Crocus september 2015

[ruben]

Very nice pallasii Janis!

Crocus speciosus 'Oxonian' reaches its peak, its one of my favorite cv's of speciosus for open garden

[Matt T]

That is a stunning C. pallasii, Janis!

Safe travels. We're all looking forward very much to hearing your lecture on Friday!

[Maggi Young]

Have a good journey, Janis - we are very much looking forward to seeing you. 

[Boyed]

Thanks to very nice weather at the second half of September autumn crocuses are enjoying the sun
1,2 Crocus kotchianus different colours
3. Crocus speciosus Bowles Blue (I believe)
4. Crocus speciosus Cassiope
5. Crocus speciosus albus

Oleg, your speciosus 'Bowles Blue' is most probaly the cultivar 'Aino'

[Boyed]

Zhirair, compare position of stigma in C. archibaldiorum and in yours. Both are very different. I'm just now working on yours which I intend to name C. armeniacum,
Janis

Dear Janis,

Thanks for the clue. Dou you think that because of the position of stigma ours should be considered different species or subspecies. What about the variabily withing the same species? It is going very complicated to my point of vew as many crocuses from speciosus group by appearance look the same species.

[David Nicholson]

....................................many crocuses from speciosus group by appearance look the same species.

How very true

[Janis Ruksans]

How very true

I'm sitting in Airport, waiting for fly, so only quick comment - Type speciosus is woodland species, armeniacum and archibaldiorum - steppelanders. Zhirair must remember how speciosus stopped at edge of forest from forest side an armeniacum stopped where fields/meadows changed to shrubs They are different genetically, too, but we always must to find some feature (better more) allowing to separate by morphology. In this case one of such is position of stigma. More not remember at moment - but wait, I hope to publish it this winter. It is blooming with me now, too. Some forms is almost identical with cv. ARTABIR. May be it was selected just from Armenian species.
Janis

[Boyed]

I'm sitting in Airport, waiting for fly, so only quick comment - Type speciosus is woodland species, armeniacum and archibaldiorum - steppelanders. Zhirair must remember how speciosus stopped at edge of forest from forest side an armeniacum stopped where fields/meadows changed to shrubs They are different genetically, too, but we always must to find some feature (better more) allowing to separate by morphology. In this case one of such is position of stigma. More not remember at moment - but wait, I hope to publish it this winter. It is blooming with me now, too. Some forms is almost identical with cv. ARTABIR. May be it was selected just from Armenian species.
Janis

Janis in this case, what about speciosus from Ijevan? As you remember they all grew under the trees.

[Janis Ruksans]

Yes, it (Ijevans sample) is completely different, most likely belongs to type speciosus, but I didn't check yet. It is typical forest type - if you remember - it was blooming only in forest and close to forest edge, not entering deeper on meadow.

[Boyed]

Yes, it (Ijevans sample) is completely different, most likely belongs to type speciosus, but I didn't check yet. It is typical forest type - if you remember - it was blooming only in forest and close to forest edge, not entering deeper on meadow.

Why I asked. Just a week ago you showed a srcous speicosus bloomong samle in yor collection that we collected from Garni. You presented it as crocus armeniniacum. As you remember it grew under the trees. Goris, samples growing under direct sun, also are ppresnted by you as crocus armeniacum. Very complicated Janis. Believe me.

Actually for me, I see crocus goulimyi, crocus niveus, crocus, nudiflorus, crocus kotschianus, all are different and, of cource, they are different species and it is visable. As to crocus speciosus, I am very very sorry, and I don't want to contradict you anyway, but crocus specosus is crocus speciosus with its variability and Soviet and our native botanists when studiing its ccromosum numbers they  found out that speiosus from different localities have different cromosom numbers. The same is with tulipa clisiana. The samples from different localities may have different cromosom numbers. But tulipa clisiana remains as tulipa clusina. Studing the latest tendences with merendera, which were merged with colchicums, sternberia greuteriana and sicula, which  were merged with strnbergia luitea etc. I see that botanists tend to simplify the classifiatiion. But with crocus speciosus its going to be the opposite. What's for this unwellcome complication?

[Janis Ruksans]

Sorry, Zhirair, but we nothing collected at Garni and I haven't any plant from there. We collected at Geghart (in spring) - at bottom under trees, on yaila in low shrubs - about those I  can't judge at present. By habitat - forest type. Another was collected at Ijevan - distinct forest type, and the third is armeniacum - meadow plant.
Yes, speciosus are similar, may be for gardener - no difference, although ilgazensis blooms very early, puringhiorum now puringiorum is early, too, "armeniacum"  (edit - now C.  armeniensis )- a little later, all others still didn't show noses (sorry, xantholaimos just showed noses). But what you will tell about biflorus crocuses? You don't must look only on overall view of flower - important are details, position of stigma, branching, throat, number and cros-section of leaves, corm tunics, basal rings, cataphylls etc. etc. Combination of those makes species unique. Not always easy as apple from pear (both sweet fruits, roseaceae family, grows on tree, ripes in autumn) - sorry, it is joke.
Ibrahimii - white anthers, sakariensis many-branched stigma between anthers, striatulus - very narrow white stripe, brachiphylus (elegans) - only two leaves, ilgazensis and xantholaimos - stigma with few branches but between anthers, in last throat yellow etc., etc.
I didn't agree with merging of Sternbergias - far too different. I never accepted that plants with different chromosome number and even different chromosome morphology are the same species. Usually they even can't hybridize. Of course polyploid lines is different case. But turning to Tulips - do you accept that turkestanica and bifloriformis are different species? If yes, how you separate them? Things are not so simple. Of course those name changes, many new species are not liked by gardeners. I don't like cases when identification is possible only by DNA, but sometimes it is so. Species of greenflies are separated but number of hairs in their, sorry, ass. It is nature in all its diversity. And we must accept this.

[arilnut]

Zhirair and Janis, I am enjoying this. Besides being very informative it shows
how a cordial friendly debate can be had between "friends".
If humanity could all be this way the world be a much better place.

Regards
John B

[Boyed]

Dear Janis,

I understand what you mean. But still some things are still not clear to me. Sorry I was mistaken, we collected some samples from Geghard (not Garni) under the trees and if you can remember a week ago you showed themn the forum blooming at your place presenting as crocus armeniacum. And what about Georgian forms. You told that in Georgia near the lake Cherepaschye type subspecies grows. But when we visited there and studied the crocuses at that locality, you told that the samples looked identical to our Ijevanian forms. I am sorry, it is really very complicated. Further investigations are needed. I also wonder what tipes grow in Azerbaijan.

[Janis Ruksans]

Dear Zhirair,
Yes, Geghart plants really bloomed, but I didn't looked carefully on them, so I can't tell what they really are. By very brief look they resembled armeniacum but type speciosus still not started blooming to be exactly compared. Ijevan plants I regard as identical with Georgian near Czerepasje Lake. Both belongs to type species. Of course this is very complicated group, but such are most of crocuses. Crocus reticulatus were split in 6 and the 7th were newly described by Helmut & Erich. Crocus ancyrensis was regarded as single species - now turned that under this name are hidden 5 different crocuses waiting researcher who will explore them. The similar we can tall about danfordiae, too. There now are separated kurdistanicus, minimus, brickelli and several still wait description. Crocus chrysanthus I'm not even listing here.
It is not true that botanists go in direction of simplicity. When I was student there was only Scilla - now was found that under this name is hidden more than 10 different genera and as scilla remains only species grouped around Scilla bifolia - all other "scilla's" are renamed. In my young years, if I remember correctly, there were four " kingdoms" - animals, plants, mushrooms and bacteria(?). Now there are much more than 10, not remember how many just - it isn't my field of research.
Returning to Sterbergia. Greuteriana from Crete has leaves adpressed to soil and curved, I never saw such in sicula and lutea, and never saw any sicula/lutea like on Crete. More difficult is question about sicula and lutea. I saw a lot of populations where only sicula type is represented and no problems to name. And the same I can tell about lutea, too. But on Pelloponess both types grow side by side - mixed and there really appear intermediates where is very difficult decide - which one is in front of your eyes. May be they are hybrids? May be it is place from where divergence started and where still ancient form is growing which developed in two variants - narrow leafed and wide-leafed. There are no doubt about naming in populations where only one morphological type is represented. But it isn't my field. Genetic research tell that all three are the same, but we still are not capable to research all genome. All researches are based on some fragment of genome, regarded as important for separation. I'm not specialist in this field, but I suppose that may be differences are hidden in another fragments of genome?
Janis

[Boyed]

I also don't accept merging sternbergia greuteriana and sicula with lutea. But there is complication as well here. I got some lutea forms from Angello Percelli from Itally and they all by appearance and form and size of the leaves resemble sicula. The lutea I received from you is quite a robust plants with thick and wide leaves. Pitty it showed virus symptoms this year. I don't have a good clue to separate these ones from each other. The other strenbergias are easily separable by appearance.