Saffron crocus group

[Croquin]

Dear all Croconuts (so funny the first time you hear that) 

it seems that other crocuses than C. sativus can be used for producing saffron, and may have been throughout human history.

has anyone of you already tried to produce and taste some saffron from these species ?
what was the taste, was it interesting and really different from C. sativus' saffron ?

very curious about that 

[Janis Ruksans]

During Soviet regime (behind Iron curtain) there were several experiments searching for replacement for true saffron produced from Crocus sativus. Soviet biologists found that stigmas of Crocus pallasii can be used as replacement for C. sativus and quite similar were stigmas of Crocus speciosus, too. Although the last not yielded so good quality as C. pallasii. Only difference between pallasii and sativus was in crop. Stigmas of sativus are larger and heavier (if I eremember well - I read about this ~35 years ago, but I can search in my library, if you are really interested.
Janis

[bulborum]

I asket the same question on the PBS forum
I know C.pallassii and C. nudiflorus do
There was a note in The Crocus book
If I remember well there is a crocus
with a similar or even better quality saffron
but had no time for searching the exact text

Roland

[Croquin]

Janis and Roland,

thanks !

here is the list I have - which must be the list of crocuses from the section crocus, series crocus, I guess that all of them bloom in the fall, and from the pictures I could see (never seen the plants for real), they seem to have "large" red stigmas that could produce saffron :

•   Crocus asumaniae B. Mathew & T. Baytop (1979)
•   Crocus cartwrightianus W. Herbert (1843)
•   Crocus hadriaticus W. Herbert (1845)
•   Crocus moabiticus F. Bornmuller & J.E. Dinsmore (1912)
•   Crocus mathewii H. Kemdorff & E. Pasche (1994)
•   Crocus naqabensis D. Al-Eisawi (2001)
•   Crocus oreocreticus B.L. Burtt (1949)
•   Crocus pallasii
o   subsp. pallasii K.L. Goldbach (1817)
o   subsp. dispataceus E. A. Bowles (1982)
o   subsp. haussknechtii B. Mathew (1977)
o   subsp. turcicus B Mathew (1977)
•   Crocus thomasii M. Tenore (1826)

I did not know about the possibility with C. nudiflorus and C. speciosus.
Does it mean that any crocus with somehow developped stigmas can be used for the purpose of spice production without intoxication risk ?

Janis, you are most welcome to go dig a deep hole into your archives :-)

[bulborum]

I found this information in old books
The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus
and the quality was similar they said

I did not try it myself
but maybe next year I have enough flowers to try

Roland

By the way
that was the list I meant

[Gerry Webster]

Mathew (p39) has a short discussion of C. nudiflorus as a source of saffron. The species is naturalised in parts of England & the recorded sites are said to be associated with the Knights of St John of Jerusalem. It seems to have been introduced at least 300 years ago but exactly when is not known. It has been shown that there is no significant chemical difference between the stigmas of C. nudiflorus & C. sativus.

[Janis Ruksans]

I found this information in old books
The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus
and the quality was similar they said

I did not try it myself
but maybe next year I have enough flowers to try

Roland

By the way
that was the list I meant

About nudiflorus as safran source in Britain wrote G. Maw in his Monograph and E.A. Bowles in his handbook, too.
Janis

[Croquin]

Interesting...

I have found this map showing the natural occurrences of C. nudiflorus in France
http://www.tela-botanica.org/nn19898

and this one for the UK
http://www.brc.ac.uk/plantatlas/index.php?q=plant/crocus-nudiflorus

where it says its origin is SW France + N Spain

Romans would have introduced it in Great Britain from their southern U-rop' colonized territories, rather than from the heart of the Empire, implying that its use as a source of saffron was marginal (PS: not doubting what you say, just trying to consider a bigger picture and looking for crossing references - that's my working method)

I am not sure about the dates, but I also read that Great Britain had a warmer climate than today during the Roman Empire period, and that Romans could grow lemon trees in the surroundings of current London: it would mean that it was possible to grow saffron in the south of GB by that time.
Later (middle ages) the European climate became very cold, forcing, for example, Scandinavian settlements in Greenland to disappear (Norse people came there around 1'000 AD, it was still warmer than a few centuries later, and the name of it indicate that it was covered with vegetation).
Also, you have the Saffron Walden area where Crocus sativus used to be cultivated in a more recent part of history.

Gerry, I'd like to read more about the chemical study comparing stigmas from both species, do you please have any reference ?

I'm now wondering if C. nudiflorus can hybridize with C. sativus, C. cartwrightianus and cousins, considering that these species must have diverged due to their geographical isolation ?

[Gerry Webster]

Croquin -

The information I posted came from the standard modern monograph on the genus:

Brian Mathew, The Crocus, Batsford London (1982)

With reference to the comparison of stigmas Mathew cites this:

G A Nelson (1950) The Naturalist 1950: 141-142. I have not seen it.

I have never seen any evidence that C. nudiflorus was introduced into England by the Romans; I'd be interested to know where can it be found. I'm not sure that C. sativus (rather than C. nudiflorus) was cultivated in Saffron Walden. It is also supposed, on etymological grounds, that Croydon may have been a centre of saffron cultivation.

Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group.

[Croquin]

hmmm...

1982 is old, not to mention 1950.
new scientific methods have come into existence since then, and it is not surprising with these new tools that all plant taxons have been checked and some reorganized.

thanks for giving your sources when you make a statement, this allows double checking and progressing on solid grounds.

[Gerry Webster]

hmmm...
1982 is old, not to mention 1950.

That depends on how old you are & what your profession is. I assume you are quite young. Believe it or not, science did not begin in  2001.

new scientific methods have come into existence since then, and it is not surprising with these new tools that all plant taxons have been checked and some reorganized.

A recent phylogenetic study of Crocus has not greatly altered Mathew's classification. Perhaps you should look at it:
A phylogeny of the genus Crocus (Iridaceae) based on sequence data from five plastid regions
Gitte Petersen, Ole Seberg, Sarah Thorsøe, Tina Jørgensen & Brian Mathew
Taxon (2008) 57, 487-499

thanks for giving your sources when you make a statement, this allows double checking and progressing on solid grounds.

In my (former) profession we always gave our sources. Perhaps you could give a source for your statements about the Romans?

[Croquin]

Dear Gerry, please, let us not indulge in this direction and make things become personal.

I come on this forum to get enlightened by the knowledge that you experts possess, but to extract it from your brains I need to stimulate :-)
Was I going too fast ? If so, all my apologies.

It is very kind of you to share with newbies (without too much patronising postures) - let's just stay at the level of information, knowledge, and crocuses.

In 1982, many of the tools available today did not exist, and you write that your 1982 source was itself a reference to a 1950 research, which triggered my remarks.
It is not a question of being young or old, the world progresses fast and past references sometimes become obsolete.
Later on you add that little was reorganized in the crocus taxon (from biochemistry analyses? I think I read this paper once), previously established on morphological criteria, which only means that Mathew did clever.

All the discussion around the Romans is not initiated from me, I have no references, I was just thinking and speculating from the food for thought that Roland gave.

You have stated without reference: "Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group."
I was adding this comment about references because this topic is interesting and if you had any reference to give it was most welcome.

[Gerry Webster]

.

You have stated without reference: "Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group."
I was adding this comment about references because this topic is interesting and if you had any reference to give it was most welcome.

The phylogenetic study is that for which I gave the reference. It dates from 2008.

[WimB]

Very interesting.... don't know a whole lot about it, except for a few of the historical data...

Does it mean that any crocus with somehow developped stigmas can be used for the purpose of spice production without intoxication risk ?

I think all stigma's of Crocusses will contain almost the same chemicals...in very high dosages saffron is also poisonous. Don't know which chemical(s) is/are responsible for it being poisonous, though.

The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus

Never heard about the use of C. nudiflorus as an alternative for C. sativus by the Romans...but quite possible...

I am not sure about the dates, but I also read that Great Britain had a warmer climate than today during the Roman Empire period, and that Romans could grow lemon trees in the surroundings of current London: it would mean that it was possible to grow saffron in the south of GB by that time.
Later (middle ages) the European climate became very cold, forcing, for example, Scandinavian settlements in Greenland to disappear (Norse people came there around 1'000 AD, it was still warmer than a few centuries later, and the name of it indicate that it was covered with vegetation).

If I remember correctly, the climate during the Roman times wasn a bit cooler than ours...you had a temperature maximum during the middle ages (10th-13th century) and a "little Ice-Age" at the beginning of the modern ages (15th or 16th century)

[Janis Ruksans]

E.A. Bowles. A Handbook of Crocus and Colchicums for gardeners. 1952. p. 33
Janis