Crocus February 2012

[ronm]

For me that is a perfectly acceptable point of view Tony. Sounds like the work needed to counter the original splitting has not been done yet though. Until then ....?

[Gerry Webster]

Very classy, whether C.rujanensis is true or not. I dont think that this should be lumped in without some form of differentiation  .

I'm not lumping it, too. I have few slightly different stocks, all are collected on locus classicus and they are slightly different from atticus, so I keep them as rujanensis. I don't know how easy would be for me to identify plant without provenance (origin). Not tried yet.
Janis

I do not want to get into a discussion which always goes nowhere due to irreconcilable views but it seems to me that if you need to know where something comes from before you can identify it then it is not distinct.

The question is - distinct from what point of view? This depends on the concept of species you hold. We have been here before (several times), & as you remark Tony, there are "irreconcilable views". I would go further & say that, at present, there are no good reasons for choosing between these views; all the current species concepts are fraught with problems. 

[ian mcenery]

Very classy, whether C.rujanensis is true or not. I dont think that this should be lumped in without some form of differentiation  .

I'm not lumping it, too. I have few slightly different stocks, all are collected on locus classicus and they are slightly different from atticus, so I keep them as rujanensis. I don't know how easy would be for me to identify plant without provenance (origin). Not tried yet.
Janis

I do not want to get into a discussion which always goes nowhere due to irreconcilable views but it seems to me that if you need to know where something comes from before you can identify it then it is not distinct.

The question is - distinct from what point of view? This depends on the concept of species you hold. We have been here before (several times), & as you remark Tony, there are "irreconcilable views". I would go further & say that, at present, there are no good reasons for choosing between these views; all the current species concepts are fraught with problems. 

Armin see the trouble you have started 

[Janis Ruksans]

Very classy, whether C.rujanensis is true or not. I dont think that this should be lumped in without some form of differentiation  .

I'm not lumping it, too. I have few slightly different stocks, all are collected on locus classicus and they are slightly different from atticus, so I keep them as rujanensis. I don't know how easy would be for me to identify plant without provenance (origin). Not tried yet.
Janis

I do not want to get into a discussion which always goes nowhere due to irreconcilable views but it seems to me that if you need to know where something comes from before you can identify it then it is not distinct.

It isn't so, but if you know origin, identification is much easier and saves your time. It allows to exclude impossible for this locality things, and narrows research. Crocuses are so variable inside species (of course, not allways), that any information is very valuable. I don't like this, but not allways you have laboratory at hand.
Janis

[Tony Willis]

I see that two of the botanists who described Crocus rujanensis are the same ones who have described Crocus jablanicensis(which looks a beautiful plant). Both new species are growing in the same area and must have have been mistaken for Crocus sieberi in the past. Perhaps this means we can look forward to further new species in the future.

[ronm]

Not saying anything , but do you think we could have a tongue in cheek emoticon available Maggi. Think I'd find it useful to diffuse some of my posts!

[Maggi Young]

Not saying anything , but do you think we could have a tongue in cheek emoticon available Maggi. Think I'd find it useful to diffuse some of my posts!

Well there is this 

 But I'd stick with the  or 

[Janis Ruksans]

I see that two of the botanists who described Crocus rujanensis are the same ones who have described Crocus jablanicensis(which looks a beautiful plant). Both new species are growing in the same area and must have have been mistaken for Crocus sieberi in the past. Perhaps this means we can look forward to further new species in the future.

Jablanicensis (Mount Jablanica in very west) grows quite far from rujanensis (Rujan Plane). If rujanensis is similar to atticus, then jablanicensis could be compared with white cvijicii but its stigma well overtops anthers. I didn't see it in vivo but for me seems that there will be no problems to identify this one.
Janis

[ronm]

  Typical thicko me! Didnt realise thats what the tongue meant! UR right maggi, i should stick to the simple stuff

[Gerry Webster]

 ITMA.  Does UR mean 'You are'? Am I cool?

[ronm]

Very 

[Armin]

Armin see the trouble you have started 

You've put out the lure!

[Janis Ruksans]

Returning to discussion about jablanicensis and rujanensis - They grow far one from other - jablanicensis in very SE of Macedonia, it is high mountain plant; rujanensis on border between Serbia and Macedonia - at very North of last and from much lower altitudes. So both are well separated geographically, too.

Regarding to complex atticus-dalmaticus-rujanensis - I scanned table comparing all of them (atticus in it is under name of sublimis) and I'm adding pictures of all three (not from this spring, of course). Judge by yourself how different they are for gardener. I only want to warn that cheep crocus offered as dalmaticus by Dutch growers really is atticus. Pictured plants are coming from localities where they are growing (original stock is wild collected). When I started crocus growing and wild plants growing out of USSR were not available for me - I was very confused by so named "dalmaticus" offered by Dutch and grown everywhere - it looked absolutely identical with atticus. C. rujanensis is collected by Jim Archibald on Rujan Planina - its locus classicus, so undoubtedly true to name.
Janis

[Armin]

Janis,
thank you for the comparison table and the marvelous images. I've learned there are rather small differences with regards to morphology in series reticulati especial sieberi group.

Beside traditional (historical) morphological investigations and comparison, DNA analysis have given a new view and understanding of the relationships of the genus crocus.
In your book 'Crocuses' you consider C. atticus as species and sublimis and nivalis as subspecies of it while before all three have been considered as subspecies of C. sieberi.
From the phylogenetic analysis results (May 2008, see excerpt image) I can't comprehend fully your conclusions with regards to nivalis & sublimis.
Maybe I'm lacking latest scientific results since then.
Can you kindly give us some more explanation for your conclusions?

I and probably many other interested forumist, get more confused by the naming. (How shall I call my babies?)
What is the latest status among taxonomist / scientist discussions regarding species/subspecies naming?
Will there be a harmonisation / an alignment / an offical revision? Scheduled when?

Presumable my questions are not simple to answer but I hope you can give us your appraisals.

[ronm]

Thank you Janis, for troubling to lay this comparison out for us, in such a clear and easy to see way. Important for me is your comment

Judge by yourself how different they are for gardener

. If any plant is to become a part of my garden and my studies then this is the criteria I use. Perhaps only until something better comes along ( as you allude to Armin ) but its good for me at this time.