Crocus November 2011

[Gerry Webster]

Janis -  I can think of at least three causal explanations for the appearance of Oron's crocus:

1. Virus infection.
2. Genetic mutation with morphologically variable expressivity.
3. Somatic mutation.

While I agree that this looks rather like virus infection I still maintain that one cannot make a decision between these alternatives based  purely on appearance - this  really would involve  the (unsubstantiated) "theories" of "amateur growers". Whether it is always better to assume the worst or to wait & see is an individual decision.

Gerry, I have to say I agree with Janis on this. All 3 causal explanations you give are just hypothesis until the specimen is properly tested for virus, wait and see is not a test. If testing is not an option or the owner does not think it is worth the investment to get it tested the danger is IF it is a virus it might spread and if material from that collection is spread to other collectors, so does the virus. In some genera (Lilium, most Arisaema) getting seeds and then destroying the infected plants is an option but better safe than sorry.... Certainly in important collections that contain rare plants or forms, assuming the worst is not only the safest but also the most responsible thing to do as these collections are basically safehouses for endangered plants. And Oron grows some pretty rare plants by the look of it.

Pascal - I would not disagree with most of your post. Of course my suggestions are no more than that. After 40 years as a professional biologist I'm sceptical of dogmatic conclusions based on superficial appearances.

I have no relevant knowledge on the matter but I would have thought that having plants tested for virus would be extremely dificult &/or expensive for amateurs. In that case  'wait & see' or 'destroy immediately'   would seem to be  the only options available; personally, I would opt for the first,  but then I don't regard my collection as 'important'. The other two suggestions would be quite difficult for any amateur to test. For what it is worth, I think my 2nd suggestion is the least likely but this is no more than a guess, & therefore not worth very much.

With regard to your remarks on 'responsibility': I trust that all those nurserymen who have been sending out the trade form of C. medius for the last 30 years or more will read them & take note. I further trust that other nurseymen will have all their plants tested before distributing them.  Somehow, I doubt this will happen.

[Oron Peri]

Thank you all for giving your opinions and advises.

Although it is hard for me to separate from this extraordinary form, i can not take any chance of risking my collection which is an important one, as it contains many of the bulbous plants growing around the Mediterranean basin, all identified and well documented.

Therefor the funeral will be held tomorrow morning....  

[Pascal B]

Pascal - I would not disagree with most of your post. Of course my suggestions are no more than that. After 40 years as a professional biologist I'm sceptical of dogmatic conclusions based on superficial appearances.

I have no relevant knowledge on the matter but I would have thought that having plants tested for virus would be extremely dificult &/or expensive for amateurs. In that case  'wait & see' or 'destroy immediately'   would seem to be  the only options available; personally, I would opt for the first,  but then I don't regard my collection as 'important'. The other two suggestions would be quite difficult for any amateur to test. For what it is worth, I think my 2nd suggestion is the least likely but this is no more than a guess, & therefore not worth very much.

With regard to your remarks on 'responsibility': I trust that all those nurserymen who have been sending out the trade form of C. medius for the last 30 years or more will read them & take note. I further trust that other nurseymen will have all their plants tested before distributing them.  Somehow, I doubt this will happen.

Gerry, my opinion of nurseryman taking their responsibilty is rather...uhrmmmm...negative, I have lost faith in that a long time ago. Not only for documenting the origin of their stock, correct labeling or virus. Of course there are exceptions but in general they just want to make money, certainly the exporters from my country.... 
What I actually mean is that the botanical world is in danger with major cutbacks in funding which means botanic gardens in the future might no longer be the main instutitions that protect the genetic pool of rare plants but instead the private collections. Few do realise this but some of the bigger specialist collections are very important in that respect and are of more importance than simply a bunch of plants to look at or show at the bench.

I do not own my plants, I have "loaned"  them from nature and I feel it my responsibility to not only propagate and distribute rare plants but also keep my stock disease free. To be honest I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to test plants for virus in other countries. With the horticultural trade in Holland being a big one there are several companies I can get my plants tested, http://www.bqsupport.nl/ for instance. I simply post fresh leaf samples and get the results a week later and many euros poorer....

Although I specialize in a different genus (Arisaema), on average I have about 10 samples tested each year that I don't trust. Often it is false alarm but I too had to destroy plants, some being the only plants in cultivation outside the original location. I could have tried to grow them on and hope some offsets are produced so I can pollinate mother with son to get seeds but I considered the risk of such a plant being in the vicinity of the rest of my research collection for several more year too risky. It takes one aphid I missed to spread virus. Of course the decision to destroy or not destroy is for each to take but I just want people to understand that many collections are more important than people realise and deserve protection on several levels. Maybe not now but possibly for the future. Not only habitats are disappearing but botanical gardens too.....

[Gerry Webster]

The Ray Cobb laevigatus ios very handsome.
I had a seed pod on the gold backed laevigatus a couple of weeks ago. Just 4 seeds though.

Lesley - The rather similar C. laevigatus recently posted by David (reply #3, November 02) also came from Ray Cobb via Alan Edwards. Ray apparently had it from Ronald Ginns, so it has a distinguished pedigree.

Seedlings from this form are very variable; some have 'gold' backs, though the colour fades very quickly.

Gee! I 've hit the "big time"

I don't know about that David but you might take some comfort from the fact that it is many years since its ancestors were ripped out of the wild.

[ian mcenery]

Here is a late flowering form of niveus WKA 2312 which does well here in the garden

It is a shame the mathewii is to receive the last rites as I quite like it

[David Nicholson]

The Ray Cobb laevigatus ios very handsome.
I had a seed pod on the gold backed laevigatus a couple of weeks ago. Just 4 seeds though.

Lesley - The rather similar C. laevigatus recently posted by David (reply #3, November 02) also came from Ray Cobb via Alan Edwards. Ray apparently had it from Ronald Ginns, so it has a distinguished pedigree.

Seedlings from this form are very variable; some have 'gold' backs, though the colour fades very quickly.

Gee! I 've hit the "big time"

I don't know about that David but you might take some comfort from the fact that it is many years since its ancestors were ripped out of the wild.

I will Gerry.

[Hans A.]

Today I had a very pleasant surprise when I checked my seedling pots - a C. mathewii seedling started to flower,  in my opinion a very nice and dark one - also the throat is quite dark - will try to cross it with the "Peter Moore form"  (thanks to Alex ) which has also a very intense colour.
Second picture shows it in comparison with a 'normal' C. mathewii.

[Janis Ruksans]

Today I had a very pleasant surprise when I checked my seedling pots - a C. mathewii seedling started to flower,  in my opinion a very nice and dark one - also the throat is quite dark - will try to cross it with the "Peter Moore form"  (thanks to Alex ) which has also a very intense colour.
Second picture shows it in comparison with a 'normal' C. mathewii.

Difficult to judge - what is "normal" form. In nature the most distributed are forms with white petals base color and larger or smaller deep purple throught. Less widespread are forms with slightly lilac petals color and most rare are with pale base. Generally I would regard as most tyupical just forms with very deep base color. Really on many localities I found only one speciman with paler base (showed by you as "normal" form).
Janis

[Lesley Cox]

Thanks for the note about the gold-backed laevigatus Gerry. Mine came from Marcus Harvey in Tasmania, from whom all my special and rare forms have come. He has great contacts, including Alan Edwards. It was from Marcus, ex Alan that Bowles' 'Chocolate Soldier' came my way and some other precious things. So also impeccable lineage. (Ex Harvey, ex Edwards, ex Warburg, ex Bowles). I count myself not only very lucky in this respect but also very privileged.

[Miriam]

Lovely display from all!

Here is also C. mathewii started to flower today after the first heavy rains for this season.
Many thanks Hans 

[YT]

The first pic is Crocus goulimyi from JJA seeds described as ‘Crocus goulimyi from selected variants  Greece, Lakonia, N of Areopoli.’. This flowering individual is quite quick grower took only 2 years from seed to flower

The second and third are Crocus wattiorum with lovely dark anthers

And the last is Crocus mathewii, a kind of normal one…

[Hans A.]

Great to see this species grows well in Israel also!

YT - fantastic C.wattiorum!

Difficult to judge - what is "normal" form. In nature the most distributed are forms with white petals base color and larger or smaller deep purple throught. Less widespread are forms with slightly lilac petals color and most rare are with pale base. Generally I would regard as most tyupical just forms with very deep base color. Really on many localities I found only one speciman with paler base (showed by you as "normal" form).
Janis

Thanks a lot Janis, have never seen this crocus in the wild so I appreciate very much this information. I know only few pictures of this species in nature, here are some: http://photos.v-d-brink.eu/Flora-and-Fauna/Asia/Turkey-nieuw2007herfst/14164115_Gw4r2/33/1045413931_jXcsH#1045418276_PcXKR  . This thread let me think pale forms are not so uncommon http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4094.0 - but I agree using the word 'normal' in such a variable species does not make much sense.

The seedling I have shown has slightly lilac petals and a lot of purple in the tube, so it is very welcome addition in my small collection and shows a bit the colouration C.m. 'Dream Dancer' - I should grow (Had received the wrong plant (a hybrid) last year , this year it was replaced but it is not out so far).

Weather is terrible - so no pollination will be possible.  

Here some pics of the C.mathewii I grow - first the seedling, then two other forms:

[Armin]

Fantastic images.

Regretable I have no flowering crocus to show today. Last Saturday I mowed my meadow in order to cut the gras and to mulch the fallen leaves.
I was quite surprised to see the first noses of cultivar C. chrysanthus 'Romance' poking through ground already now.
Unintentionally, I cut the longest noses or trampled some, uups

Have you made similar observations in crocus grown outside?
Usually 1st. noses appear E/Dec to M/Jan.

[pehe]

Crocus cartwrightianus still looks good.

Poul

[Armin]

Poul, a real nice one