Crocus October 2008

[Thomas Huber]

Very interesting point, Jim!

For many years I try to find out more about speciosus cultivars, but no one can help me, neither with true plants nor photos or paintings of true plants. I have most of the cultivars (Aichisonii, Cassiope, Conquerer, Oxonian, Aino, Albus, Pollux) but I can't be sure if these plants are 100% correct. They match with the spare descriptions I found in the web and various books but these descriptions are not very detailed 

If you have old books with paintings or photos of the mentioned cultivars I would be very happy if you could share them with me.

[Luc Gilgemyn]

Welcome to Croconut world David ! 

[Anthony Darby]

By Jove, October is only 2 days old and we are already on page 3!

[Gerry Webster]

If you have old books with paintings or photos of the mentioned cultivars I would be very happy if you could share them with me.

Thomas - have you ever seen Collins Guide to Bulbs by Patrick M Synge (Collins 1961)? It's many years since I've seen this book but I seem to remember it had lots of coloured illustrations (paintings).
It is available very cheaply on the web via ABEBooks.

[Lvandelft]

Here is a picture I made out of the book of P.M. Synge.
Sorry, I was a bit shivering without tripod, but the colours will do I hope.
Looking at some colours I would not go for identification, despite the nice pictures.

[mark smyth]

Amazon sellers list copies of the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000S54C4W/ref=dp_olp_0/203-8353866-8103117?ie=UTF8&condition=all

[Jim McKenney]

I want to try to relate what we are discussing here to something which is happening in the bigger world of taxonomy. Most of us have been taught to use botanical nomenclature in naming our garden plants. But my impression is that gardeners in general do not understand how botanical nomenclature works. Another forum member, in commenting on efforts to obtain representative examples of the cultivated forms of Crocus speciosus, stated that all turned out to be “Crocus speciosus”.

All of the various manifestations of Crocus speciosus (its subspecies, its wild variants, its cultivars) are properly referred to as Crocus speciosus. But my impression is that gardeners do not understand it that way. To many gardeners, the term "Crocus speciosus" means “the usual form” or something like that. And this concept “usual form” is not the same as the botanist’s “typical form” or Crocus speciosus subsp specisous. The commonly grown cultivars  all seem to have derived from Crocus speciosus subspecies speciosus. Thus the plant we call 'Aitchisonii' might be named Crocus speciosus subsp. speciosus cv. ‘Aitchisonii’ – although most of us fins such designations cumbersome and  will probably simply  call it ‘Aitchisonii’ . This cv. ‘Aitchisonii’ is no more or less Crocus speciosus than any wild plant of typical (in both the layman’s sense and the formal nomenclatural sense) Crocus speciosus.

Gardeners who strive to mirror the practice of taxonomists might not be doing us a favor. More and more modern taxonomists have come around to the point of view that the only proper focuses of their work are sexually reproducing populations (species in the modern sense). Some even call into question the propriety of attempting to distinguish subspecies. On the other hand, the nomenclature of horticulture has a long and tangled history of focus on the freaks of nature, the exceptions, the atypical plants which stand out and appeal to man’s aesthetic sense. Modern taxonomic practice largely ignores such entities – as it should.

But wouldn’t it be a great loss for horticulture if we were to ignore these plants simply because formal taxonomy no longer recognizes them?

‘Aitchisonii’ might have no claim to importance in the realm of formal taxonomic nomenclature, but it would be a shame if it were to disappear (if in fact it has not already) into the muddle of other unnamed forms of Crocus speciosus.   

The point I’m trying to make here is that as gardeners we have our own traditions to uphold: formal taxonomy has, in a sense, abandoned us. It’s up to us to keep our own house in order, because formal taxonomy will no longer be doing it for us. Some current practices of taxonomists result in the obfuscation of the very things which as gardeners we deem important. Here’s an example: in the past, many garden plants were given Latin-form names. The modern understanding of some of these plants is that they are of hybrid origin. Modern taxonomic practice is to use such Latin-form names for all plants of similar origin. If the plant originally given such a Latin-form name was clonal in nature, a problem significant from a horticultural point of view arises: the original clone had its own characteristics. But later similar hybridizations might yield plants of markedly different color, form and so on. Yet all of these differing plants would get the same Latin-form  name.

Those who knew the original clone and its characteristics would no doubt be confused to encounter a very different plant with the same name.

The problem is not simply that the various hybrids are given the same name. The real problem is that the original clones are apt to get lost in the muddle before we have realized what has happened and have had a chance to identify them at the proper taxonomic level (which for most garden plants will be the rank individuum or clone). For an example of this, look into the history of the plant known as Lilium × dalhansonii.         

Yikes! What a screed: and I have not even had breakfast yet.

[Gerry Webster]

Crocus goulimyi ‘Mani White’
I’ve grown this cultivar for several years but I’ve only just realised that it is strongly scented. Has anyone else noticed?
Neither of the subspecies  of C.goulimyi seems to have any scent.

[Jim McKenney]

Thus the plant we call 'Aitchisonii' might be named Crocus speciosus subsp. speciosus cv. ‘Aitchisonii’

Well, I got a bit ahead of myself there. 'Aitchisonii' can not properly be called a cultivar because it did not arise in cultivation.

What is the formal designation for clones of wild origin? I'm not sure.

[Gerry Webster]

Thus the plant we call 'Aitchisonii' might be named Crocus speciosus subsp. speciosus cv. ‘Aitchisonii’

Well, I got a bit ahead of myself there. 'Aitchisonii' can not properly be called a cultivar because it did not arise in cultivation.
What is the formal designation for clones of wild origin? I'm not sure.

A cultivar is a distinct form which is not considered to warrant botanical recognition. It can be of either wild or garden origin. As I'm sure you are aware Jim, there is an International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants  corresponding to the Int. Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

[Jim McKenney]

Thus the plant we call 'Aitchisonii' might be named Crocus speciosus subsp. speciosus cv. ‘Aitchisonii’

Well, I got a bit ahead of myself there. 'Aitchisonii' can not properly be called a cultivar because it did not arise in cultivation.
What is the formal designation for clones of wild origin? I'm not sure.

A cultivar is a distinct form which is not considered to warrant botanical recognition. It can be of either wild or garden origin. As I'm sure you are aware Jim, there is an International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants  corresponding to the Int. Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

Thanks, Gerry. I should be ashamed to admit it, but I have never read the ICNCP in toto; I've only seen parts of it. The definition of cultivar I'm familiar with specifically excludes plants not of cultivated origin. So the definition used in the code must be different.

Is the ICNCP available on-line? The last time I looked I could not find it.

[Gerry Webster]

Jim - I've only seen parts of it too & that a long time ago. I've never had occasion to make use of it so I don't know whether it is online.
Examples of cultivars of garden & wild origin: Crocus goulimyi 'Mani White' arose in cultivation & was  selected by Michael Hoog; C. chrysanthus 'Prespa Gold' came from a wild collection by Christian &  Hoog.

The question of botanical & horticultural distinctions came up recently in the Sternbergia thread. While I think it is a good thing for  gardeners to  be aware of  issues in botanical taxonomy it is also important (or at least useful) to sometimes  retain distinct names for horticultural purposes even if these names have no botanical significance.

[David Nicholson]

Perhaps the white forms of Crocus speciosus should just be named C. speciosus forma alba(us)?

[Armin]

Jim,
very interesting thoughts about nomenclature. C.speciosus and its trade forms are indeed a good example.

What annoys me repeated times is the fact professional growers/resellers use obvious wrong names and spread it still into the market.  As an amateur / hobby gardener in the first instance I can only refer to the names given it was purchased under.

In case of C.speciosus it seems to be proven the growing fields are often mixed up. How often don't we get what has been ordered?
The origin of many clones is not always well documented, descriptions are vage and certainly also a secrect of growers.

The historical classification within the genus of crocus has been revised many times by botanists.
Using latest DNA analysis results will be very helpful and a milestone.
But is this error free? Not for sure! DNA analysis is a complicated matter and who confirms the sample analysed was the right one?
And it is expensive - who is funding arising costs?

Conclusions? - Not realy for me - there is still much room for improvements I'd like to say.
But thanks to the forumist cumulative knowledge many errors can be detected.
This is a big help - at least.

David,
in case of the white speciosus I personal could accept your proposal.

[David Nicholson]

Amongst some corms that Tony Willis was kind enough to send me were four 'escapees' that he had dug out of his plunge but he was unsure what species they were. I potted them up, all in the same pot, and here is the first one to flower. I think it is Crocus kotschyanus, but then again I'm only a trainee Croconut.

A picture also of Crocus hadriaticus (sorry it's a bit out of focus but I was in a hurry) from some small corms that Tony Goode kindly sent me.