Crocus October 2008

[Boyed]

Thomas,

Wonderful photos, as always.
Maybe Crocus speciosus Albus has nothing special, because it is widely spread and easily available plant, but to my eyes it the most beautiful of all the crocuses shown in your pictures. I emagine if it was a rare plant, then it would immadiately catch everybody's attention no matter it is highly decorative or not.

Your crocus salzmanii white form atracted my attention. In photo it looks quite impressive. I wonder if it is more vigorous and larger than 'El Torcal'.

[art600]

Thomas

All your Crocus are wonderful, but I think your namesake Crocus is outstanding.  I am growing some from seed, and can only hope they produce flowers with as deep a colour as yours.

[Thomas Huber]

Thomas,

Wonderful photos, as always.
Maybe Crocus speciosus Albus has nothing special, because it is widely spread and easily available plant, but to my eyes it the most beautiful of all the crocuses shown in your pictures. I emagine if it was a rare plant, then it would immadiately catch everybody's attention no matter it is highly decorative or not.

Your crocus salzmanii white form atracted my attention. In photo it looks quite impressive. I wonder if it is more vigorous and larger than 'El Torcal'.

Zhirair, a crocus has not to be a special rarity to be beautiful 

Salzmannii Albus can be compared on photo nr. 30 from the first batch I posted. 'El Torcal' is the one in the foreground on the right side,
while the other one is on the left in the background. Both are same height. Can just tell you, that it has increased in its first season in my
garden - but not if it increases better than 'El Torcal'.

[Boyed]

Thomas,
Thanks for clarifications! Both white forms of crocus salzmanii are equally good.

[Thomas Huber]

Thomas,
Thanks for clarifications! Both white forms of crocus salzmanii are equally good.

BUT the new white one is better suited for the open garden!!
'El Torcal' is often damaged from rain, while the new one is still standing strong!!

[tonyg]

David, most people who know my garden just from photos are dissappointed when seeing it with their own eyes!
Ask Luit, Dirk, Hans, Armin... 

I have the same problem Thomas, you are not alone.  But never mind the garden, the friendly Hubis would make a visit to Neustadt worthwhile.

[mark smyth]

How can a bulb fanatic be disappointed to see Thomas' or your collection in real life?

[tonyg]

Mark while the camera may not lie it does allow us to  show only the highlights, there are plenty of low spots in my garden   .... and the pics I have posted recently are the highlights of the last month, come on the wrong day and there might be nothing to see

[Lvandelft]

Thanks everbody!

David, most people who know my garden just from photos are dissappointed when seeing it with their own eyes!
Ask Luit, Dirk, Hans, Armin, Alberto ... 

Thomas, I did not say that! How could I ??
We just had bad luck with the weather, rain and cold 

[hadacekf]

Thomas,
It makes me happy so a marvellous collection to see. Thanks

[hadacekf]

Tony,
you say the truth!

[David Nicholson]

Lovely stuff Thomas.

Here are some of mine from today. Crocus speciosus Aitchinsonii (I've seen a few alternative spellings of this, this is the one Rob Potterton uses in his catalogue) from Thomas, with many thanks; C. speciosus Albus, and C. kotschyanus.

[Jim McKenney]

 Crocus speciosus Aitchinsonii (I've seen a few alternative spellings of this, this is the one Rob Potterton uses in his catalogue) ... C. speciosus Albus...

David pointed out the lack of consistency in naming the widely grown large flowered form of Crocus speciosus and he used the spelling Aitchinsonii which he got from the Potterton catalogue. I checked several formal references and all use the spelling aitchisonii.  Brian Mathew, in The Crocus, attributes this name to Bowles. The name appears in The Bulb Book of John Weathers from 1911, and I’ll bet it’s a lot older than that. In any case, it’s an old name – and one now regarded as of horticultural significance only. 

It seems to me that I’ve seen photos of this plant in older works which show a plant with very wide, large flowers. Bowles called it the largest flowered of autumnal crocuses, and gave its bloom time as late, mid-October. I grew such plants forty years ago, but more recent acquisitions under this name seem different (and in fact no different than many other acquisitions of Crocus speciosus under any of the garden names typically used for it).

In cases like this, the first thing which comes to mind is this: was the original aitchisonii a clone? And if so, does that original clone still exist? Questions of this sort are bothersome, and we might never be able to resolve them.

The same question pertains to what we call Crocus speciosus ‘Albus’. The first plant to have this name is said to have been a clone. Many years ago I grew a white-flowered form of Crocus speciosus received as Crocus speciosus albus; this form had such large flowers that I often wondered if it had been derived from what I knew as aitchisonii. Was it a clone, the original clone,  and does it still exist? Every once and a while a particularly fine white-flowered Crocus speciosus appears in my garden, and I wonder if it is a piece of the plant I originally obtained over forty years ago. And over the years other smaller, white-flowered forms have appeared spontaneously in my garden. Furthermore, acquisitions in recent years under the name 'Albus' have yielded excellent plants with white flowers smaller than the large form described above.

These uncertainties have caused me to abandon use of the names Crocus speciosus albus (because the entities in question almost certainly do not correspond to sexually reproducing wild populations)  and Crocus speciosus ‘Albus’ (i.e. a cultivar name, but in this case there is reason to believe that the name is used ambiguously (and incorrectly) to  name any and all white-flowered forms regardless of provenance; in other words, it really doesn't name anything in particular, it just suggests that whatever it names will be a white flowered form of Crocus speciosus).

Here in Maryland there is no tradition of growing these plants. But those of you in the UK and Europe do seem have viable traditions which allow you to resolve with some certainty the questions I've raised. What are your feelings about these issues?

Perhaps I should have simply enjoyed David's fine photographs.

[Boyed]

Jim,

I am not very deep in crocuses, but I should say that crocus speciosus Albus is very distinct, different in flower shape from other speciosus forms and cultivars (somewhat pointed petals). It is very large flowered at the smae time. Most of the companies selling this crocus, offer this form. So I think that the name crocus speciosus Albus applies right to the type I discribe. (crocus speciosus Albus trade form)

Though from my bulb fellows I heard number of times that there are other white-flowerd crocus speciosus types in existance, which differ from the original one by flower shape and size, blooming time, etc.

Relating 'Aitchinsonii', I only know that it is a form, selected from wild population in Caucasas. So it is supposed to be not a cultivar.

[mark smyth]

A few years ago I bought a full collection of speciosus cultivars from various sources. Nearly all were speciosus