Galanthus Detective... Proposed Mission

[Alan_b]

I met Wol Staines at an AGS event on Saturday.  He mentioned that he had changed his labels to show the correct collection number (PHD 33463).

[Diane Whitehead]

there are four leaves and only item which I take to be a squashed bulb so presumably there was a second bulb that was grown-on that provided the second pair of leaves?

What about the fruit that the report says were lying all over the ground?  Were the seeds collected
and distributed?

[Alan_b]

Alas, Diane, all this happened 58 years ago and unless Peter Hadland Davis kept notes and those notes form part of the archive of his papers that was kept after he died then it is very unlikely that such information could ever be found.  It could also muddy the waters considerably if seed had been collected and all the seedlings were known by the same collection number.  However as far as we know, all the stock in current circulation derives from Chris Brickell.

[Tim Harberd]

Wonderful News!
    I apologize for my long silence... I've been away for a week.
    I'll read this all more carefully tomorrow.
    Many thanks to everyone involved.
Tim DH

[Tim Harberd]

Having now carefully read the trail I have two final (for the time being) thoughts on this matter:

Firstly: Brian mentions wishing the cultivar had a 'better' name. When I first received it, Wol suggested that a 'proper' name was imminent. However, if I'd got it with an 'ordinary' name that would not have triggered my curiosity. So, my 'two penneth' would be, let's leave it alone. Except of course with the numbers in the right order!!

Secondly: My understanding of most 'wild' plants in cultivation is that they are superior (in some respect) examples of those found in the field. In this case, given that the material was collected so late in the season, it appears to be 'pot luck' that the plant turned out to be considered 'worth' growing. Which begs the question as to whether it is a superior form, within its native population, or not! (I wonder whether our well travelled chief detective will be able to let that thought rest!!)

(I have emailed my thanks to Lesley Scott for making the collecting books accessible to the Thornes.)

Tim DH

[Alan_b]

Any change of name or designation risks confusion.  I wonder how many people who own PDH33643 will buy PHD33463 on the basis that it is a different snowdrop?  In this instance probably nobody, because you would need to be highly observant to even spot the difference.  But it could happen if the name were changed to something 'proper'.  If that does happen, I hope that Peter Hadland Davis is not lost in the change.

I agree with the 'pot-luck' theory of discovery, at least insofar as there were no flowers left and may well have been both multiple bulbs and possibly also seeds collected.  But perhaps something interesting about the leaves motivated the selection?  In my experience if you see an unusual snowdrop amongst a large number it can be very difficult to find it again if you return to the same spot, particularly if more than a few days have elapsed.  After 58 years I have no idea what could have happened.

Although I tried to be a detective, I didn't achieve anything beyond the throwaway suggestion that two numbers might have been transposed and the elimination of some possibilities.  I got too hung-up on the idea that the collection really was made in Georgia even though I found out that PHD had first visited the Crimea, where he was probably more likely to find Galanthus plicatus.     

[Brian Ellis]

However, if I'd got it with an 'ordinary' name that would not have triggered my curiosity. So, my 'two penneth' would be, let's leave it alone.

Perhaps best and leave it until the next edition of the Monograph

[Tim Harberd]

What a tease!

[Margaret Thorne]

The scanned image of PHD 33463 can now be found at http://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00855758
Thanks to RBGE for making this available.
There is also a Peter Hadland Davis ‘collection’ (Reference GB235 DPH) in the RBGE Archive, so that undoubtedly contains some interesting information too

[Tim Harberd]

My PHD 33463 is starting to show itself again. As always, nice even/consistent noses… and it’s got me thinking again.

Just because my stock came with a label that can be attributed to the Northgreen catalogue of 2007 That does not mean (or prove) that all the bulbs which left Northgreen in 2007 are the same cultivar! There are too many places where something could have gone wrong.

I’m quite convinced that mine, even tho’ I love it, is not actually PHD 33463. But Northgreen might  have had the genuine article!

SO: There is one more thing we can check:
Is anybody growing anything under the label PHD33463 which is plicate? Or has ‘’Leaves channelled, with paler median band.’’

Let me be quite clear… I’m not interested in finding out where things went wrong (or blaming anyone)… I’m more than happy with my plants. But I am curious about whether the real thing still exists.

Curiously…. There is of course no guarantee that true PHD 33463 is actually worth tracking down! It might be quite a disappointment compared to my usurper!!

Tim DH

[Brian Ellis]

Chris Brickell has said that the plant which has been circulated under the wrong PHD collection number should be called G.'Peter Davis' - which is a lot easier to remember and avoids the confusion of the collection numbering.

[Josh Nelson]

Interesting thread and agree it should progress beyond a number; I uploaded a load of photos last night and these are PHD33463, ex PHD33643 now 'Peter Davies' (if formalised?) from 04 Feb this year; some explication apparent - it is under cover due to the snow so can't check beyond what is apparent in the photo:

[Alan_b]

I'm a little sad that such an interesting detective story will be consigned to history by the renaming of this snowdrop.  I'm also disappointed that the name will be 'Peter Davis' rather than 'Peter Hadland Davis' as per the initials PHD.  I suppose he must have been just 'Peter Davis' to his friends and colleagues but there must be thousands of people named 'Peter Davis' and possibly only one named 'Peter Hadland Davis'; he even has a Wikipedia entry under this full name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadland_Davis

[David Nicholson]

Important point Alan, as pointed out in Margaret Thorne's post above the RBGE Archive refers to Mr(?) Davies by his full given names too. Surely it would be right to refer to his full name in this particular Snowdrop's case.

[Alan_b]

I would have thought that, David, but it is for Chris Brickell to decide.