Crocus November 2008

[Maggi Young]

Luit, an extraordinary sight.... I didn't know so many of these crocus existed!!

[Andrew]

A little puzzle for you, flowering now but what is it (sorry for the dull picture, it's the same outside and has been all day) ?

[Armin]

Andrew,
I tend to say this treasury is possibly C. aleppicus from Syria/Lebanon.

[mark smyth]

I'll give it a WOW also

[tonyg]

A little puzzle for you, flowering now but what is it (sorry for the dull picture, it's the same outside and has been all day) ?

Crocus biflorus ssp melantherus

[Maggi Young]

A little puzzle for you, flowering now but what is it (sorry for the dull picture, it's the same outside and has been all day) ?

Crocus biflorus ssp melantherus

BD and I second that, for what it's worth! I do see what Armin gets his aleppicus suggestion from, though..... orange throat and lovely outer veining......it'd be good to see the inside when it opens on the next sunny day!! 

[HClase]

Crocus goulimyi var. goulimyi.

Crocus goulimyi subsp. leucanthus (B.Mathew) B.Mathew, Bot. Chron. 13: 257 (2000).

Crocus goulimyi var. leucanthus B.Mathew, Ann. Mus. Goulandris 9: 168 (1994 publ. 1995).

It would seem that 'leucanthus' has reverted to varietal status.

That's odd as the subsp. entry has the later date.  As I understand, in general geographically distinct populations that cannot mix their genes are considered subsp. while a var. occurs within the area of the main population - and then there's the forma too at a lower level still.  I understand that taxon leucanthus is a distinct population.  I guess one taxonomist's var. is another's subsp.!

By the way my outdoor "goulimyi" turned out to be a misplaced medius growing up under the wrong label.

Another possibility for my dark blue speciosus according to my notes is 'Cassiope', but they all look pretty similar to me!

[Maggi Young]

Crocus 'Cassiope' is not a name I know, Howard 

[Lvandelft]

Crocus 'Cassiope' is not a name I know, Howard 

Maggi, this Crocus is registered for a long time already.

Crocus Cassiope, speciosus autumnfl.;
sel. by Tubergen, haarlem, anilin-blueyellow base, late, large-flowering

[mark smyth]

My 'Cassiope' hasnt flowered since 2005 after which it broke down in to small corms.

[Gerry Webster]

That's odd as the subsp. entry has the later date. 

Presumably whoever was responsible for the decision about names does not accept the argument for subspecific status & therefore the earlier varietal name has priority.  In his 1982 update BM is extremely vague about the differences between the supposed subspecies. Apart from the colour difference (usually of little taxonomic significance), in subsp. leucanthus "there is probably also a subtle difference in flower size & shape, although much observation is required to ascertain if this is real or imagined".

[Lesley Cox]

I had corms way back in the 60s as Crocus speciosus `Cassiope.' It was imported from Van Tubergens and was a soft blue, heavily veined darker. Haven't got it now.

[Maggi Young]

I had corms way back in the 60s as Crocus speciosus `Cassiope.'

Ah, so well before my time, then , Lesley 

[DaveM]

The Kew source that Gerry used further states that subspecies leucanthos was not accepted by the World Checklist of Seed Plants database in 2001. So it seems that var leucanthos is currently correct.

However, my understanding of subspecies and var definitions accords with Howard's statements - so I'm confused....... I have visited the population of 'thingame' leucanthos at Foutia near Monemvasia and this is, as Howard says, a discrete population - a couple of pix below. The colour here is predominatly white and there are none of the usual bicolour form seen elsewhere. However, many have just the faintish hint of lilac. In the populations of subsp/var goulimyi there are also sporadic white and near-white plants, but never reaching a significant percentage.

[Gerry Webster]

Dave & Howard - 
Howard writes: "As I understand, in general geographically distinct populations that cannot mix their genes are considered subsp." What is one to understand by "cannot"? The dandelions in Brighton cannot, as a matter of fact,  mix their genes with the dandelions in Aberdeen. Does this make them distinct subspecies? I think not. Therefore, if  "cannot" is to have any significance it must mean rather more than "as a matter of fact do not". It must mean something like "are unable to". I have no idea whether the distinct populations of the two prongs of the Peloponnese are unable to mix their genes & I wonder whether there is any evidence one way or the other on the question?

Like most classifications, BM's treatment of Crocus (including his treatment of infraspecific taxa) is primarily based on traditional morphological criteria; geography plays, at best, a secondary role &, not surprisingly, population genetics hardly enters the discussion.