Crocus species concepts

[Gerry Webster]

Edit by maggi: Splitting this topic to its own space.

These are relevant posts from original topic , which began here : http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg231445#msg231445

Not much happening for me at present just a couple

C pelistericus from a generous friend
C rujanensis - or is atticus ssp rujanensis?

Ian,
very nice croci images.

The pictures of your C. rujanensis are lovely. I like the deep yellow throat.
But I have my difficulties to differenciate your samples from C. atticus (C. sieberi ssp. atticus) i.e. cv. 'Firefly'.
Refering to Janis crocus book C. rujanensis bract and bracteole are unequal in length, the perianth is purple in the upper part and style exceeds well tips of anthers...

Very classy, whether C.rujanensis is true or not. I dont think that this should be lumped in without some form of differentiation  .

I'm not lumping it, too. I have few slightly different stocks, all are collected on locus classicus and they are slightly different from atticus, so I keep them as rujanensis. I don't know how easy would be for me to identify plant without provenance (origin). Not tried yet.
Janis

Very classy, whether C.rujanensis is true or not. I dont think that this should be lumped in without some form of differentiation  .

I'm not lumping it, too. I have few slightly different stocks, all are collected on locus classicus and they are slightly different from atticus, so I keep them as rujanensis. I don't know how easy would be for me to identify plant without provenance (origin). Not tried yet.
Janis

I see that two of the botanists who described Crocus rujanensis are the same ones who have described Crocus jablanicensis(which looks a beautiful plant). Both new species are growing in the same area and must have have been mistaken for Crocus sieberi in the past. Perhaps this means we can look forward to further new species in the future.

I see that two of the botanists who described Crocus rujanensis are the same ones who have described Crocus jablanicensis(which looks a beautiful plant). Both new species are growing in the same area and must have have been mistaken for Crocus sieberi in the past. Perhaps this means we can look forward to further new species in the future.

Jablanicensis (Mount Jablanica in very west) grows quite far from rujanensis (Rujan Plane). If rujanensis is similar to atticus, then jablanicensis could be compared with white cvijicii but its stigma well overtops anthers. I didn't see it in vivo but for me seems that there will be no problems to identify this one.
Janis

Returning to discussion about jablanicensis and rujanensis - They grow far one from other - jablanicensis in very SE of Macedonia, it is high mountain plant; rujanensis on border between Serbia and Macedonia - at very North of last and from much lower altitudes. So both are well separated geographically, too.

Regarding to complex atticus-dalmaticus-rujanensis - I scanned table comparing all of them (atticus in it is under name of sublimis) and I'm adding pictures of all three (not from this spring, of course). Judge by yourself how different they are for gardener. I only want to warn that cheep crocus offered as dalmaticus by Dutch growers really is atticus. Pictured plants are coming from localities where they are growing (original stock is wild collected). When I started crocus growing and wild plants growing out of USSR were not available for me - I was very confused by so named "dalmaticus" offered by Dutch and grown everywhere - it looked absolutely identical with atticus. C. rujanensis is collected by Jim Archibald on Rujan Planina - its locus classicus, so undoubtedly true to name.
Janis

see here for comparison pictures etc :  http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg231894#msg231894

Janis,
thank you for the comparison table and the marvelous images. I've learned there are rather small differences with regards to morphology in series reticulati especial sieberi group.

Beside traditional (historical) morphological investigations and comparison, DNA analysis have given a new view and understanding of the relationships of the genus crocus.
In your book 'Crocuses' you consider C. atticus as species and sublimis and nivalis as subspecies of it while before all three have been considered as subspecies of C. sieberi.
From the phylogenetic analysis results (May 2008, see excerpt image) I can't comprehend fully your conclusions with regards to nivalis & sublimis.
Maybe I'm lacking latest scientific results since then.
Can you kindly give us some more explanation for your conclusions?

I and probably many other interested forumist, get more confused by the naming. (How shall I call my babies?)
What is the latest status among taxonomist / scientist discussions regarding species/subspecies naming?
Will there be a harmonisation / an alignment / an offical revision? Scheduled when?

Presumable my questions are not simple to answer but I hope you can give us your appraisals.

see here for  pictures etc :http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8490.msg231918#msg231918  

Armin (& anyone else who is interested) -
The arguments about species concepts  are far too complex for a short discussion on a horticultural website. Here are a couple of relatively recent papers on the topic sent to me by Pascal Bruggeman. They are quite technical.

[Gerry Webster]

Here's another paper on the same topic.

[Janis Ruksans]

At first I must to explain few things. I'm not specialist in Genetics. I finished University in USSR at time when shortly before genetics were regarded as "Enemy of State", "adepts of capitalistic false science" and most of them not so long were cleared from prisons. My professor in University still trusted that if will saw seeds of birch but environment will be more profitable for pines, from those seeds will come out pines.
All my knowledge are self studies.

The second - I'm not professional botanist, but a lot of time I worked together with professionals and learned a lot from them. But really I'm only amateur botanist - of course I discovered a lot of new plants and described as new taxa quite many for amateur. But really I'm professional gardener and journalist.

Now about relationship between species and why I separated Cretan sieberi from Greek mainland sieberi (in my concept - atticus). You certainly know that hybrids between species usually (with very few exceptions - sample is pulchellus and speciosus hybrids, where interfertile are some clones and hybrids are fertile, too. Some samples - Crocus x stellaris, large Dutch yellow (both between flavus and angustifolius), C. x leonidii (reticulatus x angustifolius) - all are sterile. There are only one known hybrid between Cretan sieberi and mainland atticus - cv. 'Hubert Edelsten' ('George' is mutation of HE) - it is sterile, too. I tried to cross sieberi and various atticus for years and got no one seed. So it confirms that they must be regarded as separate species. Of course it is my opinion.

Now about DNA researches. I just talked with my friend and long-year travel partner Dr. Arnis Seisums, who (with others) just recently published very fantastic article about phylogeny and relationships between juno Irises. He is much keener in Genetics then I am. At present DNA are researched in quite special form of DNA inherited only by female line (ribosomatic DNA ?) So it only partly show relationships between species. Researches of nuclear DNA still are in childhood and may be 10 years will be needed before costs will become acceptable. So at present DNA sequences only gives one tool and still important are morphological features and others.

I hardly hope that I didn't mislead and explained correctly the affair as I understand this. I was extremely surprised about results of DNA sequences on my speciosus subsp. archibaldii. C. pulchellus are quite close to speciosus - there are 6 differences by DNA. Subsp. archibaldii by 3 responds to pulchellus and by other 3 to speciosus. So it could be hybrid, but it is impossible as both are separated by 1000 km - one is from Iran another from W Turkey. Alternative - it is progenitor from which both species - speciosus and pulchellus developed. Of course it confirmed that it is real subsp. but still remain for me mystery.

Janis

[Ezeiza]

Hopefully the new book on Crocus is published this year to stop all this speculation.

[ronm]

New book?

[Ezeiza]

Yes, THE book.

[Armin]

Gerry,
thank you very much for the interesting documents. I don't understand too much, just enough there are different ways to define what's a species and taxon.

Carl Linné introduced the binomial nomenclature (genus+epithet) in the 18th century.
The main purpose of this nomenclature is the unique identification of the species regardless of their description. It is still valid.
The ICBN (International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) sets the rules today. All names must follow the code in each of the rules laid down today.

Janis,
thank you very much for your interesting considerations, explanations and findings. I thought with your insight view, your world wide linkages and deep practical knowledge you are one of the botanists actively working on a revision of the taxonomy of genus crocus.

Alberto,
I'm curious. It seems you know already more. Please let us know details.

[Ezeiza]

Armin, it is known a botanical book on crocus was in preparation. Will inquire more.

[Janis Ruksans]

Armin, it is known a botanical book on crocus was in preparation. Will inquire more.

I think that some is prepared by Erich Pasche & Co - but I suppose that it will be about biflorus group. But may be I'm not right.
Janis

[Gerry Webster]

There was a post on the forum some time ago - (by Thomas H I think) saying that Kerndorff & Pasche had prepared a book & were trying to find a publisher. Not an easy task in the present economic  climate I would have thought.

[gote]

It has been said before by me and others:
Most of the determination of species in the past has been done on herbarium specimens. These show differences and similarities in a different way then does the same species alive grown under controlled circumstances. Janis gives an excellent illustration of this when he introduces fertility as a criterion. The possibility or not impossibility of interbreeding is another that does not show up in herbaria. Plants change with environment and degree of maturity. It has even happened a couple of times that juvenile forms have been interpreted as new species! Even I have seen plants change in a way that would place them in a different species using the keys available. For that reason observations of species grown over a longer time in controlled circumstances will yield better diagnoses than does herbarium specimen. Note the discussion recently on the colour of Siberian Eranthis.

Obviously I trust Janis' judgment.

When it comes to DNA sequencing I agree that we need more information. The same mutation can occur several times Yellow Lilium martagon and blue Anemone nemorosa arise independetly in different environments.

Göte