Crocus February 2008

[Lvandelft]

I did see it, honestly!!

It seems only the less young (not elderly!) Forumists did miss it?

It makes me worry.....      

[Anthony Darby]

Brian Mathew in his 'lumping days' merged all the dark tipped Crocus vernus into ssp vernus alongside a whole raft of other forms.  So technically the names heuffelianus and scepusiensis are now invalid although 'Heuffelianus Group' is a name I have seen used.  I guess your similar plants sort of demonstate the good cause Brian had to combine them!

Thanks Tony. So, apart from the lumping/splitting problem, the name is correct? How far are they separated on the map?

[Martin Baxendale]

Anthony, the only distinguishing point between heuffelianus and scepusiensis was (is?) that the first is (was?) supposed to have a glabrous throat, while the second was (is?) supposed to have a hairy throat. heuffelianus used to be said to be found wild through Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Scepusiensis was said to come mainly from Poland.

I used to have both separated, grown from seed years ago, but long ago lost interest in trying to see if throats were hairy or not, llst track of labels and now think of them all as "heuffelianus" since that's what I had far more of. I suppose I should really think of them as wild vernus.

[Thomas Huber]

Brian Mathew in his 'lumping days' merged all the dark tipped Crocus vernus into ssp vernus alongside a whole raft of other forms.  So technically the names heuffelianus and scepusiensis are now invalid although 'Heuffelianus Group' is a name I have seen used.  I guess your similar plants sort of demonstate the good cause Brian had to combine them!

Tony, your comment reflects Brian Mathews opinion, when he wrote his Crocus-bible in 1982!

But if you have a look into his Crocus updates from 2001, published in the New Plantsman, you will find, that Brian states
Crocus heuffelianus "could usefully be treated as a third subspecies under the name Crocus vernus ssp heuffelianus"!
Crocus scepusiensis is therefore the Polish form of C. vernus ssp heuffelianus - see Martin's comments about scepusiensis
having a hairy throat. And this is still not the end of the vernus-story.

Austrian botanists have done a lot of useful work within this group - not finished yet - but it seems like other forms that
sunk into ssp vernus in Brian's 1982 monograph, like Crocus exiguus, scepusiensis, siculus, napolitanus and an unnamed form
from Cakor-pass in Montenegro/Serbia, will be classified as separate species in near future.
Here a link to Wikipedia (only in German): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%BChlings-Krokus

[Anthony Darby]

Must add spatula (to look down my crocus throat) to ruler on my things to remember list. Wonder if they think 'ah'.

[mark smyth]

Sorry David Shaw.

David N new glasses last May

For those confused ( I can see the photos) here they are again
korolkowii apricot form
korolkowii white form

[Andrew]

C. tommasinianus 'Eric Smith' missing a petal this year.



Now a couple of C. oliveri,



C. oliveri ssp. balansae on the left and C. oliveri ssp. istanbulensis on the right



and close ups.

[Lesley Cox]

I read Martin's post and decided that was my own naming problems with that small group, solved. I'd label the lot C. vernus and forget them. But then I read Thomas' post so now I think I'll go back to bed!

[Tony Willis]

I read Martin's post and decided that was my own naming problems with that small group, solved. I'd label the lot C. vernus and forget them. But then I read Thomas' post so now I think I'll go back to bed!

Looking at the pictures of  some male forum members,I see I differ from them in having hair on my head but I also have  large  sticky out ears which they do not seem to have. Does this make us different sub species? Sometimes I think this splitting is more of an ego trip than reality.

[Lesley Cox]

I agree Tony. One has to wonder how much splitting and or lumping is justified in order to keep botanists/taxonomists in employment.


Edit: in her next post, Lesley says, in jest:" Next they'll be separating off many Primulas into subspecies because some are pin and some are thrum eyed! "
This leads to a diversion from the Crocus theme about pin and thrum primulas and self-pollination etc.: I have taken these posts from this thread and moved them to the Primula section :  http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?board=15.0
There may be some references to these posts on this page which remain....try not to get too confused!! M

[tonyg]

Looking at the pictures of  some male forum members,I see I differ from them in having hair on my head but I also have  large  sticky out ears which they do not seem to have. Does this make us different sub species? Sometimes I think this splitting is more of an ego trip than reality.

I'm of the same mind, although it is useful to have names which help distinguish plants that are clearly different, in the same way that we have names - both kind and colloquial - for people with bald heads, sticky out ears or large noses . (I have been careful to include one of my own features in that list

[tonyg]

Tony, your comment reflects Brian Mathews opinion, when he wrote his Crocus-bible in 1982!

But if you have a look into his Crocus updates from 2001, published in the New Plantsman, you will find, that Brian states
Crocus heuffelianus "could usefully be treated as a third subspecies under the name Crocus vernus ssp heuffelianus"!
Crocus scepusiensis is therefore the Polish form of C. vernus ssp heuffelianus - see Martin's comments about scepusiensis
having a hairy throat. And this is still not the end of the vernus-story.

Austrian botanists have done a lot of useful work within this group - not finished yet - but it seems like other forms that
sunk into ssp vernus in Brian's 1982 monograph, like Crocus exiguus, scepusiensis, siculus, napolitanus and an unnamed form
from Cakor-pass in Montenegro/Serbia, will be classified as separate species in near future.
Here a link to Wikipedia (only in German): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%BChlings-Krokus

Thomas - we make a great team!  I start a story and you bring it bang up to date!  Perhaps you could translate the wiki pages for us .   I am basically a lumper rather than a splitter unless there are very clear and easily observed differences.  C vernus does indeed cover some quite different looking plants, there is certainly a case for one or two new subspecies. 

[Anthony Darby]

I read Martin's post and decided that was my own naming problems with that small group, solved. I'd label the lot C. vernus and forget them. But then I read Thomas' post so now I think I'll go back to bed!

Looking at the pictures of  some male forum members,I see I differ from them in having hair on my head but I also have  large  sticky out ears which they do not seem to have. Does this make us different sub species? Sometimes I think this splitting is more of an ego trip than reality.

We will have to see for ourselves Tony. I suspect from your description you are thrum whereas I am most definitely pin.

[art600]

Can we get back to Crocus please

[Thomas Huber]

Thomas - we make a great team!  I start a story and you bring it bang up to date!  Perhaps you could translate the wiki pages for us .   I am basically a lumper rather than a splitter unless there are very clear and easily observed differences.  C vernus does indeed cover some quite different looking plants, there is certainly a case for one or two new subspecies. 

Tony, I'm afraid I will not have the time to translate the wiki pages. Did you try it with a translation programm?
The new results of splitting and lumping will not be speculations of a single person, they will be based on considerably
genetic inquiries. So we can be sure that these reflect the true relationships between the plants.