Narcissus 2010

[Tony Willis]

An interesting paper which I have to say I struggle to understand but if I am correct then Narcissus serotinus occurs in N.Africa and Portugal with  miniatus in between? A strange anomaly, and no specimens from Turkey have been considered.

[Gerry Webster]

Armin,

according to the chromosome weighing work of Ben Zonneveld,  they are one and the same.  Actually, they are N. pseudonarcissus ssp moschatus.  After reading and studying his paper, I agree with this analysis.  You can find a PDF on the ADS site. Here is a direct link.

http://www.daffodilusa.org/pdfs/systematicvalueofnucleardna.pdf

John Blanchard follows Pugsley &  Fernandes in  regarding N. moschatus & N. alpestris as distinct species on the basis of relatively  small morphological differences. Apparently N. moschatus is not known as a wild plant & at least some forms  appear to be sterile.

[annew]

I grew this plant from AGS seed in 2002. The resulting 2 seedlings were very different - one like the first picture and the other like the second. Number two is completely sterile, and  although the flower is rather big and blousy for such a short stem, it has a certain baroque appeal for me. What I'd like to know is - has anybody any ideas what it is? Do you think it may be eugenae crossed with some other species and if so what? The seed list doesn't specify whether the seed was wild collected or not. Maybe someone reading this was the seed donor?

[mark smyth]

Wow Anne the second is stunning but looks nothing like my N eugenae but then mine could be wrong

[Ian Y]

That is a very interesting Narcissus Anne, looks like it could have some hoop-peticoat genes in its make up.

[Regelian]

An interesting paper which I have to say I struggle to understand but if I am correct then Narcissus serotinus occurs in N.Africa and Portugal with  miniatus in between? A strange anomaly, and no specimens from Turkey have been considered.

Tony,

the missing Turkish plants is a bit of a hole in the work, but, apparently none were available to analyse.  More the pity, as there may be distinct species/ssp. from this area.

The main difference between N. serotinus andN. miniatus is the ploidy, with the later being an ancient hybrid of N. elegans x serotinus.Although the N. serotinusspecimens used for the study came from North Africa and Portugal, the distribution of the species is much wider.  The biggest obstacle in my eyes, is that there is not enough collected material with provenance to truly map out full distribution of the species.  I've read of reports of N. serotinus from the entire Mediterranian down through Italy, while N. miniatus seems to be found only on the Iberian penensula.  Again, these reports are NOT accompanied by a genetic analysis, so we are back to square one.

What I particularly like about Zonneveld's paper, is that it reduces plants to their genetic affinities (genotypes), rather than their phaenotypes.  Botanically speaking, there are too many taxon described simply based on minor visual differences.  All good and well for the gardener who wants to see these minor differences, but, in the gene pool, they are less than drops in the bucket and do not merit the rank of species or subspecies.  As named varieties, preferably with some provenence, they certainly have their place, especially for the serious gardener.

In what I've studied under the microscope, which is certainly an amateur work, especially when compared to those with proper facilities, I am always amazed at how easy it is to find differences.  The difficult part is seeing the links that actually define definitions such as species.  If we were to simply concentrate on differences, every living thing could be considered a seperate, autart 'species', which would refute the entire system.  Of course, we come back to that fav question; 'what is a species'.

With the Narcissi, we are dealing with a group of plants that have been appreciated by man for many thousands of years, which complicates the matter even further.  How much of the current distribution is artificial? How many of these plants represent hybrids?  We may never know.  And, I must ask myself, how important is this knowledge?  many pictures are much more beautiful when they are not yet complete.

I'm as curious as the next person, though......

[Regelian]

I grew this plant from AGS seed in 2002. The resulting 2 seedlings were very different - one like the first picture and the other like the second. Number two is completely sterile, and  although the flower is rather big and blousy for such a short stem, it has a certain baroque appeal for me. What I'd like to know is - has anybody any ideas what it is? Do you think it may be eugenae crossed with some other species and if so what? The seed list doesn't specify whether the seed was wild collected or not. Maybe someone reading this was the seed donor?

Anne,

the second one certainly looks to be a hybrid and, as you mentioned sterility, I would say the case is closed.  Now, what was the other parent?  One of the bulbocodium group would make sense, especially as they often have aberant chromosome numbers.  Only N. hedraeanthus  would seem unlikely to me, as it typically has 14 chromosomes and one would expect some fertility in the offspring.

Hopefully someone will report in as the donor.  In any case, a wonderful flower.  I hope you decide to propagate it!

[Gerry Webster]

.....What I particularly like about Zonneveld's paper, is that it reduces plants to their genetic affinities (genotypes), rather than their phaenotypes.  Botanically speaking, there are too many taxon described simply based on minor visual differences.  All good and well for the gardener who wants to see these minor differences, but, in the gene pool, they are less than drops in the bucket and do not merit the rank of species or subspecies.  As named varieties, preferably with some provenence, they certainly have their place, especially for the serious gardener.

Well, Zonneveld did not analyse genotypes or characterise DNA. What he did was to measure the amount of DNA -"the nuclear DNA content" - in a large number of species. While this is interesting, its taxonomic significance is far from clear.

In what I've studied under the microscope, which is certainly an amateur work, especially when compared to those with proper facilities, I am always amazed at how easy it is to find differences.  The difficult part is seeing the links that actually define definitions such as species.  If we were to simply concentrate on differences, every living thing could be considered a seperate, autart 'species', which would refute the entire system.  Of course, we come back to that fav question; 'what is a species'.

Classical Linnaean taxonomy is not based on simple "differences" but on differences with respect to the 'essential' features which form the basis of the definitions of classes (species, genera etc). The problem comes with trying to identify these 'essential' features. In some cases this is possible in others difficult or impossible. In the latter case the logical structure of the Linnaean system inevitably leads to each individual being its own species. A 'biological/evolutionary' attempt to replace the Linnaean system raises different, but equally difficult problems.
As you say, we return to the question. "what is a species?"     

[Regelian]

.....What I particularly like about Zonneveld's paper, is that it reduces plants to their genetic affinities (genotypes), rather than their phaenotypes.  Botanically speaking, there are too many taxon described simply based on minor visual differences.  All good and well for the gardener who wants to see these minor differences, but, in the gene pool, they are less than drops in the bucket and do not merit the rank of species or subspecies.  As named varieties, preferably with some provenence, they certainly have their place, especially for the serious gardener.

Well, Zonneveld did not analyse genotypes or characterise DNA. What he did was to measure the amount of DNA -"the nuclear DNA content" - in a large number of species. While this is interesting, its taxonomic significance is far from clear.

In what I've studied under the microscope, which is certainly an amateur work, especially when compared to those with proper facilities, I am always amazed at how easy it is to find differences.  The difficult part is seeing the links that actually define definitions such as species.  If we were to simply concentrate on differences, every living thing could be considered a seperate, autart 'species', which would refute the entire system.  Of course, we come back to that fav question; 'what is a species'.

Classical Linnaean taxonomy is not based on simple "differences" but on differences with respect to the 'essential' features which form the basis of the definitions of classes (species, genera etc). The problem comes with trying to identify these 'essential' features. In some cases this is possible in others difficult or impossible. In the latter case the logical structure of the Linnaean system inevitably leads to each individual being its own species. A 'biological/evolutionary' attempt to replace the Linnaean system raises different, but equally difficult problems.
As you say, we return to the question. "what is a species?"     

Gerry,

you're right, I shouldn't have refered to this as a genotype analysis, although, even using as simple a method as weighing the DNA content, remaining within a genus would allow for highly accurate comparisons, simply based upon DNA content.  Were this not the case, it would be a fruitless effort.  However, to say this does not characterize the DNA is dismissing the significace of such work, as it certainly does reflect qualities of the genome that must be present at any given DNA content.  If this is not the case, we need to completely rethink the genus!  To get the full picture, this is only the beginning.  A full chromosome analysis would be necessary.  I would think the greatest hinderance is, as always, the finanaces involved.

I must admit, I am not a fan of classic Linnean taxonomy.  It was developed in a time when science and religion were much too closely entwined.  It attempts to supperimpose rules that evolution knows little about.  I am a fan of reticulate evolution, which answers more questions by allowing more possibilities, but makes taxonomy even more difficult.  Still, we have a long way to go.  Even trying to categorize via genetic markers seems problematic, but, as with measuring DNA content, there must be a pattern.

again, how much do we need to know?  Fiascos, such as CITES, are based on completey untenable definitions of species and have managed to place more creatures on the verge of extinction that any other effort by man.  A complete disgrace, IMO.  But we don't ned to go there.

[LucS]

A few narcissus species now in flower, all in the same large group of N. asturiensis relatives.
  Narcissus hispanicus var bujei
  Narcissus bicolor
  Narcissus radinganorum
  Narcissus pallidiflorus 

[Gerry Webster]

Narcissus obesus

From Monocot seed ex a Mike Salmon collection (MS451), W. Portugal.

The plant lives up to its name. The plant is  120mm tall while the flowers are 57mm.long with a corona of 34mm diam.

[Gerry Webster]

Very nice LucS. I particularly like Narcissus hispanicus var bujei

[ashley]

Fine plants all.  That obesus has beautiful form & colour Gerry.

[annew]

They are all good ones - how tall are yours, LucS?
From the sublime to the ridiculous, I am fighting a running battle with large bumblebees in my bulb houses. Yes, I KNOW bees are our friends, but I'm hoping to have plants to show at Hexham, and no sooner do they open than the little ******s are drilling holes through the coronas to steal the nectar/pollen. It's driving me crazy! My latest ploy to thwart them (short of standing guard 24hrs a day) is a hairnet propped onto labels, but they are still getting through. Also the daffs push a bud through then open the flower on the other side. AAAArgh!!!

[mark smyth]

I had a bad bee today also who couldnt be a$$ed going in to a trumpet. She bit a hole at the base so I swatted her