (fig.23) along the road from Pongola westward to Pakamisa and Louwsberg. We stopped at a likely farm where we contacted the owner who in turn referred us to his foreman. This foreman took us to his home where he had a half-drum filled with soil and was growing “umathithibala” – the colloquial name. The plants consisted of H. attenuata, H. attenuata var. clariperla, H. radula and two Gasteria species. I must explain that at Pumalanga there was some confusion too, as apart from two lonely H. limifolia on the rockery, a huge container was filled with H. attenuata var. clariperla (better referred to as a look-alike of which more later). When we explained that we wanted to see the local “umathithibala”, the foreman said that was easy and directed one of the rangers to guide us up the hill to see it. This the ranger did most competently but the plants we were shown was a proliferous and abundant crassula!

We then ventured along the Pakamisa road where the terrain was most promising but simply inaccessible from the point of view of access and ownership – it would have taken more time than we had available to explore the area and determine ownership. Back at Pongola we were lucky to meet Kathy Cameron, a dynamic ex-teacher who was running the information centre. She put us in touch with two people. The first was the local herbalist selling her wares on the town pavement. There we acquired a guide who offered to take us to the township were the plants were. At this village of Ncotshane we were again shown a container, with six plants of H. limifolia consisting of at least three clones carrying seed. We were graciously allowed to take three offsets. But we asked to be shown where the plants had come from. In response a finger was pointed to the nearby hill and we set out, with some apprehension, to climb it. It was also to no avail and we saw nothing in rather unlikely terrain just as we had feared. Ncotshane would class as “north of Pongola”, and I have no doubt that on those many hills, the species does in fact still occur.

Fig. 34. MBB7140 H. limifolia var gigantea. Daaiwater, Pakamisa, Magud.

Through Kathy Cameron we also contacted Rynold and Rolene Steenkamp at Magud. Rolene very kindly guided us to where she had known plants on their farm Grootdraai near Pakamisa west of Pongola. There we found 10 plants among rock in a very grassy and somewhat wooded area (figs.34, 35 & 36). Rolene said that the population was far less vigorous than she remembered it and it did seem as if the surrounding vegetation was too competitive for H. limifolia. Time was now very limiting and we left Pongola with much left simply undone, and we travelled to Isiteki. Again we were assisted by really kind and gracious people – Jonathan and Helen Pons who own Mabuda farm. We initially tried on our own to explore the Palata/Ravelston area. This was frustrating in the extreme as the road passes along the escarpment but never approaching near enough to initiate an excursion. Often the vegetation was overgrown with aliens forming an impenetrable thicket while there was the same problem of land ownership and authorization to enter, presented by such communal area. Palata and Ravelston farms had been expropriated by the British Govt. to hand to the Swaziland National Trust on the granting of independence. So our visit there turned out to be no more than a preliminary reconnaissance and we were not able to assess var. ubomboensis. Later Jonathan Pons obtained for me two plants from the approximate area (figs. 37 & 38). Curiously the former does mirror the var. keithii in profile whereas Fig.38 does so the leaf surface.

Fig. 37. J.Ponssn H. limifolia var keithii. SE Isiteki, Swaziland.

From Isiteki we travelled to Barberton where we were met by Mervyn Lotter of the Mpumalanga Parks Board. He took us to see the locality for var. arcana, which unfortunately for us had been fenced and we were faced by a locked gate. However, this was not a serious issue as the plants are well-described and there is adequate material in cultivation to ensure ex situ conservation (in fact it is being grown at Bridgewater nursery and I did acquire an additional clone there for my own record). We went then instead to Kaapmuiden and ended up on the farm Boondoks. We obtained permission to explore a little, and after one unsuccessful excursion Mervyn found a very small population of 84 rosettes in an area of about 2sqm (figs.39 & 40). The area had been burnt and the plants were quite severely singed. The plants do seem to prefer tight rocky habitat with sparse grass cover and so it would take a very severe fire to kill them. It was just very difficult to form an opinion regarding appearance of the plants and I could only surmise a resemblance to var. arcana.

Fig. 39. MBB7143 H. limifolia var limifolia. Boondoks, Kaapmuiden. Plants severely singed, suggest var arcana.

At Barberton we met Rhona Milstein, who has lived in Barberton all her life and is extremely knowledgeable about all things pertaining to the place. She guided us to a nearby hillside were it was thought the population had been collected out. Fortunately this was not true and we found many plants albeit in a small area again in closely fragmented rock and sparse cover (figs.41). The plants were again badly scorched. We saw the plants again at May Mine on the Mountainlands Game Reserve alongside the Havelock Road. This was in the presence of a joint owner Mr. Nico Oosthuizen, who had very kindly agreed to our entry to the site. The plants were very abundant over an area of about 150m x 10m but again in a very rocky area (figs.42 & 43) and also fire scorched. It was interesting to note the presence in Rhona’s garden of a very stoloniferus form of H. attenuata cf var. clariperla which I have not seen before.

Fig. 41. MBB7141 H. limifolia var limifolia. Rymer’s Ceek, Barberton.

Our next excursion was to locate Fanie Venter’s (13700, fig.19) collection at Three Sisters. Again we were overwhelmed by the kindness and helpfulness of John and Bernadette Roux, owners of Three Sisters. They took great pains to show us where to find the plants and stayed in telephone communication while we drove along the tortuous rough road to the near summit of the Sisters (three peaks, with intimidating steep slopes which we would never have negotiated on foot). We found the plants on a nearer locality than indicated to us and there were many in a very small area. The vegetation was almost alpine and very dense. Fire here would surely result in the death of many plants, with survival only in rockier more sparsely vegetated mini-refugia (figs.44 & 45). From here we could look down on the Boondoks site and also identified a likely hillside to the southwest of this. We went there on our descent of the mountain and after a long walk we did find a very small population in an area of 0.5sqm. I refer to this population as Manders Dam. It may have originated from a single clone, which may be true for the Boondoks plants too. The plants were growing in the excavated old soil of a termite mound and badly scorched (figs.46 & 47). Their exposure to fire could not be considered to be more or less severe than had they been anywhere else in that terrain and my opinion is that fire per se is not a hazard to the species. In general if the fuel load is high enough to present a threat to survival of the plants, they are anyway subject to threat by exclusion of light and unfavourable growing conditions.

Fig. 44a. MBB7145 H. limifolia var glaucophylla. Three Sisters, Barberton. 029

However, there were odd inflorescences about and it was evident that no seed was set. Fire may affect the pollinators and naturally will also destroy inflorescences and seed if untimely. But this surely is a seasonal factor and there will be years when seed is produced. What one can speculate is that the populations are derived from vegetative propagation as the species does proliferate readily from stolon. If this is so they will probable be non-seed producing as plants are usually self-sterile.

It was sad to leave Barberton with so much to do and such promising unexplored terrain. The drive to Vryheid was also frustrating for that reason. There must be populations of the species in the area Badplaas, Osplaas (Gerhard Strydom of Mpumalanga Parks Board reported rumours of its presence there) on to Lochiel, Amsterdam and Piet Retief. At Vryheid we were taken to the Paris (Bivane Dam) where, pushed for time, we actually saw only one population (figs.48, 49 & 50), surrounded by most promising terrain. We went to Nongoma where we were introduced to a local herbalist and shown “Umathithibala”. This turned out to be a container with Aloe aristata from the Ngome Forest area, and also a plant of H. attenuata. The herbalist explained the use of “umathithibala” to defuse tension and disarm intruders with harmful intention. At Pongola we had been brought three other Aloe viz. bainesii, sessiliflora and komatiensis …) which were said to be grown around the home to tranquillise atmosphere. Thus the usage of the plants is not directly medicinal, but embedded in a paradigm of esoteric values. She did not know H. limifolia. To Jonathan Pons, the Swazi name for the plant is “sidodobala” and they apparently also use it to ward off lightning or else simply explain its use in this way as the Zulus do. The proliferation suggests its use too to encourage fertility in livestock and for that purpose it is grown around kraals.

Fig. 48. MBB7146 H. limifolia var gigantea. Bivane Dam, Vryheid.

Our last stop was at Ithala, which I had not intended to visit because the plants were familiar to us from the Park Headquarters at Pietermaritzburg. There we met the Conservation Manager, Mr. Rob Blok, and were shown plants in the office rockery. What was in the rockery were two plants which I think should not have been there. One was Aloe squarrosa (an exotic) and the other was H. attenuata. This latter plant could perhaps hybridise with H. limifolia. But the plants we were shown were Aloe aristata and said to occur in the Reserve too. As the site for the originally poached plants was on a distant area of the reserve, I asked if I could see and photograph A. aristata. Without the spines, these specimens were remarkably similar in colour and size to H. limifolia as it occurs in the greater Pongola area. We went to the area indicated and must have missed the specific point where the Aloe may well have been and saw instead some plants of H. limifolia which were very like the Paris Dam plants. Our impression was that the species must well be very common at Ithala and surely so between Vryheid and at least Pongola.

Conclusion
The prime object of the trip was based on the assumption that the species H. limifolia was critically endangered and hence that there is proper motive to ensure an ex situ gene bank. Thus we collected within the limits of our permit authorisation for this purpose, and these plants will be distributed under accession numbers in due course as they proliferate. The second object was to try to extend knowledge of known localities from the impression given in Aloe (1999), at least to the record cited in Haworthia Revisited (1999) and evident in RSA herbaria. The third object was to derive some kind of estimate of conservation threat. The fourth was to arrive at a new opinion on classification for known and unknown material. Thus:

1. Material of 20 accessions is now held by me of which 12 can be regarded as seed reproducible. It would be very desirable to increase this.

2. The cited record clearly still exists and is largely confirmed. At least five of these new collections can be regarded as new. Hence if one considers the product of a virtually blind-driven effort, there must be many more populations which are still unknown.

3. The conservation threat from fire which has been cited seems to be fallacious, and the same may even be said for the ‘herbal’ trade. The species does not have a particular unique role in herbal medicine or mythology. Where the threat does lie is common to any living thing and far more applicable to any number of animals and other plant species – this is the density of the population living off the land and widespread degradation of the environment due to fire being used to generate grazing for livestock or simply to clear the landscape from vegetation which may harbour vermin, snakes and human intruders. Thus all organisms in communally owned land are at risk. There is a conservation plus in the large number of game ranches and reserves which are being game fenced and patrolled to stop poaching.

4. Classification of plants at least in respect of Haworthia is now bordering on the ridiculous. There are any number of would-be taxonomists all with their private versions of what constitutes species, how old names can be interpreted, what name changes can be implemented and what new names can be invented. As Stevens (2002) stated, botany has been taken over by nomenclature. The peer test of any taxonomic work is largely based on observance of the nomenclatural rules, the viability of the Latin diagnosis, and the protocol of literature and specimen citations. Brummit (2002) also writes that the binomial system does not really work. This has been evident in Haworthia for the last 40 years although here it could be largely the fault of the writers.

My opinion regarding H. limifolia is based on my view of how a species should be defined. This is as a dynamic system of living organisms which are morphologically and genetically continuous in time and space. In Haworthia I have found that the geographic element is essential to the understanding of taxonomic elements. In this respect there appear to be no real discontinuities between all the records cited above despite a wide variation between say var. arcana (in the absence of a population which we can say authoritatively is exclusively and decisively var. limifolia) and var. gigantea, which also has no true provenance. The var. striata could apply to any of the Pongola collections where white striations (as the continuous concolorous bars in var. limifolia) occur as frequently as there are small discrete tubercles as in var. gigantea. What is probable is that the name striata originates in the plants collected at Bumbeni by John Lavranos which were introduced into cultivation. There is no evidence that the single plant from Mozaan which I photographed in Bruyns-Haylett’s possession was ever propagated and distributed. I had simply suggested to John Pilbeam while he was writing his book (1983), that based on what I had seen, a varietal name “striata” was reasonable. I am of the opinion that the Mozaan plants are closer to my variety gigantea than they are to the Bumbeni (and Mkhuze) white-banded variants. Thus the varietal name gigantea could apply to the species as it is known south of the Swaziland border, and the name striata would apply to specific forms and cultivars which have confluent white tubercles or raised white bands across the leaves.

The var. ubomboensis has not been appraised as a population based entity and neither has the old var. keithii. What is evident is that there is another disjunct population of a similarly glabrous element at Three Sisters, Barberton, as FVenter13700 and MBB7145. This latter element is definitely population based and the two collections cited can be recognised as fairly discrete. Unlike the var. ubomboensis which is a smooth yellow-green colour in good cultivation, this Barberton element is a glaucous bluish-green and the name glaucophylla is given to it as follows:

Haworthia limifolia var. glaucophylla (Asphodelaceae: Alooideae) – var. nov.

Type: Mpumalanga, 2531(Barberton): Three Sisters (CB); F.Venter 13700 (Holo. NBG)

Very similar to the var. ubomboensis but glaucous green and geographically discrete.

In habitat small pale yellowish-brown in colour, rosette seldom exceeding 3cm diametre, 8-12 leaves reaching 6cm in length. Surfaces smooth, occasionally with some rounded or barred tubercles. Slowly proliferous. In cultivation very proliferous and off-setting, rosettes to 12cm in diam. with 25-45 leaves, colour glaucous bluish-green, hence the epithet. Differs from the typical in being without raised transverse lines, and from the var. ubomboensis in being bluer in colour and geographically discrete.

There appear to be a number of discrepancies in the description of the var. arcana. In the protologue the leaf surfaces are described as undulate but generally lacking distinct tubercles as in the typical variety. This is not correct. The typical variety was named limifolia, meaning file-like, for the very reason that there were these raised undulate transverse ridges on the leaves – not discrete tubercles. The var. arcana that I have seen generally has such broken ridges which reduce to individual and quite large tubercles. This is quite different to the many smaller discrete tubercles in say var. gigantea where there is no evidence of transverse bars at all. In many of the collections I obtained in the greater Pongola area, there were both continuous bars across the leaves as well as plants in which the leaves were tubercled instead. In these collections it was common for the leaves to be either erect, incurved, sub-erect or spreading. Regarding flowering time – Smith and Crouch state that in contrast to other varieties of the species, the var. arcana flowers in mid- to late winter. This is not true. The collections at both Queen Elizabeth Park and Durban had flowered prior to spring and flowering was completed at the time of our visit in late September. Similarly all the evidence we saw of flowering on our trip was that it had been completed before our visit. We saw late flowers at some sites and collected seed at Draaiwater and at Bivane’s Dam.

This raises the point that we seem to have a convention for how taxa should be described. In the var. arcana as for other Haworthia taxa, there is a long description of the flowers which is quite valueless in the context of the structure and variability of the flowers in the whole subgenus. It lends to the elaboration of the process to give it a validity which it earns from just the fact that the taxon is worth identifying by name for practical communication and comprehension. Furthermore it feeds a perception that this fine detail enhances the credibility and validity of the element when it does nothing more than lengthen the description. Similarly, rather than use an epithet which is derived from a skewed viewpoint of what is known and what is not known (viz. arcana – mysterious, secret) why not a descriptive one such as olivacea, highlighting the extraordinary colours this taxon can get in cultivation? There are still two other things. The mapped distribution of var. arcana is entitled “distribution range” and suggests an area of circa 2600 sq km. when in fact there is one known population occupying perhaps 0.25ha. The suggestion that it is one of more links to H. koelmanniorum is window-dressing with no other truth in that var. aracana is geographically the closest known of the limifolia variants to a not so climatically stressed H. koelmanniorum at Groblersdal and Loskop Dam.)

Fig. 51. Map of Mpumalanga, Swaziland, Kwazulu-Natal to show general distribution of H. limifolia.

Acknowledgement
I have seldom made all the acknowledgements in my writing that I might have done. This particular trip of mine was made under special circumstances without which I would not even have thought of going.

Firstly my son Warwick, who suggested I should go and who facilitated the trip by offering a vehicle.

Then to:-

Ms. Adri Henn, a business associate of Warwick’s at Natal Drift Nursery, Barberton. Her offer of accommodation was a vital factor in deciding to go.
Mr. Gordon Morrison and my school contempories who agreed to a 50-year reunion at Ixopo. A most moving occasion.
Ms. Michele Pfaff of the Gauteng Conservation Authority for contacts and discussion on conservation issues.
Mr. & Mrs. L.Alleman of Link Hills, Kloof for hospitality and encouragement.
Mr. Charles Craib for important information and assistance
Mr. Geoff Nichols, a conservation consultant at Durban. Also a naturalist and plant enthusiast par excellence. Also to his acquaintance at Bridgewater Propagation Nursery of the Durban Municipality, Mr. Mark Gillmer.
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife for the necessary permit and accreditation of my effort, and to Dr. Pete Goodman and Rob Scott-Shaw for valuable co-operation and information. Mr. M.I. Gumbe, technical assistant at Mkhuze Game reserve. Mr. Rob Blok, Conservation Manager, Ithala game reserve. Mr. Alex Wood, Regional manager, Vryheid. Ms. Bridget Church, Horticulturist, Queen Elizabeth Park.
Mr. Errol Harrison of Mtubatuba.
Mr & Mrs. Mannie van Rooyen of Pumalanga Game Farm.
Mr. Kevin Pretorius and Mr. Matheus Wessels of Phinda Resource Reserve.
Ms. Kathy Cameron of Casamia, Pongola.
Mr. & Mrs. Rynold Steenkamp of Magud.
Mr. &Mrs. Jonathan Pons, Mabuda farm, Isiteki.
Mr. Mbabane Matsenjwa, Mabuda farm.
Mpumalanga Conservation Authority for permit and accreditation, and particularly to Mr. Mervyn Lotter and Mr. Gerhard Strydom.
Mr. Johan Hurter of the Lowveld Botanic Garden.
Ms. Rhona Milstein of Barberton.
Mr. Nico Oosthuizen of Mountainlands Game Reserve, Barberton.
Mr. Luke von Johnston of Boondoks Farm, Kaapmuiden.
Mr. & Mrs. John Roux and their son Etienne of Three Sisters, Kaapmuiden.
Mr. & Mrs. Hugh Foster of Rosthwaite farm, Vryheid.
Mr. Barry Killian of Bivane Dam, Vryheid.
Mr. & Mrs. Graham Root of Ntibane Bushveld Hideaway, and herbalist Erica.
Mr. Bob Kent, and Mr. Steven Hammer who were kind enough to comment.
Dr. Paul Vorster was also so good as to offer me his opinions that are not reflected in the article.

Lastly to my wife Daphne whose unfailing trust and friendship defy any evaluation.

To all these and a few whose names I did not record, I must record my appreciation for the courtesy and kindness in listening to my story and offering me so much assistance and advice. There are also many people peripheral to this special journey who played their part and who I omit mentioning. Had I gained no new knowledge or insight into Haworthia limifolia, at least I gained the association of many people whom I would like to call my friends.

Addendum
Having written so much about Haworthia in the process of learning about them and knowing them better, I find it incomprehensible that other writers seem to ignore completely what I have had to say. While this may appear to be a very arrogant attitude, it simply mirrors what I consider “science” to be; primarily a review of what is known or thought to be known, and then a statement of intent, action and conclusion. At present there exists a primary field of formal science which resides in students and graduates from schools of learning (professionals), and then the field of informal science where formally unqualified persons (amateurs) try to forward their perceptions and observations. My frustration is that the hearts and boundaries of these two fields in respect of Haworthia have been and now are, so confounded, that “knowledge” and “understanding” are wholly concealed. My frustration is expressed in the following statement sent to the Editor of Alsterworthia…”The actual position is that classification and the naming of plants is not an activity calling for any special skills and it does not class as ‘science’. It can be for science. Brummit, in Taxon, has written that the binomial nomenclatural system does not truly work. If this is true, it means that for all these years taxonomic botanists have been slavishly applying a system which is flawed. Their failure to have properly applied their minds to the task has led to incongruities which are not that difficult to detect. Where leaders in the field have had their doubts and indecisions, nomenclatural niceties have become more important than the goal. Biology being the inexact science that it is has meant that totally amateur classifications have come to be lauded, praised and accepted when they have no intrinsic intellectual credibility at all. Anyone has free entry to botanical classification whether or not they can even sensibly discuss the issue of the definition of the word ‘species’ which is the basic unit of biological classification.

It is in this respect that I quote Lyall Watson, from his book, Dark Nature, where he writes about the similarity science now has to religion, and it is worth recording that the Dalai Lama has said the same thing. In Watson’s opinion scientists are largely defending a position in which they have a vested interest and they say things they wish to hear and what they expect others to want to hear too. Science according to Watson is thus in the same trap as religion … ‘an establishment intent more on protecting its own interests than in looking at the world with curiosity and honesty’.

This is the thrust of many things I have written and my objection to statements made by leading botanists in respect of classification of Haworthia. Offence will be given if I point to these individuals and their statements, but if ‘curiosity and honesty’ are employed, they can easily be found. One manuscript of mine in respect of just one of the papers which I would use to exemplify my point, reads … “it would be more honest just to acknowledge the impracticality of unispecific genera, than parade a host of fallacious arguments to obscure them. The other even more unfortunate aspect is that all this fault‑ridden argument passes over the heads of the unsuspecting community that is interested in the plants and wants to use the names? If this is what professionals do, what can be expected from amateurs? The foundation is secured for the most uninformed and ignorant to parade as taxonomists, and they do. All that actually happens is that credibility becomes a very rare commodity in plant classification and nomenclature.’ Many of us generate opinions and comment which actually have roots in ignorance.”

I therefore wish to encapsulate my observations in this addendum which addresses the above issues in respect of one object viz. Haworthia limifolia.

To do so I have first to recapitulate slightly the issue of definition of the word species. I will not repeat again anything I have written in this regard nor discuss again the paper of Brummit and its implications again. I merely say that I regard the Latin binomial as a reference to a system of living organisms as a group or groups of organisms which are genetically and morphologically continuous in space and time. The binomial itself is derived from a sample and this is formally attached to a single specimen lodged in a recognised herbarium.

What then is the species Haworthia limifolia? We have to go first to the sample and the description. The sample seems to have been a single specimen (perhaps more, the description states… “the plants”) received by R. Marloth in the year 1910 from Medley-Wood, Director of the Botanic Gardens at Durban. He is stated to have obtained (note: not “collected” as Breuer, 2000, interposes) them “originally from the country west of Delagoa Bay”. The description is extremely brief and it is accompanied by an illustration of a single leaf (fig.1). It can be said of the description regarding the flower that it is so vague that one could not even recognise to which of the three major groups in Haworthia to which it belongs. Here there is already room for confusion in the failure of various writers, either amateur or professional, to recognise what these are. This is especially so when there is a distinct probability that the evolutionary roots of those three flower types could be polyphyletic. This means in essence that classification by vegetative or any other “structure” may not necessarily indicate the same grouping.

It is quite clear that Marloth was right in his assumption that he had to deal with a species “quite different from those of any other species” and “sufficient to constitute a new section”. But he was not quite right in respect of the reason or ultimately the rationale. He was right because H. limifolia is a species system in the northeast of Southern Africa (with H. koelmanniorum) and thus widely separated geographically from any of the other species. It is not because the leaves have a specific surface character or marking and this is a point I will have to labour on later. Apart from some similarity to the geographically contiguous H. koelmanniorum, there is H. nigra in the central Karoo which bears some similarity in respect of leaf “markings”. I put “markings” in inverted commas because it is not correct. The “markings” in H. limifolia are specifically transverse undulations on the leaf surfaces giving it the file-like appearance from which the Latin epithet is derived. Marloth stated quite explicitly that the “markings” were not tubercles or tuberculate.

It is really curious that G.G. Smith (1950) – and he was amateur – had no qualms whatsoever in using the word “tubercles” for the leaf surface character. This was when he described a new variety, keithii and also reduced H. ubomboensis Verdoorn to varietal rank in H. limifolia. Var. ubomboensis with a few longitudinally arranged tubercles on the upper and lower leaf surface was in Smith’s opinion, together with the similar longitudinally tubercled var. keithii, recognised to be part of the system “west of Delagoa Bay”, namely H. limifolia. Smith introduces some new perceptions. He describes the var. keithii as lighter in colour, with less rigid and narrower leaves and less prominent tubercles, but similar in its stoloniferous habit, arrangement of back and face tubercles and the longitudinal lines on the face. Referring back to the original description, the only character here which Smith could have correctly taken (he did get the leaf surface wrong) was perhaps in respect of the width of the leaf.

After Smith there was a bizarre contribution by Flavio Resende (1943) in which he described essentially four varieties of H. limifolia, if it is at all necessary (and possible) to try and follow his logic. None of these were of known origin and my assessment of Resende’s total contribution to Haworthia, and specifically to H. limifolia, leads me to counsel complete disregard thereof. Nothing is added to knowledge of the system that can in anyway be currently applicable and useful. All that it does is further confound and confuse the issue in an environment that I am trying to show is already very difficult to function in. It could for example be argued that a variety with the proposed new name viz. gideonii could in fact be Resende’s f. diploidea (= var. marlothiana Res.). The next author to venture information by way of a new epithet was myself in describing the var. gigantea. This was based on a single specimen that for reasons cited in the preceding section, can be reasonably considered to have its origin in the Pongola valley. The last significant contribution was by Pilbeam, possibly as a consequence of my writing, tied to the collection by the very distinguished collector/explorer J. Lavranos, of the var. striata.

Breuer (2000) has subsequently made an excellent compilation of descriptions and illustrations. Other than that it is an excellent compilation which brings all the literature together, it adds neither further information nor new insight. In respect of H. limifolia, it does curiously add a Berlin herbarium photograph to illustrate the “typical” variety. This photograph could just as readily been used to illustrate the var. schuldtiana or one of the other varieties such as even gigantea. There is nothing to suggest that Breuer could have and did consider all the above, nor the three papers which I deal with below. Breuer (2002) has proposed his system for Haworthia in which there is a new varietal structure for H. limifolia. However, I am familiar with his other outstanding compilations and the many less rational imputations and statements which he attaches to names and his perceptions of what those names are as “species”. These often call for the kind of response which Smith and Hilton-Taylor (1996) made to Breuer’s “contribution” to the phytogeography of the genus Haworthia (1996). Breuer clearly cannot know more about H. limifolia than either Smith et al. (1997), nor Crouch et al. (1999). I feel constrained to say that Breuer is not competent to even attempt such taxonomic rearrangements. The title of his 2002 paper includes the words “species concept update”. It is in fact nothing of the kind. Breuer (2002) does not produce any evidence of what his “species” concept is and his list is only his concept of what species there are in Haworthia. Having produced a revision, I am fully aware of many of its limitations and what is needed to verify it and resolve outstanding problems. Among the problems is the major one of the species concept which has to be resolved at polymath level as it is in the realm underlying the whole of taxonomic botany. Breuer has given me no indication of his capacity and willingness to undertake the intellectual activity this impels, and has dismissed most of my attempts as “polemically things” (private communication). He is also not positioned to undertake the arduous and extensive field-work that is required to even verify my revision, let alone add to it or make changes.

The next attempt of note to explain H. limifolia is that by G.F. Smith et al. (1997). Smith et al. paper purports to illustrate and describe the typical variety limifolia on the basis of two specimens both of uncertain geographic origin. The significant thing is that the paper ignores Marloth’s specific statement that the species was not tuberculate. They repeat the curious aberration that G.G. Smith introduced. Despite the key the paper provides, the var. gigantea is misidentified as var. limifolia as can be gleaned from the illustration. I do not doubt that to a degree I am also culpable here because I know a draft of the paper was sent to me for comment. Unfortunately I do not have any recollection of what my comment was and any contribution I may have made is not acknowledged. Certainly it has not corrected this error. I would have thought the authors would have come to realise their error when they became involved in the next paper.

This is the contribution by Crouch and Smith (1999). It must be noted that the title refers to the typical var. limifolia. This paper does acknowledge a contribution from me, but I must say I think this is misplaced and could refer to the earlier paper by Smith (1997). I cannot imagine that this second paper, and certainly not the final draft, by Crouch and Smith would have passed my critical eye. The paper essentially deals with plants either obtained from the Durban herbal market, or from plants shown to the authors by Dr. Peter Goodman, then resident botanist at the Mkhuze Game Reserve. It also contains some quite specious comments about classification. Clearly no effort at all went in to considering and exploring known records or to generating new ones. From what I have discussed in the earlier part of this work, the variety the paper deals with is either gigantea or striata and definitely not the var. limifolia. I have suggested that these two former names are probably synonymous, and I have also suggested that the recognition of a typical variety is somewhat of a problem in botany. The species as a system is typified by ALL its variants. I take Crouch et al. for being remiss in emphasising, as they do, the importance of understanding taxonomic identity and then making such a weak effort at doing this. Here they are dealing with a variable element distributed over an extremely wide area. They have information that the area still extends considerably southward of the known records which they have in addition not properly registered (I will explain this later in this note). No effort was thus made to question distribution. One can hardly take Breuer remiss for thinking he could revise the genus from Nederzier, when local professional approach the “importance of taxonomic identity” in this way.

Now we come to Smith and Crouch (2001). The paper opens with the words “After consideration of available evidence…”. In my opinion very little of the evidence that I have presented here, of that which was then available, has actually been considered. Among my criticisms of the paper is that of distribution. If Smith and Crouch had properly considered this, they would have been struck with the fact that H. limifolia has been reported near Komatipoort as “SildoSuavo to Moamba”, and that the one small locality known for arcana lies between this record and records south-west of Malelane and at Barberton itself. They should also have considered Venter’s collection at Three Sisters which is only about 30km distant. It is beginning to appear to me that as my plants collected from these sites grow in cultivation that these will also class as var. arcana. The area is between Delagoa Bay and the Reef and it is thus highly probable that the var. arcana is a superfluous name for limifolia. Despite their extensive discussion of classification and population variability, the authors simply accept plants of unknown origin to represent Marloth’s species. These plants are the var. gigantea and NOT var. limifolia.

There is very little in Marloth’s description than can be put to good account. The colour is given as “obscura-viridia” which can be taken for dark-green and otherwise it is the transverse non-tuberculate undulate raised lines on the upper leaf surfaces which are the major point of the description. The detail of the flower is quite worthless and it is not possible even to determine the subgenus. Despite this paucity of information, there is little difficulty in saying that all the plants included in the preceding discussion are H. limifolia. What is it then that makes this species recognisable among this welter of words and the confusion they contain?

In their diagnosis for the var. arcana, Smith and Crouch make the following points:- it is “characterised by a combination of vegetative morphological features. It has a distinctive dark-brownish green colour and the leaf-shape is somewhat more reminiscent of H. limifolia var. ubomboensis than of typical H. limifolia. The leaf surfaces are prominently undulate, but generally lack the distinct tubercles characteristic of the typical variety. Furthermore, it differs from the other varieties in the flowering time from the middle to the end of winter.”

Colour I would agree may be distinctive as this is what struck me when I first saw plants at Pretoria. However, colour is a fractious character and largely influenced by growing medium and exposure. My three collections from the close area where arcana occurs (i.e. Boondoks, Manders Dam and Three Sisters), show quite marked differences in colour with the Boondoks plants at present very dark green and Manders Dam plants simply dark green. The glabrous Three Sisters plants are a glaucous bluish-green. At present I have clones of var. arcana which are olive-brown (fig.13 ex PRE), purplish-brown (fig.14 ex J.Hurter) and dark green (fig.15 ex Bridgevale). Smith and Crouch’s remark concerning leaf-shape is misleading as comparison with the Marloth illustration will show. In any case the var. ubomboensis is based on a single clone in which the leaves are quite long and slender. What the Marloth illustration shows is a short-leaf with a reflexed end-area. This is not apparent in all my plants of var. arcana, but there are clones which exhibit this markedly and others which do not. Similarly in plants of var. gigantea from Bridgewater, I have one specific clone in which the leaves are all very reflexed. When it comes to the question of surface character which is the most significant part of the Marloth description outside of origin, then the whole argument falls apart. Marloth’s diagnosis makes the point that the leaf surfaces are prominently undulate whereas Smith et al. say of arcana …”but generally lack the distinct tubercles characteristic of the typical variety”. What Smith et al. seem to have done is to consider that the typical variety limifolia is as they illustrated and described in Bothalia. This is where they have taken the var. gigantea to be the typical, and thus their detailed description does not bear them out as it is incorrect. I have already commented on flowering time.

The conclusion I must reach is that if the var. arcana is properly researched it will be found to contain all the ingredients of the typical variety and prove to be a superfluous name.

I wrote (1962) that “A great deal more information on the distribution and variability of H. limifolia is required before the true relationship (i.e. a good classification) of the various forms can be determined”. Despite this warning and a good many more since, classification is still used as an easy vehicle for publication. I think we have here a series of three publications which are based on a minimum of field-work and knowledge of the subject. It all suggests that my contentions expressed in my letter to the Editor of Alsterworthia, quoted above, are unfortunately true. A new name may be useful as a language tool for collectors and growers even it is quite misleading. It may also be just a source of revenue to traders. On the other hand it maybe worthless as a tool for the meaningful organisation of information and knowledge while it introduces further complexity and confusion into classification. If a name is not rooted in sound reason and science, it can only be such a source of confusion and misunderstanding. In Haworthia there is a constant inflow of poorly researched dubious comment about classification which provokes negation or negative response. The end result is that the literature becomes simply contentious and there is nothing there for the information of the general reader. This is no doubt why nomenclature and name changes are so vilified by the plant growing community. We need a new ethic in classification.

As an end note I must explain the probable source of the statement by Crouch et al. that the distribution of limifolia extends much further south than suggested in any previous reference. While preparing for my exploratory trip to search for the species, I wrote a letter with illustrations for publication in Veld and Flora (The journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa) asking if any readers could help with information. I received seven responses of which only one properly identified the species and this was a photograph of a potted specimen as used in an advertisement by a clothing store. Three re asking if any readers could help with information. I received seven responses of which only one properly identified the species and this was a photograph of a potted specimen as used in an advertisement by a clothing store. Three responses were in respect of Aloe aristata and the others were for H. attenuata. Extraordinarily two of the latter respondents sent me plants or photographs of plants received by them from people living in the Isipofu (Espofu of Crouch et al.) area of Kwazulu-Natal which is in the Sottburgh district south of Durban. The one respondent informed me that his plant had been identified by a botanist as “H. limifolia”. This is clearly the source of the Crouch et al. statement and should be considered in the light of my experiences and encounters with H. attenuata further north related in the main text. ♦

Literature cited

Bayer, M.B. 1962. A new variety of Haworthia limifolia from Natal. Journal of South African Botany 28:215.
Bayer, M.B. 1970. Haworthia as a problem genus. Cactus and Succulent Journal (U.S.) 42:251.
Bayer, M.B. 1999. Haworthia Revisited. Umdaus Press.
Bayer, M.B. 2000. Thoughts on Haworthia. Spiderwalk Services, Durbanville.
Breuer, I. 1996. A contribution to the phytogeography of the genus Haworthia Duv. Haworthiad 10:35.
Breuer, I. 1998. The World of Haworthia. Vol.1. I. Breuer, Nederzier.
Breuer, I. 2000. The World of Haworthia. Vol.2. I. Breuer, Nederzier.
Breuer, I. 2002. An Haworthia species concept update. Alsterworthia International – Special Issue No.1.
Brummit, R.K. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51:41.
Craib, C. 1999. The ecology and status of H. limifolia east of the Masongololo mountain in South Africa’s Kwazulu Natal. Haworthiad 13:49.
Crouch, N.R., Smith, G.F., Nichols, G., Burden, J.A. & Gillmer, M. 1999. A species recovery contribution for H. limifolia var. limifolia, the umathithibala of the Zulu. Aloe 36:8.
Marloth, H.W.R. 1908-10. Some new South African Succulents. Part.2. Liliaceae. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 1:403.
Pilbeam, J.W. 1983. Haworthia and Astroloba, a Collectors Guide, London.
Resende, F. 1943. Succulentas Africanas 3. Memorias de la Sociedade Broteriana 2:94.
Smith, G.F., Crouch, N.R. & Condy, G. 1997. Haworthia limifolia var. limifolia (Asphodelaceae: Alooideae). Flowering Plants of Africa 55:24.
Smith, G.F. & Crouch, N.R. 2001. Haworthia limifolia var. arcana (Asphodelaceae: Alooideae): a new variety from eastern South Africa. Bradleya 19:117.
Smith, G.F. & Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996 A contribution to the phytogeography of the genus Haworthia Duv. – response to Breuer. Haworthiad 10.
Smith, G.G. 1948. Views on the naming of Haworthias. The Journal of South African 14:55.
Smith, G.G. 1950. Some new species and varieties in the genus Haworthia: VII. The Journal of South African Botany. 16:3.
Stevens, P.F. 2002. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 51:11.

Volume 2, Chapter 4:- Haworthia limifolia var. arcana Smith & Crouch

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Haworthia limifolia is something of an enigma in that both it and Haworthia koelmanniorum are geographical rather isolated from the rest of the genus. The latter is confined to a small area around Loskop Dam and Groblersdal in what was the old Transvaal province. H. limifolia is much more widespread and occurs from the southern Kruger National Park southwards through Swaziland in to Northern Kwazulu Natal. It was described by Rudolph Marloth from a specimen very loosely said to have come from “west of Delagoa Bay”. No one has ever managed to tie the species down in terms of geographic origin, and the Flowering Plants of Africa (55:24-29, 1997) description of the typical var. limifolia, depicts it as the var. gigantea. My own fieldwork and observations of material of known field provenance show that this var. gigantea and the var. striata are surely synonymous. Neither of them could truthfully said to be from “west of Delagoa Bay”.

The var. arcana is another matter and a very curious one too. It does come from a place very close to the old wagon routes serving the goldfields of the Transvaal viz. near Hectorspruit. However, plants from there do not seem to match Marloth’s original description, and there is some confusion about the question of the “tuberculate” versus the “non-tuberculate” of that original description. Having seen plants which I think are truly non-tuberculate and yet with the file-like ridges across the leaves, I do not think var. arcana fits the bill for the typical variety. When I first saw a specimen of this variety in the Pretoria Botanical Garden while David Hardy was still there, I would also have plumped for a new variety based on its odd colouration. However, that specimen I saw was very olivaceous and I would have named the variety accordingly. The plants which Crouch and Smith collected of var. arcana are more brown coloured.

I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time in Swaziland and Mpumalanga (Transvaal Lowveld) in 2002 looking for H. limifolia. One of my aims was to see the var. arcana in habitat, and the other to re-locate F. Venter’s collection of a glabrous specimen from very near the same place. The material of Venter’s was illustrated in Haworthia Revisited as var. ubomboensis.

Fig.1 is P.J. Hurter’s 105 of var. arcana from the type locality and Fig.2 is a specimen of Neil Crouch’s ex Bridgewater Nursery, Durban, also from type locality (approximately Hectorspruit – the locality has been variously given as Komatipoort and Malelane. It should also be noted that there are rumours of the occurrence of the species northwards within the Kruger Park, and there is a firm record for Suado Suavo across the border in Mocambique). I photographed the latter Crouch specimen because it is a less tubercled glabrous plant among a few others. It is quite evident from these two pictures that the prominences on the leaves would qualify as tubercles with a little evidence to suggest that they could become concolorous with the rest of the leaf surface and also merge to form the ridges described by Marloth.

Fig. 1. P.J.Hurter102 H. limifolia var arcana. Hectorspruit

Fig.3 is my MBB7144 from south of Malelane and about 30km west of the Hectorspruit population. Although there were about 100 rosettes they were in a very restricted area and I suspect that they were all of one stoloniferous clone. The three samples I collected are identical. They are the same size as the arcana specimens but the colour is darker and the brownish tint is absent. Fig.4 is my MBB7144 from about 2km to the south-west and again there were only about 15 rosettes in a situation which suggested plainly they were clonal. The plants are larger, the tubercles concolorous and there is a stronger tendency to banding. My MBB7145 (fig.5) is of Fanie Venter’s glabrous element (I have named it elsewhere as var. glaucophylla) from the top of the Three Sister’ mountain. This is about 1,5km from MBB7145. My collection seems to not be from the same precise locality as that of Venter’s and I do suspect, although the plants were plentiful and scattered over a small area in very rough terrain, that the population is derived from vegetative proliferation. My attempts at pollination have so far not been successful and I need to try and pollinate the Venter plants with my own.

Fig. 3. MBB7143 H. limifolia var arcana. Boondoks, Barberton.

Lastly I have MBB7142 (fig.6) from very close to Barberton itself and MBB7141 (fig.7) even closer. These I refer to the typical variety. It is highly improbable that these are related clones because of the distance and terrain separating the populations. However, the plants are so consistently alike within and between the populations that it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. In the previous chapter I illustrated a F. Stayner collection from near Barberton which is very similar to these two collections of mine. Stayner gave the locality as “Barberton Airfield”. This, given the nature of the terrain, is highly unlikely and it appears to me that Stayner was in fact referring to an airstrip near Kaapmuiden, and very close to Three Sisters. The leaves of the plants are more barred and file-like, but there is till a strong tendency for the coalesced tubercles on the upper leaf surface to be broken down the mid-line. This could impact on the integrity of the plants in that area being a geographical entity. I have not been able to successfully pollinate between plants within those Barberton collections and have not tried between them. Although I have plants of var. arcana from three sources, I have also not been able to get them to set seed and it is possible that they are all clonal in origin. This may be true for the original locality too, although it is reported that there are many plants there, and the clone I photographed from Crouch’s sample appears to be different from the other specimens I have.

Fig. 6. MBB7142 H. limifolia var limifolia. May’s Mine, Barberton.

I have no conclusion to draw other than to say that the problem of genera in the Alooideae is a reflection of the problem in the lower ranks. Alternatively it should be stated in the converse. This may help cladists to better appreciate that building a phylogenetic classification from only the top down probably will not satisfy ordinary people who will use the classification. Where the subgenera are unequivocally (notwithstanding anything Dr. Hayashi has to say in this regard) recognisable on the basis of the floral structure, the species are not. Thus even in the subgenus Hexangulares it is difficult to know if all the species satisfy the requirements of definition. For example H. coarctata and H. reinwardtii, or H. attenuata and H. glabrata, may be synonymous. Even H. koelmanniorum and H. limifolia may be so. A species such as Haworthia pungens (fig.8) also creates problems because of the similarity to Astroloba on the basis of the leaf spirals approaching 5-farious, and the smoothness and rigidity of the leaves. It may well be that vegetative is more compelling than floral structure, and this has to be very carefully considered when speculating about true phylogenetic relationships. ♦

Fig. 8. JDV96-100 H. pungens. Braamriver, Joubertina.

Volume 2, Chapter 5:- The White Widow Reunion – Haworthia mutica

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

During my early years with the Karoo Botanic Garden, in fact it never really got any better, my time spent looking for Haworthia was largely my own. This meant hasty weekend trips, or looking for Haworthia secondarily to other things and more general goals. Also it was a question of scale. I needed to see populations and plants from across the entire distribution range. So those years were spent rather as reconnaissance and in checking all the herbarium and other records. I came across a letter among Major F.R. Long’s papers which put me on the track of a Mr. P.L. Meiring of Bonnievale, south-east of Robertson. This was a copy of a letter from Meiring to Triebner in Windhoek arranging for the collection and purchase of an Haworthia from Drew Station. The result was that 200 plants were sold for the huge price (for those days) of 1s each – allowing for inflation this would have been worth about R14ea in today’s currency.

The plants must have been referred to as H. mutica, or this is simply the general name I was using for what appeared to be a fairly distinctive element south of the Riviersonderend mountains and west of the Breede River. Meiring indicated to me where he had collected the plants and I stopped hastily in that general vicinity he indicated northwest of Drew station. A hurried excursion into the veld and after a short while, I picked up a branch of Renosterbos, and there was a plant. Having confirmed the site, I most uncharacteristically collected this single specimen – something I have never done again. The plant remained in cultivation at the Karoo Garden and is probably still there, while leaf propagules have found their way around the world. Kobus Venter obtained one of these and also still has it in cultivation (Fig.1 JDV92/64). When he started taking an interest in Haworthia in 1985, he set off to look for this mutica. Alas, no success. The site had been cleared and ploughed for a massive centre-point irrigation system. We have many times explored the nearby disturbed and undisturbed patches near there, finding only the odd H. maraisii / heidelbergensis plants and a few H. minima var. poellnitziana. The occurrence of these has given us some hope that H. mutica may still be surviving somewhere there.

Kobus and I discussed the issue and when his plant came into bud, we asked the new owners of Sanddrift, Mr. and Mrs. J. Humby, if we could place the plant in the veld in the vain hope that it would be pollinated. The plant was duly taken there, still in its small pot, and sunk into the ground under the protection of three scraggly Renosterbos plants. When I called there late in September the plant was looking healthy but the developing flower was rather scrawny and too shaded. I broke away a few branches to open it up a little. Late in October I called back and to my astonishment there were three seed capsules. The plant was gleefully taken back to Cape Town and I collected 120 seeds from the three capsules. In my joy I planted half of the seed at once. Alas! It was too early in the summer and too hot for this winter regime dweller. Not learning, I planted another 20 seeds a month later and now have 6 rather spindly seedlings and 20 seeds still to sow.

Sanddrift is a remarkable place as three of the four species of Robustipedunculares grow there in discrete populations, and there are hybrids between both marginata and pumila, and marginata and minima. It is unclear just what relationship heidelbergensis and maraisii enjoy there because elements of both are present too. But now we know that mutica is still there somewhere and we have seed to prove it. The nearest other population is south of the Riviersonderend River more than 15km away (Fig.2a, b & c JDV96/27). Here the plants do not have the purplish-grey tones of the species as I would generalise for it south of the Riviersonderend mountains – but then I never have with any conviction claimed that it is different to H. retusa or H. pygmaea. One of the few specimens from there also evidences the whiteness in the leaves which manifested in the Drew plant many years after its collection. The exposure of our potted plant to its native air and a deposit of dry renosterbos leaves, seem to have given the plant a rejuvenating kick and the accompanying illustration shows how beautiful it looks for its visit home. Sept. 2001 is soon upon us and methinks the White Widow needs the company of her soul mate again. (Note:- in a later Chapter, I describe the rediscovery of H. mutica at Sanddrift, Drew).

Acknowledgement
To Kobus of course for his deep interest in anything going for Haworthia; and then to Beth Humby whose love for anything to do with life and with nature is extraordinary. It was wonderful to have the co-operation of persons who are so enthusiastic and interested. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 6:- How to understand Haworthia mutica var. nigra

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

When I wrote the first part of this essay, I was anticipating completing it in three parts. However, I was also in the process of exploring more widely and thoroughly, and the problem and its explanation seemed to grow exponentially. The result was seven essays, and they are presented here as close as possible to their original format. The purpose is to show how a classification should have predictive value, and how an understanding of plants can develop, or fall apart, as more information accumulates. The seven parts were published in Haworthiad 17:1:24-32, 17:2:53-54, 18:1:21-33, 18:2:52-57, 18:3:92-101.

Part 1: Haworthia mutica var nigra indeed!

An early problem in my career as a Haworthia taxonomist was that I had plants of H. mutica which I could not distinguish from plants of H. pygmaea. The former is from the Caledon/Bredasdorp area in the west, and the latter from Albertinia/Mossel Bay in the east. I had also had a collection between these, from Kransriviermond south of Heidelberg, which did not fit comfortably with my perception of H. retusa at Riversdale, or with either that of H. mutica or H. pygmaea. I was also stuck with the probability that there could be other continuities by virtue of unrecorded and unknown populations. A known troublesome population was that from south of the Tradouw Pass that I eventually included in a wider interpretation of H. magnifica, however uncomfortable that was. A problem here is that in separating magnifica from maraisii as species, and in also recognising the variety H. magnifica var. atrofusca, the closer identity of magnifica gets lost in a fragmented residue. As will be seen in the following discussion, this also relates to the understanding of H. mutica var. nigra.

While there was initially a limited amount of material to go by, it might have been thought that more collections would clarify the problems. Instead it became increasingly evident after my first two handbooks that additional collections were confounding the picture even more, and they certainly have. Esterhuizen made the first of such collections from Klipdrift, northwest of Heidelberg. Then there were two populations recorded by Venter, from east of Heidelberg and southeast of Heidelberg. I did not have material of Esterhuizen’s collection but mentally included it with the Tradouw pass population as H. magnifica var. magnifica. The last I included in my concept of H. mutica var. nigra while I was not immediately certain what to do with the population just east of the town of Heidelberg, close to where H. heidelbergensis occurs. I knew these retusa-like plants from photographs and specimen in G.G. Smith’s record. They are very similar to the Klipdrift plants except the habitat is again slightly different and the plants are solitary and the leaves level with the soil surface. It should be noted that I drew attention to this aspect before, when I suggested that H. retusa was in reality a ecotypic adaptation to level ground as is the vegetatively proliferous turgida the adaptation to steep rock faces. The problem was lack of material and the best I could do then was to predict continuity between mutica and retusa. Thus the variety nigra was out of the geographic areas of either and yet not substantial enough to suggest that it was a separate SYSTEM. I have since seen Smith’s plants live as JDV90/113 in cultivation and in the field.

In the last two years I have paid more attention to H. mirabilis and the disconcerting variability of this species. A closer study of the var. sublineata has produced a dismaying degree of variability and I do not doubt that an argument could be made on this score for including the Tradouw Pass plants under H. mirabilis. This is not as improbable as it may seem if all the variants are considered such as in H. heidelbergensis, H. maraisii, H. floribunda. Experience with the Eastern Cape complexes also leads me to predict that these western species are similarly going to be inextricable from one another.

Fig. 01. Map of the Klipdrift-Heidelberg area. Note the farm Blackdown, the type locality for H. floribunda where it hybridises with H. turgida which is common in the area.

Without proposing another solution, other than for the Tradouw plants, I needed to first explain the Esterhuizen population. Here I was fortunate to have the interest and hospitality of Dr. Christie Venter who grew up on a farm just to the northwest of Klipdrift. He now has a property near Zuurbraak where he accommodated my wife and I and we were able to explore the Klipdrift area (see map, Fig.1) to good effect. We found four populations along the southern side of the Duiwenhoks River, two on Goedehoop (Figs.2 & 3) to the west of Klipdrift, one on Klipdrift itself (Figs.4, 5 & 6) and another on Doornriver to the east (Fig.7). From there we went to the two sites east and southeast of Heidelberg (Figs. 8, 9 & 10), as well as to a further population midway between these two. We also revisited the familiar locality for H. heidelbergensis east of the town.

Fig. 02. MBB7133 H. mutica var niga. Goedehoop, west of Klipdrift. The habitat is a gradual slope with little rock, partly bush covered and with Aloe ferox.

What do these populations suggest and what is the solution? These plants do not fit the bill for H. magnifica because they lack the deep dark colouration of that species or the generally shortened leaves. They do not fit with H. mirabilis because the leaves are generally more recurved, the reverse of the leaves is less spotted, and the surfaces are generally smoother. The geographical location does not agree either. The plants cannot be placed comfortably with H. turgida var. turgida, which is a smaller more spinose and clustering species in sandstones. There is some correspondence to H. turgida var. longibracteata and also to H. retusa. From the latter it differs in having fewer more recurved and less spinose leaves, while from the latter it differs in being smaller, more translucent and with narrower more erect leaves.

There actually does not seem to be a categorical answer, which is just what I would have expected. There seems to be this pointer to the new language we need, where we agree on the meaning of names in a fairly arbitrary way. I suggest that for the present this group of populations of doubtful identity should be treated as H. mutica var. nigra. I am quite conscious of the fact that there is an opposition body that wishes to re-interpret such doubtful elements as even H. asperula, and probably produce an entirely different classification and new names. I respect this point of view and it was Prof. G.F. Smith who stated in the introduction to Breuer’s book The world of Haworthia, Vol. 2, this is a golden age and we are each now able to make our own decision! For communication purposes it would be wise if we tried to agree on one set of names. Simply each of us naming plants as species as they come before us has no intrinsic meaning or message for anyone else. It will work for a closed group in close contact with one another, and all seeing and talking about that limited range of specimens. For me who has seen so many plants over so many years, it just becomes quite meaningless. It means that we have a set of names which has no practical value for anyone outside of that group and nor does it have any value for say biologists or scientists working in other disciplines where the names have to have meaning in the broader sense of biological systems as applicable to all life forms.

Fortunately there seems to be an awakening in the botanical fraternity to the fact that our classification system and the notion of a branching tree with the species dangling on the straight branch ends, is faulty. One only has to think what happens when we have a species and then describe a variety of that species. The nomenclatural system requires that a typical variety be automatically created. The implication is that the two varieties stand equal to one another – and this is patently and obviously untrue and unworkable in practise. It actually means that while the variety may be fully distinctive and even be derived from a single always fully recognisable clone, the typical variety has to accommodate every other variant in the species. Thus the more varieties that are described, the more shattered, indefinable and unrecognisable is the “typical” variety. In this is just how it should be if we properly and logically think about distribution of phenomena in space and change with time. Where subconsciously we probably think of species as very definite definable things, the reality is that it may only be individuals (individual clones and vegetatively propagated plants) that have any individual recognisable identity. It is just a myth to say that in a species, the flowers of the individuals are always all similar (identical), or that the leaves have this special character – and so on. If readers are familiar with Haworthia Update Vol.1, they will appreciate that considerably more illustrations are required to truly reflect the relationships of the populations I discuss here and extend this to the broader geographic area i.e. H. heidelbergensis, H. magnifica, H. maraisii, H. mirabilis and others.

A consideration I must add is that the question of very local adaptations to habitat complicates the picture enormously. Thus the complex geology, topography, and climate of the southern Cape are as important as reasons for the extremely rich and variable flora as may be any history of the origin of vegetation from a distant past. Here I am dealing with just the drainage systems of a small river, the Duiwenhoks, which runs from north-west of Heidelberg first towards the south-east and then south to the sea. Other “species” in the close area are H. heidelbergensis, H, turgida and H. magnifica (note that the variety atrofusca thoroughly obscures the identity of the typical variety, and this is further clouded by other varieties, what to say of some of the names now proposed for elements within this huge complex).

Part2: Consequent to Haworthia mutica var nigra indeed!

I omitted illustrating JDV90/113 and of plants from the type locality for H. mutica var. nigra from Part 1, stating simply because these two populations lead from that system to another further east that is more complex. But this is not quite true. What is true is that G.G. Smith was considering the population later collected as JDV90/113 (as a single plant too, no doubt) to be either a new species or a new variety of H. retusa. What is thus difficult to explain is that it is not just a question of how this population related to H. retusa or to H. mutica. It is a problem of how is it related to either of these complexes that have their own internal as well as other external associations (see figs 11 & 12).

Fig. 11. JDV86-16 H. mutica var nigra. Kransriviermond

In the case of H. mutica var. nigra (Figs. 11 & 12) itself from Kransriviermond, I did not happen to have a picture then available and in any case it is illustrated in Haworthia Revisited. With this short note, the position was rectified and pictures of both collections are provided. It can be noted that JDV90/113 (Figs. 13 & 14) is within 50 meters of the population that I took to be the type locality for H. heidelbergensis. There are not many plants and they are solitary and the leaf surfaces are level with the soil surface. This is the general pose for H. retusa where it grows exposed on level habitat (see figs 13 & 14).

Why have I then not called these plants H. retusa? It is because I considered there was a continuous range of populations that linked H. retusa and H. turgida, and the Kransriviermond population was at variance with this opinion. It is of course equally valid to say that the plants I have illustrated as H. mutica var. nigra could also be regarded as possibly continuous with either H. retusa or H. turgida, as well as include some influence from either H. magnifica or H. heidelbergensis or both.

So what more needs to be said that can be said? An explanation really only begins to make sense when all the role players are examined in detail. H. mutica cannot be represented by a single plant and neither can H. retusa or H. turgida or H. magnifica. Even when one has all these myriad collections in front of one, one wonders what more is there which will cloud the issue further! It is evident that we tend to seek an answer in an easier two-way comparison, when the solution is a much more difficult manifold or reticulate relationship.

Part 3: Still consequent to Haworthia mutica var nigra indeed!

In this part of the essay I discuss what I refer to as “the distant turgida connection”. In the two preceding notes I commented on the problem of using the name retusa in connection with H. mutica var. nigra. It was not unduly surprised to read that Esterhuizen claimed that nigra was rather a variety of retusa than mutica (Alsterworthia). This observation of his is perfectly valid and only misplaced in the context of what I had written before, and as far back as the original Haworthia Handbook. Where the difficulty lies, apart from the intrinsic difficulty of the problem, is with our so-called “typological” concept of species. Thus we form a mental image of, say, H. retusa from an illustration, either the original type illustration: or one that has been chosen to resemble that original. Then we build images around the name of other plants that we come to know as H. retusa. But these images are seldom composite ones that accommodate all the variations and are also limited by how much we have seen. Similarly we then generate images of, in this case, H. turgida and H. mutica and then try to weave them together into a single mental construct.

In this case the introduction H. pygmaea would be somewhat of a surprise. But I did say at the start that one of my very early disconcerting experiences was having plants of H. mutica and H. pygmaea, and finding that I could only separate them on the basis of known origin and the colour of the floral bracts. Without going into the lengthy detail of the variation of H. pygmaea and its associations which include H. turgida and thus to H. retusa, briefly the tale is this: It can be taken as read that the colour of the bracts is not diagnostic for any Haworthia species, where all we then have in this particular instance is geographical information. These single images we build leads to confusion and to misapplication of names. When we think we are specifying, we are actually making very general statements, which in turn help to confound attempts at identification and classification.

Therefore I want here to just illustrate some variants of H. turgida in order to provide a broad image of this species so that its role in the tale can also be guessed at.

I do this for six reasons:-

1. I started a series of articles with the grandiloquent title “Natural variation and Species Delimitation in Haworthia”, for the National Cactus and Succulent Journal way back in 1972. One of the manuscripts I started concerned H. turgida. I had a vast amount of material and I was rather stuck as to how to illustrate it all. It was also obvious that there was a great deal more to see. So the project was shelved until now when this discussion generated the need.

2. While going through my files, I found a few of the old pictures I would have used.

3. I think that readers should be made aware of this major pitfall of perception now that so many writers are in the arena.

4. In addition to H. turgida, the following cannot be positively excluded from reckoning: H. retusa, H. heidelbergensis, H. mutica, H. maraisii, nor H. magnifica. Other authors are very industriously adding new names that will cloud the issue still further.

5. I still would like to see more H. turgida and more H. retusa. I am now quite well positioned in terms of new material, to write about the other elements.

6. The literature is now fragmented beyond sensibility and it is difficult even for me to follow it all and keep a chronological account of what is written there. Other writers have the same problem while they are not even paying proper attention to what has gone before. This is of course their prerogative; and that of the editor who permits his authors to wander where they will.

I do agree with Esterhuizen’s contention that H. mutica has not been found east of the Breede River, which could suggest that the relationship of mutica var. nigra is better sought with H. retusa. However, this would make sense if the typological concept of species was sound and if the concept of the phylogenetic tree with sequential single-branching stems was true. The fact is that one can find the characters that we might use to diagnose any one “species” across the board. Thus I can find “nigra” or similarities, in populations of turgida, retusa, heidelbergensis, magnifica, maraisii and mirabilis. Esterhuizen is quite happy (I have done so myself and it is no criticism) to use the name retusa for plants from near east and even west of Heidelberg, when in fact there is exactly the same problem of “identity” at Riversdale and beyond. This is that retusa is probably an ecotypic variant of turgida. Forget that the name retusa would have precedence over turgida if the taxonomic chips were down.

The first three illustrations (figs 15, 16 & 17) are of H. turgida in a sequence from north to south towards Heidelberg. I choose (chose) this sequence because “turgida” is the sandstone ecotype, and these populations suggested to me that there was a continuous set of populations which linked “turgida” to the more solitary clay-soil, level-ground, silcrete-hill “retusa”.

Fig. 15. MBB in KG240-72 H. turgida var turgida. 9km N Heidelberg.

Perhaps I should also emphasise the point that I am using single clones to illustrate populations and systems – where this does not actually work. It is already an approximation. Immediately north of Heidelberg, there is a problem where turgida merges with heidelbergensis. Heidelbergensis itself has its origin in a few plants found beneath one bush, 0,4km West of Heidelberg (I was wrong in following Dekenah’s contention that the type locality was the population 0,4km east, and also heidelbergensis is extraordinarily abundant and variable just west of Heidelberg). It is apparent that the concept of heidelbergensis is based on the interface of two systems viz. turgida and one other. This “other” carries the name “heidelbergensis“, and I will in due course present some of the very extensive ramifications that have emerged in the last few years concerning this particular problem.

The next three illustrations (Figs 18, 19 & 20) are from populations quite some distance from the sandstone range of the Langeberg Mountains (which is the main “turgida” domain), for which I use the varietal name longibracteata. I could not really censure Hayashi for finding new names for any of these. There are several other such non-sandstone populations that I should illustrate, and I know I have not seen them all. I add two illustrations (figs 21 & 22) of the var. suberecta for the eastern forms of “turgida“. To finally knock a nail into the coffin, I add a picture (fig.23) of H. mirabilis var. consanguinea from the Riviersonderend sandstone mountains south of McGregor. Why I name it “mirabilis” is for very good reason, and this reason is as complex as is the full “turgida” saga or that of others. It is thus very frustrating to read simple solutions that are being presented by writers who in my opinion just do not have the competencies or material to do so authoritatively.

Fig. 18. MBB in KG312-71 H. turgida var longibracteata. 16km N Bredasdorp.

Part 4: Still on about Haworthia nigra var mutica.

When the previous Part 3 of this small series was published, a few words were omitted from the title. These were, “The distant turgida connection”. This part could have been entitled the close retusa connection. What I was actually looking for was a more definitive explanation and I could not find it. In writing about the relationship of H. floribunda, both Esterhuizen and myself have assumed that the plants I attribute to the species H. variegata viz. the varieties hemicrypta and modesta are in fact that species. It is probably truer to say that they are not and that they are simply part of a much larger complex system for which classification solutions are right for one part of the distribution range and wrong for another. I say this because in this article I will be using the name heidelbergensis in the same way (in the text all references will be in terms of the typical variety. Technically there is no population of this species in which the plants all generally resemble those from which the type was supposedly derived).

What I want to write about is a series of populations from east of Heidelberg that really throws a cat among the pigeons. There is a low flat plateau between Heidelberg and Riversdale named Kiewietskraalse Vlakte (to be referred to simply as Vlakte) at an altitude of 300m (see map Fig. 24). It is divided into three farms, Kweekkraal East, Kweekkraal West and Melkboom further west. The area to the east, north and west is very broken and generally unsuitable for cultivation. Southwards the terrain is lower-lying at about 150m and is largely cultivated. The pattern of cultivation suggests that the soils in that area are arable and hence were never really suitable habitat for Haworthia. This is an assumption based on where haworthias are found in the greater area and this is invariably on sites where the soils are very skeletal and where rock is exposed. Often these sites are on broken profiles of erosion channels or small hillsides, perhaps for the presence of harder and less erodable rock. This is not to say that there were no suitable habitats on the level areas and certainly the four species of the Robustipedunculares are/were less confined by habitat requirements than members of the subgenus Haworthia. Assumptions about occurrence and suitable habitat are important because they relate to the degree of isolation of populations, to the role of geology in the evolution of ecotypes and hence to the taxonomic relationship of those populations. My impression is that cultivation has generally not impacted on Haworthia populations.

On Vlakte the vegetation is Renosterveld. It has numerous buttresses and surrounding it are a few separate inselbergs. The upper level areas are cultivated and where the natural vegetation is still intact, haworthias are still only found in very specific and identifiable habitats. The eastern-most inselberg is Spitzkop that is the type locality for H. magnifica var. atrofusca. H. retusa in its classic form occurs there too. H. magnifica var magnifica, in its classic form, is still further east at south of Riversdale itself. H. floribunda is known at Langkloof to the north-east, but otherwise there is very little available information regarding what lies between Vlakte and Heidelberg where H. mutica var. nigra, H. heidelbergenis, and the typical true form of H. floribunda occur.

My attention was first drawn to Melkboom by Kobus Venter who told me that there was a complex interaction there between several species (retusa, heidelbergensis and magnifica). He was with J.M. Esterhuizen who has also commented on what I recall was the relationship there of H. magnifica and H. heidelbergensis. I visited Melkboom with Kobus and indeed saw what I will refer to as heidelbergenis. At one point (squared brackets indicate position on the map Fig.24) it ([1] Figs.25a, b & c MBB7108) was growing near to but discrete from H. retusa ([2]Figs.26a, b & c MBB7107). These retusa-plants have smooth leaves with very rounded tips and in this respect hence incline towards H. mutica var. nigra. But on the extreme west wing of the Vlakte plateaux there is an apparent hybrid population of retusa ([3]Fig.27a, b JDV93-53, & c MBB7110) between two populations of heidelbergensis ([4]Fig.28a & b MBB71109, c, d, e, f & g JDV93-54, and [5]Fig 29a MBB7111 b & c JDV93-52). This small population is curious because it is situated between and yet so close, to populations of only one-putative parent. The other parent, presumably H. retusa, is absent. The fact of hybridity is not proven and is only speculative based on the spatial relationships and physical appearance of the plants as judged to be “intermediate”.

Fig. 25a. MBB7108 H. heidelbergensis. Melkboom [1].

Fig. 29a. MBB7111 H. heidelbergensis. Melkboom [5].

I had now seen H. magnifica at Kweekkraal East ([6]Fig.30a, b & c MBB6817) and West ([7]Fig.31a, b & c MBB6662), so was anxious to see what else occurred on the Vlakte. Those magnificas I had grown from seed, and I knew they consisted of a motley assemblage of forms between the more typical magnifica and atrofusca. What was the relationship then of these populations to the smaller heielbergensis plants at Melkboom? At this stage I never considered that H. floribunda would enter the picture.

Fig. 30a. MBB6817 H. magnifica. Kweekkraal E [6].

Kobus came along with my wife and I to re-visit the area and explore between Melkboom and Kweekkraal West. The Vlakte Plateau has an irregular shape and has many buttresses separated by incised small valleys. The upper edges of these buttresses often comprise fairly skeletal soils with rock that probably accounts for irregular erosion of the plateau edge. The rock also seems to overly erodable clay and this is exposed by pressure bursts which result in a low clay bank and an extended apron of bare clay soil with here and there tufts of grass or low herbaceous plants. The valleys are more thickly and densely vegetated as the soil are deeper and retain water for longer. The rock and clay sites provide the habitat for the haworthias and nearly every buttress is populated. Thus we found a confounding array of plants which all seemed to indicate a continuum from the heidelbergensis-like plants on Melkboom to the magnifica-like plants at Kweekkkraal. The populations were disturbingly variable and yet differed also from one another. The description and quantification of such “difference” is probably an ultimate challenge to botany. The collections are [8]Fig.32a & b MBB7112, [9]Fig.33a, b & c MBB7113, [10]Fig.34a & b MBB7114, [11]Fig.35. MBB7115, [12]Fig.36. MBB7116, [13]Fig.37. MBB7117, [14]Fig.38a & b MBB7118.

Fig. 32a. MBB7112 H. heidelbergensis. Kweekkraal W[8].

My wife and I returned to the area East twice after that to further explore the plateaux. We first made these collections on Kweekkraal West [15]Fig.39a & b MBB7151, [16]Fig.40 MBB7152, [17]Fig.41a, b &c MBB7153, Fig.42a, b, c, & d MBB7154. The first two I regarded as heidelbergensis, the third inclined to magnifica, while the fourth was more positively magnifica including clones which would class as var atrofusca. On Kweekkraal East, significant finds were a population south of the Pretoriuskop inselberg consisting almost entirely of the var. atrofusca ([19]Fig.43a, b, c & d MBB7157) as opposed to several of the heidelbergensis/magnifica continuum we had seen on Kweekkkraal West. We also found H. floribunda on Pretoriuskop [21], southwest of (Fig.44 MBB7155) as well as on an unnamed inselberg to the west ([20]Fig.45 MBB7156). Exciting was that in the population of atrofusca, which was growing in a very white clay layer, was a plant of H. floribunda (MBB7158). It is extremely difficult in these field sites to recognise variants and distinguish what could have been hybrids, and we did not think there were such. However, about 50 meters away we came across a population of small heidebergensis ([22]Fig.46 MBB7159) like plants which we decided were hybrids – based on the fact that another 50 meters away was a population of floribunda. Again this is speculative.

Fig. 39a. MBB7151 H. heidelbergensis. Kweekkraal W[15].

At other sites we found several other populations that included both small ([23]Fig.47a & b MBB7160) and large magnifica ([24]Fig.48a & b MBB7161, [25] Fig.49 MBB7162) depending often on the nature of the pressure-bursts and the quality of the rock and clay. Often the clay was quite red and the rock very ferruginous (iron-stone). At other sites it was often very white and clean. The rock similarly varies from the very characteristic red-pebbly constituency of true ironstone, to the smooth white appearance of pure quartz.

Fig. 53 Site 24, showing the kind of vegetative cover over a dense population of H. magnifica.

On a still later occasion my wife and I visited Kweekkraal East again with Casper Mazurel of Holland. We had not explored the northern edge of the Vlakte plateau and needed to know more. Casper found H. retusa north of Kweekkraal East ([26]Fig.49 MBB7173) in the same kind of white clay that atrofusca occupied near Pretoriuskop – we also found floribunda again (Fig.49[23] – MBB7172). The curious thing about both the retusa populations from Vlakte, have very rounded leaf-ends (the mutica connection? – more later). The Melkboom population is relatively light-coloured and the more eastern population the deeper green/purple tones of magnifica. The small population at [25](Figs.47 MBB71620) seen on the previous visit (in white clay in which the plants were quite robust) then takes on a new face and could be imagined to be of possible “hybrid” (retusaXmagnifica) origin.

It required yet another visit to flesh out distributions and this was to the inselberg Rooikop. We were not quite sure what to expect and I did think that H. floribunda would appear again. Instead we found a series of small populations of plants I attribute to H. heidelbergensis/magnifica ([28]Fig.50 MBB7217)

Fig. 50. MBB7173 H. retusa. NW Kweekkraal E[26].

As I have noted, variability in and between these populations is enormous. It is curious that H. floribunda only appears in the northeast of the study area and almost totally maintains its integrity where heidelbergensis/magnifica is excluded. The variant H. magnifica var. atrofusca is discrete in only one of these populations (Fig.42 – MBB7157) and this is the one exception where H. floribunda is also present. There seems to be a remarkably smooth continuum from H. magnifica-like to H. heidelbergensis-like plants.

I cannot say at all that Vlakte has been fully explored. There are many more possible habitats that we have not explored. While I am busy examining the evidence we have for a connection of mutica var. nigra to H. retusa, I find myself looking at the connection of H. heidelbergensis to H. magnifica with the implications of hybridisation (introgression is not a better word or concept, as both hybridisation and introgression imply an initial difference) involving H. floribunda and H. magnifica var. atrofusca which have rounded leaf-tips. Thus the saga continued.

Note: Kobus (J.D.) Venter made a presentation involving many of the above collections at the Aloe Congress at Calitzdorp in Sept.2003. This is due to be published in Alsterworthia. In his presentation he includes a geological map of the area and this shows that Vlakte is tertiary ferricrete overlying much older conglomerate rock. It is this ferricrete formation which provides a mosaic of small inselberg’s scattered throughout the southern Cape and playing a critical role in the occurrence of Haworthia).

Fig. 51. MBB7172 H. floribunda var dentata. N Kweekkraal E[27].

Part 5: Continuing the saga.

On the way home after our last visit to Kweekkraal, Daphne and I stopped at Morning Star south of Heidelberg. We did this thanks to our friend Dr. Christie Kloppers who in discussing the distribution of H. marginata, let on that the owner of Morning Star was a relative of his. Morning Star is a locality recorded for H. marginata and as I had seen that species in the area many years before, I was anxious to confirm its survival there. As is the case in Haworthia there are so many considerations. Morning Star is not far from the Duiwenhoks river where the steep rocky riverbanks offer a continuum of habitats from north of Heidelberg all the way to the sea. A short way to the southeast is the locality Kransriviermond where H. mutica var. nigra has it origin. It is interesting to note that G.G. Smith made the connection of that population with three different accessions of H. mutica. Which goes to show how perceptions may differ – he had no compunctions about making that association as opposed to the opinions reported in the essay. The place Dassieklip is also on the lower reaches of the Duiwenhoks and this is where a very curious Haworthia is found which I have attributed to both H. floribunda and H. chloracantha. (Fig.54 MBB7164).

Fig. 54. MBB7164 H. floribunda=chloracantha. Dassieklip.

However, there is also something else. This is the collection MBB6663 (Figs.55a also MBB in KG107/74, & b JDV97-35, also Fig.27 in Pt.1) from immediately southwest of Heidelberg. This collection is cited in my revision under H. magnifica and that identification falls very far short of explaining its true identity or significance. I wrote an article in Aloe (34:4, 1997) discussing the problem of the “species” as they occur around Heidelberg. H. magnifica is barely mentioned and this particular collection suggested some introgression of H. floribunda. However, since that time I have come across several other populations to the west that must surely relate to this one at Heidelberg and impact on the relationship of H. magnifica to H. maraisii and H. mirabilis. Thus anything of this ilk to the south of Heidelberg becomes extremely important. That collection MBB6663 was instrumental in my early decision to treat H. maraisii and H. magnifica as one species

Fig. 55a. MBB6663 H. magnifica. SW Heidelberg.

At Morning Star we were, by kind favour of Mr Coetzee Uys, able to get to the Duiwenhoks River. There we found H. turgida (Fig.56 MBB7219) on the rocks of the valley banks as we expected. It was surprisingly a rather small form (var. turgida) more reminiscent of its appearance on the sandstones north of Heidelberg, rather than the bigger var. longibracteata. But significantly we also found, in the immediately adjacent south-facing shale rocks, H. magnifica/floribunda (Fig. 57a & b MBB7218) as in MBB6663. The plants were smaller than that collection and there was more evidence of floribunda AND heidelbergensis in their appearance. We stopped and searched again about 3kms away on higher-lying ferricrete and in grass tufts, where we found plants of the same ilk (Fig.58a & b MBB7220). These two populations suggest fairly convincingly that H. magnifica and H. floribunda introgress (are continuous).

Fig. 56. MBB7219 H. turgida var turgida. Morning Star, S Heidelberg.

We were not finished. As a last effort we drove a short distance and stopped next to some exposed rock where we found H. mutica var. nigra (Fig 59a & b MBB7221). These are very dark-green almost black, shiny-leaved plants with the rounded leaf-tips we associate with H. mutica. One of the clones was almost identical to a plant of H. retusa (so-named) from north of Kweekkraal (MBB7173) where one could speculate that the rounded leaf-tips and darker colouration had some connection to introgression (that word again) with H. magnifica var. atrofusca. The second plant illustrated (Fig.59b) is somewhat of an aberration that I selected to emphasise that identifications are often very tenuous.

Fig. 59a MBB7221 H mutica var. nigra, Morning Star, S Heidelberg

In my discussion of H. incurvula in Aloe ( 36:34, 1999), I suggest we need a new language to discuss, explain and name haworthias. We need a better conceptualisation of names and what they mean. In taxonomic botany, the name of a species is linked to a “type’ which is desirably a herbarium specimen, but it could be an illustration of some kind. It is often simply assumed, perhaps even unconsciously, that this “type” is typical. We all (nearly all) assume that anything so named will be identical or near identical to that type. Conversely we assume that anything different from the type should have another name and ipso facto be another species. The concepts of subspecies and varieties are an extension of this way of thinking. The nomenclatural code which seeks uniformity and stability in the way we name plants cannot legislate or prescribe when and where names should be applied and nor at what rank. Where it does seem to fall short is the requirement for the automatic creation of a typical rank when an equivalent rank is created. Here it seems to be making the same assumption that all plants of a species are the same. Thus when a new, say, variety is described, there is a typical variety that stands in juxtaposition to the new. This is patently fallacious. What is required is a re-description of the species to include the variation of the new lesser rank, and only those individuals which meet the varietal description become identified by an added name. The residue forms the core of the species and are designated by only that name?

What we need in addition, is the adoption of a definition of a species as a system of living organisms which is named by a convention recognised as a language requirement, and not as any scientific process or achievement. The name is only the passkey to information – the key by which we generalise about a particular living system. (I have since written a chapter which suggest that species are fractal, and that we will need to adapt our thinking to this kind of geometric/mathematical pattern).

Part 6: Another twist to the story.

Until recently I had seen very little of the haworthias immediately west of Heidelberg. Kobus Venter has several collections, some by J Esterhuizen, and these included plants from Uitkyk immediately southwest of the town (Fig. 60a & b JDV89/2) as well as from further west. He also has two collections from immediately north of the town where previously I have referred to only one. Taking these first, I think it is quite clear than they both suggest the continuity of turgida with heidelbergensis, while one of the collections suggests a closer similarity to the plants from Klipdrift of Part 1. The Esterhuizen collection from northwest of Heidelberg (Fig.61 JDVsn) seems to support such a contention.

Fig. 60a. JDV89-2 H. heidelbergensis. Uitkyk, SW Heidelberg.

But I really want to deal with plants west of Heidelberg. The locality is referred to as Die Plotte but actually the area is partly township land, an area of smallholdings and sections of what was a very large farm Hooikraal. Dekenah and thus G.G. Smith original site of heidelbergensis may be non-existent now because of the creation of a rubbish-dump site immediately west of the town. Plants similar to the original heidelbergensis can still be found southwest and further west (and of course immediately east of Heidelberg which I had concluded (wrongly and influenced by Dekenah) was the type locality. Kobus’ collection from Die Plotte (Figs. 62a, b & c JDV91/142) are of smaller plants while JDV91/146 (Figs.63a & b) from the same general area, are bigger plants. These are intermediate with the Esterhuizen plants northwest of, and typical heidelbergensis from east of Heidelberg (Figs. 64a, b JDV87/1 & c MBBsn).

Fig. 62a. JDV91/143 H. heidelbergensis. Die Plotte, W Heidelberg.

Fig. 64a. JDV87-1 H. heidelbergensis. E Heidelberg.

When Kobus delivered his paper at the Aloe Congress 2003 at Calitzdorp he met up with Mr. J. Hoffman. I had met him at Worcester many years before and he had told me of plants west of Heidelberg. Thus I undertook to renew this contact and went to see him at Heidelberg. He took me to the northeastern corner of the farm Hooikraal which borders on Die Plotte and which is also west of the town dumpsite. Apart from showing me H. marginata, he also showed me a population of small heidelbergensis (Figs. 65a, b, c & d MBB7233) and then a population of very large plants that were quite remarkable (Figs. 66a, b, c & d MBB7234). The plants included one that even resembled a large sturdy mirabilis – and Esterhuizen commented in an article he once wrote about the spotting on the back of the leaves of “heidelbergensis” which he likened to mirabilis. Generally the plants are with darker green and purplish hues that I associate with heidelbergensis or even magnifica. There were very yellow-green forms similar to what I saw many years ago at Skeiding further west of Heidelberg. These are plants that Esterhuizen (and myself too) has referred to as retusa, and I would agree except that they fall in the query zone between retusa and turgida var longibracteata i.e. there is continuity between the two species. In fact Kobus and I revisited Skeiding and I thought the plants (Figs.67a & b MBB7240) were almost identical to H. retusa at Melkboom (Fig.26 MBB7107 in Part 4), although the latter tended to have rounded leaf-tips. H. magnifica, MBB7239, was also present in a rare situation for these two species to be so closely located within meters of each other). We also visited a population immediately north of Heidelberg (Figs. 68a & b MBB7236) that is not far distant from the two Nature Reserve population already referred to. Had I seen this population in 1975, I may have been more adamant in maintaining that H. retusa and H. turgida were but one species. The plants were generally big and very proliferous and one could not help reflecting on how similar they were the population that gave rise to Scott’s H. geraldii (H. retusa var.). The collection from northwest of the Heidelberg Nature Reserve (Figs. 69a, b & c JDV89/5) must surely suggest that there is a continuity of H. turgida with the Klipdrift plants illustrated in part 1.

Fig. 65a. MBB7233 H. heidelbefrgensis. N. Hooikraal, SW Heidelberg.

My conclusion is that there is now a proven continuity between turgida, heidelbergensis, magnifica, retusa, mutica var. nigra, maraisii, pygmaea and even floribunda, chloracantha, rossouwii and variegata. The continuity is also with emelyae and its varieties north of the Langeberg mountains. At the same time some of these elements may occur together and so appear to be discrete. Thus a taxonomic solution for one set of collections may not be appropriate for another.

Paul Forster and Russel Scott (both from Australia) spent some time in South Africa while attending the Calitzdorp Congress, and I was privileged to have them join me in the field at Heidelberg. We explored the middle Duiwenhoks river between Dassieklip and the town of Heidelberg. I had expected that such exploration would throw some light on the strange Dassieklip population (Fig.56 MBB7164). In my Revision (1999), I have ascribed it to H. floribunda simply for the want of a better solution outside of regarding it as a discrete species based on a single population!).

Apart from seeing H. turgida we also found find populations of plants at Witheuwel (Figs. 70a, b & c MBB7227) and Somona (Figs71a, b & c). These are more like the Melkboom and Kweekkraal heidelbergensis/magnifica collections. I would have expected a similarity to MBB6663 (SW Heidelberg), referred to in part 5, figs 2 & 3) or to MBB7218 and MBB7220 which I would ascribe to floribunda/maraisii rather than to H. magnifica – tenuous as such a distinction is. Essie Esterhuizen has apparently discovered a similar population to KG107/74 along the Duiwenhoks close to of Heidelberg. It must be noted that Matjiestoon, the locality for H. heidelbergensis var toonensis (Figs.72a, b, c & d MBB7165) is only about 15km west of Dassieklip. Thus while I am writing in the context of H. mutica var. nigra, I have drifted helplessly into discussing H. heidelbergensis. This is the crux of the whole thing about Haworthia – especially the subgenus Haworthia – an intricate network of relationships that just will not resolve.

Fig. 70a. MBB7227 H. heidelbergensis. Witheuwel, S Heidelberg.

Part 7: Completing the saga.

So far in this series of articles I have dealt with H. mutica var. nigra as a system of populations typified from the southernmost population at Kransriviermond, and extending through eight known populations to Klipdrift northwest of Heidelberg. Then I considered the role of H. turgida in part 3. In part 4 I dealt with the very complex situation that seems to occur between Riversdale and Heidelberg, followed in part 5 by discussion of populations along the lower Duiwenhoks River. In part 6 the discussion and illustrations are of plants from mostly west of Heidelberg.I have discussed to some degree the possible relationship of these populations to each other to H. turgida, H. retusa, H. heidelbergensis and H. magnifica. Each of those systems in turn interacts with others and it becomes highly doubtful that we are in fact dealing with discrete systems at all.

If we now switch the attention to H. mutica and point to some of the populations that constitute my concept of that species, it may help to crystallize aspects of my classification. I will not deal with all the material at my disposal as is too extensive for the purpose. The name H. mutica is based on an illustration in the Royal Herbarium, Kew, of a plant of unknown origin (Fig.73). I use the name for a series of populations all west of the Breede River, from near Drew in the north, to near Bredasdorp in the south. These populations all seem to be discrete from other species in that general area, which are H. mirabilis, H. maraisii, H. rossouwii, H. heidelbergensis, H. reticulata and H. turgida. Those species display their own interactions as follows:

H. mirabilis never occurs in any close association with any other species (of the same subgenus) including H. maraisii or with H. heidelbergensis. Where it may, is where H. mirabilis var. badia occurs in close proximity to H. maraisii at Napier. I can be suggested that here the two elements are introgressive and that var. badia is actually the consequence of this introgression (again the word implies interaction between different things). H. maraisii never grows in association with H. heidelbergensis except for the place Rooivlei north of Bredasdorp where this H. heidelbergensis var. minor could in fact be a variant of H. rossouwii. It should be noted that H. turgida var longibracteata also occurs here as a very isolated population.

If one extends these observations it will be found that very few species maintain their identity in close proximity to any other. H. magnifica may occur in close proximity to H. tugida or H. retusa, but the latter two never to each other. H. magnifica is not discrete in any sense from H. maraisii and two species are recognised simply as a device to assist discussion where we have a western (maraisii) and an eastern (magnifica) counterpart. Neither of these ever occurs near to, or with, H. heidelbergenis. We actually need to again consider this last-named species very closely. It is typified from a population just west of Heidelberg (as Esterhuizen rightly pointed out, and it is by fortunate coincidence that my assumption drawn from Dekenah that it was east, does not alter the basic perception of what the species looks like). H. heidelbergensis has by default, and from simple circumstance and complex reality, become a hodge-podge of populations which interdigitate between H. mirabilis, H. maraisii and H. magnifica. H. floribunda is a curious anomaly that is widely distributed and is known to hybridise with H. turgida, H. magnifica var. atrofusca and with H. pygmaea var. argenteo-maculosa. There is some evidence that it introgresses with (or has never segregated from) H. magnifica (synonymous maraisii) south of Heidelberg, and similarly with H. heidelbergensis (synonymous also with maraisii) south of Swellendam.

H. mutica only grows in the close proximity of H. mirabilis at Rondeheuwel south of Stormsvlei. At Sanddrift, Drew it is in close proximity to H. heidelbergensis in a form which is akin to H. maraisii. Further to the southeast it is in close proximity to H. maraisii. At Napky these two elements are also close.

My argument for maintaining H. mutica as discrete from H. retusa was based on the observation that it was never necessary to invoke H. turgida in the equation as it is when discussing H. retusa. It also is never introgressive with H. maraisii as H. retusa seems to be with H. magnifica east of Riversdale, nor with H. heidelbergensis as H. retusa seems to be at Kweekkraal. Nevertheless this decision is not indisputable. I have always borne in mind that H. mutica has some affinity with H. pygmaea. H. mutica seems to have a retusa-like origin whereas H. pygmaea has a magnifica-like origin. In neither case can one be sure that H. turgida is not prominent in the ancestry.

A not-so-curious thing about H. mutica is its variability too. Just like any of the other “species”, it has many faces. The one I would like to mention is the similarity of plants of H. mirabilis var. badia from the western-most known point of its distribution. This is not readily apparent. But is we look at plants at the western end of the population viz. Sandfontein Napier (Figs.74a & b MBB6987), the plants begin to depart from the more classical form with the strongly recurved leaves, and begin to resemble more typical var. mirabilis as at Mierkraal Bredasdorp (Figs.75a & B MBB7090). What has astonished (even) me is that some of the clones form a very close match with H. mutica, especially with south (Figs.76a & b JDV96-16) and north of Napky (MBB7031 respectively). Thus we are now thrown into (an admittedly obscure) relationship of H. mutica and H. mirabilis (there is also a similarity with a clone of H. magnifica from the problematic “south of Tradouw site” (Fig.77 MBB6666). To my knowledge H. mutica and H. mirabilis only occur in close association at one place. This is at Rondeheuwel south of Stormsvlei where the mirabilis is atypical and evidence of the continuity it displays in so many places with H. maraisii. My collection (Fig.78 MBB6982) from Hasiesdrift north of Bredasdorp seems to be a good representation for a concept of H. mutica. The habitat photo (Fig.79), however, raises such strong images of H. retusa that doubt about the affinity of the var. nigra cannot easily be laid to rest.

Fig. 74a. MBB6987 H. mirabilis var badia. Sandfontein, Napier.

There the saga for the moment must rest. The proper taxonomic place of H. mutica var. nigra sensu Bayer is simply not very significant given the huge problem which is only touched on here. This is the interplay of H. heidelbergensis with H. maraisii, H. magnifica, H. mirabilis, H. turgida, H. retusa, and others. I should say of all the populations (should I count them?), I know which can be attributed to these “species”. ♦

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

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

This problem of continuity is one I seem to have difficulty in conveying to my readers and listeners. The difference between one species and another is a discontinuity and, if we believe in evolution, it is the resultant of a break-up of continuity in its ancestral parent species. The “model” we have in our minds, is of progressive change from one recognisable entity to another by evolution. Geographic distribution and re-distribution are key elements in this process. But we do not seem accept this in the way we try to classify plants or interpret classifications. Apart from recognising that change could be gradual and therefore manifest continuity, the change may be from a complex variable system which contains different levels of continuity within itself, and not from a simply understood uniform ‘ancestor’.

The result is that in a genus like Haworthia, which is by no means exceptional, the differences between species i.e. the discontinuities between “species”, may be very difficult to either recognise or rationalise. It in fact becomes a statistical operation in which all the characters should be involved i.e. multiple variate analysis. If all the characters could be measured and quantified it is statistically possible to subject all the data so obtained by one of several statistical methods to measure “distance” and “significant difference” between groups of plants which we want to ascertain are species, varieties or even just hybrids. The process of “cladistics” is the use of a system to generate a branching “tree” of relationships base on characters which are also evaluated and loaded for chronological priority (primitive versus advanced). In using such a mathematical package, it is pretended that the classification becomes “objective” and hence replicable to satisfy the scientific requirement. In my estimation, the cladistic process assumes that a two-dimensional “tree” adequately represents the spatial and temporal changes of evolutionary processes, and it does not work.

Somebody might one day try to apply such methods to Haworthia and I say “Good luck to you”. My experience of characterisation and variation in the biological systems I have experience of, and including Haworthia, suggest to me that sensible, practical, experienced “eye-balling” will prove the better bet. Ultimately in Haworthia, I expect that technology and cladistic methods will be testable on the result of my classification. This is not a conceited and arrogant claim. It is a simple reflection on what classification actually is and what it is for. Much of botanical classification has been done by amateurs with no, or minimal, specific training and qualification for that field at all e.g. G.W. Reynolds, L.C. Leach, T.L. Salter, J. Lavranos, C.L. Scott, G.G. Smith, M.B. Bayer etc. Their classifications form the basis of many scientific observations, sometimes by scientists who have no conception of the significance, or insignificance of the names they use or what they may actually mean. The classifications may have little to recommend them except the fact that they appear to conform to the approved nomenclatural style.

Putting that all aside I want to just demonstrate by means of a series of illustrations, what occurs in Haworthia. I have described several situations before but what follows is another account of the continuity which occurs in the southern districts of Somerset East, Eastern Cape. The main area concerned is Kaboega at the north and western Zuurberg near where it fades away north of the Klein Winterhoek Mountains (see map Fig.1). One thing should be engraved on the mind. The following comparisons are made on field impressions and on multiple plant samples. This at least takes note of statistical requirements and considerations and it would be wrong to try and use the individual illustrations to arrive at some other conclusion.

Fig. 1. Map of the western Zuurberg, Kaboega Farms.

Determining a starting point is quite difficult because there simply is none unless a second problem is addressed. This is the one of typification in which names are fixed to a specimen of some kind. After this is done there is the question of how the name is applied to the body of the plants from which it comes. In this article, the question of the application of the names cooperi, pilifera, vittata and blackbeardiana is involved and so I reproduce the illustrations accompanying the origins of these names (Figs.2, 3, 4 & 5). It is my experience that in the field, it is possible to find resemblances to these illustrations in a large number of geographically disparate populations, and hence quite a problem to apply them in a consistent and sensible way. Only the name blackbeardiana can unequivocally be said to have been derived from any particular field population and this is at Bowe’s Farm near Imvani, south of Queenstown, and the single illustration by no means represents all the variants of the many populations which can be said to belong together here. Some of those variants invoke the use of the other names. How all these names are used is something of a personal choice and mine is laid out in the book Haworthia Revisited which I wrote in 1999.

Fig. 2. H. cooperi Baker. Refugium Botanicum, 1871.

In this chapter I will take a collection (originally by G. Marx) from east of Alicedale and call it H. cooperi var. cooperi ([1]…denoting position on map Fig.6. MBB6845). In doing so I will have to point out again that there are further intrinsic difficulties in the requirements of nomenclature, which is that there is such an entity as a “typical” variety. My belief is that any plant which is not directly assignable to a variety of a species should simply be referred to as that species. Thus the Alicedale collection is H. cooperi var. cooperi and geographically in the distribution area of H. cooperi var. pilifera. The plant illustrated is of a single clone, but the plants in this particular population relate better to populations in the geographical area of the typical var. cooperi. The plants occurs here together with H. angustifolia and H. cymbiformis (in the same indeterminate varietal format as the H. cooperi, but for geographical reasons mainly, this population is referred to as H. cymbiformis var. obtusa. A similar form of H. cooperi depicted recurs on the Zuurberg and I saw it at Oudekraal when I explored there for H. angustifolia var. baylisii ca 1982. I have plants in cultivation from there which were collected by Ernst van Jaarsveld, and I made a new collection MBB6922 slightly west of there in 1999. I saw it again at Vyeboomfontein ([2]Fig.7 MBB6949) much further west and again just north of that at Klipfontein [2] MBB7049. I am unsure if the identification should be var. cooperi or var. pilifera but choose the latter.

Fig. 6. MBB6845 H. cooperi var cooperi. E Alicedale.

Slightly further west at DePlaat, the problem starts with plants which are greener (particularly on the south slopes) and with longer more attenuate leaves. There is first the collection from north slopes ([3]Fig.8 JDV91/14) that I attribute to H. cooperi var. gracilis, and then mine from the south slopes ([4]Fig.9 MBB6935). Near the Kaboega farmhouse at Koksedam there is also a greenish element and two plants are illustrated ([5,6]Figs.10a & b MBB6915) to show that it is partly cooperoid and partly cymbiformoid. I propose calling these, with MBB6935, H. cooperi var. viridis because it is complicated (it could invoke the name gracilis of von Poellnitz, but I described a smaller green variant from near west as var. viridis, and this name seems more appropriate). I have, in Haworthia Update Vol.1, described that there is this greenish archetypal form which is quite widely spread and often in an indeterminate zone, between forms of H. cooperi and H. cymbiformis. On Kaboega these plants take three elemental directions:

Fig. 8. JDV-14 H. cooperi var gracilis. DePlaat.

1. Directly west to Spekboomberg ([7]Fig.11 MBB6914) and then to Wilgerfontein ([8,9]Fig.12a & b MBB6925) at. At Fig.11 the plants are consistent with Fig.9. At Fig.12a & b the plants resemble H. cymbiformis. Some clones are more similar to that species than others while odd clones are entirely indistinguishable from it. I find it difficult to determine what species it is, never mind add a varietal name, because of its obvious intergradation with H. cooperi variants and its geographical disassociation with H. cymbiformis. My suggestion is that this is where the case calls for the use of the species name, without the addition of the typical variety epithet. But even that is unsatisfactory here because I think the plants, despite their outside similarity with cymbiformis, are actually in the same genetic bag as cooperi var. viridis. It is worth stating that there is a transition from sandstones at DePlaat and eastwards, to Dwyka tillite westwards to Wilgerfontein.

Fig. 11. MBB6914 H. cooperi var viridis. Spekboomberg.

2. Slightly to the south-west, entering the Kaboega gorge is JDV92/33 ([10]Fig.13). This is indeterminate and I would label it “graciloid”, although there is evidence of other variants in the gorge which do not agree with the concept of var. gracilis. That name itself presents problems as described in Update Vol.1. Fig.14 is in sandstones, and on the steep north facing slopes (also sandstone) of Wilgerfontein a little to the west and south of MBB6925, is MBB6904 ([11]Fig.14). I would suggest that this resembles H. cooperi var. gordoniana (subsequent to drafting this manuscript I did a limited exploration south of the Zuurberg, and found a fairly similar populations occurs at [=11] in the Addo National Park. But it is an astonishing ecotypic variant too, as 25 meters away is MBB6905 ([12]Fig.15) which is “isabelloid“. I have coined the name “puberula” for it. Bear in mind that these pictures represent only samples of many plants in small discrete habitats.

Fig. 13. JDV93-33 H. cooperi ‘graciloid’. Kaboega Gorge.

3. In a north-westerly direction from DePlaat is MBB6943([13]Fig.16), which is slightly spinose and indeterminate like the MBB6915 (Fig.10) collection. But it gets very curious. If we ascend the DePlaat hillside towards Klipfontein and [2]MBB7049, we find first MBB6910 ([14]Fig.18) almost indistinguishable from MBB6905 and close to MBB6904. A little further, and less than 250meters from MBB7049 is MBB7017 ([15]Fig.19), a small graciloid=puberula population in which the plants are very small and the leaves have surface spination. If we cross the valley and go now north of Klipfontein to the upper slopes, we find MBB6940 ([16]Fig.19). It is indistinguishable from MBB6904! If instead we stick to the low lying areas and move north of Koksedam, and northwest of DePlaat, there is first MBB6942 ([17]Fig.20) and then MBB6917 ([18]Fig.21). This latter is a relief because I have several collections from widely dispersed points [=18] to suggest these are my version of H. aristata. Not forgetting that the initialisation of that concept at Soutkloof near Addo, also involves H. cooperi. If we look at one collection from Commadagga ([19]Fig.22 MBB6897) we see a plant which is a variant of H. aristata (it could be cooperi var. pilifera!) that has look-alikes at Kirkwood in the arena of H. cooperi var. pilifera. But at Kaboega, the plot thickens further. Going still northwest from DePlaat and now north of MBB6943, is MBB6916 ([20]Fig.23). There is a problem again, and one has to go quite a way (about 20km) to find MBB6899 ([=20]Fig.24). The latter is quite a large plant in the mould of H. aristata. To find a better home for it among several other collections, including some dubious ones to the east and north at Ripon, and including Col Scott’s H. pringlei, I added it there while reducing Scott’s species to H. bolusii var. pringlei. This problem is elucidated elsewhere but I have not decided where best to place MBB6916 I think for practical and geographic reasons they could be placed under H. aristata, but they could equally be put under H. bolusii var. pringlei. I described H. decipiens var. virella to lessen tension on my use of the name pringlei and its relation to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana and to H. cooperi var. dielsiana (includes Scott’s H. joeyi). While it does so in some areas of the classification, some tension does remain.

Fig. 16. MBB6943 H. cooperi var viridis. Dassieklip.

This link to the above variants is enhanced by MBB7012 ([21]Fig.25) from Buffelsnek, overlooking Lake Mentz and west of Wilgerfontein. This collection is also labelled H. cooperi ‘graciloid’ as I have done for MBB6904, but it could just as well be H. aristata or even bolusii var. pringlei (because of the nature of continuity offered by other populations to the northwest [=21]. To show just how complex the situation is, I illustrate JDV92/44 (Fig.26). This was initially a P.V. Bruyns collection from Inverbolo, far distant and northeast of Cathcart. I specifically went there to confirm (MBB6942) that this is H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. I have said elsewhere that there is a problem of this question of continuity and that H. decipiens can be indistinguishable from H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana. To add insult to injury I illustrate MBB6730 (Fig.27). No! It is not H. aristata, it is H. mucronata var. habdomadis from Seweweekspoort in the Little Karoo, and from an entirely different set of populations. It is in fact extremely disconcerting to have to admit that the green plants of Figs. 9 or 10 can similarly shown to be indistinguishable from H. mucronata var. morrisiae, also from the Little Karoo.

Fig. 25. MBB7012 H. cooperi ;graciloid’. Buffelsnek, W Kaboega.

In writing this, I hope that readers will now get to understand that in apparently attacking the work of aspirant Haworthia taxonomists, I am not trying to defend myself or my system. I simply recognise that these persons do not have the competences or the insight to follow and understand the difficult choices that have to be made any better than myself. The main point is, that I know that if we explore still further west of Kaboega (and there are collections which prove this), and then into the Klein Winterhoek mountains to the south-west, still further problems are going to unravel (us) as we roller-coaster between H. decipiens and H. cooperi all the way to Uniondale and beyond. These same problems bedevil most of the species systems in the southern and western Cape. Unless one understands and respects the intricate geographic relationships, the use of the names in the way I recognise them will perhaps not make sense and I truly see no other way in which a nomenclatural system and classification, which will work in the field, can be derived for Haworthia. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 8:- Ecotypes in Haworthia

Posted on October 30, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

With Tony Dold, Selmar Schonland Herbarium, Grahamstown.
This essay was published in Aloe 40:10, 2003. Minor additions are made here.

Introduction

By way of introduction it is fitting to repeat Dyer’s (1937) note on the Karroid Scrub of the Albany Division … “Pluto’s Vale and Hell’s Poort, names suggesting places of an unenviable reputation, are on the roads from Grahamstown through the Fish River valley to Kingwilliamstown and Bedford respectively. Certainly very hot passes during the summer, they are nevertheless the homes of many botanical treasures, particularly succulents. Several species of Haworthia are present (in the Albany division) but the soft leaved ones are usually found under the protection of rock ledges or scrub. Pluto’s Vale is the home of two rarities, H. incurvula and H. tenera, both described recently by von Poellnitz”.

The genus Haworthia is fairly difficult to classify, but Dyer’s words reflect the uncritical way in which any new species or variety is accepted into the literature. Bayer (Aloe 36:34, 1999) discusses the two ‘species’ noted by Dyer and the complexity of their relation in Pluto’s Vale. Bayer did not deal with the geological factors which might underlie their relationship, but this is implicit in the various books and papers he has authored and the reliance he has placed on geographic considerations. In a new publication (see chapter 7) Bayer has also explored the relationship of Haworthia species on the northern slopes of the Zuurberg in the Kaboega area. Here it is evident that geology and habitat are key factors in determining relationship between similar elements to H. incurvula (H. cymbiformis var. incurvula) and H. tenera (H. gracilis var. tenera). In both cases the same key species viz. H. cooperi (to include H. gracilis) and H. cymbiformis, are involved. As in the case of Pluto’s Vale, the species, H. gracilis comes into question too. This latter species has a questionable taxonomic history, but it was at the last considered to have originated in Helspoort (Afrikaans) to the north-west of Grahamstown. While mentioning here, based also on recent publication of a possible type illustration (Breuer, 2000), that it may not have come from Helspoort at all, and may in fact be synonymous with what Bayer (1999) has taken to be H. aristata. As discussed in Haworthia Update, there is a problem with the recognition of the Helspoort “species” in the face of the broad range of variant populations which constitute H. cymbiformis, H. cooperi, H. bolusii, H. gracilis and H. aristata and all the varieties associated with them. A recent excursion was made to Helspoort to establish if the variation of the Zuurberg, Pluto’s Vale and the Baviaanskloof Haworthias was also evident.

We speculate that the difficulty in dealing with genera like Haworthia, is that such small succulents favour skeletal sites where inter-plant competition is low because of shallow soils and surface rock. It has been noted several times that a species may change facies depending on site and this has been reported for H. mucronata var. mucronata as it occurs on shales, and H. mucronata var. habdomadis as an ecotype of the same species occurring in sandstones (Bayer, 1999). A similar situation has been reported for H. cooperi var. pilifera on Ripon Sandstone, as opposed to H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana on shale near Ripon Station (Bayer, in ms.). Broad indications are that elements as different as H. cooperi var. pilifera and H. cymbiformis var. cymbiformis may be ecotypic, because the former is essentially a flat level grassland, and the latter a riverine-cliff element.

Apropos to Dyer’s note, it is only the two Haworthia species and H. attenuata var. britteniana that lend any particular significance to Pluto’s Vale, however diverse and extraordinary the vegetation there may be. There is no single plant species that lends any particular significance to Helspoort. The same in fact can probably be said for the whole Kaboega area of the Zuurberg, where four biomes are said to meet (Bruton and Gess, 1988). Recently there was a report on Faucaria nemorosa (Aloe 38:37, 2001) from Swartwaterspoort. My immediate response is to ask … “What is peculiar about Swartwaterspoort and how does this relate to Haworthia?” A “species” in a landscape as “ordinary” as Swartwaterspoort should not be expected to harbour something uniquely discrete. The answer is that Haworthia cymbiformis does occur there and its variants are notable (Fig.8), but barely outside of the context of the variability of the genus itself. Thus the broader question of vegetation can and should be examined when establishing the classification of Haworthia, or in fact any other genus. The object thus of this paper is to report findings at Helspoort and discuss, together with the already reported observations at Pluto’s Vale and Kaboega (Zuurberg Mountains), the taxonomic implications relative to vegetation and geology.

Observations
The details of the Haworthia populations observed for Pluto’s Vale and Kaboega are given in Haworthia Update. It was only possible to spend one morning at the Helspoort site and four collections of H. gracilis were made. These are:

MBB7051, on an upper south-west facing slope on the edge of Bush thicket, west of the road
MBB7052 (Figs.3, 4, 5), in a low lying level area at the base of the valley, under Pteronia incana.
MBB7053 (Figs 1, 2), on a rocky north facing slope also low down in the valley, with Euphorbia polygona.
MBB7054 (ex T. Dold), in rocks above the valley on the north-eastern side.

The plants are all very similar, unlike the Pluto’s Vale populations and certainly not as diverse as the Kaboega ones. None were as spinose as the unpublished Berlin illustration (Fig. 6), but they do accord with the Desert Plant Life illustration (Fig.7) which has otherwise been taken to represent the species (unfortunately more significance is attached to, and more is written about, frivolous aspects of nomenclature rather than the use and application of names). The plants are pale green in colour and moderately to almost non-spinose. In the population MBB7052 under Pteronia incana, the plants were more blue-green in colour with slightly more obtuse and thicker leaves suggesting closer similarity to H. cooperi var. pilifera. This element is quite common in the area and occurs in more typical form both to the east at Piggots Bridge, nearer to Grahamstown at Table Farm and also at Vaalkrans, Thornkloof and Brakkloof farms. H. cymbiformis is not known closer than Swartwaterspoort west of Riebeek East (Fig.8), at Alicedale, at the farms Thornkloof in the south, and The Fort to the east. There are no recent confirmed collections of a gracilis-like element in the Grahamstown area, other than as mentioned in Bayer (1999). The closest affinities are a glabrous element from Gladhurst and a similar element from Elandskop, both south of Adelaide. These are similar to the cooperi-like elements described for the Zuurberg (Fig.9). H. aristata is nearest at Kommadagga, west of Riebeek East. This is certainly a product of under-exploration and unconfirmed collections from the Brakkloof ridge running east and west of Helspoort, as well as from the Fish River Rand heights north of the Fish River all need to be explored.

Geology
The basic geology and topography is illustrated in Figs 10-14 – as accurately as the original maps permit. The geological formations at each area are essentially the same, particularly for Pluto’s Vale and Helspoort.

These are Dwyka, Ecca and Witteberg groups, which are characterised as follows:

Dwyka – tillite, consisting of dark blueish‑grey, very poorly sorted, massive diamictite of glacial origin.
Ecca – shale, carbonaceous shale & tuff, Fort Brown shale formation, Ripon sandstone & shale formation.
Witteberg – quartzite of the Witpoort formation and Witteberg shale, quartzite, sandstone & diamictite of the Lake Mentz subgroup.

Soils
The underlying geology ultimately determines the soil type although climatic factors in the weathering process would have considerable effects on the result. Because the underlying geology of all three study sites is very broken and incised, the soils are directly influenced by geology than in the case of more mature formations that are less incised or topographically less rugged and broken. Thus some of the habitats are practically skeletal and parent rock, and what soil there is overlies rock or partially weathered rock (Hartmann 1988). Pluto’s Vale (Figs.11,13,16,17) is characterized by weakly developed lime-rich soils, while Helspoort (Figs.10,12, is similarly characterized by weakly developed soils of rocky veld with a strong sandstone contribution. The western Haworthia locality in Helspoort is on Witteberg Quartzite, where the soil is thus sandy, nutrient poor and well‑drained. The central locality is on shale while the eastern locality is on Dwyka tillite that both result in a clay rich soil with more nutrient and greater water holding capacity. The plants from Pluto’s Vale are also on Dwyka tillite and on Ecca shale, sandstone is absent. The Kaboega area (Figs 14,15) is at another scale and almost any aspect and soil type concordant with the geological formation and broken topography can be encountered. In addition, at Kaboega there is a declining rainfall gradient from east to west, as well as rain-shadow effects.

The subdivisions and variants of the parent geology make it extremely difficult to generalise about the soil and the scale of the geological maps also make it be quite inappropriate for comment on soil. Furthermore there is the question of aspect too. South slopes are cooler and moister than north slopes and soils tend to be deeper. Deep rocky ravines result in sites which are shaded and cooler for different periods of the day. On the scale of Kaboega, altitude is also critical and a rainfall gradient is pronounced as opposed to Helspoort and Pluto’s Vale localities where site moisture is very locally determined.

Rainfall
Rainfall can be related to distribution of Haworthia species, but we do not think it is significant except in respect of the scale at which we are dealing. The study sites fall in a zone of approximately equal summer and winter rainfall, often with good late summer rain in March, which have a carrying over effect well into the winter period. However, the higher ridges and hills receive a greater rainfall than the lower valley levels, which also have higher temperatures. Rain coming from the coast is generally intercepted by Botha’s Ridge at Grahamstown and thereafter rainfall decreases greatly decreases towards Committees Drift and Fort Brown (Dyer 1937). The average annual rainfall at Pluto’s Vale is 500mm while that of Helspoort 482mm. The average annual rainfall at Kaboega is significantly lower at 289mm (Dent, Lynch & Schultze 1987).

Plants on the higher mountain slopes with a south or south-eastern aspect will also benefit greatly from condensation from mists from the sea, mostly during summer months. The Haworthia population at the higher western‑most locality at Helspoort would certainly be affected by these incoming mists whereas those on the central and eastern localities, being on the leeward side of the catchment, would not. Moreover the latter would experience higher temperatures than the former. At Kaboega, the entire Zuurberg range intercepts rain and mist from the south-east, and there is a rainfall gradient declining from east to west.

Vegetation
Haworthia and many smaller plants are elements of the broader vegetation and usually constitute that element which deviates from the characteristics of any recognised phytochorion. This is probably because they cannot compete against the larger plants, grass, trees and shrubs which constitute ‘vegetation’ as seen by the vegetation ecologist. They occupy habitats which are hostile to larger and deeper rooted plants.

The flora of the Albany district reflects a meeting point of various phytochoria (Cape, Tongoland/Pondoland, Karoo/Namib) and a great diversity of vegetation types can be found within a radius of 150km of Grahamstown (Lubke et al 1988). The vegetation type of Pluto’s Vale is clearly Valley Bushveld (Acocks veld type no. A23) but that of Helspoort comprises Valley Bushveld on the steep slopes of the poort with False Fynbos (Acocks veld type no. 70, Grassy Fynbos of Low & Rebelo 1996) on the flat summits and karoo influences (False Karroid Broken Veld, Acocks veld type no. 37) on flat, low lying areas.

The vegetation as described by Low & Rebelo (1996) for the Zuurberg is Grassy Fynbos (Acocks veld type No. 65). This is endemic to the Eastern Cape from the Kouga Mnts to Port Elizabeth, and on the Grootrivierberge from Steytlerville to Grahamstown and Bushmans River Mouth, mainly on the mountain tops. Grassy Fynbos replaces Mountain Fynbos in areas where the component of summer rainfall increases; the Restios are replaced by grasses and the Proteoid elements replaced by small-leaved shrubs and succulents (e.g. Aloe). Due to the increase in grass‑fuel, fires are more frequent in Grassy Fynbos than Mountain Fynbos.

Factors influencing Haworthia populations
The western locality of Helspoort is on the margin of False Fynbos, which coincides with the well-drained, nutrient-poor, quartz‑derived soils, incoming coastal mists and cooler temperatures. The central locality is on shale that is richer in nutrient and has a higher moisture holding capacity. The vegetation is False Karoid Broken Veld that does not receive additional moisture from coastal mist and has higher temperatures. This locality is locally dominated by Pteronia incana, a pioneer shrub that indicates poor veld management and disturbance, particularly in this veld type. It is unlikely that this is a factor in the occurrence of the Haworthia in MBB7052. What is evident in nearly all Haworthia populations anywhere is that the habitats are disturbance resistant – either from fire or from physical animal trampling and grazing. In the absence of any management at all, however, rocky sites and ravine, cliff and valley margins, do become severely degraded with a negative impact on Haworthia on such sites.

The eastern locality at Helspoort is on Dwyka tillite that has a high moisture holding capacity. The vegetation is consequently Valley Bushveld and does not receive the coastal mists or cooling winds which results in drier, hotter conditions similar to the central lower locality. However, the vegetation is less disturbed and the plants are more protected by surrounding vegetation and protruding rocks.

The rainfall difference between Pluto’s Vale and Helspoort is insignificant. The plants at Pluto’s Vale, south of the road, grow in weakly developed, shallow, lime-rich soils overlying Dwyka tillite in dense Valley Bushveld. The plants are also on the southern aspects. North of the road and all the way to the eastern exit from the valley, are the steeper solid rack faces of Ripon sandstone. The only significant difference is probably that of parent material and scale of exposed rock. Where there is a single population of H. cymbiformis var. incurvula, it is on fragmenting blue Ecca shale. The very nearby population of the H. gracilis var. tenera intermediate is in an area with tumbled rock and a product of a disturbance event of some kind. The north-western cooperi-graciloid element is again on a Dwyka formation.

At Kaboega, it is clear that the cymbiformis and cooperi-graciloid elements are predominantly on Dwyka Tillite and on the southern slopes. The cooperi-piliferoid elements are in the higher lying margins between Fynbos and either Valley Bushveld or remnant forest. The aristata elements are evident in the dryer, either low-lying, or relatively high north-facing dry sites. However, it is quite evident that substrate is only contributory and the clinal nature of the variation between populations dramatically portrays the spatial arrangement. Within this spatial arrangement it is also evident that polytopic similarities occur. The cooperi-piliferoid element is here at its westernmost, but the cymbiformoid element is polytopically a distinct element at the very western-most population indicated on the map.

Similarly there are two widely separated, almost teneroid, populations of plants which are highly site specific on vertical ferruginous quartzite in one case, and white purer quartz in the other. At the western most of these two sites, two populations occur within 25 meters of each other. They flower and seed simultaneously and the most probable relationship is that of ecotype as deduced from the general continuity between all the Kaboega populations of this ilk. One population is the teneroid (or graciloid or isabelloid) element) and the other is piliferoid/aristatoid. The latter is in dense grass over boulder-like terrain and the other (Fig.9 – ‘puberula’ in the preceding chapter) is on several small outcrops of vertical shaly-quartzite – also the home of Euphorbia polygona. The other population consists of plants that are smaller, fairly proliferous and very spinose with tiny spines too.

A few very similar plants to the last mentioned, were found to the east where they seemed to grade locally westward to a cooperoid element, but eastward to a small population on whiter quartzite, where the plants are unusual in having surface spination as well. Usually such spination is on leaf margins and keels. This surface spination does occur in a single population of H. cooperi (i.e. var. venusta from near Alexandria) and also in a single (known) populations of H. gracilis var. isabellae from the Longkloof. However, sparse surface spination is fairly common in H. decipiens, in H. nortieri and to a small degree in H. arachnoidea.

The species H. cymbiformis, which is what the western-most of several populations clearly resembles, is only known again at Enon, east of Kirkwood and south of the Zuurberg. The particular site of this “look-alike” is a much bolder rockface than any of the other south-facing Dwyka slopes.

The populations on Kaboega (apart from H. glauca) are not widely distributed and populations can be highly site-specific. It should be noted that H. angustifolia var. baylissi, occurring a few miles east of Kaboega, does not appear in the study area. There is no indication of the speculated connection of this species to more western counterparts viz. H. zantneriana and H. monticola. H. glauca var. glauca (in a form suggesting intergradation with H. coarctata at the western-most of the populations observed) occurs very abundantly on the rocky ridges on the upper north slopes of the Zuurberg, and also on the west facing slopes of the ridge south of Klipfontein farm. H. sordida occurs (as known) at a single site under Elytropappus rhinocerotis (renosterbos), and H. nigra is also present at a single, similarly highly localised site on ancient boulder debris under largely Pentzia incana. H. viscosa is absent. Curiously, Astroloba foliolosa is also represented by one known population on what must be the remnant of ancient river terrace near to, but several meters above, the present course of the Kaboega river. There are many other such species singularites on Kaboega which could be described in terms of geology, aspect and altitude but information which would be extremely difficult to synthesis in any particular way. For example, Euphorbia tetragona is present in highly localised places and the plants are all very tall and old with no evidence of recruitment. Euphorbia stellaspina, E. polygona, E. silenifolia, Faucaria felina, Aloe microstigma, A. pluridens, A. speciosa, A. tenuior, A. ferox, A. striata, Piaranthus disparilis, Duvalia caespitosa, Tridentea (Stapelia) longii, Quaqua pillansii, Huernia brevirostris, H. guttata, and H. campanulata are all present and largely as site-specific populations independent of the Haworthia populations. Cyrtanthus angustifolius, Haemanthus humilis and Dioscorea elephantipes are also present and localised. So while these elements may all have specific habitat requirements, it will be an awesome task to explain all the minutae which may account for their disparate occurrences.

Conclusions
Haworthia species are invariably found where there is exposed rock and where the vegetative cover is low and sparse. Rainfall, soil and vegetation are of general significance but we consider that it is geology which may play the predominant role in explaining variability and hence ecotypification. We explain this as follows:-

a. Plutos Vale – evidence is that Dwyka seems to support H. cymbiformis var. incurvula. On the more quartzitic Dwyka series it transforms to a more cooperoid-graciloid element, while to the Ripon sandstones it becomes teneroid.

b. Helspoort – on the heavier low-lying soils the graciloid element becomes more cooperi-piliferoid.

c. Kaboega – the cooperoid and graciloid elements are in the quartzitic formations, the cymbiformoid in the Dwyka tillite, and the aristatoid in the Ecca and Ripon shales.

The cooperi-graciloid elements of Pluto’s Vale and Kaboega are morphologically continuous with the cymbiformoid, and are indistinguishable from many of the graciloid, and cymbiformoid (H. cymbiformis var. transiens) elements of the Baviaanskloof.

We repeat what Bayer wrote in 1999, that the basis of classification of Haworthia must be the geographical component. We add that the tendency in both the professional and academic ranks to recognise “species” on the flimsiest of morphological pretences, and to rank nomenclature wholly disproportionately to the function of identification, will never help to resolve a problem which seems to exist uniquely in Haworthia, itself a complete misconception. Classification in Haworthia has simply been dumbed-down by a wide community of writers who seem to have no empathy with the literature of the subject. The classification should be of such a nature as to have some significance for others who may seek to know something about the driving forces and products of change relating to plants. The converse should also be true. In this case, it is apparent that the Haworthia species and their variability on Kaboega, must have some relation to the broad statement … “where four biomes are said to meet”.

References

Dent, M.C., Lynch, S.D. & Schulze, R.E. 1987. Mapping mean annual and other rainfall statistics over southern Africa. Agricultural Catchments Research Unit Report No. 27. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Dyer, R.A. 1937. The vegetation of the divisions of Albany and Bathurst. Botanical Survey of South Africa Memoir 17. Government Printer, Pretoria.
Hartmann, M.O. 1988. In Lubke, R.A., Bruton, M.N. & Gess, F.W. (eds). Towards and Environmental Plan for the Eastern Cape. Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Lubke, R.A., Tinley, K.L. & Cowling, R.M. 1988. In Lubke, R.A., Bruton, M.N. & Gess, F.W. (eds). Towards and Environmental Plan for the Eastern Cape. Rhodes University, Grahamstownn
Bayer, M.B. Haworthia Revisited. Umdaus Press. 1999.
Bayer, M.B. The Haworthias of Kaboega. In Haworthia Update. Umdaus in ms.
Bayer, M.B. The Case of Haworthia incurvula. Aloe 36:34, 199
Dolt, T & Hammer, S. (2001). Notes on the Faucaria from the Forest: Faucaria nemorosa L.Bolus ex L.E.Groen. Aloe, 38:37-38.
Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds.). (1996). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. In M.N. Bruton & Gess (eds.) Towards an Environmental Plan for the eastern Cape. Rhodes Univ., Grahamstown.

Fig.-01.-MBB7053-H.-gracilis-var-gracilis.-Helspoort-NW-Grahamstown

♦

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

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The following new names and combinations are published below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

virella: greenish, somewhat green.

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

Collections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Goodbye to Haworthia gracilis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collections: Only known from type locality.

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

3. A familiar new species, Haworthia transiens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Where does Haworthia helmiae belong?

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

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

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

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

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

Where next for Haworthia description?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 01. MBB6604 decipiens var xiphiophylla. Coega

Volume 2, Chapter 10:- Small Hairy Things

Posted on November 2, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

This article was published in Haworthiad 16:43, 2002. Since then I have implemented name changes and I indicate these in bold type.

When I have written about Haworthia, I have generally taken as a subject a particular species, in the sense that people regard a species as a kind of thing universally and unmistakably recognisable. It is not always easy to find such things in the lower life forms, and this is also true for the sub‑genus Haworthia. Here I am just writing about a few odd plants, without going into the many ramifications that are actually involved.

I am also using the classification, and system, rationalised and explained as best I could in my book “Haworthia Revisited” (1999). Since that was written, I have been on many more exploratory journeys and have learnt a lot more. Much of this new information has been published in Haworthia Update Vol.1. There are several essays there, one devoted to the Baviaanskloof and one to the northern Zuurberg (Kaboega). I explain that the name H. gracilis is probably redundant. (I limit its use to H. cooperi var. gracilis as it occurs at Helspoort, Grahamstown.) It may actually be better to regard most of the Baviaanskloof populations all as one species ‑ variants of a greater species that will be H. cooperi. I will implement the necessary name changes in another paper (This was done in, and the article is copied, in a preceding essay).

Thus one of the dominant variants will be the old H. gracilis var. isabellae as H. cooperi var. isabellae, along with H. cooperi var. picturata, plus H. cymbiformis var. transiens as H. transiens. I will also use here the name H. decipiens var. pringlei which will transfer to H. bolusii. There are populations that can then be identified as:

* var. gracilis ‑ plants with erect incurving simple leaves with few marginal spines
* var. picturata ‑ plants with relatively opaque, green incurving leaves in a compact rosette
* var. gordoniana ‑ plants with blue‑green stubby leaves also relatively opaque
* var. isabellae ‑ plants with slender erect leaves which are fairly densely spinose, usually only on the margins
* transiens ‑ plants with more stubby, relatively translucent and reticulate leaves

The difficulty with the existing system is that the continuities which we see in the Baviaanskloof and Longkloof, are also evident in surrounding areas. For example, at Uniondale there is difficulty in excluding H. mucronata from the discussion, although there is no evidence to convince me that there is geographical continuity between these Uniondale plants and H. mucronata west of Calitzdorp. The problem is more in respect of H. decipiens and the variation of this species north and north‑east of Uniondale, then westwards north of the Klein Swartbergs (to meet both H. lockwoodii and H. mucronata from Prince Albert westward), as well as south of the Swartberg (with H. mucronata) north‑east of Calitzdorp. Similarly the Baviaanskloof populations have affinities across the Springbokvlakte area east of Steytlerville, meeting with cooperoid elements from north‑east of Uniondale, all the way to the Zuurberg around the greater Kirkwood area. These cooperoid elements have continuities with the H. decipiens complex of that area.

I write this article to show that neither “lumping” nor “splitting” offers any solution to how we talk about, explain and communicate about these plants. Opinions have been expressed that certain Haworthia varieties and species should be “lumped”. We want to talk about distinctive individual recognisable things, but this is simply not possible, however desirable it may be. When I say a plant name, I have to make it clear that I am usually talking in general terms of many individuals, which collectively have created an image in my mind, and this is not the way the nomenclatural code works.

If one attaches varietal or species names to every local variant, it means that so very many names will be needed. It is a difficult decision ‑ many names which are independent, untrackable and meaningless, or fewer names which are connected, interdependent and usable. The variants I mention comprise a range of networked forms that are different from one another to a greater or lesser degree. This then means there is no formula, diagnostic or descriptive key or method by which these can all be documented and classified and identified with any degree of certainty. There never will be.

Here I am taking some of these small hairy plants and showing how similar they can be and how they may link up to each other.

Commentary ‑ on Figures 1a & b: H. cooperi var. gordoniana.

Fig. 1a. MBB6553 H. cooperi var gordoniana. N Zuurbron.

These are small plants which have the characteristic blue‑green colouration of H. cooperi but the spines are smaller, more numerous and more closely spaced. It is very distinctive where it occurs in the Hankey Pass near Zuurbron. There is intergradation in the Baviaanskloof from var. gordoniana, to H. gracilis var. isabellae, to var. picturata and on to H. cymbiformis var. transiens. It does not end there. I have suggested that a solution, which would also solve problems in the greater H. cooperi arena, would be to absorb H. gracilis into H. cooperi, and perhaps H. bolusii var. blackbeardiana as well. However, it does not end there either, and we would logically have to extend this to include H. cymbiformis and H. decipiens. This also does not exhaust the possibilities, exacerbated by the fact that field exploration is by no means complete.

on Figures 2 to 9: H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae.

Fig. 2. JDV97-58 H. cooperi var gordoniana. N Zuurbron.

There are a number of populations that are fairly close in appearance, usually becoming paler in colour and with more translucence and longer and coarser spines. I also include a number of populations in this category that have relatively few leaves, which are often without spines and are too robust to be regarded as H. gracilis (hence driving change to the name cooperi). Curiously, what happened was this. I produced and grew some seed of a collection by Ernst van Jaarsveld from north of Joubertina. Ernst’s find is H. gracilis cooperi) var. isabellae by virtue of the many slender leaves and dense spination. It is also special in that the leaves have surface spination. Then I lost the seedlings and was puzzled by a batch labelled JDV97/158, which looked like H. cooperi var. gordoniana (fig.2 –note JDV97-58) without surface spination. That was until I discovered that JDV97/158 is Kobus Venter’s accession number for my MBB6773 (fig.3), which is also Ernst’s find but collected by myself. At the time of writing, I am still not sure that these seedlings really are MBB6773, because at this stage they have fewer, shorter, less‑spined leaves than their parents. Perhaps there is a mistake, although I have grown several other collections in the same way. While disconcerted by the difference of the seedlings from the parents, it has never been to this degree. (There was in fact a mistake – a transposition of digits – the seedlings were JDV97-58)

MBB6773 has a few look‑alike collections that are very similar e.g. PVB7128 (fig.4) from south‑west of Hankey. This is a very blue‑green finely spined version of H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae. There is also EVJ14080 (fig.5) from Vetmaakvlakte along the Couga River, where it turns south from the Baviaanskloof to the Longkloof. Then there is MBB6826 (figs.6a & 6b) from Rooikloof, further west along the Baviaanskloof, or MBB6802 from south‑west of Hankey at Philip’s Tunnel (fig.7). Triangulated between these three, are populations which are either better placed with H. cooperi var. gordoniana, or with H. gracilis (cooperi) var. picturata, or with H. cymbiformis var. transiens (transiens).

In the case of MBB6826, I have illustrated two plants; one is half the size of the other, to show that there is a great deal of variation within populations too. Often many plants in cultivation are vegetatively propagated clones which obfuscate the degree of variability. Using one plant does not help very much, because all too often one finds that, although the overall appearances of populations may be different, there are individuals common to both which are very similar. In the field, it also happens that the plants may look different, whereas in cultivation these differences are lost.

on Figures 8 to 10: H. bolusii var. bolusii and H. decipiens var. virella.

Fig. 8a. MBB7021 H. bolusii var bolusii. SE Pearston.

If one takes, say, the Philip’s Tunnel illustration (fig. 7), one can compare it very favourably to MBB7021 (fig.8a & b) from far away Pearston, which is a completely different species, viz. H. bolusii var. bolusii. The reservation is of course that the above‑mentioned chain of continuity extends geographically through the Eastern Cape from Hankey across several mountain chains into the interior. I have again given two illustrations to show that even in relatively homogenous populations, one can still find distinctive variants. MBB7046 (fig.9) is a smaller version of var. bolusii from east of Jansenville (Note: Breuer has described this as a new species viz. H. odetteae, done in ignorance of the collection MBB7021 and also the fact that similar plants occur at Hinchinbrook close to the northeast. These with other records, strongly suggest continuity with bolusii var. bolusii at Graaff Reinet itself.) There it grows with another element, which I have included in my extended version of H. decipiens. This is actually a variety occurring in many populations, which I need to explain links H. cooperi, H. decipiens and H. aristata. While occurring in a distinctive form and populations together with H. bolusii var. bolusii (three such localities have been seen by me), it also has an extension MBB6583 (fig.10) from north‑east of Steytlerville, which is a look‑alike except for a deeper green colour. This population is presently classified with H. decipiens var. pringlei (decipiens var. virella), which I am planning to re‑structure.

on Figures 11 to 14: H. aristata and H. gracilis (cooperi) var. isabellae.

Fig. 11. MBB6902 H. aristata. Hopewell, N Zuurberg.

One can then again take the Philip’s Tunnel illustration (fig. 7), always remembering that it is one of a variable population, and compare it with MBB6901 from Hopewell (fig.11) or MBB6917 from Kaboega (fig.12), both from north of the Zuurberg. These are both variants of the geographic complex that constitute H. aristata. That complex has extensions such as MBB6905 (fig.13) from Wilgerfontein and MBB7017 (fig.14) from Klipfontein, which are both from on the northern edge of the Zuurberg (I discuss these in preceding chapters and refer to them as H. cooperi ‘puberula’). The former is remarkable for its fine spination and the fact that twenty‑five metres away, it has an ecotype, which has the fewer stumpier leaves of what could be taken for more typical H. cooperi var. gordoniana. The latter (i.e. Fig.14) is remarkable because its small size likens it to H. gracilis var. isabellae; firstly to MBB6826 (fig.6a & b) and secondly to MBB6773 (fig.3), because it also has unusual surface spination. The plants illustrated in figs.13 &d 14 are several kilometres apart and occur in two very small, localised populations. They are related to each other through many other populations that in many respects suggest a cooperoid or cymbifomoid archetype. (see Chapter 7 Continuity…) ♦

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. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 12:- Haworthia rossouwii Poelln. and the demise of H. serrata Bayer

Posted on November 6, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

This appeared as an article in ALOE 38:31 (2001). Unfortunately there was a problem with illustrations and captions and these are corrected here. A comment is also added as an addendum to respond to criticism by I. Breuer published in Alsterworthia 1:13(2002).

Introduction:

I described Haworthia serrata in 1973 (Jl S.AFr.Bot.39:249, see Figs.1) from Oudekraal, southwest of Heidelberg. I commented then on the wisdom of describing a new species when “the recognition, estimation of taxonomic rank and circumscription of elements in Haworthia…” was so problematic. The new species was said to resemble H. emelyae var. multifolia (Figs.2). In respect of its distribution, I said it was closest to H. heidelbergensis at Heidelberg (Figs.3 JDV87/1) and as at Matjestoon (Fig.4 JDV87/3), and also to H. sublimpidula at Swellendam (now known to be H. floribunda var. major (Fig.5 MBB6859, taxonomically with little connection to H. rossouwii). The implication was that it could have been taxonomically related to those elements in terms of geographic distribution. I was still puzzled by the relationships of H. serrata when I wrote (New Haworthia Handbook :55, 1982) that collections by C. Burgers from the coastal limestones might throw more light on the matter (Fig.6 MBB6985 H. mirabilis var. calcarea).

Fig. 01a. JDV87-47 H. rossouwii. Oudekraal, SW Heidelberg.rossouwii 1 043

In his revision of Haworthia (1983), C.L. Scott recognised my species. He confused it, and illustrated it, with a photograph of H. mucronata var. mucronata sensu Bayer (1999), which he called H. mclarenii. This does exemplify the problem of look-alikes in the subgenus, and this curiously does have some connection to the actual problem.

When I wrote Haworthia Revisited (1999), I was still not sure what the real affinities of H. serrata were. I mentioned that my 1982 observations were vague because of the unusual elements which occurred in the coastal limestones. I described these as new: H. mirabilis var. calcarea from De Hoop Nature Reserve (see Fig.6), H. variegata var. petrophila (CBurgers2158) from Karsriver and H. heidelbergensis var. minor from N Bredasdorp (Figs.7 JDV86/5). In my 1999 classification, I placed H. magnifica var. paradoxa (Figs.8 JDV86/78 & 94/89) in H. mirabilis, suggesting that it may have a connection there via the var. calcarea and an element from the Potberg (CBurgers 2018) which I have not yet seen in the field myself (since I wrote the article I have in fact seen this population, MBB7356, and it is discussed in the Chapter re H. mirabilis). The connections of paradoxa must be viewed in its relationship to H. emelyae var. major, in the same way that serrata is compared with H. emelyae var. multifolia. I also suggested that H. serrata had a very close resemblance to some forms of H. mirabilis var. sublineata from south of Bredasdorp. This present paper addresses some of these observations again.

New Records
In June 1999, I revisited H. serrata at Oudekraalkop (MBB166) again, this time together with J.D.Venter. Despite rumours of over-collection, it was still very abundant, although localised. It was also still present at Koppies (Fig.9 JDV99/6) a short distance to the west, but in very low numbers at a badly burnt site. P.V. Bruyns (priv. comm.) has reported it at a more northerly site as well. This could be where J.N.O. Uys also showed it to me at a second site on Oudekraal when he first introduced me to this species. It struck me again how similar the plants were to H. mirabilis (particularly the var. sublineata, Figs.10 MBB6639, bearing in mind the vast variation that exists there) and to H. heidelbergensis var. minor. The visit in June ’99 was a general excursion to explore the reported presence of H. maraisii at Koppies (ex E. Esterhuizen), in relation to that species and heidelbergensis as I know it in that general area. Our finds and observations led us later in the year to explore the area north of the Potberg. The extraordinary finds there led me to further explore westward to Bredasdorp itself and to see for myself the var. calcarea in the De Hoop. Two visits for that purpose were fruitless, but thanks to Dennis DeKok, I did locate it in the company of Lawrence Loucka in July 2000 (MBB6985-fig.11). This latter excursion was particularly fruitful because, by great good fortune, we discovered H. serrata in unmistakable form north of Bredasdorp (Soutkloof, Fig.12a & b MBB6983), and Nooitgedacht, MBB6984). Both sites are west of Rooivlei where heidelbergensis var. minor occurs. We also collected variegata var. petrophila (Fig. 13 MBB6986) west of the Karsriver limeworks. For that variety I have C. Burger’s record (CB2158) from east of the limeworks, and a collection I made at Renosterfontein (Fig.14 MBB6632) on the east bank of the Karsriver in 1997. This latter collection, in particular, reminded me in both form and colour of H. emelyae var. multifolia (see fig.2).

Fig. 10a. MBB6639 H. mirabilis var sublineata. S Bredasdorp.

The conclusion from seeing H. serrata north of Bredasdorp, and both var. calcarea and var. petrophila, is that this is the prime connection. It seems now more improbable that the var. petrophila is as close to H. variegata as I had supposed, and that the var. calcarea is closely connected to both H. serrata and to var. petrophila. The other observations remain valid viz. that there is a strong resemblance between serrata and mirabilis var. sublineata; but particularly that serrata may be connected to heidelbergensis via the var. minor. However, heidelbergensis in its general relationships is extremely complex. It is interfused with H. maraisii, it may be the direct (if complex) geographic extension of H. mirabilis in the context of the relationship between that species and maraisii, and it may have affinities and continuity with both H. variegata and H. floribunda. There is still another problem: H. variegata var. modesta at Kathoek (Figs.15 JDV97/24) and Potberg (Figs.16 MBB6542). My collection of this element at Kathoek (Figs.17 MBB2551) suggests that it is possibly a small very proliferous sand dwelling serrata. J.D. Venter’s collection from the same farm is a more robust element with rather longer, more erect leaves which suggests H. variegata. My Potberg collection (fig.16) is another small element which I relate to variegata although the leaves are shorter and more turgid. It must be borne in mind that H. variegata var. hemicrypta occurs north of the Potberg on the gravelly flat so that there is ecotypic variation in evidence. Further work will have to be done to elucidate what could be an unresolvable situation i.e. the Potberg is home to variants which link all the elements so far named. The evidence for this is already available, but insufficient to crystallise a solution.

Fig. 15a. JDV97-24 H. vaiegata var modesta. Kathoek.

There will be difficulty in considering the extent and the degree of similarity of H. serrata to other populations. Some of these which include serrata-look-alikes are:

Fig. 18. JDV96-52 H. heidelbergensis var . N Kathoek.

Some of these populations and their variants are dealt with in other chapters (Particular note must be made of H. elizeae which has to be considered in relation to H. rossouwii).

H. serrata was coming into bud in July a good five months after mirabilis had started to flower. This shows that my predictive thoughts about the relationship with calcarea and petrophila may not be particularly sound if flowering time is considered. Calcarea flowered a little before mirabilis var. sublineata in January, petrophila flowered in February while Roovlei heidelbergensis and Leeurivier (Drew) heidelbergensis flowered in December and March respectively. Flowering time for other collections needs to be observed, noting that this is not necessarily definitive either (for example while H. mirabilis var. badia is essentially late-summer flowering, single plants may flower in winter.

When I consider how much time I have spent in the area, it was really surprising to find serrata so far west. It means that something very interesting can still be found in the large triangle Swellendam/Bredasdorp/Riviersonderend, and that exploration will have to be done on a very small scale. The Karsriver and Renosterfontein petrophila are just smaller more spinose versions of Oudekraal, and the leaves are more spotted on the reverse. Calcarea was previously known from two clones which had rather shorter leaves and, perhaps, fewer leaves per rosette. This, the locality, and the spotting on the back of the leaves would have been the reason for opting for a relationship with mirabilis. We only found it with quite detailed directions because it was such a small population and so cryptic, consisting of three tiny locations under bush with a total of about 15 clumps. One location could have been the product of vegetative propagation with six to seven clumps. The second was similar with only two clumps and evidence of porcupine activity around the clumps. The third covered about 15sqm and there were another 15 or so plants as clumps or as single rosettes. These did vary and only one clump really resembles the two I have seen in cultivation viz. the Karoo Garden plant of C. Burgers, and a plant I received from Dennis DeKok. Burgers, however, appears to have made two collections from De Hoop; this needs to be confirmed. The plants seen by me in habitat do vary quite a bit and the range of variation equates that of both serrata ex Oudekraal (the Koppies population is reduced to about five plants) and north of Bredasdorp. The mean length of the leaves and leaf number per rosette may be shifted to the shorter and fewer, respectively.

The two Bredasdorp populations of H. serrata are remarkable for the similarity of the plants to serrata at the type locality. The habitat is a little different and at the westernmost of the populations, the plants cluster much more freely than the Heidelberg populations. At Koppies the plants are on a Witteberg substrate, whereas at Oudekraal and N Bredasdorp, it is Bokkeveld shale. We may have a slightly biased image of serrata with turned out leaves; the plants can be quite globose, and I did illustrate a plant like that in my original description when I drew the comparison with herbacea.

Where serrata really differs from mirabilis is by the greater number of leaves per rosette, the thinness of the leaves, narrowness at their bases, lack of a mid‑leaf swelling and by the incurving of the leaf tip; that character is fairly significant. H. mirabilis var. sublineata grown recently from seed has proved to be remarkably variable, but none of the plants have incurving leaves. Some of the clones are very similar to serrata, but the flowering time is earlier in the year and more in keeping with H. mirabilis in that respect.

Discussion
H. variegata var. petrophila and H. mirabilis var. calcarea should be transferred to the species H. serrata. The same may be true for H. heidelbergensis var. minor. However, H. heidelbergensis has a complex distribution and there are other complexities in variation that preclude a definitive statement. It is quite probable in the light of the findings discussed in Haworthia Update Vol.1, that there is no discontinuity which satisfactorily and convincingly can be claimed to distinguish species. This is probably just another example of a more general problem which I have experienced with the identification and classification of many plant genera.

I am conscious that I have not dealt fully with the problem in omitting mention of co-occurrence (I mean sympatry – when two obviously different elements grow together at the same site or very closely adjacent). I see this as the best measure of discontinuity. Thus if two elements grow in close proximity, even if not sharing the same habitat, they are probably discrete. This does not preclude the possibility that they are simply ecotypes and this is taken into consideration. However, I have before pointed out that a taxonomic solution which can be deduced in this way for populations might not be true for the entire distribution of the species concerned. It is evident that serrata generally occurs alone. At Oudekraal and at Koppies, there is a floribunda/maraisii element in the vicinity. In the case of heidelbergensis var minor, both turgida and maraisii are present. I have always been struck by the similarity of mirabilis and serrata, and by the fact that they do not co-occur. Mirabilis, in the context of this paper, is presently not known east of Napier except at Bredasdorp and Mierkraal south of Bredasdorp. This is as the var. sublineata and var. mirabilis respectively, which differ from serrata in respect of flowering time, less leaves per rosette, and the non-incurving leaves. Curiously, it appears that mutica, at least in the Bredasdorp area, grows generally alone too, although at Haarwegskloof (Bredasdorp) it does grow with heidelbergensis. At Drew it is in the close company of both maraisii and heidelbergensis, and south of Stormsvlei is near to a maraisii/mirabilis intermediate. Thus even an element as apparently different as H. mutica may presumed to be, cannot be ignored.

However, another consideration now enters the picture with the discovery of serrata so far west. There are three poorly understood elements which were reported to have come from Bredasdorp and Napier respectively. The first of these was H. bijliana von Poelln. that does, however, seem to belong rather with H. arachnoidea than with anything else. G.G. Smith appears to have had a plant of this ilk which he received from Maj. Venter 9, from Caledon. The other two, however, are H. altilinea var. bicarinata Triebner and H. rossouwii v.Poelln. They were both described from the same collection viz. Napier at Bredasdorp, Rossouw in Triebner 1059. The former was never illustrated and the description is rather brief … “Backs of leaves always with two keels and with teeth. Leaves 3-5cm long, 6-8mm broad, with 4-6 dark lines in lighter part, with two keels at back, keels with up to 2mm long denticula”. This description is in the joint paper by Triebner and von Poellnitz, but authorship is attributed to Triebner alone. von Poellnitz later retained this variety when replacing the name altilinea with mucronata (note that in the context of the names which I use, Scott confused my serrata with mucronata as well). This is very curious because it is evident from the description of H. rossouwii, which is very much more detailed, that another plant from the same collection is in fact again described. The differences are essentially that von Poellnitz gives the leaves as 5-6cm long, and 8-10mm wide as opposed to the respective 3-5cm and 6-8mm by Triebner; and with three lines on the ‘end surface’ as opposed to four to six by Triebner. This says a great deal about the detailed descriptions which are routinely called for, and which in Haworthia seldom amount to much because of the problem of look-alikes, and the variability within and between populations.

I repeat the von Poellnitz description here to illustrate that it is a very good description that nevertheless omits some key information:

H. rossouwii von Poellnitz spec.nov. (Stemless rosette, spirally many-leaved. Leaves rather pale green, nearly oblong lanceolate, acuminate, on the face somewhat retused near the apex thus forming a triangular face; on the back, towards the apex, with sub-pellucid tubercle-like spots, denticulate on the margins and keels; the triangular face strongly acuminate, sub-translucent, not tubercled, but carrying some sub-pellucid small teeth, and traversed by a few longitudinal lines).

Stemless many-leaved rosette about 5-6cm in diameter. Leaves more or less erect, 5-6cm long, 8-10mm wide, about oblong-lanceolate, tapering gradually, pointed, slightly widened at the base, almost straight or a little bent to one side near the tip, rather light green, dull. On the face flat or usually somewhat convex, near the tip slightly bent backwards (retused) at an angle of 20 degrees; on the back, from the middle outward or near the tip obliquely keeled, or somewhat more rarely with two keels, near the tip with a few, often elongated, very often raised slightly pellucid spots, and frequently with a few leaf-coloured tubercles. The end-surface half-pellucid, 20mm long or somewhat longer, 7-9mm wide at the base, triangular, tapering very gradually, pointed at the tip often slightly curved inward, somewhat convex, smooth, rarely with a few indications of tubercles, but with some semi-translucent teeth (these teeth loosely arranged in a lengthwise middle line, now and then also in another line nearer the margin and very rarely scattered about in small numbers) with three long, occasionally interrupted, green lengthwise lines, of which only the middle one may reach almost to the apex, and usually with a few very short line; leaf margins and keel with pale teeth, or near the base often leaf-coloured, teeth, up to barely 2mm long; end-bristle pale, with small side bristles, 5-7mm long.

… On account of the teeth on the end surface stands near to H. schuldtiana and to H. paradoxa (I treat these respectively as H. maraisii and H. mirabilis var. paradoxa) but is easily distinguished from both. Its flowers are thus far unknown”.

The omissions are the flower of course, and there is no stipulation of the approximate number of leaves, and leaf thickness. The weakness is that it is a single plant description, evidenced by the fact that another plant from the same collection is accepted as a variant of a totally different complex.

In the past I have I regarded rossouwii speculatively as a synonym of H. mirabilis, due largely to the fact that it was recorded from the Bredasdorp area (and to the ambiguity of the type). Another reason was the similarity I observed between the illustration of H. rossouwii in Kakteenkunde with H. heidelbergensis var. minor and with H. mirabilis var sublineata. I opted for the latter (with which Scott was in accord) and the similarities are also recorded in the discussion above. I dismissed bicarinata as insufficiently known because I assumed that Triebner may have had some better reason to have equated his specimen with the Little Karoo H. mucronata. Possibly there has been a mistake in the Triebner numbers. It is this discovery of serrata so close to Bredasdorp, and equidistant from Napier, which revives and also casts new light on the problem. I conclude that my H. serrata is a later synonym of H. rossouwii of von Poellnitz.

There are still two other considerations. In my 1999 revision, the fact is that I placed paradoxa as a variety of mirabilis while discussing the possible connection of these elements via calcarea. In the light of this paper it is evident to me that paradoxa could also be linked to serrata rather than with mirabilis. The same is true for emelyae var. multifolia. I would not like to commit myself to this probable solution at this stage, as I think more evidence should be obtained. It is also improbable that, however attractive, the solution will not avoid impacting on H. emelyae, H. magnifica and H. heidelbergensis. It is also evident that the requirements of the ICBN are that should paradoxa indeed need to be incorporated into serrata, more name changes will result, as paradoxa will have priority over rossouwii. My opinion is that this is a fundamental weakness in the code, which inhibits speculative treatments, and also which results in smaller taxa becoming the typical main element of a species. My further opinion is that it is a weakness of the Code that the description of an element automatically creates an equivalent taxon. This may be acceptable and desirable where the elements are clearly separable and geographically defined, but not where the typical element is required to absorb any other variants which are not so defined. Thus H. paradoxa var. paradoxa could become the main component of a species where it is actually a geographical isolate. In a system which does not have an adequate general definition for ‘species’, this probably does not matter; whereas it might if there is a definition which suggests that the ‘species’ is an operating living system (see Bayer in Asklepios 77:3, 1999).

The formal statement of this paper, which would better be regarded as an hypothesis subject to test, is thus as follows:

H. rossouwii von Poelln. in Kakteenk.7:75 (1938). Type: Napier near Bredasdorp, collected by Mr Rossouw, South Africa Police in Napier, Triebner 1059. Not preserved. Lectotype: designated by Breuer & Metzing 1998, icon in Kakteenk. non syn. H. mirabilis sensu Scott 1985, Bayer 1976, 1982, 1999.

H. altilinea var. bicarinata Triebn. in Triebner & von Poellnitz in Feddes Repert.Spec.Nov. 45:170 (1938). Type: Napier at Bredasdorp leg. Mr Rossouw (=Triebn.1059). Not preserved.

H. serrata Bayer, Jl S.Afr.Bot. 39:249(1973). Bayer :55(1976). Bayer :147(1999). non Scott :62(1985). Type: CAPE‑3420(Bredasdorp): Oudekraalkop, Heidelberg (‑BA), Bayer 166 (NBG).

Material seen:- 3420(Bredasdorp): Soutkloof, Bredasdorp (-AC), Bayer 6983; Nooitgedacht, Bredasdorp (-AC), Bayer 6984; Oudekraalkop, Heidelberg (‑BA), Bayer 166 (NBG); Koppies (-BA), Bayer 4902 (NBG); N. Oudekraalkop (-BA), Bruyns 6260 (NBG).

H. rossouwii var. calcarea (Bayer) comb.nov. H. mirabilis var. calcarea Bayer in Haworthia Revisited :110(1999). Type: CAPE-3420(Bredasdorp): De Hoop (-AD), C. Burgers 1648 (NBG, Holo.).

Material seen:- 3420(Bredasdorp): NNE. Buffelsfontein, Potberg (-BC), Burgers 2018 (NBG). De Hoop (-AD), C. Burgers 1648 (NBG), Bayer 6985.

H. rossouwii var. petrophila (Bayer) comb.nov. H. variegata var. petrophila Bayer in Haworthia Revisited:159(1999). Type: CAPE-3420(Bredasdorp): Renosterfontein (-AC), Burgers 2158 (NBG, Holo.).

Material seen:- 3420(Bredasdorp): Renosterfontein (-AC), Burgers 2158 (NBG), (-CA), Bayer 6632; Karsriver (-AC) Bayer 6986;

The provisions of this solution are that the epithet paradoxa may be instated preferentially, and that emelyae var. multifolia and variegata var. modesta also be included.

A second provision is that the species H. bijliana v.Poelln. be rejected as insufficiently described and sourced, and that the type (the illustration in the Berlin herbarium) is ambiguous – as indeed are many Haworthia types and descriptions based on single plants and not correctly tied to geographical origin. This is demonstrated by the citation by VPoelln. (Feddes Rep. 1936) of this species viz. bijliana from Klawer and Eenriet and also Feddes Rep. in 1937 from Springbok – which cannot be anything other than H. arachnoidea. In this last publication he cites a specimen from Bonnievale, another from Ezeljacht Oudtshoorn and also sinks fergusoniae here which in fact was supposed to have come from ‘near’ Grahamstown.

H. bijliana Poelln. in Feddes Repert. 27:134 (1929); Bredasdorp, Mrs va der Bijl. Type van derBijl s.n. in (B). Not preserved. Lectotype desig. Breuer 1999, unpublished photo. icon. (B). Species rejecienda.

Acknowledgement
I am grateful for the company on the field trip of Lawrence Loucka of Connecticut (USA), and that of my wife, Daphne. The assistance of Paul Botma of Cape Nature Conservation is acknowledged over and above the general acknowledgement to that Department. Mr. C.L. Neethling, Mr. Thys Swart and Mr. Pieter deKok were most kind and helpful in respect of access to sites. I am also grateful to Kobus Venter for support, advice, and constructive exchange of ideas. Not least to Steven Hammer, with comment from Bob Kent, who was so kind as to read this manuscript critically and make corrections. Residual errors will be mine.

Addendum
Alsterworthia Vol 1:13(2002) “A comment on Bayer’s latest taxonomic contribution” by Ingo Breuer. [link] With reference to the comments in Alsterworthia 1:13(2002) regarding the identity of H. rossouwii and H. serrata:

Notes

Fig. 27 A copy of the von Poellnitz lectotype of H. rossouwii.

Figs 28a & b Black and white profiles from two angles, of the same one plant actively growing, undessicated and turgid. The plant is a clone from Bayer 6984 Nooitgedacht, NW Bredasdorp. This is correctly H. rossouwii, and correctly H. serrata.

Figs 29a & b. The colour originals of the preceding.

Fig.30 A second plant of MBB6984. This is a more vigorous grower and it shows the differences that obviously confound the uninitiated. There were not many plants at Nooitgedacht. I only collected from two clones and this is a photograph of the second.

Fig.31 A photograph of a plant of MBB6983 Soutkloof, north of Bredasdorp. Showing a plant in which the convexity of the mid-upper surface (and concavity of the lower surface) is virtually absent. I could have, from this sample (MBB6983), produced pictures to match Figs.27 to 29. So no one should claim that Fig.30 is a different species as someone now well might.

Figs 32a & b. Scanned and manipulated copies of figs 28a & b.

Fig.33 Flowers of MBB6672 H. maraisii Koningsrivier, SW Robertson.

Figs.7a, b & c. These are clones of JDV86/5 H. heidelbergensis var. minor, Rooivlei, NNE Bredasdorp. This is a small population, of also small plants, from northeast of the collection MBB6984, Nooitgedacht. The plants partly resemble H. rossouwii from there, and partly the var. petrophila from Karsriver. Classifying them as a variety of H. heidelbergensis is not necessarily correct. Considering habitat and substrate, one must consider that ecotypification is playing a role, and that was habitat available, there would be further populations which would confirm continuity with these known collections.

Regarding Figs.28a & b. A bit of play with light and focus and the keel and under-leaf spotting could be varied. I would like to suggest that they be considered them faded, less sharply focused, printed with less contrast and on a coarser grained paper. Figs.32a & 32b are in fact such scanned copies of Figs.29a & b. I do not think it even necessary to consider that the original rossouwii of Fig.1 endured a long journey in the post to a foreign land. The assertion by Breuer in Alsterworthia is that not only are the plants I figured as H. rossouwii different from Fig.1, but that this Fig.1 lectotype is “probably” of the maraisii-complex. This is at variance with…

1. the Triebner description of the same collection as a variety of H. mucronata;

2. with Col. Scott who regarded it as H. mirabilis. What to say of von Poellnitz’ own assessment – the man who described both species i.e. maraisii and rossouwii in the first instance.

3. with the facts of the pictures before you.

What should an observer make of maraisii growing very near to rossouwii at Oudekraal and near to rossouwii at Napier? Can we really see a closer resemblance of Figs 27 & 28 with those long attenuate, double-curved, thin leaves – to H. maraisii rather than to H. serrata. I truly do not see that such a judgement can be seriously considered in the light of Breuer’s interpretations. It is of course valid when one considers all the variants that I illustrated in my article above and in terms of my over all classification.

Generally these plants of the SW Cape tend to have the double curvature of the leaves as is evident in the VonPoellnitz lectotype, but one can find in the same population and/or taxon, clones with incurved, outcurved or erect leaves (see fig.30). Broadly speaking H. maraisii has thick recurved leaves. But this is a non-argument even if one (outside of a “lumping vs. splitting” red-herring) considers the complexity of the so-called maraisii-complex, and I am sure that Breuer does not. I frankly think that most observers cannot even dream how complex it is and that it is just braggadocio to write as though anyone can. Breuer implies that one can make the inference of similarity between rossouwii and maraisii from the illustration (Fig. 27), the description and its given locality. This is patently and self-evidently false as is evident from the fact that I used this same information to reasonably deduce the similarity of rossouwii and serrata.

I did not originally submit a copy of the von Poellnitz lectotype, perhaps because I felt that the response “you will see that rossouwii is quite a different plant from serrata“, is what I could have expected from an uninformed audience! The fact is that all the evidence, circumstantial and descriptive, show that they are the same. Including the lectotype would have just been “overkill” and I have never before felt required to write for a readership with less than common sense or basic knowledge, nor for obstructive readers.

It should not be necessary to say this, but the character of the flowers cannot be specified in the way that writers are inclined to suggest. They have this same enormous range of variability and it is just fraudulent to say that there are floral characters by which these taxa (the varieties of H. rossouwii which I now recognise) can be unmistakeably differentiated. It is the typological concept which drives people to think there is a single description which can encompass the description of a taxon. This is nonsense. It is a statistical problem and we have the difficulty of establishing the probabilities associated with “decision”. Breuer writes “… von Poellnitz’ description probably depends only on 1 or very few selected plants and no other records are reported for this taxon”. This is circa 1945 circumlocution, it is unnecessary and it is untrue. There was never a question of “selection”, and furthermore we have the Triebner description of the same collection as H. altilinea var. bicarinata. Why this sudden doubt about the interpretation of types. It is a shifting of goalposts.

There are few collections in flower now in April, but I could take this picture of three flowers from the one collection MBB6672 H. maraisii – Koningsriver, SW Robertson (Fig.33). It is not an exceptional case or an exceptional collection. But one can see the differences in thickness of peduncle and variation in the individual flowers. It can happen like this, albeit to lesser degree, on the same plant. Colour is also frequently quite variable between and often within collections. Many years ago I undertook to illustrate all the flowers in my maraisii collections. But they were so variable that I just gave it up. The variability in the flowers mirrors the variability of the rosette and the latter is just a little easier to deal with. One has the added problem with flowers, of the changes which take place during the opening and aging process. So then how does one define the flower, say, of H. mirabilis. It cannot even be done for the range of leaf rosettes, and this has now been shown in the literature many times.

May I also point out that one of my understandings of botany and plant classification is that there is a tendency to overreach ones talents. I have freely admitted that I am there because of the paucity of talent. I frankly do not think the environment is enriched by the particular article I now refer to in these added notes.

I can point out that there are writers who really persist in flogging dead horses. The result is phantasmagoric fanfaronades. The article concerning the name H. correcta (Alsterworthia 1:6, 2001) is not particularly accurate either and indeed it may be my own fault. Smith explained that Mrs. Blackburn did not in fact collect correcta ‑ it was a Mrs. le Roux and the plants came from near Vanwyksdorp. Later Mrs. Ferguson sent a plant from 26 miles east of the town. Thus from this information H. correcta has to be a later synonym for H. emelyae.

Regarding types:- the painful realisation was actually expressed by Schelpe in the distant past, and brought home to me many times. These old types are doubtful and ambiguous. I was faced with that option long ago – just forget them all, or try to reach a compromise with the understanding and information available at the time. H. rossouwii is a case where there is real new information which would have made me use the name rossouwii in 1976 and before, had it been available. But here, had I persisted with the name serrata for this new material MBB6983 and 6984, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would have been criticised for failing to see the connection to rossouwii. Not that this would concern me unduly, for I think there is actually very little benefit in this mindless re-interpretation of types which takes us nowhere. Notwithstanding, and without compromising, anything so far written:- the really disconcerting thing about the whole matter is that without the locality data, it will be possible to generate an argument bolstered by illustrations, to show that rossouwii was in fact H. decipiens, H. cooperi or H. herbacea (among others), of the option less improbable than H. maraisii.

The closing paragraphs of the article are a rather hackneyed parody sung by most “wannabe” taxonomists. Of course it is right when Breuer says if we lump it means we would have to lump many other things. It is just as true to say, if we split we have to split many other things. That does not make sense either. This is ancient stuff of 60 years ago and it seems strange that it still provides so much fodder for writers, who have in fact no rational species concept to begin with. The Linnaean system was based very largely on floral characters and hence taxa at all levels are based on “related floral characters”. To suggest that this pertains in some special way to “series” is not correct. This sums up the article in Alsterworthia. ♦

Volume 2, Chapter 13:- A trip to Bredasdorp

Posted on November 8, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

This essay was published in Haworthiad 16:86, 2002.

I wrote an article about Haworthia rossouwii in Aloe 38:31(2001), in which I resurrected this old name to replace that of my own H. serrata. This was necessary because I had found this plant (because of its localisation and its abundance there, it is better to say ‘this species’) at two places near Bredasdorp as opposed to where I had described my species from near Heidelberg.

One needs to know something about the geography and geology of the Southern Cape (and the Overberg as a part of it is also known) to really follow all the ramifications of any discussion about Haworthia, including this one. In fact one needs to know a whole lot more, and I will also try to explain that and its implications for the collector and Haworthiophiles. This “whole lot more”, I will call the Corporate Mind because it includes so much – so remember CM! If I regard H. rossouwii as a species, I have to consider all the plants and all the places where they grow in order to determine the nature of this particular system of living things. As I explained in my article, there is a problem with the fact that little is actually known about the Haworthia of the Overberg. They occur in small populations scattered over a fairly wide area which has been heavily impacted on by agriculture. Thus about 90% or more of the Overberg is now wheatfield or pasture. Like Gasteria carinata, which is also a Southern Cape species, Haworthia is associated with rocky outcrops and thus also with the geographical erosion and drainage systems of the area. It is quite probable that cultivation has had relatively very little impact on Haworthia in terms of actual available and suitable habitat.

The problem is to get to all the small potential habitats and explore these at a scale which will help to resolve the problems of variability, relationships and classification. While writing about H. rossouwii, I was very conscious of this problem and the fact that my explanation is not complete. There are some collections by Chris Burgers which I have not seen, and there are many potential habitats which I have not explored either. The place Kathoek and H. variegata var. modesta which grows there is a particular case in point. Kathoek is at a point midway between the Breede River and Bredasdorp. It is just east of the De Hoop wetland/stream and on the northern edge of the Coastal limestones. In the west, also on limestones, is H. rossouwii var. petrophila which I first placed with H. variegata. In the south (also on coastal limestone) is H. rossouwii var. calcarea, which I originally had with H. mirabilis. To the north is H. variegata var. hemicrypta which is on Silcrete of a quite different geological origin. But H. variegata variants, as I interpret the populations, are also on and about the Potberg to the east which is Cape Sandstone.

My problem is “How do these populations actually relate to one another?” What is missing? What can I find to better explain their similarities and their differences? So at the back of my mind is the wish to explore the Coastal limestones between Bredasdorp and the Potberg and find out more. But it is not as easy as that. I also want to know more about H. mirabilis, H. maraisii, H. heidelbergensis, H. mutica, H. minima, H. marginata and H. pumila, which all also occur in the Overberg area and each have question marks attached. They each present problems that I would like to resolve for my own satisfaction, without being confused and befuddled by others who are toying with the same body of knowledge at different levels of expertise and ignorance. In this play we are using words, terms, names and conventions. For this play we need to have a commitment to truth and use the same language or else it is all just meaningless.

So we come to what took me to the Overberg in November 2001. Was it was just my curiosity about all those inviting rocky unexplored places? Is it to learn something more myself? Is it to impress anybody? Actually it was many things including a fascination with chameleons – largely my wife Daphne’s. In March 2000, Daphne and I had come across a most remarkable chameleon at Napier. It was on a small shrub among whitish dried grass growing on a calcareous outcrop strewn with white quartzitic pebbles. The tiny reptile was ivory white, with a stunning array of small orange tubercles on sides and back. One has to know the Cape Dwarf chameleon (Fig.1) and its cousin, the Robertson Dwarf, to know how beautiful and amazing these creatures can be. Another thing was H. mutica and my fascination with collections of this species and their histories of discovery and exploration which are stories of their own. Still another was the news that the Botanical Society had funded a researcher to explore the remnants of the vegetation of the wheat areas. What had he found? Apart from Haworthia, I had once been involved in a preliminary attempt to map and identify vegetation remnants for conservation purposes, and had vainly tried to draw attention to the curiosities of the Silcrete outcrops and remnants of vegetation among the wheatfields.

This researcher was an old acquaintance, Nick Helme, who kindly told me what Haworthias he had seen in his exploration. There was not much new, except for H. mirabilis east of Caledon, and this became our first stop. The site is south of the main area for the species which is along the Riviersonderend river north of Caledon. It does, however, occur in recognisable form south-east of Caledon, also around Napier where it transmutes to some degree (inter alia to the var. badia), and then also at Bredasdorp. There it also transmutes to the var. sublineata (sandstone) and var. mirabilis (the old mundula – and there may be some other way out, but for me this represents the low cussedness of botanical nomenclature). What H. mirabilis does to the north and east of Riviersonderend actually fully explains the problem of classification of Haworthia, and who knows if anyone will ever write that explanation – and truthfully.

Nick Helme’s site is a deep valley which drains to the south. Typical of the area, are these small drainage areas which seldom have permanent water. There may be odd pools lasting into mid- or late summer. There are often exposed shale ridges which host a particular array of succulents and other species – and are often home to owls too. The first problem is access and where does one find the landowner after one has succeeded in finding the place? If one does find the dwelling, will it be the right one and will one find the landowner. Will it be a big aggressive StBernard and more aggressive and ugly Rottweiler reflecting the mindset and security fears of the owner and grossly offending my own, like once near Worcester – or will it be a lonely and over friendly sheepdog. November is a very bad time. This is when the wheat harvest is on. At the end of a bad season, when the crop is drying and it has to be cut and reaped the weather is playing its usual strange tricks, farmers cannot be expected to be approachable. But we did find a helpful soul. From the farmhouse, we drove twenty kilometres back to the main road to the roadside stall, where a family member, Herman DeKock, gave us the necessary permission to venture onto the property.

It does seem an easy business, but in fact it becomes very complicated. Nature Conservation regulations are strict, and land ownership, presence, trespass, stock theft, personality and who knows what else, influence the mindset when setting out an expedition of this kind at all. With those problems all out of the way, and only then, is one able to really enjoy being out in the field and communing with nature – which it is all about in the first place. So we found Nick’s site. We climbed through the fence (s) and tried not to disturb the forlorn sheared, miserably self-conscious sheep that clustered around the earthen dam. It was hot and dry and the most promising spots were quite a long way off. One has to plan one’s approach as the southern slopes are often quite densely vegetated and very uncomfortable to traverse. Snakes are also a consideration and especially in early summer. On this trip we never saw one, although Daphne surprised, and was surprised, by a Lynx drinking at a waterhole. So we did find the plants that Nick had said and took a photograph for the record (Fig.2). Just ordinary H. mirabilis var. triebneriana (cussedness – there should be no typical variety, just a broad general name mirabilis).

From here of course we went to the chameleon at Napier. What a laugh! We had difficulty finding it on the same day on the same bush, five minutes after first seeing it. So expecting to find any chameleon at all, and I have never seen a chameleon in the field in all my years of plant exploration, was quite the wildest dream. But with a dossier of 60 individuals recorded on our small-holding at Kuilsriver over a period of about a month, we felt entitled to hope (all contributing to CM). It is also a most wonderful excuse to be out in the country.

We headed for De Hoop. This is also quite a story. Where do we stay? The DeHoop Nature Reserve is a wonderful place with great accommodation, but it is not where we wanted to be. The staff does not know what it is we are looking for, what our CM data base contains and what our needs are. We want to see the area around the north of the wetland. This is half private land, and half state-owned. Besides there is a travellers Lodge on the edge of the reserve which we understood offered easy and official access to the reserve, presumably to near where we wanted to be. Not so. It is one thing dreaming about this exploration while sitting at home with the map, and quite another to be faced with the problems of roads, fences, ownership, dogs, snakes, flies, mosquitoes, permissions, heat, cold, wet, terrain, bush, visibility, time, distance, misinformation, local “knowledge”, incipient old-age, food, water and the spirit of inspiration and energy which drive the legs (CM). So the Lodge was an unfortunate mistake (we did look, and we did also look where we were told an Haworthia did grow – it was Gasteria carinata), and we did end up at the office at DeHoop Reserve. You see over the years, one comes to realise that helpful and kind as people by nature are, an awful lot of time is spent chasing red-herrings and wild geese (CM). The help and information one gets is very often of a negative hindrance rather than a positive help. So my real gratitude to the manager there, Mr Ben Swanepoel, who without serious qualm, entrusted us with the key to the northern part of De Hoop where we needed to be.

Unfortunately the problems listed above rather limited our activity. We exhausted our energy climbing up and down rocky slopes in an area which should have occupied us for a week. It is an area which has to be explored by someone at sometime. We found naught, which should not in the least be interpreted to say there are no haworthias there. The terrain is formidable and also most promising. But CM called.

We moved to accommodation closer to our budget restraints and nearer to our goals. Driefontein, where the owner graciously made the necessary contacts for us. What a place – the cold vegetated coastal limestone behind, and featureless cultivated endlessness in front. I have an old record of a collection of mine of H. mutica from “Beyersdal”. Subsequent travels indicated that place, name and memory did not match. So we went to Beyersdal. We did find mutica and it was a different place and a new record (Figs.3a, b & c). Who can actually describe the wonder of plants like these? In tiny patches of rock in a sea of wheat and low-grade (by rainfall and vegetation standards) pasture. Also the quiet, the two owls, also Gasteria carinata again, this time the Haworthias among them – unusual. The extraordinary colour of the plants. This time the bronze colours of badia. Nearby we also visited an old, by thirty years, locality for H. heidelbergensis. Still there and astonishingly in among white quartz in a small outcrop, but in two little groups occupying hardly two square meters in the approximately two hundred available (Fig. 4).

Then we went to Vanderstelkraal. We had met the owner, Mr Adam Albertyn, who very kindly let us wander over his farm. CM. How does one explore a place like that without living there? It is on the edge. The agriculturally useless coastal limestone at the back, and the productive massively utilised Bokkeveld fields at the front. If terrain had allowed, there would not be so much as a hedgerow to have conserved anything. We saw some very interesting sites and exhausted quite a number of things, like energy, time, passion for the quest, tolerance to bad weather, ostriches, tight-strung barbed-wire fences, no roads and also to the heaviness of the overwhelming destructive productive activities of man. We did not find Haworthia. But I omit a lot, including all the good farming. Mr Albertyn owns the eastern side of the De Hoop wetland where he has a 4X4 route – and there is also a sixty-year old legend of H. minima in that particular area which I would like to confirm. Not this trip though. We did try to the west later, where CM eventually prevailed against us – aided and abetted by overgrowth of alien acacias and the negative vibe they seem to generate (by the side, at Vermaaklikheid, Riversdal, H. mirabilis var. paradoxa grows/survives under Acacia cyclops).

Then we decided to climb the mountain behind Kathoek. Why? I cannot remember why I climbed there in the first place, or how I even did it. Then I found plants in a burnt out area, under the remnant blackened skeletons of Protea – natural fire cycle encouraged by farmers. It does produce a grazeable growth and also invasive aliens. The plants of H. variegata var. modesta were just discernible sticking out from loose sand. Kobus Venter later also visited Kathoek and found plants which were more robust. The plants have spreading variegated leaves (in cultivation?) and while I had no real problem associating them with Karsriver, viz. H. rossouwii var. petrophila, they seemed to have a greater affinity with variegata at the Potberg and Luiperdskop. But my collection and Kobus’ seemed at variance. So Kathoek was a must. From the road CM prevails and it looks quite an expensive option in terms of CM resources. Actually the climb was quite easy. We found the plants before we expected to. They did not look like what we expected them though. They were densely clustering (expected) and in rock crevices (Figs.5a, & b) and pans (Figs.6a & b). The rosettes were tiny and reminiscent of even H. reticulata (see Fig.7). At one place a dense cluster under and in a restioid grasslike plantlet, looked just like a yellowish-brown windblown fallen mass of dry leaf bracts (Fig.8). What impression did it make? Nothing new. It provoked the existing doubt. The population is very similar to petrophila and less so to variegata and hence this variety, with the exclusion of the Potberg population COULD BE transferred to H. rossouwii. But this does not help much, because the Potberg var. modesta is less like the northern Potberg’s two populations and the Luiperdskop population of H. variegata var. hemicrypta, and not more like petrophila! So the CM has to carry this anomaly together with the position of calcarea until whatever else to be found is found. These finds are not going to make things easier to resolve in the CM, nor to explain in a way which assuages the CM of anybody else.

All the while we were pondering other clues to the nature and relationship of things. Like the endemic Braunsii vanrensburgii; a curious specimen of Carissa bispinosa so laden with large red fruits it resembled a Pyracantha; Euphorbia silenifolia everywhere, and what a strange distribution this summer-deciduous geophyte has; and what about Asparagus; what is the relationship of A. capensis, A. mariae, A. suaveolens and A. stipulaceus? Where was Aloe brevifolia or A. saponaria? What was that pugniform Euphorbia at Driefontein or the bayeri-like one at Vanderstelkraal?

Unexpressed CM – we are using my son’s LDV as in my own car anything below well-maintained road is not negotiable. CM – the cellphone we arranged for failed. There is a call in my sub-conscious ‘vehicle needed back home’. We end the trip a day earlier and the message turns out to be true as there is a breakdown of one of the other delivery trucks.

On the way home we pick up some loose ends. We call at a spot north of Bredasdorp where in my lucky ignorance I once found mutica. In several subsequent visits I could not locate it, until one year Daphne and I together with Lawrence Loucka had a very thorough search of the small spot. We found about five plants in a spot about 1/2sq meter. At a later visit we found that the plants had seeded and there were many seedlings but crowded together with seedlings of Aloe ferox. Generally Aloe and Haworthia do not mix. Aloe need more root room than Haworthia and Haworthia cannot tolerate competition from larger plants. So we thinned out both aloe and haworthia seedlings. This visit revealed the successful fruits of our activity (Fig.9). The two bigger adult plants were almost being pushed out of the ground by a burgeoning aloe seedling, but there were about 15 other vigorous and healthy plants to carry the group forward. CM – this was an interesting repeat observation of the small distances that seed and seedlings actually do commonly disperse. I have seen the same thing with hybrids where the hybrid is often within the multiple body of one of the parent species.

Mission ending, we made our last visit to Drew. This story is written more fully elsewhere. We had found the pollen source for a plant of H. mutica which I collected there more than thirty years ago and which Kobus and I had taken to the field again to see if seed would set. This surviving single plant is now a collector’s dream which I dub “Silver Widow”. No one had succeeded in finding plants around where a huge centre-point pivot installation now graces the landscape. We were sure the plants were gone, and taking the plant back there was a kind of forlorn gesture of regret that more had not been done to conserve the population – and that so much had been done to eradicate the plants (two hundred plants had been collected and sold to Triebner circa 1935). If anything can be done or could have been done at all to have saved its family? But it worked and we got seed. Where did the pollen come from The pollinator is mainly a solitary bee with a fairly limited flying range. The pollen parent had to be somewhere near. Daphne and I had made several excursions to add to the many different attempts that are known to have been made to find them. Finally I decided that we just had to look again and the plants had to be where we had failed to find them before. So what happened? We left the farm house and walked straight to the spot (getting ‘stung’ by the electric stock fence on the way) less than 300m away and probably about 150m from where we had left Silver Widow to be pollinated. There were about 35 plants (Fig.10) in an area of about 3sq m in flower under Eriocephalus africanus. So now we returned to successfully collect seed.

The curious thing in CM and all this discussion about big things like Continental Drift, and Biomes, and Vegetation, and Habitats, and Ecotypes, is that H. mutica is not particularly concerned. Here at Drew it grows in an ancient river-boulder situation in what we can call renosterveld under Eriocephalus. At Beyersdal it is on the edge of a stream-bed on exposed Bokkeveld shale with Gasteria carinata. At Hasiesdrift it is on a gravelly bank (Bokkeveld shale) with dense Aloe ferox. Near Napky it is on silcrete with grass. West of Swellendam, it is on whitish-clay, probably associated with silcrete and growing within a restioid species and with Gibbaeum esterhuyseniae. I have also seen it on a fairly bare hillside with a scattering of quartzitic pebbles where the parent shale is too dense and shallow for cultivation or to support denser vegetation. The places hardly have anything in common other than their more general geographic containment, climate, and low biomass potential. How, ever, did they get to their widely-spaced, isolated island sites?

So the tale ends with the reflection on the criticism that I have not treated H. scabra and H. starkiana in the same way I have H. retusa and H. mutica. I have been “inconsistent”. Readers can research and educate their own individual CMs (corporate minds) to the point that they can form opinions which are consistent to the point and purpose of any communication. Aren’t we lucky that the Robertson Dwarf chameleon is a small animal (Fig.11 – by Scott Russel).

Acknowledgement:
This fun work is really just about people. Daphne, who kept me company. Janet Albertyn at Nachtwacht, Herman Dekock of Jongensklip, Thys DeVilliers at Boskloof, Tom Ambrose at the cement-block operation at Napier, Rory Allardice at Buchu Rest-camp, Ben Swanepoel at De Hoop Cape Nature Conservation, Annette VanEeden of Driefontein, Mr. Dawid Beyer of Beyersdal, Adam Albertyn of Vanderstelkraal, Theo Blom of Soutspanvlakte, Jan Joubert of the adjacent farm, and Beth and John Humby of Sanddrift. Their good-will and kindness is unforgettable.

Fig.1 Cape dwarf Chameleon – Bradypodion pumilum. Markings, colour, tubercles and spines are individual characteristics. It is said that even the genus is in doubt!

Volume 2, Chapter 14:- Explaining the name Haworthia intermedia VPoelln. and others

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Recently a cybernet note suggested that someone had a good understanding of the taxon/species, H. intermedia v.Poelln. That same writer has been a bit casual in describing new varieties, and in explaining what he actually means when he has used the species epithet accompanying them. Understanding is a very relative term. It may be extraordinary in terms of people who do not deal in the subject at all, high in relation to the knowledge level of the people with whom one is in ordinary contact and it may be very low in relation to people deeply involved in the subject. It may also be quite negligible in terms of truth and ultimate reality. With this in mind, I am going to take an opportunity to explain my own use/misuse of the epithet “intermedia”, and change it. For several years I have been plagued by articles and statements in Haworthiad (and elsewhere), which are not strictly true. In fact this distress goes back to correspondence with, and publications by, Col. C.L. Scott starting in 1965. So when Dr Urs Eggli recently kindly stated to me his approach as follows:

….”Classification (systematics) for me has always been an ATTEMPT to understand how biological diversity could have arisen. In contrast to mathematics and physics, biology is not what we in German term “exact science”, since we cannot prove anything except what we currently see (presence or absence). Any question which starts with “why” defies proofs. It may have one and only one correct answer, but in my opinion, we have no way to decide which of several possible answers is the only correct one. Accordingly, I never place much weight on a classification, be it mine or that of somebody else. I approach the problem from a more practical side: ‘Does the classification help me to get some understanding of the observed diversity and variation, and does it appear plausible.'”

His comment exposed for me the very roots of my discontent and unrest concerning the approach of the succulent enthusiast, and his community, to classification in general and of Haworthia in particular. Also stirring my curiosity about the way the “scientific community” seems to regard my publications on Haworthia. In fact Dr. Eggli is saying that in not knowing Haworthia himself, he is required to adopt a practical approach. My curiosity regarding this subject is always aroused in informal contact with biologists, with ecologists and with taxonomists, and also with writers who have reviewed and commented on my publications. It is also piqued by the responses I receive from editors in my communication with them about publications as well as about my own manuscripts. So I replied to Dr. Eggli as follows:

….”I would like your help in unravelling this issue of classification. Haworthia has been wracked with problems since von Poellnitz, Smith, Brown, and Uitewaal. It is not a different problem to that in other groups ‑ it is just that Haworthia is more visible in the way that it is collected and grown, and in the number of people who try to write about them? Plausibility has always been a problem and I have never understood my colleagues at the Compton, Bolus and PRE herbaria who have this common laissez faire attitude to classification. None of them could speak to me about the problem I had with Col. Scott’s classification. Even now, my classification is ignored by them because they cannot actually determine plausibility of my “opinions” against Scott’s. I have written extensively about the question of plausibility using other words for it, but no one seems to take the issue seriously. Reviews of my revision by botanists have been fatuous and all they can seem to really contribute is pseudo‑intellectual comments on the nomenclature and the requirements of the code. In my address to Succulenta 2000 (Congress held at Kirstenbosch) I pointed out the absence of a definition of the “species”. Actually it is a fundamental problem which comes down to Darwinism and science and elementals ‑ which is what my review (see later chapter) of Gould’s book (Rock of Ages, Jonathan Cape, 2001) is about.

“If you have seen my analysis of Prof. Vosa’s cytological work on Gasteria, you will see the style of botanical science which I experience regularly. Yet there is this same laissez faire attitude because the average botanist does not actually know what is being written about regarding subjects which are not in their specific field of work even although they may impact on what they write. What actually happens down at the lower ranks (where I labour), is that we have a huge group of uninformed readers who get the kind of leadership which botanists in forewords to Breuer’s two books World of Haworthias Vols 1 & 2 provide. Thus an environment is brewed which makes it extremely difficult to achieve credibility and to know what is plausible and what is not, and to whom. Breuer also gets credibility for a publication in Taxon which is a chronological mishap, where he has done typifications without really knowing what the names were for, or knowing what names are going to be needed. Nor has he persuaded me that he has really understood what has already been written.

“All this may have been manageable 40 years ago ‑ but we cannot go on with all these meaningless changes of name, or creation of new names, based on weak opinion and the absence of sound or reasonable peer review. Our botanical leadership is just non‑existent, and it frustrates me no end to find myself trying to play this role against the tide of people who should be doing it. To say you have not followed my review of Gould’s book is something of an apology, but you should know what Gould and Linde say in the (Scientific America Book of the Cosmos, MacMillan, 2000).

“Where I would like some help is on this issue of “how?” as opposed to “why?”. Newton surely asked ‘Why did that apple fall?’ ALL questions have answers and are thus valid when one seeks to know. Science seeks to know. Science does not belong to physicists or botanists. And what physicists know, botanists must know, even if it is only in general terms. How are we going to make progress unless botanists, and those posturing as botanists, as a whole think at the level of scientists in other disciplines? Botany and biology appear to me to be in a dark age of a new religion of “science”. This is what Linde is hinting at in “Book of the Cosmos”.

“My recent work on Haworthia confirms what I said long ago. I just put it now in other words. Species are fractal. Darwinism is a partial answer. Species vary and change “chaotically”, and there may well be (is, is my honest view) purpose and meaning. Botanists seem to happily go along with the old view that reductionism will produce answers, when in the hard sciences it has been fairly well proven that it will not. Where do biologists stand on this issue? They do not seem to want to know?”

That was my letter.

A point I now make, is that the question “how biological diversity could have arisen”, might be validly and better answered by the question …”why is it like this?” Another question is this about the philosophy of science itself…”Can any hypothesis be proven?” In statistics, the null-hypothsis is chosen on the basis that you can never prove a hypothesis but you can disprove it.

Without repeating any of my arguments I placed before Succulenta Congress 2000, I want to say that writers are claiming an understanding of taxa when in fact they do not actually know what the significance of any taxon may be. I wrote in Haworthia Revisited (1999) … “The basis of classification of Haworthia must be the geographical component.” The tendency in both the professional and academic ranks is still to recognise “species” on the flimsiest of morphological pretences, and to rank nomenclature wholly disproportionately to the function of identification and communication. This is never going to help to resolve a problem which is falsely seen to exist uniquely in Haworthia. This is a complete misconception.

The case of H. intermedia may help to clarify a few points that I have made.

In writing Haworthia Revisited, I adopted an even more concise style than usual. In the case of H. intermedia, I knowingly strayed, but I did not quite appreciate that my disrespect for the cosmetics of nomenclature would lead me to deliberately obstruct its objective. I in fact needed a name for an element I collected in KG106/70 (later recollected as MBB6514), from a site, Buitenstekloof between Robertson and Worcester.

What actually happened is this, von Poellnitz described H. intermedia in Kakteenkunde 1937 p.134, citing “Cape, Robertson, McGregor: Mr. G.J. Payne sn. (coll. Triebner 956)”. There was no accompanying illustration. He used the epithet “intermedia” because he felt that the plant (probably a single plant) was intermediate between H. integra (which, with all the confusion associated with that epithet, can perhaps safely be assigned to H. mucronata – i.e. safely for anyone with actual understanding of the uncertainty of Haworthia) and with H. haageana and its var. subreticulata (both v.Poelln.).

Let us just examine this. H. haageana, based on the photograph in Berlin (of which I saw a copy in 1969), chosen by Breuer as lectotype too, is safely ascribable to H. reticulata despite being said to be from Grahamstown. The variety subreticulata, also said to have come from Grahamstown, is arguably ascribable to H. reticulata judging from the available photograph. It could actually be something else.

When I met George Payne in 1970, I specifically asked him about H. intermedia and he informed me that he had collected it at Buitenstekloof. That is where I found H. reticulata (KG105/70) and which is why intermedia appears in my earlier publications as a synonym of H. reticulata (see Fig.1). This Fig.1 is an unpublished picture recently dredged out of the Berlin Herbarium as the type of H. intermedia, and I think it can be taken to confirm this first diagnosis. This is despite the comment by von Poellnitz that the leaves were “marked differently”! Some troubles appear when it is shown that von Poellnitz added a reference to a plant collected by Eric King at Scottburgh Farm (in Long474, Port Elizabeth, to his 1938 Feddes Repert. citation of H. intermedia (Fig.2, also an unpublished herbarium illustration). This plant could be one of those dubious things common in that area (particularly Hankey/Patensie/Humansdorp) which is neither H. cooperi(gracilis) var. picturata nor H. cooperi var. gordoniana. It is not possible for geographical reasons to suggest that the Buitenstekloof and the Port Elizabeth plants can be synonymous. When I came to write Haworthia Revisited, I was frankly just frustrated and irritated with the silly requirements of nomenclature and need for the frivolity of a latin synopsis. I had this second element from Buitenstekloof (and I am not talking about a single plant) which was not H. reticulata, and I doubted that Payne had ventured to where I found it (Fig.3 MBB6514). Unlike the reticulata there which is on the dolomite, this element is on shale. It may be neither H. maraisii var. notabilis (in that element’s many guises), and nor is it H. maculata which has its own problems. So I lifted the name intermedia and used it here in relating the plant to H. maculata. I really did not think this would ultimately give any sensible revisioner who really bothered to explore that mountaineous and geologically complex terrain for better answers, any serious problems. In fact my intention was that my treatment would demand a thorough exploration of the area. As it is, I know of three unconfirmed collections which need to be followed up if any more acceptable answer is going to be obtained. I really did not think that buffoonery of a greater order than my own was going to prevail, but so it has. Figs 1, 2 & 3 are from World of Haworthia, Vol.2 pp529-30, by I. Breuer. Here in juxtaposing the illustration of what could be three quite different species, Breuer is suggesting that these are all intermedia.

A plant illustrated by Breuer as H. maculata var. intermedia (Fig.3) is from my collection MBB6514, and it is correct for my use of the epithet. But it is not necessarily H. intermedia of von Poellnitz, and seeing Fig.1 for the first time I would have stayed with my conviction that this could have been H. reticulata. So, while explaining again that von Poellnitz was dithering between reticulata, mucronata and “gracilis”, that J.R. Brown was doing the same at Sectional level, that Breuer implies that they are all the same, and that Bayer has a different opinion; it is quite obvious that someone else now claiming understanding of this taxon, is making a very wild statement. To correct the situation and preclude a minor disaster, I correct the deliberate and regrettable misuse of an epithet as follows:

Haworthia maraisi var. notabilis (v.Poelln.) Bayer
syn. Haworthia maculata var. intermedia Bayer in Haworthia Revisited 1999 p.91, non v.Poelln. in Kakteenkunde 137, 1937. An incorrect name under Art. 11.4 of the code, because of the principle of priority (with gratitude to Dr Urs Eggli).

H. reticulata Haw.
syn. Haworthia intermedia v.Poelln. in Kakteenkunde 137, 1937. Lectotype: Breuer et al Cape, McGregor, Robertson, G.J. Payne (Triebn.956), B.

Thus my use of the epithet intermedia was for a population-based variant possibly of …

1. H. maculata, despite having a later flowering time. This is quite extensively discussed in Haworthia Revisited. H. maculata is recognised as it occurs in a series of closely spaced populations north of the Brandvlei Dam at Worcester, and as two populations approximately at Sandhills, north-east of Worcester.

2. H. maraisii var. notabilis, despite having a flower more typical of H. maculata. This variety is recognised in the population at Buitenstekloof discussed above, a population north of Agtervink west of Robertson, three closely spaced and variable populations at Wolfkloof, Robertson (the type locality for H. notabilis v.Poelln.) this variety, and three populations in the Klaasvoogds Valley east of Robertson (Figs.4 to 9 and map Fig.10). Note that the plants illustrated are individual clones only and do not convey the variability of the respective populations. The flowering times of the populations other than Buitenstekloof one (Nov.) is approximately Sept. but the Kranskop population had flowering specimens as early as May. H. maraisii mostly flowers early winter viz. late March to May.

I have now chosen the latter option because it does not require any nomenclatural manipulation. It should be quite evident by now that a species concept for Haworthia (actually any species) has to consider that the species is a complex system of individuals that vary with place and time. Should anyone be misguided enough to claim any knowledge of von Poellnitz’s H. intermedia, they must please go further than my attempt to do so either here or in my revision. They must also competently demonstrate that they have read and understood at least this explanation.

Fig.1. Triebner 956 H. intermedia V.Poelln. as illustrated in Breuer, World of Haworthia, Vol.2:529 = H. reticulata.

References

Bayer, M.B. Haworthia Revisited, Umdaus 1999.
Bayer, M.B. Natural Variation and Species Delimitation in Haworthia Duv. Pt.1. H. reticulata Haw. Nat.C.S.Jl.27:10(1972).
Breuer, I. The World of Haworthia Vol.2, Breuer & Arb. Mamm. 2000.

Key to illustrations
Fig.1. Triebner 956 H. intermedia V.Poelln. as illustrated in Breuer, World of Haworthia, Vol.2:529 = H. reticulata.

Fig.2. Long 474 “H.intermedia” ex Scottburgh, Port Elizabeth (Breuer, World of Haworthia, Vol.2:530) = H. cooperi var. picturata/gordoniana.

Fig.3. Breuer 1999(MBB6514) “H. maculata var. intermedia”, Buitenstekloof, Robertson = H. maraisii var. notabilis.

Fig.4. JDV86/108 H. maraisii var. notabilis also Buitenstekloof.

Fig.5a, b & c. JDV96/38 H. maraisii var. notabilis, Agtervink (East of Buitenstekloof).

Fig.6a & b. MBB7097 H. maraisii var. notabilis, Kranskop, Klaasvoogds.

Fig.7. MBB7098 H. maraisii var. notabilis, Bergplaas, Klaasvoogds (note the similarity to either H. reticulata or to H. turgida in this exposed and clumping state.

Fig.8a & b. MBB7055 H. maraisii var. notabilis, Rietvlei, Klaasvoogds. A cryptic form.

Fig.9. JDV97/49 H. mirabilis var. consanguinea, Dwarswaterkloof, SW McGregor. A “look-alike”!

Fig.10. Map of the Robertson area showing:- 1- Buitenstekloof, 2- Agtervink, 3- Wolfkloof, 4- Bergplaas, 5- Kranskop, 6- Rietvlei, 7- Dwarswaterkloof far to SW.

♦

Volume 2, Chapter 15:- Electron Scanning Photographs of Haworthia leaf surfaces

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Many years of experience have left me very skeptical of botany and botanical science, and particularly of writers who masquerade as taxonomists. This is reflected in much of my writing and in these essays. One of the difficulties I have had is in trying to understand why botanists tend to regard species as quantum units which are distinguishable from one another unless some taxonomists has made some statement to suggest that they are not. Non-botanists are further beyond the pale. This brief essay is to demonstrate that I have not found vaunted sophistication and technology of much assistance in better understanding the relationship of Haworthia populations to one another. Often references to such technology are used as subterfuge by authors who should not be engaging themselves in classification at all.

Early in 1970 Dr David Cutler (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) was kind enough to have made many photographs of the leaf surfaces of a large number of Haworthia specimens representing a wide range of seemingly interconnecting populations. See the attached list for the plants examined. I ended up with about 350 of these photographs which I have been unable to explain. Looking at them as one would look at the plants themselves, I am again and again struck by the fact that in the end, single specimens were taken to represent populations. This is despite a specific request to have at least 10 leaves photographed from at least one population. The photographs were taken at various magnifications, powers and angles. Most significant would probably have been 100X, but only about 10 such pictures were taken. The most were at 300X magnification and this article is illustrated with these, excepting the final fig.24 which is 100X).

I could not, and can still not, find any pattern which helps me to resolve the relationships any better than explained in many of my publications or in my revision of 1999. No population can be described from a single plant, and in Haworthia no meaningful description can be written to exclude plants from other populations – such is the nature of the continuities that exist between populations. To expect that leaf surfaces (and flowers and seed too, as has so often been implied by my critics) will provide characters to resolve these continuities into recognisable discrete entities, is actually very far-fetched. Suggesting that it will, borders on the fraud. The most I would expect is that leaf surface morphology as depicted in an SEM photograph, may be very useful for distinguishing between, say, H. viscosa and H. pungens, where nothing is actually needed; but it is not going to resolve the problems I described, say, in H. rossouwii and the complexities of its relationships with as many as seven other elements. These elements can be seen to be discrete at some point in their distribution ranges, but not everywhere. I mention H. viscosa and H. pungens particularly because there is a writer who has already proclaimed the latter to be a re-description of H. beanii, despite the very obvious differences that are visible to any eye. They are not the same thing, and the latter is in fact a variant of H. viscosa. These inaccurate diagnoses and ridiculous statements are all too common and P. Halda made a similar error. He described a new variety of H. viscosa from the Baviaanskloof, not far from the localities for H. beanii and its var. minor (both G.G. Smith). However, he also went so far as to also reduce H. nigra to the rank of subspecies under H. viscosa. These are major issues which are difficult to refute in the absence of incontrovertible evidence, despite the fact that they are so easily resolved by reference to the field situation and gross visual examination. One can separate H. viscosa (H. beanii) and H. pungens in the dark simply by feel.

In the subgenus Haworthia, the problems are wholly of a different magnitude. The various species cannot be differentiated by any method and never will be – until the resolution comes to pass of its own in geological time.

Looking at some of the SEM photographs:

Fig.1 is KG226/70 H. maculata from Moddergat, south of Worcester. In terms of the photographs I have, it is very comparable with fig.2 KG48/70, which is H. maraisii from Stormsvlei, and it may also be comparable with fig.3 KG20/70 which is also H. maculata but from the Brandvlei Dam south of Worcester. But then I am confronted with four other photographs for this species, viz. figs.4 and 5 also Moddergat, and figs.6 and 7 both Brandvlei. One can easily agree on some or other common feature and perhaps decide that we are dealing with one species. This is not the case.

We can take fig.8, which is also KG20/70 H. maculata from Brandvlei, and juxtapose it with fig.9 KG163/71 H. emelyae var. multifolia from Springfontein in the Little Karoo – very comparable. Figs.10 KG178/70 H. reticulata and Fig.11 KG 179/70 H. notabilis are both from Wolfkloof north of Robertson. They are barely distinguishable and especially so in the context of the degree of difference between photographs of the same specimens at different power and angle.

Figs.12 and 13 KG36/70 are H. heidelbergensis from Rooivlei north of Bredasdorp. This is a problem population because it may have (it does have) ties with fig.14 KG318/71 H. rossouwii (was H. serrata), Oudekraal, Heidelberg, and with fig.15 KG709/60 H. mirabilis var. sublineata, south of Bredasdorp. The latter must be compared with fig.16 which is the latter element again, but from north of Bredasdorp. Two other figures are fig.17 and fig.18, KG81/71 H. heidelbergensis, from Matjestoon south of Heidelberg and KG210/71 H. heidelbergensis from just east of Heidelberg. There is very little evidence of discrete pattern.

If one attempts to formulate pattern from the above figures, then look at fig.19 KG134/70 H. mirabilis var. triebneriana (the forma diversifolia) from east of McGregor, or fig.20 KG213/70 H. maraisii from the sandstones south of McGregor. Then I include fig.21 KG35/70 H. maraisii from north of Bredasdorp and compare with fig.22 which is H. mucronata var. inconfluens from west of Ladismith.

I emphasise that these are just single samples from an extremely limited range of populations and I cannot imagine that anyone can afford the time and the expense of analysis of enough material, to arrive at any definite and better conclusion. It is a simple phantasm to suggest that technology is going to resolve a conceptual problem. Where aspiring writers are unable on macromorphological grounds to resolve issues as obvious as that of H. pungens and H. viscosa or H. viscosa and H. nigra, technology and sophistication are potential weapons of folly.

From all the pictures, it emerges that H. maraisii and H. mirabilis may have a commonality in the raised nipple at the centre of the surface cells. However this is absent in fig.23 KG400/61 H. maraisii (a variant – naturally) from Dublin west of Robertson, while it is present in H. arachnoidea and specifically fig.22. Fig.23 represents quite a major departure from most of the photographs and it will attempt someone to suggest this must be a different species. This will be ridiculous. My species concept and definition is that geographical distribution is the major criterion for the determination of the species. Thus the plant from which fig.23 is derived is firstly seen as from a single population which is just a geographical part of an extended complex. Without any strain on logic or reason, its characteristics can be taken to extend from, and also contribute to, that complex. Thus if leaf surfaces are to be studied in pursuing understanding of the relationships in Haworthia, a good approach would be to first take such a single complex and take an overview. The photographs suggest that 100X would have been a good magnification at which to do this (see fig.24 H. notabilis and compare with the same in fig.11).

What needs to be done is for my revision and explanation of Haworthia to be taken as a hypothesis and tested as such. Even an article of this kind requires this basic hypothesis. The presentation of alternate hypotheses and nomenclatural solutions based on less material, inadequate conceptualization and poor intellectual preparedness is a disaster for the collector and enthusiast. It is also a disaster for the botanist and scientist who fail to understand, as so many do, that the authority of a classification is not just a question of acceptance or observance of a nomenclatural code and the product of anyone who is enthusiastic enough to produce an identification key and a classification. There is adequatio involved in the case of both the taxonomist and the acceptance of the product.

Fig. 1. MBB in KG226-70 H. maculata. Moddergat, S Worcester.

Figure captions
Fig.1 KG226/70 H. maculata, Moddergat, south of Worcester.
Fig.2 KG48/70 H. maraisii, Stormvlei, south of Bonnievale.
Fig.3 KG20/70 H. maculata, Brandvlei Dam, south of Worcester
Fig.4 KG226/70 H. maculata, Moddergat, south of Worcester.
Fig.5 KG226/70 H. maculata, Moddergat, south of Worcester.
Fig.6 KG167/70 H. maculata, Brandvlei Dam, south of Worcester.
Fig.7 KG167/70 H. maculata, Brandvlei Dam, south of Worcester.
Fig.8 KG20/70 H. maculata, Brandvlei Dam, south of Worcester.
Fig.9 KG163/71 H. emelyae var. multifolia, Springfontein, Little Karoo.
Fig.10 KG178/70 H. reticulata, Wolfkloof, north of Robertson.
Fig.11 KG179/70 H. notabilis, Wolfkloof, north of Robertson.
Fig.12 KG36/71 H. heidelbegensis, Rooivlei, north of Bredasdorp.
Fig.13 KG36/71 H. heidelbegensis, Rooivlei, north of Bredasdorp.
Fig.14 KG318/71 H. rossouwii, Oudekraal, south-west of Heidelberg.
Fig.15 KG709/60 H. mirabilis var. sublineata, south of Bredasdorp.
Fig.16 KG311/71 H. mirabilis var. sublineata, north of Bredasdorp.
Fig.17 KG81/71 H. heidelbergensis, Matjestoon, south of Heidelberg.
Fig.18 KG210/71 H. heidelbergensis, east of Heidelberg.
Fig.19 KG134/70 H. mirabilis var. triebneriana (the forma diversifolia) from east of McGregor.
Fig.20 KG213/70 H. maraisii (var. whitesloaneana), south of McGregor.
Fig.21 KG35/70 H. maraisii, north of Bredasdorp.
Fig.22 KG287/72 H. arachnoidea var. nigricans from south of Calitzdorp.
Fig.23 KG400/61 H. maraisii, Dublin west of Robertson.
Fig.24 KG179/70 H. notabilis, Wolfkloof, Robertson.

Appendix
List of specimens submitted and scanned (bracketed numbers are the laboratory codes):-
520/60 (40) H. maraisii, Cogmanskloof.
709/60 (54) H. mirabilis var. sublineata, S. Bredasdorp.
400/61 (31) H. maraisii, Dublin.
624/69 (51) H. mirabilis var. mirabilis, Mierkraal.
625/69 (58) H. mirabilis var. badia, Napier.
629/69 (47) H. maraisii, W. Swellendam.
638/69 (39) H. maraisii var. notabilis, Klaasvoogds.
661/69 (61) H. maraisii var. notabilis, Wolfkloof, Robertson.
679/69 (62) H. mirabilis var. badia, Napier.
681/69 (59) H. mirabilis, N. Napier.
688/69 (32) H. maraisii, Oliva, Robertson.
689/69 (30) H. maraisii, SW Robertson.
692/69 (53) H. mirabilis var. triebneriana, W. Genadendal.
20/70 (26) H. maculata, Brandvlei West.
26/70 (55) H. mirabilis, Stormsvlei Pass.
2?/70 (64) H. mirabilis, S Greyton.
30/70 (60) H. mirabilis, SE. Greyton.
31/70 (63) H. mirabilis, S. Greyton.
32/70 (57) H. mirabilis var. beukmannii, Skuitsberg.
35/70 (20) H. maraisii, Rooivlei, Bredasdorp.
36/70 (6) H. heidelbergensis var. minor, Rooivlei, N.Bredasdorp.
48/70 (18) H. maraisii, Stormsvlei.
106/70 (45) H. maraisii var. notabilis, Buitenstekloof.
112/70 (13) H. pubescens, Sandberg, Worcester.
134/70 (28) H. mirabilis, Olifantsdoornkloof.
167/70 (24) H. maculata, Brandvlei.
178/70 (42) H. reticulata, Wolfkloof, Robertson.
179/70 (43) H. maraisii var. notabilis, Wolfkloof.
180/70 (44) H. maraisii var. notabilis, Wolfkloof.
202/70 (7) H. magnifica var. atrofusca, Spitzkop, Heidelberg.
212/70 (27) H. maraisii, SW McGregor.
213/70 (29) H. maraisii, Houtbaaikloof.
213/70 (29b)H. maraisii, S McGregor.
223/70 (33) H. maraisii var. meiringii, W Bonnievale.
224/70 (34) H. maraisii var. meiringii, E Bonnievale.
226/70 (25) H. maculata, Moddergat.
402/70 (2) H. springbokvlakensis, Springbokvlakte.
2/71 (35) H. maraisii var. meiringii, W Bonnievale.
9/71 (37) H. maraisii var. meiringii E Bonnievale.
13/71 (38) H. maraisii var. meiringii, Goudmyn.
80/71 (11) H. maraisii, Napky.
81/71 (4) H. heidelbergensis var. toonensis, Matjestoon.
83/71 (16) H. magnifica, Riversdale Nature reserve.
84/71 (17) H. mirabilis var. paradoxa, Vermaaklikheid.
118/71 (19) H. emelyae var. major, Muiskraal.
163/71 (1) H. emelyae var. multifolia, Springfontein.
170/71 (41) H.maraisii, N. Ashton.
210/71 (5) H. heidelbergensis, NE Heidelberg.
310/71 (52) H. mirabilis var. triebneriana, Skietpad.
311/71 (56) H. mirabilis var. sublineata, N. Bredasdorp.
318/71 (3) H. rossouwii, Oudekraalkop.
326/71 (12) H. mirabilis/maraisii, Rondeheuwel.
335/71 (8) H. emelyae, Rooiberg.
344/71 (46) H. maraisii, Langvlei.
481/71 (10) H. mirabilis var. triebneriana, Leeurivier (ex van Breda).
94/72 (21) H. heidelbergensis, Leeurivier.
111/72 (14) H. bayeri, S Oudsthoorn.
114/72 (15) H. emelyae var. comptoniana, Georgida.
125/72 (49) H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, Gamka Rd.
125/72 (50) H. arachnoidea var. nigricans, Gamka Rd.
138/72 (36) H. emelyae, Sandkraal.
287/72 (48) H. mucronata, W. Ladismith.
107/74 (22) H. magnifica, Tradouw Pass.
MBB1128 (23) H. pubescens var. livida, Lemoenpoort.
‑ ‑ (9) H. mirabilis var. mirabilis, Mierkraal.

♦

Volume 2, Chapter 16:- Nectar Sugars in the Alooid minor genera and a need for another model

Posted on November 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

A paper, “Infrageneric classification of Haworthia (Aloaceae): perspectives from nectar sugar analysis”, concerning the analysis of such sugars in Haworthia, Astroloba and Chortolirion was presented at the XV!th AETFAT Congress in Belgium in 2000, by G F Smith. B-E van Wyk, E M A Steyn and I Breuer. The proceedings of this Congress were published in Syst. Geogr. Pl. 71:391-397 (2001) and the particular paper by Smith et al was reprinted in Alsterworthia International 3(3)9-12 (2003). [link] These authors comment on the taxonomic difficulties in trying to determine true generic limits in the tribe Alooideae of the Asphodelaceae and presented analyses of a limited number of taxa from the tribe. I, in turn, want to use that paper to show why the difficulty persists.

Smith et al cite my paper of 1972 where the main message was that the genera in this group would never be resolved while the main elements within the genus Haworthia were not recognized to be discrete. Uitewaal’s attempt to subdivide Haworthia was a much labored effort. He was clearly a victim of his time trying to establish a hierarchical classification and it is a distortion of the facts to say that he divided Haworthia into two main groups. There is no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that he identified and recognized THREE, and not the two claimed by Smith et al. Uitewaal recognized two groups; Triangulares and Hexangulares based primarily on the shape of the flower base, and then he split Hexangulares into Robustipedunculatae and Gracilipedunculatae, primarily on the robustness of the peduncle. As an interested observer of Haworthia, I added the additional facts of geographic distribution and capsule and seed morphology to implement those three groupings as sub-genera.

I have always argued that the relationship of Haworthia and Astroloba would never be understood until it was recognized that the differences within Haworthia exceeded those between this genus and Astroloba.

It is significant, and this is the one great merit of the Smith et al paper, that the results show that Haworthia subgenus Haworthia does differ significantly from both the other two subgenera in respect of quite a fundamental property, viz. characteristics of the nectar sugars. Where the paper is weak is in respect of other detail. The problems are:-

the question of whose classification was used
the discussion in respect of sections within subg. Haworthia
the provenance of the material used [this needs to be expanded on later].
failure to provide a statistical parameter for the figures given.

With regard to 1 and 2, the authors seem to have used my classification in respect only of sub-genera and this is only evident in the way they order their derived data. In respect of the species they appear to have used their own expertise. I made it clear that there was no basis for the recognition of sections within the subg. Haworthia as presented by either Pilbeam or Breuer.

Provenance (3) is a problem for me because I know that identification without locality data is mostly not possible within that subgenus. It is thus imperative that a better vouchering of specimens is needed than this “trust me” approach. This is particularly true of the material cited for H. arachnoidea. Here it is important to know that the species is confounded with H. mucronata, and thus the listing also of H. habdomadis and H. unicolor. Similarly this is also true for the relationship of H. emelyae and H. comptoniana, or H. truncata and H. maughanii. Furthermore, there is no sense at all in listing H. mcmurtryi under “miscellaneous” taxa when surely any observer with some knowledge of the plants would know that it belongs in the Hexangulares with H. koelmaniorum.

With regards to 4, the failure to provide a statistical measure of variation of the sugar concentration levels is also a problem. Beyond the obvious group differences, there is no way in which any meaningful statement can be made about the figures for the subg. Haworthia. Where the authors do comment that the sugar ratios vary for plants taken from different localities, there is no guide as to how much these ratios may vary within, say, one population or even one individual plant. The comparisons they make for H. bolusii, H. cooperi and H. habdomadis var. morrisiae (6:39:55, 5:39:56 & 2:48:50), described as similar, and then for H. decipiens and H. semiviva (7:51:42 & 16:52:32) as different, in relation to some obscure classification into (sections ?) subsections or series, is simply confusing, and this is not only because I would disagree with that suggested relationship. I find it much more remarkable to see that the figures for H. arachnoidea (sample 2) is similar to H. unicolor (5:50:45 & 5:45:50), which is a probable truth if these two entities are considered as closely related, and to see that H. divergens and H. semiviva have exact similarity (both 16:52:32), which is a very probable untruth on geographical and morphological grounds. One could perhaps conclude that the sugars information demonstrates that there are no significant differences within the subg. Haworthia to support the author’s intitial contention, that there are. It is rather unlikely that, within a particular alooid group (e.g. subg. Haworthia), each species will have a unique nectar sugar profile. Rather it is more likely that similar (or dissimilar) profiles will have arisen many times, both between species, within species, or even within populations.

There is a further claim by the authors that they find “the correlation of nectar in Astroloba and members of the subg. Robustipedunculares with the sucrose-rich Hexangulares type”, surprising. For some quite undisclosed reason “floral and other morphological features” suggest to them that “these two units” (which two?) would be nearer to Aloe. In other words an element is introduced at the close of the paper suggesting a generic solution not broached in the preceding discussion. This could have been avoided had there been a properly ordered hypothesis that the exercise was set out to test. An answer to my question “which two?”, is irrelevant given the pointlessness of their statement. It is curious that Manning and Smith (Bothalia 30:53, 2000) dismiss hexose dominance in the nectar of Poellnitzia when they include that species in Astroloba.

Listing the species, H. glauca, under the subg. Haworthia as Smith et al have done is an obvious typing error as the species belongs in the subg. Hexangulares. The usage of the phrase “obsolescently zygomorphic” to describe the flowers of Haworthia adds a quaint dimension to an old problem of definition of the term zygomorphic.

My conclusion, also based on the analysis of several other papers which have appeared in peer-reviewed technical journals, is that often the writers do not in fact know the subject, nor are they properly familiar with the literature.

Some very puzzling papers have been written in recent time that seem to dumb-down classification (of Haworthia, at least) to the levels of perception of the early 20^th century. These include a paper on the cladistics of the Alooideae, one on the cytology of Gasteria, another on the small Madagascan aloes, a paper on Poellnitzia, a paper on the DNA of the lesser genera of the Alooideae, and now this one on nectar sugars. These papers are all peripheral to the energies of six or more aspirant taxonomists who pontificate on the species and varieties of Haworthia, and the seemingly numberless hordes of enthusiasts who seemingly heedlessly, and often namelessly, express their views on the subject. Behind all this is my own effort to understand, and through written communication, comprehend what the elements are of Haworthia – what names are needed to effectively circumscribe the different “species” and to describe them.

My attempts to generate a key to species and some kind of hypothetical (evolutionary) tree simply failed. Intuitively, and I have to say intuitively because my intellectual and academic skills limit my capacity to do it better any other way, I recognized that we have been indoctrinated to think in terms of the logical rules of points, lines and symmetrical curves. I myself entered the fray by writing an article that discussed classification as art versus science, and have subsequently thought that perhaps I should have included politics as a third candidate. However, that discussion solved no problems and that of the classification of Haworthia still remains.

It was in reading a book by James Glieck entitled “Chaos, Making a new Science” that I felt I began to see the reason for our inability to agree on classification. In that book Glieck presented a diagram (see fig. 1) that he described as a bifurcation diagram and for which he did not give the algebraic function. The diagram appealed to me as a visual image of the problem of species and their recognition. In the book “Fractal Vision” by Dick Oliver, the same diagram appears together with the mathematical function that describes it. It is the non-linear function p2 = rp(1-p) and it was derived by an ecologist Robert May to describe population (p) growth with time (r)..

What the diagram suggests to me is that species and their individual variations can be described mathematically. It suggests to me that it is possible for species to be confounded by variation where the difference between two individuals or elements of one species is greater than the difference between two species.

Where I do have a problem is with the subject of cladistics. In my understanding this technique is simply an arithmetical way of dealing with many variables in such a way that it appears to be wholly objective. The problem for me is that it clearly is not because the character states and their evaluations remain subjective. Furthermore, it is entrenched in linearity giving truth to the quotation “the certainties of one age are the problems of the next”. Thus also my contention that botanists are at the trailing edge of science and largely lost in the Laplacean view that prediction and control of the universe was possible and simply a question of time while scientists unraveled a few remaining unknowns.

Coming back to figure 1, I need to say that I cannot state what the elements are of the function which depicts a classification tree (viz. cladogram, phylogenetic tree) instead of that of population growth. Perhaps g2 = rg(1-g) could be appropriate – where g is a group of “species” and r is (rate of) change. The value 1 would represent space and when fully occupied there would be only species? This raises an important issue and this is the significance of the planar or two-dimensional figure we use to illustrate relationships as a “tree”. Anyone would surely agree that species are phenomena distributed in space and that they change with time – an axiom. Therefore the planar model is inadequate as in effect it means that time is one axis and that space is also a single axis. It would be far more realistic to try to model species for what they are and thus introduce the third dimension as a minimum requirement. A secondary problem to that of the cladistic tree is that it is always drawn as a standing tree whereas mathematical convention is that the determining variable is plotted on the horizontal and not on the vertical axis. Is this simply because taxonomists have never made the true connection between their “trees” and space/time?

Putting that aside, it is obvious that the function only provides a conceptual shell. I once used the analogy of the denial by scientists of continental drift on the grounds that there was no explanation for it, when my contention is that it would have been more reasonable and fruitful to have to have rather sought the mechanism. The graph is what I see and I am sure that other taxonomists, of whatever academic stature and truly familiar with their plants, must see it too. Thus someone with the competence needs to search for the mathematical expression of the evolutionary and selection realities by which such a graph can be generated.

I contend that it could be useful to consider that the starting point of the graph need not be zero and neither that it moves forward in arithmetical progression. One can imagine that the undifferentiated cloud at point r = 4 as the starting point – the individuals of an ancestral widely distributed species. Imagine further the slowing down of change (r) and a breaking up of the distribution to restricted areas of space and the generation of isolated populations. Once so isolated there is the opportunity for “evolution” of population character and difference between populations. Speed up change again and expand the distribution area and the process is reversed. This is the equivalent of “pulsed” evolution remembering that a primary corollary of phylogeny is that it is irreversible. A particular point of interest is the change of pattern – that where one sees a systematic build-up from one to two, to four to eight; the system can collapse again to three or just one.

The point then to consider is now what function is truly appropriate for the modeling of a classification? Molecular biology and the use of DNA analysis is now in fashion. It is said that the difference between a mouse and an elephant amounts to 3% of their DNA – the difference between man and a chimpanzee even less. The sequence of the nucleotide bases on the chromosomal DNA is known to be indicative of similarity and it is used to identify even individuals. Therefore it is evident that if the DNA sequences were known that characterized any discrete group, the arrangement of the bases in that sequence, or set of sequences, would be what to look at to determine subgroups.

All very well – if we assume that there are subgroups and that they can be represented in a hierarchical classification.

Oliver quotes Christopher Alexander “We cannot produce order on the world-wide scale of everyday life without first having a clear picture of order itself, in the realm of ordinary objects. And this requires a completely new view of geometry… Space must be considered an almost living entity… a kind of stuff which, according to the recursive structures that are built up in it, becomes progressively more and more alive”.

There is a paper by Verne Grant in American Journal of Botany 90:1263-1270 (2003) entitled “Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems” which suggests that these are two rival schools in plant classification with different conceptual frameworks. The thrust of this paper of mine, and many others which I have authored, is that no two taxonomists seem to have the same concepts. Verne makes the unverifiable claim that “taxonomists… routinely study their plants in the field and garden, where feasible, as well as in the herbarium. These contacts build up a body of background knowledge and perceptions about the plants, which is hard to quantify but which contributes to sound taxonomic decisions”.

Grant’s paper is simply another which will never produce an answer. The perception is that a taxonomic opinion, however it is derived, must be expressed in the nomenclature of the group concerned. The sad truth is that taxonomists are not making sound decisions and if they are, these are not measurable except by the same subtleties that lead to good judgment. This is the fundamental weakness in classification. It is thus not empirical science but the generation of information which may require more intuitive wisdom and practical common sense than intellect to organize.

Acknowledgement
This paper was written in two parts and various persons have commented on either or both. These are Messrs. Harry Mays, Paul Forster, Andrew Wilson and Steven Hammer. I am grateful for their input.

Footnote:
In considering the formula p2 = rp(1-p) which generates this diagram resembling a “species tree”, I think the variables can perhaps be identified as follows…

P = individual realised variation?
R = a space, time, genetic, morphological and behavioral value?
1 = the sum total of potential individual variation?

Perhaps it should also be noted that particle physicists speculate on the number of dimensions that are required to adequately explain creation. ♦

The graphed product of the formula P = rp(1-p) for values of r between 3 and 4, omitting the first few iterations to make the branching more obvious. The formula and graph come from the book “Fractal Vision” by Dick Oliver. The graph is also depicted in James Gliek’s book “Chaos Theory – the new science”. This is a useful conceptualization of how genetic factors could be partitioned in space and time. It is a very simplistic formula and is limited by the fact that space is constricted by one vertical dimension. P is in effect the partitioning into species systems. R represents all of the elements of DNA (the genes) on which an individual organism is built, as well as the totality of environmental factors that affect mutation and change. Therefore it will certainly include many similar non-linear functions. Among the consequences will surely be branches in the diagram that terminate, others will proliferate to different degree and, importantly, at different rates.

Volume 2, Chapter 17:- Species and varieties listed

Posted on November 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

The following list follows the order in which specimens should be housed in the Compton Herbarium, National Botanical Institute, Kirstenbosch. This list has a few amendments to that published in Haworthia Update 2 ca2006. Gordon Rowley published a list of cultivar names in Alsterworthia to more formally recognise so many names that are useful or informative to collectors. The object of classification is really to synthesise and generalise about plants. As Dr Eggli stated, he feels he can attach little weight to any classification except in terms of the understanding he gains for the plants he has seen and knows. So this list of mine is the product of my understanding of the plants I have seen and grown and conveys this information in respect of natural populations. Among the many new names that have appeared subsequent to my 1999 revision, most simply precipitate collectors back into the good old days when the correctness of any name depended on its source i.e. one was sure of a correct identification only if the plant came from the author of the name or a very close source. There are of course many plants in cultivation that do still carry their original and correct names and Gordon Rowley has listed many of them. They do convey an understanding of the history of Haworthia collecting but largely they are simply labels in the format of two Latin names and seldom convey any information that such a scientific label suggests. Gordon Rowley in private communication also humorously commented on the fact that MBB changes his mind. I cannot apologise for this because the fact is that I cannot even to pretend to understand the complexity that I see. It has been difficult to write some of the preceding chapters for that very reason and I am very dubious that readers will necessarily be able to relate to what I have produced. Certainly the authors of recent new names do not take my work serious and the attitude is quite mutual. Many of the names are attached to my own records and are an essential part of the process whereby I arrived at my list. In respect of virtually every new name I have seen, I am able to include it in this formal summary and account of species that have some rational reality.

A.SUB-GENUS HAWORTHIA

1.         Haworthia angustifolia Haw.
var. angustifolia
var. altissima Bayer
var. baylissii (Scott) Bayer.
var. paucifolia Smith.

2.         Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval.
var. arachnoidea.
var. aranea (Berger) Bayer.
var. namaquensis Bayer.
var. nigricans (Haw.) Bayer.
var. scabrispina Bayer.
var. setata (Haw.) Bayer.

3.         Haworthia aristata Haw.

4.         Haworthia bayeri Venter & Hammer.

5.         Haworthia blackburniae Barker.
var. blackburniae
var. derustensis Bayer.
var. graminifolia (Smith) Bayer.

6.         Haworthia bolusii Baker.
var. bolusii.
var. blackbeardiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. pringlei (Scott) Bayer.

7.         Haworthia chloracantha Haw.
var. chloracantha.
var. denticulifera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. subglauca v.Poelln.

8.         Haworthia cooperi Baker.
var. cooperi.
var. dielsiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. doldii Bayer.
var. gordoniana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. gracilis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. isabellae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. leightonii (Smith) Bayer.
var. picturata Bayer.
var. pilifera (Baker) Bayer.
var. puberula Bayer (nom. nud.)
var. tenera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. truncata (Jacobs.) Bayer.
var. venusta (Scott) Bayer.
var. viridis Bayer.

9.         Haworthia cymbiformis (Haw.) Duv.
var. cymbiformis.
var. incurvula (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. obtusa (Haw.) Baker.
var. ramosa (Smith) Bayer.
var. setulifera (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

10.        Haworthia decipiens v.Poelln.
var. decipiens.
var. cyanea Bayer.
var. minor Bayer.
var. virella Bayer.
var. xiphiophylla (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

11.        Haworthia emelyae v.Poelln.
var. emelyae.
var. comptoniana (Smith) Venter & Hammer.
var. major (Smith) Bayer.
var. multifolia Bayer.

12.        Haworthia floribunda v.Poelln.
var. floribunda.
var. dentata Bayer
var. major Bayer.

13.        Haworthia heidelbergensis Smith.
var. heidelbergensis
var. scabra Bayer.
var. toonensis Bayer.

14.        Haworthia herbacea (Mill.) Stearn.
var. herbacea.
var. flaccida Bayer.
var. lupula Bayer.
var. paynei (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

15.        Haworthia lockwoodii Archibald.

16.        Haworthia maculata (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

17.        Haworthia magnifica v.Poelln.
var. magnifica.
var. atrofusca (Smith) Bayer.

18.        Haworthia maraisii v.Poelln.
var. maraisii.
var. meiringii Bayer.
var. notabilis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

20.        Haworthia marumiana Uitew.
var. marumiana.
var. archeri Bayer.
var. batesiana (Uitew.) Bayer.
var. dimorpha Bayer.
var. reddii (Scott) Bayer.
var. viridis Bayer.

21.        Haworthia marxii Gildenhuys

22.        Haworthia mirabilis Haw.
var. mirabilis.
var. badia (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. beukmannii (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. consanguinea Bayer.
var. paradoxa (v.Poelln.) Bayer
var. pilosa Bayer (nom.nud.)
var. sublineata (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. triebneriana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

23.        Haworthia monticola Fourc.
var. monticola.
var. asema Bayer.

24.        Haworthia mucronata Haw.
var. mucronata.
var. habdomadis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. inconfluens (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. morrisiae v.Poelln.
var. rycroftiana Bayer.

25.        Haworthia mutica Haw.
var. mutica.
var. nigra Bayer.

26.        Haworthia nortieri Smith.
var. nortieri.
var. globosiflora (Smith) Bayer.
var. pehlemanniae (Scott) Bayer.

27.        Haworthia outeniquensis Bayer.

28.        Haworthia parksiana v.Poelln.

29.        Haworthia pubescens Bayer.
var. pubescens.
var. livida Bayer.

30.        Haworthia pulchella Bayer.
var. pulchella.
var. globifera Bayer.

31.        Haworthia pygmaea v.Poelln.
var. pygmaea.
var. acuminata Bayer.
var. argenteo-maculosa (Smith) Bayer                .
var. dekenahii (Smith) Bayer.
var. splendens Venter and Hammer

32.        Haworthia reticulata Haw.
var. reticulata.
var. attenuata Bayer.
var. hurlingii (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. subregularis (Bak.) Bayer.

33.        Haworthia retusa (L.) Duval
var. retusa
var. turgida (Haw.)Bayer.
var. longibracteata (Smith) Bayer.
var. suberecta v.Poelln.

34.        Haworthia rossouwii (v.Poelln.).
var. rossouwii.
var. calcarea Bayer.
var. elizeae (Breuer)Bayer
var. minor Bayer
var. petrophila Bayer.

35.        Haworthia semiviva (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

36.        Haworthia springbokvlakensis Scott.

37.        Haworthia truncata Schonland.
var. truncata.
var. maughanii (v.Poelln.) Fearn.

38.        Haworthia transiens (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

39.        Haworthia variegata Bolus.
var. variegata.
var. hemicrypta Bayer.
var. modesta Bayer.

40.        Haworthia vlokii Bayer.

41.        Haworthia wittebergensis Barker.

42.        Haworthia zantneriana v.Poelln.
var. zantneriana.
var. minor Bayer.

B. SUB-GENUS HEXANGULARES

43.        Haworthia attenuata Haw.
var. attenuata.
var. glabrata
var. radula (Jacq.) Bayer.

44.        Haworthia bruynsii Bayer.

45.        Haworthia coarctata Haw.
var. coarctata.
fa greenii (Baker) Bayer.
var. adelaidensis (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. tenuis (Smith) Bayer.

46.        Haworthia fasciata (Willd.) Haw.

47.        Haworthia glauca Baker.
var. glauca.
var. herrei (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

48.        Haworthia koelmaniorum Oberm. & Hardy.
var. koelmaniorum.
var. mcmurtryi (Scott) Bayer.

49.        Haworthia limifolia Marl.
var. limifolia.
var. arcana Smith & Crouch.
var. gigantea Bayer.
var. glaucophylla Bayer
var. ubomboensis (Verdoorn) Smith.

50.        Haworthia longiana v.Poelln.

51.        Haworthia nigra (Haw.) Baker.
var. nigra.
var. diversifolia (v.Poelln.) Uitew.

52         Haworthia pungens Bayer.

53.        Haworthia reinwardtii (Salm-Dyck) Haw.
var. reinwardtii.
fa chalumnensis (Smith) Bayer.
fa kaffirdriftensis (Smith) Bayer.
fa olivacea (Smith) Bayer.
fa zebrina (Smith) Bayer.
var. brevicula Smith.

54.        Haworthia scabra Haw.
var. scabra.
var. lateganiae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. morrisiae (v.Poelln.) Bayer.
var. starkiana (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

55.        Haworthia sordida Haw.
var. sordida.
var. lavrani Scott.

56.        Haworthia venosa (Lam.) Haw.
ssp. venosa.
ssp. granulata (Marl.) Bayer.
ssp. tessellata (Haw.) Bayer.
ssp. woolleyi (v.Poelln.) Bayer.

57.        Haworthia viscosa (L.) Haw.

C. SUB-GENUS ROBUSTIPEDUNCULARES

58.        Haworthia kingiana v.Poelln.

59.        Haworthia marginata (Lam.) Stearn.

60.        Haworthia minima (Ait.) Haw.
var. minima.
var. poellnitziana (Uitew.) Bayer.

61.        Haworthia pumila (L.) Bayer.

♦

Volume 2, Chapter 18:- Bayer Accessions

Posted on November 26, 2011 by Bruce Bayer

Bayer Accessions
A plant classification is essentially based on herbarium record, which is the prime means of verification. However, it is not practicable for such a record to embrace all records nor record all the variation that has been observed. In recent time, I have not deposited new material and the only record of accessions other than living specimens, is a photographic one.

This record of my collections is in four parts:-

Un-numbered herbarium specimens.
Collections under Karoo Botanic garden numbers (KG).
Collections in a personal register (MBB).
A record of J.D.Venter numbers for MBB collections

1. Un-numbered collections.

The following collections of mine exist as herbarium specimens in the Compton herbarium, and which have no Karoo Botanic Garden nor a personal accession number:-

– decipiens var. cyanea 3222 DC Trakaskuilen.

The original collection of two plants was made in about 1988, which I later accessioned as 6885; and I collected seed again in 2000 under the number 7025.

– mucronata var inconfluens 3321 AC 8km W Ladismith.

This is a collection I often refer to when I discuss ecotypes. This collection refers to one on shales at Dwarsrivier, whereas a very short distance away in the wetter sandstone gorge, there is the var. habdomadis.

– mirabilis var. consanguinea 3419 BA Die Galg.

Also an old collection to which George Payne directed me in 1971. I named it to include a collection by J.D.Venter lower down the Gobos River (Boesmanpad), a collection by Dawn Schwegmann along that gorge, a collection by P.V.Bruyns from the upper Dwarsriverkloof, and one by the two of us lower down that stream.

– limifolia var. limifolia 2631 BD Mbuluzi gorge, Blue Jay Ranch, Stegi.

Collected in about 1962 in the company of my friend M.G.Murdoch. The plants were very abundant and may have been one very stoloniferous clone! Plants were widely distributed and are still in cultivation.

– mucronata var. inconfluens 3321 CA 9km SW Ladismith.

The only collection I can recall is one I made near the road junction to Garcia Pass, and the plants were small marumiana-like. I would have difficulty classifying that collection again and would probably consider it to be better placed under arachnoidea var. nigricans!

– marginata 3320 CC NE Ashton.

From the site where pumila and marginata co-occur.

– heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD W Kathoek.

When I first saw this population I thought it to be a form of maraisii as I then did not have material to suggest that heidelbergensis was such a strong element.

– cooperi var. pilifera 3227 BD Fort Murray Bridge.

A collection probably still in cultivation and I saw very similar plants both west and north of Kingwilliamstown.

– reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DB Buitenstekloof.

George Payne explained to me that this was the site of H. intermedia of Von Poellnitz, and a full explanation is given in my essay on that name.

– parksiana 3422 AA Botteliersberg.

There is a back road from Little Brak to Great Brak and there used to be a sheet of rock projecting into the road. It was on this sheet of rock where parksiana grew like a weed. Unfortunately the rock slab fell prey to road straightening and few plants survive there now.

– pygmaea var. argenteomaculata 3421 BB Cooper Siding.

From the site of Smith’s original accession and there are still many plants there.

– mutica var. mutica 3419 DB Klipdale.

An accession never brought into cultivation.

– pumila 3319 CD Lemoenpoort.

An unusual population from which plants are in cultivation. The plants tend to have a very purple colour and the tubercles are sparser than normal.

– sordida var. sordida 3325 AC Brakfontein.

The significance of this collection is the co-occurrence with the then little known Aloe bowiea. The collection is not in cultivation.

– pulchella var. pulchella 3320 CA Nougaspoort.

A species which is not very variable and there is nothing exceptional about this population.

– reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC Dublin.

Very abundant between its westernmost occurrence at Ribbokop, to the west of this population, and Robertson to the east.

– herbacea var. paynei 3319 DD 1km S McGregor.

I do not recall making such a collection although I have seen plants to the south-east and also north of the town.

– pygmaea var. argenteomaculata 3421 BB Humor.

My early collecting was really aimed at getting an overview of the genus and familiarising myself with Smith’s material. So when I first saw plants at Humor I was satisfied that they were similar to the Cooper Siding plants and I did not make a record. Now of course every population has a significance and I could not re-locate my original sighting east of this one. The Humor plants generally are more marked than the Cooper Siding ones.

– marginata 3420 AC Adoonskop.

I also saw the species here early in my collecting and made no record. The plants were grazed to ground level and were much smaller than elsewhere. I have since collected it and grown it from seed as 6633, and D.M.Cumming has collected a smaller version from nearby there. I think I noted an Otzen record as east of Napier, when in fact the record was for west of the town. It has not, to my knowledge, been found there again.

– pulchella var. pulchella 3320 CB SW Anysberg.

The significance of this collection is that the plants are small, very proliferous, and very green.

– pumila 3319 BC Osplaas, DeDoorns.

The distribution is odd because it is outside the Worcester-Robertson Karoo, but there are of course collections from as far afield as Matjesfontein near Laingburg, and the Anysberg Nature reserve.

– kingiana 3422 AA Little Brak, Barswel.

A strange population which may still be exemplified in cultivation at the Karoo Botanic garden. Some of the plants were without tubercles at all.

– semiviva 3120 CD SE Middelpos.

The plants were unusually robust for the species and this is also the furthest west the species is known to me.

– mutica var. mutica 3420 AB Crodini.

I do not recall this locality. On one trip I made to Bredasdorp I saw many different populations of mutica which I did not record. This may be one of them, or it may be specifically one from south of Napky which I have grown from seed as 7029.

1404a cooperi var. tenera 3325 CB Groendal Dam.

I was actually exploring asclepiads when I saw this plant. The remote and rugged terrain there needs better exploration.

2. Karoo Garden (KG) Collections.

The following are only the collections which were reduced to herbarium record and which do not, in the main, replicate other earlier records. Some of these collections were made in the company of others company and I regret that this is not better conveyed:-

623/69 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Soesriver.

627/69 retusa 3421 AB Near, Riversdale.

628/69 mirabilis var. badia 3419 BD Napier.

630/69 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Robertson.

631/69 turgida var. suberecta 3422 AA Brandwacht.

640/69 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 CB NE. Worcester.

662/69 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DA Keeromskloof.

669/69 maculata var. maculata 3319 CB Brandvlei Dam.

681/69 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BD Mierkraal, Napier.

682/69 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 AB Uitkyk.

688/69 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD SW Robertson.

692/69 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BA Near Genadendal.

695/69 herbacea var. paynei 3319 DD McGregor.

26/70 mirabilis var. triebneriana 342O AA Stormsvlei.

28/70 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 AB N Uitkyk.

30/70 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BA near Greyton.

31/70 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BA near Greyton.

32/70 mirabilis var. beukmannii 3419 BA Skuitsberg.

34/70 turgida var. longibracteata 3420 AC N Bredasdorp.

35/70 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AC N Bredasdorp.

36/70 heidelbergensis var. minor 3420 CA Rooivlei.

46/70 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Roberts.to Bonnievale.

118/70 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DA Effata.

163/70 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD S Goudmyn.

166/70 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CB Brandwacht.

175/70 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC Rooiberg.

200/70 retusa 3421 AA W Riversdale.

202/70 magnifica var. atrofusca 3421 AA Spitzkop, W Riversdal.

218/70 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DC Mowers.

224/70 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC E Bonnievale.

231/70 decipiens var. decipiens 3323 AD Skerpkop, E Willowmore.

310/70 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3227 AC SW Cathcart.

311/70 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3227 AA Imvani.

312/70 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3126 DD Bowes’ farm.

315/70 decipiens var. virella 3324 AA Campherpoort.

323/70 mucronata var. morrisiae 3321 BC Bergplaas.

329/70 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DD Koningsrivier.

336/70 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Hellspoort.

382/70 cooperi var. pilifera 3326 DC Brigadoon.

383/70 cooperi var. pilifera 3326 DA Peninsula.

392/70 cooperi var. cooperi 3227 AC W Cathcart.

393/70 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3227 AC SW Cathcart.

402/70 springbokvlakensis 3324 BD Springbokvlakte.

806/70 longiana ‑ ‑ SE Hankey.

2/71 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

7/71 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

9/71 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

36/71 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 BD Tonnel Stn.

77/71 mucronata var. rycroftiana 3321 DD 23km E Ladismith.

83/71 magnifica var. magnifica 3421 AA S Riversdale.

86/71 turgida var. longibracteata 3421 AD Stilbay.

91/91 retusa 3421 AB E Riversdale.

92/71 magnifica var. magnifica 3420 BA S Tradouw Pass.

93/71 variegata var. variegata 3421 AB Hoekraal.

94/71 turgida var. longibracteata 3421 AC Brakfontein.

98/71 chloracantha var. subglauca 3422 AA E Great Brak.

115/71 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 DB Warmwaterbron.

118/71 emelyae var. major 3321 CC Muiskraal.

120/71 mucronata var. morrisiae 3322 CB Hazenjacht.

156/71 retusa 3421 AB Blinkbonnie, E Riversdale.

166/71 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CC Springfontein.

167/71 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CC W Springfontein.

209/71 mutica var. nitida 3420 BB Kransriviermond.

275/71 retusa

311/71 magnifica var. acuminata 3421 BD N Gouritzmond.

324/71 reticulata var. subregularis 3319 DA Boskloof.

326/71 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA Rondeheuwel.

327/71 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC N Kykoedie.

388/71 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DA E Vanwyksdorp.

345/71 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Robertson.

535/71 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 CB W Vanwyksdorp.

567/71 mucronata var. inconfluens 3321 AC Dwarsrivier.

568/71 mucronata var. morrisiae 3321 CB W Vanwyksdorp.

573/71 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CB Ladismith to Vanwyksd.

593/71 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 CB E Ladismith.

6/72 cooperi var. leightonii 3327 BA Kaysers Beach.

47/72 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA Plutosvale.

47/72a cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA Plutosvale.

85/72 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Badjieskraal.

111/72 bayeri 3322 CA S Oudtshoorn.

114/72 emelyae var. comptoniana 3323 AD Georgida.

119/72 scabra var. morrisiae 3322 AD Schoemanspoort.

126/72 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3320 DD E Lemoenshoek.

138/72 emelyae var. major 3321 CD Sandkraal.

140/72 decipiens var. decipiens 3323 BB Constantia.

146/72 bayeri 3322 CB Doringkloof.

151/72 mucronata var. morrisiae 3322 CB Kamanassie Dam.

160/72 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 CB S Ladismith.

160/72 arachnoidea var. setata 3322 BC Meiringspoort.

240/72 turgida var. turgida 3420 BB N Heidelberg.

241/72 turgida var. turgida 3420 BB N Heidelberg.

329/72 nortieri var. nortieri 3118 DC Die Kom.

125/73 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 DA S Calitzdorp.

155/73 fasciata 3325 CB Hillwacht.

193/73 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD N Hankey.

311/73 magnifica var. acuminata 3421 AD N Gouritzmond.

100/74 blackburniae var. blackburniae 3321 AC W Ladismith.

107/74 magnifica var. magnifica 3420 BB SW Heidelberg.

109/74 mucronata var. morrisiae 3322 CA Volmoed.

100/740 blackburniae var. blackburniae 3321 DB Warmbaths.

411/75 chloracantha var. chloracantha 3321 DD N Herbertsdale.

436/75 decipiens var. cyanea 3323 AD Georgida.

441/75 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 BC N Calitzdorp.

89/76 reticulata var. hurlingii 3320 CC Goudmyn.

90/76 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC Rooiberg.

83/77 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Kykoedie.

257/77 emelyae var. emelyae 3321 DC SE Vanwyksdorp.

3. M.B.Bayer personal numbers.

112 limifolia var. gigantea 2731 DA Nongoma.

121 maraisii var. notabilis 3319 DD Vinkrivier.

153 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DB Buitenstekloof.

154 minima var. poellnitziana 3320 CC W Drew.

155 lockwoodii 3320 BB Floriskraal.

157 parksiana 3422 AA Dumbie Dykes.

158 floribunda var. floribunda 3420 BB N Heidelberg.

159 mucronata var. inconfluens 3321 BC Die Berg.

160 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC Ribbokkop.

161 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DC Ribbokkop.

163 pulchella var. pulchella 3320 AC Avondrust, Touws River.

163 pubescens var. pubescens 3319 CB Sandberg.

164 maculata var. maculata 3319 CB Brandvlei Dam.

166 rossouwii var. rossouwii 3420 BA Oudekraalkop.

167 venosa ssp. woolleyi 3324 BD Kleinpoort

168 venosa ssp. venosa 3420 AB Swellendam.

169 attenuata ‑ ‑ ‑

170 glabrata ‑ ‑ ‑

171 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3322 AC Schoemanspoort.

171 mucronata var. mucronata 3322 AD Schoemanspoort.

172 marumiana var. marumiana 3226 AB Spring Valley.

173 bolusii var. bolusii 3225 CA NE Pearston.

174 marginata 3421 AB S Heidelberg.

175 monticola var. monticola 3322 DD Molen River.

886 fasciata 3325 CB Spring Range.

887 fasciata 3325 CC E Hankey.

1119 maculata var. maculata 3319 CB Audensberg.

1120 maculata var. maculata 3319 DA S Sandhills.

1128 pubescens var. livida 3319 CD S Lemoenpoort.

1145 maculata var. maculata 3319 CD Moddergat.

1194 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 DB Fairfax.

1208 maraisii var. notabilis 3319 DD Wolfkloof.

1209 maraisii var. notabilis 3319 DD Wolfkloof.

1210 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DC Trappieskraalkloof.

1211 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Robertson.

1213 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA N Stormsvlei.

1214 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

1215 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DC Langkloof.

1216 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Goudmyn.

1217 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

1218 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

1219 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC N Drew.

1220 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Klaasvoogds.

1221 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AD Juliusfontein.

1221 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Skurweberg.

1222 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD S McGregor.

1351 coarctata var. adelaidensis 3326 AB Hellspoort.

1352 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 AB Hellspoort.

1354 coarctata var. adelaidensis 3326 BC NW Grahamstown.

1355 coarctata var. adelaidensis 3326 AA Willowfountain.

1357 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 BC Brooklands.

1358 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 BC Manley Flats.

1359 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 DA Kowie.

1360 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 BC Vaalvlei.

1361 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 DA S Vaalvlei.

1363 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 CB Salem to Alexandria.

1364 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 DA Hopewell, W Port Alfred.

1366 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 DA Hopewell, W Port Alfred.

1367 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 BA Rooidrift.

1368 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 BA E Plutosvale.

1370 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 CA Woodbury.

1371 coarctata var. coarctata 3325 DB Orlando.

1372 coarctata var. coarctata 3326 AD Yellowwoods.

1381 reinwardtii var. brevicula 3326 BD Frazer’s Camp.

1391 reinwardtii var. reinwardtii 3327 AA W Peddie.

1438 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC Rooikleigat.

1539 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC S Gemsbokkop.

1543 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DD Wolfkloof, Robertson.

1558 emelyae var. multifolia 3321 CC Springfontein.

1615 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CA SW Ladismith.

1616 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 DB Oudtshoorn to Calitzdorp.

1617 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CA Adamskraal.

1618 mucronata var. habdomadis 3321 AC Dwarsrivier.

1619 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 3219 DD Ceres Karoo.

1620 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3326 BA E Fort Brown

1621 cooperi var. leightonii 3327 BA SW Paynes Hill.

1621 mucronata var. morrisiae 3321 DB Warmbron.

1622 cooperi var. pilifera 3326 AA Willowfountain.

1623 cooperi var. pilifera 3227 DA St Johns Drift.

1624 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CA W Ladismith.

1628 mucronata var. inconfluens 3321 CA S Ladismith.

1652 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 2817 CD Kliphoogte.

1661 venosa ssp. tessellata 2817 CD Kouefontein.

1674 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 2917 AB Karrachabpoort.

1698 heidelbergensis var. toonensis 3420 BB Matjestoon.

1700 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AB Leeurivier.

1701 mucronata var. rycroftiana 3321 DC VanWyksdorp to Herbertsdale.

1702 zantneriana var. minor 3323 BB near Miller Stn.

1703 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Robertson.

1704 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3320 DD Warmwaterberg.

1706 cymbiformis var. setulifera 3228 BA S Mooiplaas.

1707 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Muiskraalkop.

1708 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC N Ashton.

1963 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 CA Nougaspoort.

1986 mucronata var. inconfluens 3320 DA Anysberg Pass.

1995 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CD W Doornrivier.

1996 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CD Lemoenpoort.

1997 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DC Wansbek.

2011 marumiana var. marumiana 3124 CC Murraysburg.

2022 bolusii var. bolusii 3224 BA Graaff‑Reinet.

2024 bolussii var pringlei 3225 CB Bruintjieshoogte.

2038 marumiana var. marumiana 3126 BD N Tarkastad.

2052 angustifolia var. baylissii 3325 BC Oudekraal.

2070 decipiens var. virella 3224 DB Ebenezer.

2071 bolusii var. bolusii 3224 DD Lootskloof.

2072 bolusii var. bolusii 3224 BA Graaff‑Reinet.

2074 decipiens var. virella 3324 AA Campherpoort.

2076 decipiens var. minor 3324 AA Grootriver.

2083 decipiens var. cyanea 3323 CA N Uniondale.

2086 arachnoidea var. aranea 3322 DC Ganskraal.

2093 pulchella var. pulchella 3320 AB SE Konstabel Stn.

2099 mucronata var. morrisiae 3322 CA S Oudtshoorn.

2105 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 BA N Baviaans Stn.

2117 viscosa 3220 DD N Laingsburg.

2124 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3220 DC N Laingsburg.

2131 viscosa 3220 DD N Laingsburg.

2177 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC Goedverwacht.

2187 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DD Wolfkloof, Robertson.

2241 pygmaea var. pygmaea 3422 AA Great Brak.

2271 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Houtbaaikloof.

2287 pygmaea var. pygmaea 3422 AA W Great Brak.

2289 pygmaea var. pygmaea 3422 AA Dumbie Dykes.

2311 floribunda var. dentata 3421 BA Wydersrivier.

2347 marumiana var. marumiana 3224 AB Valley of Desolation.

2350 nigra var. nigra 3224 AB St Olives.

2356 marumiana var. marumiana 3124 DC Aasvoelkrans.

2372 venosa ssp. tessellata 3222 BC E Molteno Pass.

2373 marumiana var. marumiana 3222 BA Molteno Pass.

2377 decipiens var. cyanea 3221 CB W Merweville.

2380 bolusii var. bolusii 3124 CC W Graaff‑Reinet.

2385 venosa ssp. tessellata 3223 AA Nelspoort.

2389 bolusii var. bolusii 3123 DD E Murraysberg.

2406 semiviva 3222 BC S Beaufort West.

2418 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CD W Vanwyksdorp.

2419 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CD S Vanwyksdorp.

2420 turgida var. longibracteata 3420 AB SW Swellendam.

2421 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CB W Worcester.

2422 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CB SE Brandvlei Dam.

2423 magnifica var. acuminata 3421 BD N Gouritzmond.

2424 wittebergensis 3320 BC SW Laingsburg.

2425 lockwoodii 3320 BB Ezelsfontein.

2453 marumiana var. archeri 3221 CA Langberg.

2453 mirabilis var. beukmannii 3419 BA Skuitsberg.

2453 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BA Dagbreek.

2469a nigra var. diversifolia 3221 CB W Merweville.

2526 mutica var. mutica 3420 AA Rietfontein.

2533 turgida var. longibracteata 3420 BC Diepkloof, S Malgas.

2547 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AC Brakfontein.

2550 heidelbergensis var. heidelberg 3420 BB E Heidelberg.

2551 variegata var. modesta 3420 AD SW Kathoek.

2556 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD Beyersdal.

2564 variegata var. hemicrypta 3420 BC NE Potberg.

2574 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 3219 DC Skitterykloof.

2579 herbacea var. lupula 3319 CD Wolfkloof, Villiersdorp.

2582 pulchella var. pulchella 3319 BD W Touws River.

2591 maculata var. maculata 3319 CB NE Brandvlei Dam.

2665 magnifica var. atrofusca 3421 AA Droerivier.

2670 venosa ssp. venosa 3420 BC Malgas.

2672 turgida var. longibracteata 3421 AC Duiwenhoksriver.

2697 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DC Keerweerder, Jonaskop.

2716 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CA Winkelplaas.

3363 monticola var. monticola 3323 AD Georgida.

3375 cooperi var. viridis 3324 BC Dorschfontein.

3384 monticola var. monticola 3323 CA E Uniondale.

3398 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 3119 AB Koringberg.

3423 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 3119 BC Beeswater.

3439 floribunda var. dentata 3420 BA Bontebok Park.

3453 venosa ssp. venosa 3420 AB Bontebok Park.

3586 chloracantha var. denticulifera 3421 BB Cooper Siding.

3586 chloracantha var. denticulifera 3421 BD N Gouritzmond.

3612 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3320 AB Jagerskraal.

3620 marumiana var. viridis 3322 AC S Prince Albert.

3637 nortieri var. nortieri 3118 DC W Doornriver.

3670 marumiana var. viridis 3322 AC Prince Albert.

3906 nortieri var. pehlemanniae 3320 BB SW Laingsburg.

4160 bolusii var. bolusii 3323 BB NE Fullarton.

4168b glauca var. glauca 3324 AA E Humefield.

4179 glauca var. glauca 3224 CD Fairview.

4180 decipiens var. cyanea 3224 CD Fairview, W Jansenville.

4198 cooperi var. viridis 3325 AC Brakfontein.

4294 nigra var. diversifolia 3222 AC Wolwehoek.

4320 arachnoidea var. namaquensis 3220 DA Verlatenkloof.

4404 cooperi var. gordoniana 3323 CA Uniondale Poort.

4428 blackburniae var. blackburniae 3321 DA Rooiberg.

4429 blackburniae var. blackburniae 3321 DA Assegaaibos.

4430 herbacea var. paynei 3319 DD Olifantsdoorn.

4432 minima var. minima 3420 AB Bontebok Park.

4437 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W McGregor.

4438 mucronata var. inconfluens 3320 DA Jakkalsfontein.

4439 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 CD N Lemoenpoort.

4440 decipiens var. cyanea 3322 BC E Klaarstroom.

4450 cooperi var. pilifera 3326 AD NW Salem.

4460 cooperi var. pilifera 3227 DC Brigadoon.

4461 maculata var. intermedia 3319 DC Buitenstekloof.

4462 arachnodea var. aranea 3322 AC S Cango Caves.

4462 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 CA 20km W Ladismith.

4471 turgida var. suberecta 3421 BA Weltevrede.

4473 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Soesriver.

4474 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD NE Hankey.

4475 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 DD NE Hankey.

4476 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 DD E Hankey.

4476 turgida var. suberecta 3421 BA Draaihoek.

4477 turgida var. suberecta 3421 BA E Valsch River.

4478 turgida var. suberecta 3421 BB Gouritz River.

4479 mutica var. mutica 3419 BB E Riviersonderend.

4479 turgida var. longibracteata 3421 AB Kafferkuils Bridge.

4499 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3322 AC N Oudtshoorn.

4549 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3325 BC Kranspoort, W Patterson.

4575 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3320 DD W Warmwaterberg.

4642 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BD Skietpad.

4647 arachnoidea var. aranea 3322 AD Raubenheimer Dam.

4648 cymbiformis var. ramosa 3327 AB Wooldridge.

4648 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3327 AB W Woolridge.

4649 cymbiformis var. reddii 3226 BB Klipplaat Dam.

4650 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3326 AC S Alicedale.

4651 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3226 DA Blinkwater.

4652 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3326 BB Ballinafad.

4653 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3325 BB Swartwaterpoort.

4654 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3327 AC Kapp‑Fish.

4655 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3226 DC Sulphur Baths.

4656 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3322 CA Volmoed.

4657 decipiens var. cyanea 3324 BD Hanekam.

4659 reticulata var. hurlingii 3320 CC Goudmyn.

4665 reticulata var. attenuata 3320 CC SE Bonnievale.

4665 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DD Wolfkloof, Robertson.

4667 venosa ssp. tessellata 3225 BA Halesowen.

4668 venosa ssp. granulata 3320 AC Avondrus.

4669 venosa ssp granulata 3219 DC Skitterykloof.

4671 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3320 DC E Barrydale.

4677 venosa ssp. tessellata 3123 CD Nuwerus.

4677 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AA Kliphoogte.

4901 marginata 3420 BA Koppies.

4902 serrata 3420 BA Koppies.

4941 sordida var. sordida 3325 AD SE Kirkwood.

5086 semiviva 3120 DB S Williston.

5096 semiviva 3120 DC S Williston.

5101 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD Haarwegskloof.

5157 decipiens var. decipiens 3322 AB Kleinsleutelftn.

5182 decipiens var. decipiens 3322 AA W Prince Albert.

5209 marumiana var. marumiana 3221 DD Tierberg.

5225 scabra var. scabra 3322 AC Cango.

5226 scabra var. scabra 3322 AC Cango.

5261 decipiens var. decipiens 3322 CA S Prince Albert.

5296 mucronata var. inconfluens 3320 CB Touwsfontein.

5750 venosa ssp. granulata 3220 CC Bantamsfontein.

5753 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DA E Vanwyksdorp.

6486 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 BB SW Laingsburg.

6488 venosa ssp. tessellata 3120 BC Beaufort West Dam.

6488 semiviva 3120 BC Beaufort West.

6490 venosa ssp. tessellata 3222 BA Karoo Nat.Pk.

6495 nigra var. nigra 3221 CB E Merweville.

6496 nigra var. nigra 3221 CA W Merweville.

6497 decipiens var. cyanea 3221 CB 15km Merweville to Koup.

6498 marumiana var. marumiana 3222 BA Molteno Pass.

6501 semiviva 3221 CA Langberg.

6502 nigra var. nigra 3221 CA Langberg.

6505 nortieri var. nortieri 3219 AC N Dwarsrivier.

6506 nortieri var. nortieri 3219 AD Dwarsrivier.

6509 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

6510 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

6511 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Olifantskrans.

6512 mutica var. mutica 3420 AA SE Drew.

6512a maraisii var.. maraisii 3420 AA SE Drew.

6513 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3420 BD SW Swellendam.

6514 maculata var. intermedia 3319 DD Buitenstekloof.

6515 reticulata var. acuminata 3320 CC Aurora.

6516 maraisii var. meiringii 3319 DD Rooiberg, Goudmyn.

6518 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Lower N Slopes, Rooiberg.

6519 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Agter Vink.

6520 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Die Nekkie, W Robertson.

6521 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA N Stormsvlei.

6522 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DD Buitenstekloof.

6523 venosa ssp. venosa 3420 AB Swellendam.

6524 limifolia var. limifolia – – Komatipoort.

6525 rossouwii var. calcarea 3420 AD De Hoop.

6527 variegata var. hemicrypta 3420 AB NW Swellendam.

6528 floribunda var. floribunda 3420 AB SW Swellendam.

6533 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AB N Napky.

6534 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA SE Drew.

6535 reticulata var. reticulata 3320 CC N slopes Rooiberg.

6536 mutica var. mutica 3420 AB S Napky.

6537 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BC NE Goudini.

6538 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BD 10km W Napier.

6539 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AD Tarentaal.

6540 minima var. minima 3420 AD Tarentaal.

6541 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD NE Kathoek.

6542 variegata var. modesta 3420 BC E Potberg reidence.

6544 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 BC NN Potberg.

6545 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 BC N Potberg.

6546 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD NW Kathoek

6548 reticulata 3319 DD Bosfontein.

6551 floribundaXpygmaea 3421 BB NE Cooper siding.

6552 fasciata 3324 DD NE Zuurbron.

6553 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD N Zuurbron.

6554 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD N Zuurbron.

6555 cooperi var. isabellae 3325 CC Longmore Forest.

6556 bolusii var. pringlei 3225 DD NW Rippon Stn.

6557 cooperi var. pilifera 3325 BB NW Ripppon Stn.

6558 cooperi var. dielsiana 3225 DB N Eastpoort.

6559 cooperi var. dielsiana 3225 DB SE Eastpoort.

6560 cooperi var. dielsiana 3225 DB S Eastpoort.

6561 bolusii var. pringlei 3225 DB Baviaanskranz, Patryshoogte.

6562 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3226 CD Kagasmond.

6563 cooperi var. cooperi 3226 CD Koonap Bridge.

6564 cooperi var. dielsiana 3226 CB Chancery Hall.

6565 cooperi var. dielsiana 3225 DA W Somerset East.

6566 bolusii var. bolusii 3225 AC NE Ashbourne.

6567 cymbiformis var. reddii 3226 BB Waterdown Dam.

6568 nigra var. nigra 3225 BD Waterdown Dam.

6569 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3226 BD Waterdown Dam.

6570 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3226 BD S Estrelle.

6571 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3227 AB Turnstream.

6572 cymbiformis var. reddii 3227 AB Turnstream.

6573 cymbiformis var. setulifera 3227 AB Highclere.

6574 nigra var. nigra 3224 DA 5km ENE Kendrew.

6575 nigra var. nigra 3226 CB Adelaide.

6580 decipiens var. virella 3224 DC Meerlust.

6581 decipiens var. virella 3224 DC Welgelegen.

6582 decipiens var. virella 3324 AB SW Mt Steward.

6583 decipiens var. virella 3324 AB NW Waaipoort.

6584 glauca var. herrei 3324 AD Waaipoort.

6584a glaucaXviscosa 3324 AD Waaipoort.

6585 zantneriana var. zantneriana 3324 AD Waaipoort.

6586 glauca var. herrei 3324 BC Zeekoeisnek.

6587 decipiens var. minor 3324 BC NW Die Bordjie.

6588 sordida var. lavranii 3324 BC NE DieBordjie.

6589 cooperi var. viridis 3324 BC NE Dorschfontein.

6591 cooperi var. pilifera 3226 DC S The Tower.

6592 cooperi var. dielsiana 3226 DC W Fort Beaufort.

6593 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3226 DC E The Tower.

6596 kingiana 3322 CC Moeras River.

6597 cooperi var. gordoniana 3424 BB Jeffrey’s Bay.

6598 glauca var. glauca 3325 CB Bauerskraal.

6599 cooperi var. pilifera 3325 CB Bauerskraal.

6600 cooperi var. viridis 3325 AC N Perdepoort.

6601 arachnoidea var. aranea 3322 CC Moeras River.

6602 cooperi var. pilifera 3326 BC Glen Craig.

6603 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 BA NE Grahamstown.

6604 decipiens var. xiphiophylla 3325 DC Coega.

6608 arachnoidea var. setata 3322 CB N Dysselsdorp.

6609 truncata 3322 CB N Dysseldorp.

6610 arachnoidea var. setata 3324 AC N Steytlerville.

6611 sordida var. sordida 3325 DA Soutkloof.

6612 aristata 3325 DA Soutkloof.

6613 sordida var. sordida 3325 BC Bluecliff Stn.

6614 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Hellspoort.

6615 glauca var. glauca 3325 AC Paardepoort.

6616 decipiens var. xiphiophylla 3325 CA Bauerskraal.

6618 decipiens var. minor 3325 AC Sapkamma/Perdepoort.

6619 decipiens var. minor 3325 AC Sapkamma/Perdepoort.

6620 decipiens var. minor 3325 AC Sapkamma.

6621 outeniquensis 3322 CC Moerasriver.

6622 pumila 3319 DA Mowers.

6623 pumila 3319 DC W Rooiberg.

6624 minima var. poellnitziana 3320 CC W Sanddrift.

6625 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC Sanddrift.

6626 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC N Sanddrift.

6627 marginata 3320 CC N Sanddrift.

6628 minima var. poellnitziana 3320 CC Sanddrift.

6629 marginataXminima 3320 CC E Sanddrift.

6630 minima var. minima 3419 DB W Moddervlei, Elim.

6631 mirabilis var. mirabilis 3419 DB Mierkraal.

6632 rossouwii var. calcarea 3420 CA Renosterfontein.

6633 marginata 3420 AC Adoonskop.

6634 marginata 3420 AC Adoonskop.

6635 mirabilis var. badia 3419 BD Napier.

6636 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BA S Greyton.

6637 minima var. minima 3419 DB Mierkraal.

6638 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AC Rooivlei, Bredasdorp.

6639 mirabilis var. sublineata 3420 CA S Bredasdorp.

6640 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AC Adoonskop.

6641 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Hasiesdrift.

6642 pumila 3419 DD Vinkrivier.

6643 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BD Fairfield.

6644 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3420 BD SW Swellendam.

6645 pumila 3319 CB Worcester airfield.

6646 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD N Macgregor.

6647 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Agter Vink.

6648 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD SW Robertson.

6649 arachnoidea var. setata 3320 CC E Montagu.

6650 mutica var. nitida 3420 BB SE Heidelberg.

6651 magnifica var. magnifica 3421 AA S Riversdale.

6653 emelyae var. emelyae 3321 CD N Sandkraal.

6654 emelyae var. emelyae 3321 CD N Sandkraal.

6655 emelyae var. emelyae 3321 CD N Sandkraal.

6658 arachnoidea var. aranea 3321 CD E Sandkraal.

6659 emelyae var. emelyae 3321 CD SE Vanwyksdorp.

6660 emelyae var. multifolia 3321 CC W Muiskraal.

6661 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CC W Muiskraal.

6662 magnifica var. atrofusca 3421 AA Kweekkraal.

6663 magnifica var. magnifica 3420 BB SW Heidelberg.

6666 magnifica var. magnifica 3420 BA S Tradouw Pass.

6667 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 DC SW Barrydale.

6668 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC N Ashton.

6670 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Robertson.

6672 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Koningsriver.

6673 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Kranz Reserve.

6674 pumila 3319 DD Kranz Reserve.

6676 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC E Goudmyn.

6678 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Grootrivier.

6680 herbacea var. paynei 3319 DD Koningsriverberg.

6681 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Koningriver Dam.

6682 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD N Koningriver Dam.

6683 maraisii var. notabilis 3319 DD N Klaasvoogds.

6684 reticulata var. attenuata 3320 CC E Dankbaar.

6685 mirabilis var. diversicolor 3320 BB Olifantsdoornkloof.

6686 mirabilis/maraisii 3320 BB E Olifantsdoornkloof.

6687 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD SE McGregor.

6688 herbacea var. herbacea 3319 DA Mowers.

6690 arachnoidea/mucronata 3320 CA Watervalkloof.

6691 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DC NW Boschfontein.

6692 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC NW Boschfontein.

6693 reticulata var. subregularis 3319 DC Uitvlug.

6694 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DA Kanetvlei.

6696 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 BD W Osplaas.

6697 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 BD E Osplaas.

6698 venosa ssp. granulata 3319 BA Karoopoort.

6700 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3320 CA Soutkuil.

6702 pulchella var. pulchella 3320 CA Soutkuil.

6703 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3320 DA Bellair Dam.

6704 arachnoidea/mucronata 3320 CB Ouberg.

6705 arachnoidea/mucronata 3320 CB Ouberg.

6706 arachnoidea/mucronata 3320 CB Ouberg.

6710 mirabilis var. depauperata 3420 BB Boesmansrivier.

6711 mirabilis var. depauperata 3420 BB Boesmansrivier.

6712 mirabilis var. depauperata 3420 BB Boesmansrivier.

6713 mirabilis var. depauperata 3420 BB Boesmansrivier.

6714 mirabilis var. depauperata 3319 DC Koeniesriver.

6719 pumila 3319 DD Dassiehoek.

6720 mirabilis var. depauperata 3319 DC Rietvleikloof.

6721 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DD W Robertson.

6722 pumila 3319 DC Boschfontein.

6723 mirabilis var. depauperata 3319 DC Takkap.

6724 emelyae var. emelyae 3322 CD Klipdrif.

6725 pungens 3323 DD W Braamrivier.

6727 outeniquensis 3322 CD Herold.

6727 scabra var. scabra 3323 DB Braamrivier.

6728 scabra var. scabra 3323 CC W DeVlugt.

6729 transiens 3323 CC N De Vlugt.

6730 mucronata var. habdomadis 3321 AD Seweweekspoort.

6732 scabra var. starkiana 3322 AD Lentelus.

6737 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DC N Mowers Stn.

6738 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DC N Mowers Stn.

6739 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 CC W Springfontein.

6740 arachnoidea var. aranea 3320 DD Kleindoringrivier.

6741 emelyae var. major 3320 DD Kleindoringrivier.

6743 mucronata var. mucronata 3320 DD SSE Barrydale.

6744 arachnoidea var. setata 3320 DC Tradouw Pass.

6745 floribunda var. floribunda 3421 AB RoseInnis Drive.

6746 chloracantha var. denticulifera 3321 BB NW Herbertsdale.

6747 magnifica var. acuminata 3421 BD Vleesbaai.

6749 turgida var. suberecta 3421 BB Die Hoek, Gouritz.

6750 minima var. minima 3421 BD Melkhoutfontein.

6751 magnifica var. splendens 3421 AB Soutpan, W Albertinia.

6756 herbacea var. paynei 3319 DD S Olifantsdoorn.

6757 mirabilis var. depauperata 3419 BB Hoeksrivierkloof.

6758 nortieri var. nortieri 3219 CD 5km SE Sneeukop.

6759 nortieri var. nortieri 3219 CD 10km SE Sneeukop.

6760 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Houtbaaiskloof.

6761 maraisii var. meiringii 3319 DD Top Bakenskop.

6762 arachnoidea var. setata 3320 DB Kuitfontein, NE Plathuis.

6763 pulchella var. globifera 3320 DB Wolwefontein, Plathuis.

6764 blackburniae var. blackburiae 3320 DB Wolwefontein.

6767 outeniquensis 3322 CC Herold.

6768 fasciata 3324 CD Moordenaarskloof.

6769 viscosa 3324 CD Moordenaarskloof.

6770 viscosaXfasciata 3324 CD Moordenaarskloof.

6771 transiens 3324 CD Moordenaarskloof.

6772 pungens 3324 CC Joubertskraal.

6773 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 CC Joubertskraal.

6774 scabra var. scabra 3323 DD Braamrivier.

6775 scabraXpungens 3323 DD Braamrivier.

6776 cooperi var. cooperi 3225 DA SW Glen Avon.

6777 nigra var. nigra 3225 DA N Slagtersnek.

6778 cooperi var. pilifera 3225 DD New Slagtersnek.

6780 pungens 3323 DD W Braamrivier.

6781 maraisii var. notabilis 3319 DD Bergplaas.

6783 mirabilis var. mirabilis 3419 DB Mierkraal.

6784 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DC Draaihoek.

6785 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DC Draaihoek.

6788 viscosa 3324 DA Komdomo.

6789 cooperi var. picturata 3324 DA N Komdomo

6790 cooperi var. picturata 3324 DC W Kranz, E Wistaria.

6791 cooperi var. picturata 3324 DC E Kranz, E Wistaria.

6792 cooperi var. gordoniana 3424 CB N Jeffrey’s Bay.

6793 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD N Zuurbron.

6794 fasciata 3324 DD Hankey Pass.

6795 fasciata 3424 BB Kabeljouws.

6796 fasciata 3424 BB N Jeffrey’s Bay.

6797 fasciata 3424 BB W Bank Zeekoevlei.

6798 gracilis var. isabellae 3324 DB Houtkloof, Elandsriver.

6799 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD E Roodewal.

6801 gracilis var. isabellae 3324 DD Milton, SW Hankey.

6802 gracilis var. isabellae 3324 DD Philips Tunnel.

6803 attenuata var. radula 3324 DD Hallelujah, N Hankey.

6804 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD NE Hankey.

6805 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DD Hallelujah.

6806 fasciata 3325 CC Loerie Dam.

6807 fasciata 3324 DD E Hankey.

6808 cooperi var. isabellae 3325 CC E Gamtoos Bridge.

6809 fasciata 3325 CC S Gamtoos Bridge.

6810 cooperi var. gordoniana 3323 DD N Joubertina.

6811 cooperi var. gordoniana 3323 CA Uniondale Poort.

6813 pygmaea var. pygmaea 3422 AA Moss Gas, W Mossel Bay.

6815 maculata var. maculata 3319 CB Audensberg Peak.

6816 sordida var. sordida 3325 BC SE Kirkwood.

6817 magnifica var. atrofusca 3421 AA NW Kweekkraal.

6820 monticola var. monticola 3322 DB W Uniondale, NE Kykoe.

6821 scabra var. scabra 3322 DB NE Kykoe.

6822 viscosa 3323 DA Bottom Nuwekloof.

6823 monticola var. bavensis 3324 CA Top Bosrug.

6824 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 CA Koutnek.

6825 transiens 3324 CA S Geelhoutboskloof.

6826 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 CA Rooikloof.

6827 cooperi var. picturata 3324 CB E Rooihoek.

6828 attenuata 3324 DA Sandlands Cambria.

6830 cooperi var. gordoniana 3324 DA E Komdomo.

6831 attenuata var. attenuata 3324 DD Hallelujah, N Hankey.

6832 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA E ft Plutosvale.

6833 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA ft Plutosvale.

6834 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA W ft Plutosvale.

6835 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA WW ft Plutosvale.

6836 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA W Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6837 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA S Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6838 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA SE Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6839 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA W Mindmill, Plutosvale.

6840 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA opposite windmill, mid Plutosvale.

6841 attenuata 3326 BA Roffs Rock, Plutosvale.

6842 bolusii var. blackbeardiana 3227 BC Inverbolo.

6843 cymbiformis var. reddii 3227 BC Inverbolo.

6844 angustifolia 3326 AC E Alicedale.

6845 cooperi var. cooperi 3326 AC E Alicedale.

6847 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3326 AC SW Alicedale.

6848 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3326 AC NW Alicedale.

6849 angustifolia 3325 BB Aalwynspoort. Stn.

6850 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3325 BB Swartwaterpoort.

6851 aristata 3325 BB Modderfontein, S Verdun.

6852 aristata 3325 BA Stonefountain.

6855 decipiens var. virella 3325 AA E Waterford.

6856 bolusii var. bolusii 3323 BB NE Fullarton.

6858 glauca var. herrei 3323 BB NE Fullarton.

6859 floribunda var. major 3420 AB SW Swellendam.

6860 maraisii/mirabilis 3420 AB 4km SW Swellendam.

6861 maraisii/heidelbergensis 3420 AB SW Swellendam.

6862 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 AA NW Rondeheuwel.

6863 mirabilis var. diversicolor 3419 BB Boesmansriver/Olifantsdoornkloof.

6864 mirabilis var. depauperata 3319 DD Whipstock, W McGregor.

6865 mirabilis var. consanguinea 3319 DD Dwarswaterkloof, W McGregor.

6867 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3320 CB NE Ouberg.

6868 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3320 CD W Twistniet.

6871 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DD Pietersfontein. M

6873 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DD NW Pietersfontein.

6875 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC NE Ashton, Cogmanskloof.

6876 mirabilis var. depauperata 3419 BB E Olifantsdoornkloof.

6877 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Die Nekkie.

6878 maraisii/mirabilis 3419 BB SW Swellendam.

6879 maraisii/floribunda 3420 BA Koppies. SE Swellendam.

6880 rossouwii var. rossouwii 3420 BA Oudekraalkop.

6881 floribunda var. dentata 3420 BA S Oudekraalkop.

6882 heidlbergensis 3420 AD W Juliesfontein.

6883 mucronata var. mucronata 3320 CD Poortjieskloof.

6884 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA Roff’s Rock, N Plutosvale.

6885 decipiens var. cyanea 3222 DC Trakaskuilen.

6886 heidelbergensis/mirabilis 3420 AD N Juliesfnt.

6888 variegata var. modesta 3420 BC NW Slopes Potberg.

6889 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 BC NW slopes Potberg.

6890 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 AD Witkop, N Brakfontein.

6891 cooperi var. tenera 3326 BA 300m W lower Roff’s Rock

6892 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA below 6891, Roff’s Rock.

6893 cymbiformis var. incurvula 3326 BA 400m W Roff’s Rock.

6894 angustifolia 3326 AB Thornkloof, NW Grahamstown.

6895 cymbiformis var. obtusa 3326 AB SE Thornkloof.

6896 coarctata var. adelaidensis 3326 AB SE Thornkloof.

6897 aristata 3325 BB SE Commadagga.

6899 aristata 3325 AB Paddafontein.

6901 aristata 3325 AB W Hopewell.

6903 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3325 AD S Spekboomkop.

6904 cooperi var. gordoniana 3325 AD Top Wilgerfontein

6905 cooperi var. “puberula” 3325 AD Top Wilgerfontein.

6907 glauca/coarctata 3325 AD Top Wilgerfontein.

6908 glauca 3325 AD SE DePlaat.

6909 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD SE DePlaat.

6910 cooperi var. “puberula” 3325 AD SE DePlaat.

6911 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD Kaboegapoort.

6914 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD E Spekboomberg.

6915 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD SE Koksedam

6916 aristata 3325 AB Spitzkop, Kaboega.

6917 aristata 3325 AB Original Kaboega gate.

6920 aristata 3325 DA Soutkloof.

6921 cooperi var. doldii 3327 BA Chalumna.

6922 cooperi var. pilifera 3325 BA Oudekraal.

6924 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD Kaboega Dam.

6925 cymbiformis var. cymbiformis 3325 AD Koksepad.

6927 bolusii var. pringlei 3325 BB W Ripon Stn.

6928 cooperi var. isabellae 3324 DC Nuwelande, Patensie.

6929 longiana 3324 DC Nuwelande, Patensie.

6930 cooperi var. picturata 3324 DC E Andrieskraal.

6932 cooperi var. isabellae 3424 BB Krom River, Ripon.

6933 cooperi var. gordoniana 3424 BB E Humansdorp.

6934 fasciata 3424 BB SW Humansdorp.

6935 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD S DePlaat.

6936 cooperi var. gordoniana 3323 CA N Uniondale.

6937 decipiens var. scottiana 3323 CA Vetvlei.

6938 decipiens var. scottiana 3323 CA Woedjieskloof, NE Uniondale.

6939 decipiens var. scottiana 3323 AD Ghwarriepoort, Keurfontein.

6940 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AB Klipfontein, E DePlaat.

6942 aristata 3325 AB DePlaat Weir.

6943 cooperi var. gracilis 3325 AD Dassiekop.

6945 nigra 3325 AB N DePlaat house.

6947 sordida 3325 AD S DePlaat house.

6949 cooperi var. pilifera 3325 AD Vyeboomfontein.

6951 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC NN Ashton.

6952 marginata 3320 CC N Ashton.

6953 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Le Chasseur Nek.

6954 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA N Stormsvlei.

6955 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3420 AA Stormsvlei.

6956 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD SW Rooiberg, Eilandia.

6957 reticulata 3319 DD S Rooiberg.

6958 pumila 3319 DD S Rooiberg.

6959 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Upper SE Rooiberg.

6959 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Kleinspitzkop, Vrolikheid.

6960 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC W Sanddrift.

6961 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Muiskraalkop.

6962 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC Olifantskrans.

6963 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC W Bonnievale.

6964 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC E Zandvliet.

6965 maraisii var. maraisii 3320 CC far E Zandvliet.

6966 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Steenbokshoogte, Vrolikheid.

6967 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD W Kanonkop, Vrolikheid.

6968 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Witkranz, Vrolikheid.

6969 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Kleinspitzkop, Vrolikheid.

6970 herbacea var. flaccida 3319 DD Rooiberg, Vinkrivier.

6971 heidelbergensis/maraisii 3320 CC Jakkalshoek, E Bonnievale.

6972 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD with flaccida, Rooiberg.

6973 maraisii var. maraisii 3419 BD N Napier.

6974 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC Tonteldooskop.

6976 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC S Tonteldooskop.

6977 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC S aspect at 6974.

6978 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC between 6974/6977.

6979 heidelbergensis/maraisii 3320 CC Loerkop, E. Ashton.

6981 heidelbergensis/maraisii 3320 CC SE Loerkop.

6982 mutica var. mutica 3420 AC Hasiesdrift.

6983 rossouwii var. rossouwii 3420 CA Soutkloof, NW Bredsadorp.

6984 rossouwii var. rossouwii 3420 CA Nooitgedacht.

6985 rossouwii var. calcarea 3420 AD DeHoop.

6986 rossouwii var. petrophila 3420 CA Karsriver.

6987 mirabilis var. badia 3419 BD Sandfontein.

6988 pumila 3319 DD Pietersfontein.

6988 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC Nooitgedacht.

6989 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC SE Nooitgedacht.

6990 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC NE Mardouw.

6991 mucronata var. inconfluens 3320 DA Jakkalsfontein.

6992 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CD Langverwacht.

6994 arachnoidea var. nigricans 3321 DB NE Tierkloof, Gamka.

6995 viscosa 3321 DB E Tierkloof.

6996 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DB SE Tierkloof.

6997 viscosa 3321 DB S Tierkloof.

6998 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DA Top Rooiberg.

7001 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DA Groenefontein.

7002 viscosa 3321 DA Groenefontein.

7003 arachnoidea var. setata 3321 DA W Groenefontein.

7006 bolusii var. pringlei 3225 CC Moederzoonpoort.

7008 bolusii var. pringlei 3225 CC Rietvlei, NE Waterford.

7010 aristata 3325 AB SE DePlaat Weir.

7011 aristata 3325 AB SE DePlaat Weir.

7012 aristata 3325 AB Buffelsnek, Kaboega.

7014 truncata 3322 CB N Dysseldorp.

7017 cooperi var. “puberula” 3325 BC S Klipfontein.

7021 bolusii var. bolusii 3225 CC SE Pearston.

7022 decipiens var. virella 3225 CC SE Pearston.

7023 decipiens var. virella 3224 DB Ebenezer.

7024 viscosa 3322 AB Sleutelfontein.

7025 decipiens var. cyanea 3222 DC Trakaskuilen.

7026 decipiens var. decipiens 3322 BC Klaarstroom.

7028 decipiens var. xiphiophylla 3325 AA Darlington Dam.

7029 mutica var. mutica 3420 AD SW Swellendam.

7030 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AB Napky, SW Swellendam.

7031 mutica var. mutica 3420 AB N Napky.

7032 mutica var. mutica 3420 AA Rietfontein.

7033 arachnoidea var. arachnoidea 3319 DD W Cape Lime.

7035 kingiana/minima 3321 AD Rooiberg, S Calitzdorp.

7036 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC Witkop, SW Janharmsgat.

7037 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3320 CC Middelrivier, Drew.

7038 marginataXpumila 3320 CC NW Sanddrift.

7041 decipiens var. virella 3224 DD Palmietfontein, NE Jansenville.

7042 bolusii var. bolusii 3224 DD Hinchenbrook.

7043 decipiens var. virella 3224 DD Langollen.

7046 bolusii var. bolusii 3224 DD DeRust, S Lootskloof.

7047 decipiens var. virella 3224 DD DeRust, S Lootskloof.

7049 cooperi var. pilifera 3325 AD SE Klipfontein, Kaboega.

7051 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Helspoort, upper W.

7052 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Helspoort, lower E.

7053 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Helspoort, lower W.

7054 cooperi var. gracilis 3326 AB Helspoort, upper E.

7055 maraisii var. nov. 3420 CC Rietvlei (Shielam).

7056 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 CC NW Sandrift.

7057 heidelbergensis var. scabra 3420 CC W Sanddrift.

7058 pumilaXmarginata 3420 CC S Sanddrift, Drew.

7059 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BC Jongensklip.

7060 mutica var. mutica 3420 AD Beyersdal.

7061 variegata var. modesta 3420 AD Kathoek.

7063 heidelbergensis 3420 AD SE Beyersdal.

7064 mutica var. mutica 3320 CC Sanddrift.

7065 pubescens var. pubescens 3319 DC Sandberg.

7066 pubescens var. livida 3319 CD Lemoenpoort.

7067 herbacea 3319 DC Sandberg.

7068 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 BB Witteberg Rd.

7069 viscosa 3320 BB Witteberg Rd.

7070 nortieri var. pehlemanniae 3320 BB NW Laingsburg.

7071 arachnoidea var. scabrispina 3320 BB NW Laingsburg.

7072 marumiana var. dimorpha 3320 AD Konstabel.

7073 wittebergensis 3320 BB S Laingsburg.

7074 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3419 BB Verdwaalskloof.

7075 mutica var. mutica 3420 DD Grootvlakte, E Riviersonderend.

7076 herbacea var. paynei 3419 DD S Grootrivier.

7077 maraisii var. maraisii 3319 DD Wolwedrif.

7078 pumila 3319 DD Wolwedrif.

7079 maraisii var. meiringii 3319 DD W Middelplaas.

7080 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC W Wakkerstroom.

7081 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC E Goudmyn.

7082 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC Bobbejaanskloof.

7083 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC NE Goudmyn.

7084 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC E Olive grove.

7085 maraisii var. meiringii 3320 CC Station Hill.

7086 maraisii var. maraisii 3420 AA SE Bokdam.

7087 mirabilis var. triebneriana 3420 AA Brakfontein.

7088 reticulata var. reticulata 3319 DD W Middelplaas.

7089 pumila 3320 CC E Bonnievale.

7090 mirabilis var mirabilis 3419 DB Mierkraal.

7091 mirabilis var triebneriana 3419 BD NW Napier.

7092 mirabilis var triebneriana 3420 AB Elandskloof.

7096 pumila 3319 DD Koningsriver.

7097 maraisii var notabilis 3319 DD Kranzkop.

7098 maraisii var notabilis 3319 DD Bergplaas.

7099 heidelbergensis 3420 AA Nuutbegin.

7100 minima 3420 AA Nuutbegin.

7101 variegata 3321 AB Hoekraal.

7102 magnifica var splendens 3321 BA Welgevonden.

7103 floribunda var dentata 3321 BA N Ouvloer.

7104 floribunda var dentata 3321 BA NE Ouvloer.

7105 turgida var suberecta 3321 BA NE Ouvloer.

7106 floribunda var dentata 3321 AB Snymanskraal.

7107 retusa 3321 AA NE Melkboom.

7108 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NE Melkboom.

7109 heidelbergensis 3321 AA Klien Kragga.

7110 retusa 3321 AA N Melkboom.

7111 heidelbergensis 3321 AA N Melkboom.

7112 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7113 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7114 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7115 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7116 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7117 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7118 heidelbergensis 3321 AA NW Kweekkraal.

7121 cymbiformis 3325 BD Gatjewolf.

7125 attenuata 3325 BC N Enon.

7126 cooperi var puberula 3325 AD Wilgerfontein.

7127 glauca 3325 AD Buffelsnek.

7128 angustifolia var baylissii 3325 BD Wells Gate.

7130 venosa subsp granulata 3319 BA Karoopoort.

7131 venosa subsp granulata 3220 CC E Bizansgat.

7133 mutica var nigra 3420 BB Goedehoop.

7134 mutica var nigra 3420 BB Klipdrift.

7135 venosa subsp venosa 3420 BB Sandkraal.

7136 limifolia Bridgewater Nursery.

7137 limifolia 2732 CD Pumalanga.

7138 limifolia 2732 CB Inxwala, Mkhuze.

7139 limifolia 2731 BC Ncotshane, Pongola.

7140 limifolia 2731 BC Draaiwater, Pakamisa.

7141 limifolia 2531 CC N Rymers Creek.

7142 limifolia 2531 CC Mays Mine.

7143 limifolia 2531 CB Boondoks.

7144 limifolia 2531 CB N Manders Dam.

7145 limifolia 2531 CB Three Sisters.

7146 limifolia 2731 CA Bivaan Dam.

7147 limifolia 2731 CB Ithala.

7148 limifolia 2731 AD Ithala.

7149 viscosa N.Koup Stn.

7150 decipiens var cyanea W.Merweville.

7151 heidelbergensis 3421 AA N Kweekkraal W.

7152 heidelbergensis 3421 AA N Kweekkraal W.

7153 heidelbergensis 3421 AA N Kweekkraal W.

7154 heidelbergensis 3421 AA N Kweekkraal W.

7155 floribunda 3421 AA SW Pretoriuskop.

7156 floribunda 3421 AA W Pretoriuskop.

7157 atrofusca 3421 AA N Bosgasiekop.

7158 floribunda 3421 AA N Bosgasiekop.

7159 atrofusca/floribunda 3421 AA N Bosgasiekop.

7160 magnifica 3421 AA N Kweekkraal E.

7161 magnifica 3421 AA N Kweekkraal E.

7162 magnifica 3421 AA N Kweekkraal E.

7163 magnifica 3421 AA S Riversdale t.loc.

7164 floribunda cf. 3420 BD Dassieklip.

7165 heidelbergensis 3420 BB Matjestoon.

7166 pumila 3319 BD Mowers Stn.

7167 pumila 3319 BC Apiesklip.

7168 cooperi var 3325 AD Kabouga.

7169 attenuata 3325 BC Enon.

7170 cymbiformis var 3325 BC Enon.

7171 glauca/coarctata 3325 AD S Wilgefontein.

7172 floribunda 3421 AA N Kweekkraal E.

7173 retusa 3421 AA N Kweekkraal E.

7174 maraisii 3319 DD Skurweberg.

7175 pumila 3319 DD W Highlands, Goree.

7176 maraisii 3319 DD N Agtervink.

7178 viscosa 3323 BD Ruiterspoort.

7179 viscosa 3323 BD Constantia.

7180 decipiens 3323 BD Constantia.

7182 monticola 3323 BC SW Koegoeroe.

7183 monticola 3323 BC SE Koegoeroe.

7184 bayeri 3323 CA Uniondale Fort.

7185 monticola 3323 CA Uniondale Height.

7188 decipiens/scottiana 3323 CA 5km E Hoekplaas.

7189 decipiens/scottiana 3323 CA 2km NW Hoekplaas.

7190 mucronata 3322 BD 3km E Rooiloop Stn.

7193 cf scottiana 3322 BC 5km W Rooiloop Stn.

7194 arachnoidea 3322 DA E Middelplaas Stn.

7195 arachnoidea 3322 BC 2km E Vlakteplaas.

7196 bayeri 3322 BC SW Derust.

7200 truncata 3322 CA NE Oudtshoorn.

7201 truncata 3322 CA Volmoed.

7202 morrisiae 3322 CA Volmoed.

7203 arachnoidea 3321 CB Ladismith.

7204 scabra 3322 DA SE Doornkloof.

7205 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 DA W Vensterkrans.

7206 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 CA Buffelsdrif S.

7207 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 CA Buffelsdrif.

7208 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 CA Bakenskop.

7210 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 CA E Vensterkrans.

7211 arachnoidea var nigricans 3321 CC W Springfontein.

7212 mucronata var mucronata 3321 CC Tradouwshoek.

7213 mucronata var mucronata 3321 CC S Barrydale S aspect.

7214 maraisii 3321 CC S Barrydale S aspect.

7215 mucronata var mucronata 3321 CC S Barrydale.

7216 mucronata var mucronata 3321 CC S Barrydale

7217 heidelbergensis/magnifica 3421 AA Rooikop Melkboom

7218 floribunda/magnifica 3420 BB Duiwenhoks Morn Star

7219 turgida 3420 BB Duiwenhoks Morn Star

7220 floribunda/magnifica 3420 BB NE Morning Star

7221 mutica var nigra 3420 BB NE Morning Star

7223 scabra 3322 DA Diepkloof, E De Rust

7224 floribunda/chloracantha 3421 BB Cooper Siding

7225 retusa 3421 AA S Droekloof Riversd.

7226 turgida 3420 BB Witheuwel Pienaarsr

7227 heidelbergensis/magnifica 3420 BB Witheuwel Pienaarsr

7228 turgida 3420 BB Somona S Heidelberg

7229 heidelbergensis/magnifica 3420 BB Somona S Heidelberg

7231 bayer1 (seed) 3322 DA “Kleingeluk, E DeRust”

7232 turgida/heidelbergenss 3420 BB S Heidelberg Reserve

7233 turgida/heidelbergenss 3420 BB Hooikraal (Die Plotte N)

7234 turgida/heidelbergenss 3420 BB Hooikraal (Die Plotte S)

7236 turgida/retusa 3420 BB E Heidelberg Dam

7237 magnifica cf.var atrofusca 3420 BB Andrieskraal/Skeideing

7238 magnifica cf.var atrofusca 3420 BB Andrieskraal/Skeiding

7239 magnifica cf.var atrofusca 3420 BB Andrieskraal/Skeiding

7240 turgida/retusa 3420 BB Skeiding

7241 maraisii 3419 DD Voordieberg, McGregor

7242 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 AA Witkop, N Uitvlug Annex

7243 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 AA SE Uitvlug Annex

7244 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 AB E Die Kop, S Uitvlug.

7245 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 AB do. above, E

7246 mutica 3420 AC Verbrandskloof

7247 mirabilis/maraisii 3419 BD 0.5km NE Napier

7248 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 DB N, Infanta

7249 mirabilis/maraisii 3420 DB N, Infanta

7250 maraisii/heidelbergensis 3420 BC Uitrus (Whisky Creek)

7251 mirabilis 3420 BC Sandhoogte, DeHoop

7252 mirabilis 3420 AA NE Klipfontein

7253 mirabilis 3420 AA N Klipfontein

7254 mirabilis 3420 AA NW Noukloof Homestead

7255 elizeae 3420 AA 28km E Riviersonderend

7257 maraisii 3420 AA SW Stormsvlei homestead

7258 minima 3420 BC Uitrus (Whisky Creek)

7259 mirabilis 3419 BD Napier Stn

7260 mirabilis 3419 BD S Mierkraal, Napier

7261 mirabilis 3420 AC NW Bredasdorp

7262 mirabilis 3420 BA Ouplaas, SE Greyton

7263 maraisii 3319 DC Droerivierberg B

7264 maraisii 3319 DC Droerivierberg A

7265 maraisii 3319 DC Haumanskloof

7266 pubescens var livida 3319 CD E Lemoenpoort S

7268 herbacea 3319 CD E Lemoenpoort S

7269 maraisii v meiringii 3320 CC Edendale, Bonnievale

7270 maculata 3319 CD Ouhoek Mt Moddergat

7271 maculata 3319 CB N Kwaggaskloof Dam

7273 herbacea 3319 CD Draaivlei Kop

7280 mirabilis 3419 BD N Mierkraal Napier

7283 mirabiis var 3420 AC W Adoonskop

7285 mirabiis var 3420 AC N Brakkloof

7287 mirabiis var 3420 AC SW Adoonskop roadside

7288 mirabilis var 3419 BC N Diepkloof, Oudebakh.

7295 mirabilis var 3419 BC N Diepkloof, Oudebakh.

7299 rossouwii 3420 AC NW Soutkloof

7325 maraisii 3320 CC Laastewater

7327 maraisii 3320 CC 4km E Bonnievale

7334 maraisii 3420 CA 4km NE Bredasdorp

7337 heidelbergensis var scabra 3420 BC SE Brakfontein

7356 mirabilis var 3420 BC NE Buffelsfontein

7376 decipiens Scholzkloof PAlb.

7376 marumiana var viridis Scholzkloof PAlb

7377 viscosa Scholzkloof PAlb

7382 nortieri ‘devriesii’ N Prince Albert

7383 viscosa Syferfontein PAlb.

7386 nigra Toekomst BWest

7417 floribunda/choracantha 3422 BD Melkhoutfontein

7419 venosa subsp granulate 3421 BA Die Eiland, Gouritz

7420 chloracantha 3421 BA Die Eiland, Gouritz

7425 chloracantha 3422 AA Wolwedans Dam

7453 marginataXminima NE Bredasdorp

7485 herbacea 3319 DC Droogerivierberg

7486 cooperi var pilifera Vyeboomfontein, Kaboega

7487 floribunda 3420 BC Byneskop, Potberg

7488 minima 3420 BC Byneskop, Potberg

7482 floribunda 3420 BC SE Klipfontein, Potberg

7494 floribunda 3420 BC +SE Klipfontein

7495 floribunda 3420 BC Matjieskloof, Potberg

7496 maraisii cf atrofusca 3420 BC Matjieskloof, Potberg

7497 floribunda 3420 BC SE Kleinberg

7499 floribunda/heidelbergensis 3420 BC Juliesfontein, Potberg

7500 mirabilis/mutica 3420 AD Die Kop, Wydgelee

7502 mirabilis 3420 AD W Die Kop

7503 mirabilis 3420 AD Mid Die Kop

7504 mirabilis 3420 AD N Die Kop

7507 pygmaea ‘fusca’ 3220 AD Paulsfontein Albertinia

7508 pygmaea ‘dekenahii’ 3421 BA Draaihoek

7509 floribunda 3421 BA Draaihoek

7510 maraisii NE Bredasdorp

7511 variegata 3421 BA Swartklip, Albertinia

7512 turgida 3421 BA Draaihoek

7513 maraisii Klippoort,N Bromberg

7514 mirabilis ‘pilosa’ 3420 AD Stoffelsrivier, S Malgas

7515 variegata 3420 AD Stoffelsrivier

7516 maraisii/floribunda 3420 AD W Kleinberg, Malgas

7518 variegata 3420 AD S Kleinberg

7519 minima 3420 AD S Kleinberg

7520 mirabilis ‘pilosa’ 3420 AD NW7514

7522 nortieri Arizona, Vanrhynsdorp

7523 nortieri Nawelskloof, Gifberg

7524 nortieri Spotzkop, Vlanwilliam

7525 nortieri 17km S Clanwilliam

7526 maculata Western Die nekkies

7577 arachnoidea Nuweplaas, Nieuwoudtville.

7578 nortieri Nuweplaas, Nieuwoudtville

7579 nortieri Trawal Bridge

7580 nortieri Bakkamerfontein, Cedarberg

7586 transiens/cooperi Kliprivier, Uniondale

7593 aristata De Plaat t.o. Kaboega

7594 nortieri ‘albispina’ Koup

7595 nortieri N Dwarsrivier, Cedarberg

7597 nortieri Kunye, Citrusdal

7599 nortieri S Kunye

7604 minima NW Bredasdorp

7605 mirabilis NW Bredasdorp

7608 mirabilis ‘pilosa’ Melkhoutrivier, Malgas.

7609 mirabilis ‘pilosa’ Melkhoutrivier, Malgas

7612 mirabilis Diamant, Swellendam

7615 mirabilis Aalwee, Malgas

7622 maraisii Bergendal, E Ashton

7623 maraisii Sarahrivier, E Ashton

7626 mirabilis Diamant E 7612

7633 mirabilis Luiperdsberg, Swellendam

7634 cooperi cf cymbiformis Glen Avon falls S East.

7635 sordida Zwartkop, Kaboega

7636 cooperi cf cymbiformis N Zwartkop, Kaboega

7640 venosa subsp granulata Oskopvlakte, E Laingsburg

7641 viscosa Blokhuis, E Laingsburg

7642 wittebergensis Ezelfontein, Laingsburg

7644 arachnoidea Bakoven

7646 arachnoidea Bizaansgat

7658 arachnoidea SW Perdekraal

7659 venosa subspgranulata Bantamsfontein

7660 arachnoidea Bantamsfontein

7666 arachnoidea Patatsrivier

7670 arachnoidea Keurkloof, Matjedfontein

7671 arachnoidea Bulhouer, Matjesfontein

7672 arachnoidea NW farmhouse do

7673 arachnoidea N Bulhouer.

7676 arachnoidea N Bulhouer/S Dwarsindieweg

7677 arachnoidea S Dwarsindieweg

7678 arachnoidea SW Josefskraal

7679 arachnoidea Lospersberg, Laingsburg

7681 marumiana ‘archeri’ Lospersberg

7686 arachnoidea NE Dwarsindieweg

7688 arachnoidea Klein Tafelberg, N Dwarsindieweg.

7692 nortieri ‘pehlemanniae’ Volstruisfontein, n Matjesfontein

7693 arachnoidea Volstruisfontein

7695 glauca SE Darlington Dam/Kirkwood.

7698 aristata 1km E Buffelsnek, Kaboega

7700 glauca Above Kaboega farmhse

7701 cooperi’puberula’ Above Klipfontein farmhse

7703 aristata 1km N Zwartkop, Kaboega

4. J.D.Venter numbers for MBB accessions:-

│ 86/68 2551 │ 96/55 6542 │ 97/48 6682│

│ 87/51 3670 │ 96/57 6554 │ 97/50 6684│

│ 87/56 2011 │ 96/58 6552 │ 97/51 6685│

│ 87/57 2373 │ 96/59 6555 │ 97/52 6686│

│ 87/58 2356 │ 96/60 6557 │ 97/53 6683│

│ 87/59 2038 │ 96/61 6561 │ 97/58 6691│

│ 87/62 5209 │ 96/62 6559 │ 97/59 6692│

│ 87/65 2347 │ 96/63 6559 │ 97/78 6720│

│ 87/66 2457 │ 96/64 6563 │ 97/79 6714│

│ 87/72 1247 │ 96/65 6563 │ 97/80 6710│

│ 87/73 2579 │ 96/66 6567 │ 97/81 6711│

│ 87/74 3363 │ 96/67 6570 │ 97/82 6712│

│ 87/78 1119 │ 96/68 6572 │ 97/83 6713│

│ 87/81 2070 │ 96/69 6571 │ 97/84 6694│

│ 87/85 2052 │ 96/70 6573 │ 97/85 6702│

│ 87/90 2092 │ 96/71 6580 │ 97/86 6696│

│ 87/104 2556 │ 96/72 6583 │ 97/87 6696│

│ 87/109 5620 │ 96/73 6584 │ 97/88 6698│

│ 87/131 2292 │ 96/74 6584a│ 97/89 6697│

│ 87/133 2261 │ 96/76 6588 │ 97/90 6693│

│ 93/31 2292 │ 96/77 6590 │ 97/91 6703│

│ 94/75 2292 │ 96/78 6591 │ 97/92 6704│

│ 96/6 6505 │ 96/79 6592 │ 97/93 6705│

│ 96/7 6506 │ 97/22 6624 │ 97/94 6706│

│ 96/8 6509 │ 97/24 6632 │ 97/95 6723│

│ 96/9 6510 │ 97/25 6630 │ 97/129 6741│

│ 96/15 6516 │ 97/26 6641 │ 97/130 6740│

│ 96/16 6536 │ 97/30 6668 │ 97/144 6757│

│ 96/17 6513 │ 97/31 6661 │ 97/151 6758│

│ 96/18 6533 │ 97/32 6660 │ 97/152 6761│

│ 96/19 6521 │ 97/33 6655 │ 97/153 6760│

│ 96/20 6518 │ 97/33 6656 │ 97/154 6764│

│ 96/21 6528 │ 97/33 6657 │ 97/155 6774│

│ 96/22 6527 │ 97/34 6658 │ 97/156 6775│

│ 96/23 6519 │ 97/35 6663 │ 97/157 6772│

│ 96/24 6520 │ 97/36 6649 │ 97/158 6773│

│ 96/25 6534 │ 97/37 6659 │ 97/159 6768│

│ 96/27 6512 │ 97/38 6670 │ 97/160 6769│

│ 96/49 6539 │ 97/39 6667 │ 97/161 6770│

│ 96/50 6537 │ 97/42 6648 │ 97/162 6771│

│ 96/51 6541 │ 97/43 6646 │ 97/163 6776│

│ 96/52 6546 │ 97/45 6673 │ 97/164 6778│

│ 96/53 6544 │ 97/46 6680 │ │

│ 96/54 6545 │ 97/47 6681 │ │

4. JDV numbers against MBB nos.

│ 86/68 2551 │ 96/55 6542 │ 97/48 6682│

│ 87/51 3670 │ 96/57 6554 │ 97/50 6684│

│ 87/56 2011 │ 96/58 6552 │ 97/51 6685│

│ 87/57 2373 │ 96/59 6555 │ 97/52 6686│

│ 87/58 2356 │ 96/60 6557 │ 97/53 6683│

│ 87/59 2038 │ 96/61 6561 │ 97/58 6691│

│ 87/62 5209 │ 96/62 6559 │ 97/59 6692│

│ 87/65 2347 │ 96/63 6559 │ 97/78 6720│

│ 87/66 2457 │ 96/64 6563 │ 97/79 6714│

│ 87/72 1247 │ 96/65 6563 │ 97/80 6710│

│ 87/73 2579 │ 96/66 6567 │ 97/81 6711│

│ 87/74 3363 │ 96/67 6570 │ 97/82 6712│

│ 87/78 1119 │ 96/68 6572 │ 97/83 6713│

│ 87/81 2070 │ 96/69 6571 │ 97/84 6694│

│ 87/85 2052 │ 96/70 6573 │ 97/85 6702│

│ 87/90 2092 │ 96/71 6580 │ 97/86 6696│

│ 87/104 2556 │ 96/72 6583 │ 97/87 6696│

│ 87/109 5620 │ 96/73 6584 │ 97/88 6698│

│ 87/131 2292 │ 96/74 6584a │ 97/89 6697│

│ 87/133 2261 │ 96/76 6588 │ 97/90 6693│

│ 93/31 2292 │ 96/77 6590 │ 97/91 6703│

│ 94/75 2292 │ 96/78 6591 │ 97/92 6704│

│ 96/6 6505 │ 96/79 6592 │ 97/93 6705│

│ 96/7 6506 │ 97/22 6624 │ 97/94 6706│

│ 96/8 6509 │ 97/24 6632 │ 97/95 6723│

│ 96/9 6510 │ 97/25 6630 │ 97/129 6741│

│ 96/15 6516 │ 97/26 6641 │ 97/130 6740│

│ 96/16 6536 │ 97/30 6668 │ 97/144 6757│

│ 96/17 6513 │ 97/31 6661 │ 97/151 6758│

│ 96/18 6533 │ 97/32 6660 │ 97/152 6761│

│ 96/19 6521 │ 97/33 6655 │ 97/153 6760│

│ 96/20 6518 │ 97/33 6656 │ 97/154 6764│

│ 96/21 6528 │ 97/33 6657 │ 97/155 6774│

│ 96/22 6527 │ 97/34 6658 │ 97/156 6775│

│ 96/23 6519 │ 97/35 6663 │ 97/157 6772│

│ 96/24 6520 │ 97/36 6649 │ 97/158 6773│

│ 96/25 6534 │ 97/37 6659 │ 97/159 6768│

│ 96/27 6512 │ 97/38 6670 │ 97/160 6769│

│ 96/49 6539 │ 97/39 6667 │ 97/161 6770│

│ 96/50 6537 │ 97/42 6648 │ 97/162 6771│

│ 96/51 6541 │ 97/43 6646 │ 97/163 6776│

│ 96/52 6546 │ 97/45 6673 │ 97/164 6778│

│ 96/53 6544 │ 97/46 6680 │ │

│ 96/54 6545 │ 97/47 6681 │ │

Haworthia Updates

Thoughts and observations on Haworthia

Category Archives: Update 2

Haworthia Update Vol. 2 – Table of Contents

Volume 2, Introduction and Acknowledgement

Volume 2, Catalyst and Consequence

Volume 2, Chapter 1:- The curious variability of Haworthia floribunda

Volume 2, Chapter 2:- A population of Haworthia magnifica/maraisii

Volume 2, Chapter 3:- Where to Haworthia limifolia

Volume 2, Chapter 4:- Haworthia limifolia var. arcana Smith & Crouch

Volume 2, Chapter 5:- The White Widow Reunion – Haworthia mutica

Volume 2, Chapter 6:- How to understand Haworthia mutica var. nigra

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

Volume 2, Chapter 8:- Ecotypes in Haworthia

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

Volume 2, Chapter 10:- Small Hairy Things

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

Volume 2, Chapter 12:- Haworthia rossouwii Poelln. and the demise of H. serrata Bayer

Volume 2, Chapter 13:- A trip to Bredasdorp

Volume 2, Chapter 14:- Explaining the name Haworthia intermedia VPoelln. and others

Volume 2, Chapter 15:- Electron Scanning Photographs of Haworthia leaf surfaces

Volume 2, Chapter 16:- Nectar Sugars in the Alooid minor genera and a need for another model

Volume 2, Chapter 17:- Species and varieties listed

Volume 2, Chapter 18:- Bayer Accessions