Saponaria pumilio?

[Lori S.]

I grew this from seed from the NARGS seedex.  Dare I ask if it is really Saponaria pumilio?  (I think I know the answer!)  Any idea what it is, if not?  Seems to be a Silene/Lychnis/possible Saponaria at any rate... ?
Thanks!

   

[Lesley Cox]

Well it is not S. pumilio as I have it, see below. However, Luit (I think) says that S. pumilio should be called S. pumila anyway. To hazzard a guess, I'd almost think bigeneric hybrid between S. pumilio/pumila and a short Lychnis but don't take my work for it. It is very attractive anyway. I do get many hybrids, some excellent, some mostly rubbish. This one could even include S. ocymoides. S. 'Gala Day' is a seedling of S. 'Olivana' crossed with S. ocymoides and has similar red hairy calyces to yours.

[Lori S.]

Thanks, Lesley... as I'd guessed...    Nice plant none-the-less though.

[Great Moravian]

The binomial Saponaria pumilio was published twice.

Saponaria pumilio Boiss. later erroneously renamed to
Saponaria pulvinaris Boiss. occurring in Turkey

Saponaria pumilio Fenzl ex A.Braun nom.nud
occurring in the Alps
republished as Saponaria pumilio ( L.  ) Fenzl  ex Janch.
which is illegitimate being a later homonym of the first one
and is to be always replaced by Saponaria pumila Hayek

	Alps	Turkey
correct	pumila	pumilio
incorrect	pumilio	pulvinaris

The plant in the picture is probably the Turkish Saponaria pumilio.

[Lesley Cox]

Thanks Josef, for the explanation. All of which reminds me that the seed I promised you Lori, is still sitting on the table, ready to go but not gone. I'll get onto it.

I used to have a really nice plant as S. pulvinaris, and it was very tight and moss-like, almost like some of our so-called scab weeds, the mat-forming Raoulia species. The flowers were a dull pink and very small but I liked it a lot. It has gone now and when I've replaced that name, have got different things altogether.

[Lori S.]

The plant in the picture is probably the Turkish Saponaria pumilio.

Are you referring to my plant then (not Lesley's)?

[Great Moravian]

Are you referring to my plant then

Of course. Compare
http://www.kadel.cz/skalnicky/d/kvCard.asp-Id=2168.htm
if it is the species cultivated by you.

 Edit - the above link may no longer work - try this  :
http://skalnicky.kadel.cz/kvGalery.asp-P=1191&I=7.htm

[Lori S.]

Excellent, then!  Thank you very much.  I just asked because I remember this same discussion coming up in the past with respect to some of Lesley's plants.

No rush on the seeds, Lesley, and thanks. I'm burned out on seed-starting and can't even think about it for a while. 

[Dmitriy Kalinovskiy]

The binomial Saponaria pumilio was published twice.

Saponaria pumilio Boiss. later erroneously renamed to
Saponaria pulvinaris Boiss. occurring in Turkey

Saponaria pumilio Fenzl ex A.Braun nom.nud
occurring in the Alps
republished as Saponaria pumilio ( L.  ) Fenzl  ex Janch.
which is illegitimate being a later homonym of the first one
and is to be always replaced by Saponaria pumila Hayek
 

Please, possible to esteem the sources of this information. I have studied the the morphology of the plant, and I was very surprised by the fact that 2 different forms may be called by one name.
I found only the information that forms from different regions of habitat can have only minor differences.
Therefore, I would like to study about the fact for more detail. Because for me it is a lot of interest.

=====

In due time I got Saponaria pumilio, but I think that it is not. And I to expect that it was the hybrid Saponaria x olivana.

[Lori S.]

I have studied the the morphology of the plant, and I was very surprised by the fact that 2 different forms may be called by one name.
I found only the information that forms from different regions of habitat can have only minor differences.

He is not saying that these two different plants (the one I showed and the first photo posted by Lesley) would be called by one name.
 
He is saying that they are two different species with different natural ranges whose names have been confused, and he is stating what he believes to be the correct species names for each.

[Dmitriy Kalinovskiy]

Me then even more surprised by it! It is a complete violation of the rules sistematika. I am therefore all the more interesting would be the source. 
According to the rules of taxonomy 2 different species may have the same name.

[Lesley Cox]

I am still confused by all this information. Unfortunately the link given in Reply#6 seems to have been taken down so we can't compare it with any. I have now lost my precious S. pumilio, somewhere in the long process of moving plants from one garden to a new one. What I have left of my originals all appear to be S. lutea, a nice plant but not up to the quality (in my opinion) on the other.

[Lori S.]

I was hoping Josef would come on here himself but if not...

I think Josef's analysis of this is pretty clear.  The species from Turkey that is commonly referred to in horticulture as "Saponaria pulvinaris" is correctly called Saponaria pumilio Boiss., and the other species from the Alps that is referred to as "S. pumilio" is correctly referred to as S. pumila. 

These entries in The Catalogue of Life agree with Josef's overall explanation:
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/f5f7091c68bc65da3ce24a0c58f89f1f
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/99264017937d0ea755ef125377039608/synonym/07169523272c2a65246e73ae9f0f822d
________________________
First, the Turkish species...

Josef says the Turkish species was initially called Saponaria pumilio Boiss. but then "later erroneously renamed to Saponaria pulvinaris Boiss.".  (The published date for Saponaria pumilio Boiss. was 1843, as compared to 1849 for Saponaria pulvinaris Boiss., so the older name is the accepted one, I gather.)

The site that was referenced by Josef is still there though the address has been revised, it seems.  Here is Saponaria pumilio Boiss. at the Skalnicky site, the Turkish species:
http://skalnicky.kadel.cz/d/kvCard.asp-Id=2168.htm

So my plant, below, is the same.  Josef is saying it is correctly called Saponaria pumilio Boiss..


Here is a Turkish plant site that shows S. pumilio, correctly labelled:
http://www.turkiyebitkileri.com/index.php?dil=tr&id=2&familya=17&cins=107&tur=1685#.VpLpKhH_7jU

___________________________________________
Now, the Alps species...

Lesley, your photo below (the first one you posted in this thread) is the plant that occurs in the Alps. 


Here are other photos of the same plant in nature in the Alps.
e.g. http://www.jimjermynalpines.com/saponaria-pumilio/

Josef is saying that the Alps species was initially named Saponaria pumilio Fenzl ex A.Braun nom.nud but was then republished, illegitimately, as Saponaria pumilio (L.) Fenzl  ex Janch., and for which the correct name has been decided to be Saponaria pumila Hayek. 

Looking through the published dates for the Alps plant (from the Catalogue of Life link), it seems even more complicated?  It was originally assigned to Cucubalus (1767), then Lychnis (1771), then Silene (1778), and then, it looks like Boissier may have goofed up by assigning the same name, Saponaria pumilio, to both species (1843)?  After that, it was published again as Silene (1880), then finally as Saponaria pumila (1907).

Anyway, I suppose to correct Boissier's nomenclatural problem (?? - which I'm probably not really stating correctly) and perhaps to accommodate the Lychnis/Silene/Saponaria changes, it looks like the 1907 name of Saponaria pumila was accepted for the Alps species.

[Maggi Young]

I am still confused by all this information. Unfortunately the link given in Reply#6 seems to have been taken down so we can't compare it with any. I have now lost my precious S. pumilio, somewhere in the long process of moving plants from one garden to a new one. What I have left of my originals all appear to be S. lutea, a nice plant but not up to the quality (in my opinion) on the other.

 See this new link :  http://skalnicky.kadel.cz/kvGalery.asp-P=1191&I=7.htm 

[Dmitriy Kalinovskiy]

Thank you! I see that a lot of confusion ... now I'll know.