Fritillaria 2012

[Gerry Webster]

Susan - on second thoughts,  given the height & presence of bulbils maybe F. frankiorum? See here:

http://www.fritillariaicones.com/icones/frankiorum.html

[ronm]

Yes. I think that's an excellent call Gerry.

[Susan Band]

Thanks for your help.
I am going to go with F frankiorum. I never knew about the Frit icon website, really good as it has pictures of the bulbs as well as flowers, more useful I think.
Thanks for your time as always the forum delivers again.

Susan

[Ian Y]

Further to the discussion over Fritillaria latifolia I have never been been able to see a clear distinction between it and Fritillaria tubiformis, and its its sub species moggridgei.

Below are two pictures the first a yellow form of Fritillaria tubiformis and below sub species moggridgei.

Look at these and then look at F. latifolia could they  be geographic variations of a single wide spread species?

My problem may be that I have raised them all from seed and these are from our own garden seed so they may cross once they are in cultivation - not the same as studying them in the wild.

One thing for sure is I love all of them.

[Tony Willis]

Further to the discussion over Fritillaria latifolia I have never been been able to see a clear distinction between it and Fritillaria tubiformis, and its its sub species moggridgei.

Below are two pictures the first a yellow form of Fritillaria tubiformis and below sub species moggridgei.

Look at these and then look at F. latifolia could they  be geographic variations of a single wide spread species?

Not if:

a, you are a botanist who wants to write a book
b, sell bulbs and want as many species as possible
c, a nationalist who wants as many species as possible in their country
d, a collector who want every one in their collection

then there are the lumpers!

[fredg]

then there are the lumpers!

You can get ointment for those you know 

[Gerry Webster]

Further to the discussion over Fritillaria latifolia I have never been been able to see a clear distinction between it and Fritillaria tubiformis, and its its sub species moggridgei.

Below are two pictures the first a yellow form of Fritillaria tubiformis and below sub species moggridgei.

Look at these and then look at F. latifolia could they  be geographic variations of a single wide spread species?

Not if:

a, you are a botanist who wants to write a book
b, sell bulbs and want as many species as possible
c, a nationalist who wants as many species as possible in their country
d, a collector who want every one in their collection

then there are the lumpers!

Dear me, such cynicism!

a. the UK botanist who really knows about frits has yet to produce a book.
b. possible; some sellers offer the same plant under different names.
c. I would guess that  nationalists have very little interest in plants.
d. more than likely.

Lumpers? I suppose we could call them all 'Lilies' & have done with it. Or maybe just 'Plants'? 

[Gerry Webster]

Further to the discussion over Fritillaria latifolia I have never been been able to see a clear distinction between it and Fritillaria tubiformis, and its its sub species moggridgei.......Look at these and then look at F. latifolia could they  be geographic variations of a single wide spread species?

In European Garden Flora Rix approaches  this position. But he is merely a professional botanist - a disappearing breed, along with undergraduate degree courses in botany.

Edit: I suppose the situation might be clarified when (or if) there is a phylogenetic study.

[Tony Willis]

Gerry

I just thought it was going along too smoothly!

I was not only thinking of frits but crocus ,muscari,orchids,lilies,narcissus........

[ronm]

It really is a very difficult call isn't it? Paul Cumbleton has summed it up very nicely for me on the Pleione thread today. Without extensive field studies or huge horticultural experiments it really does mean that all of us ( amateur and professional ) are looking at a snapshot of genetic manifestation and evolution.
What irks me somewhat is that access ( even in this age of technology! )to the 'facts' is nigh on impossible unless you are working for an institution, or have £ thousands disposable annually. Even then the opportunity to question the assumptions upon which these descriptions are based is non existant, even though the professionals are paid by taxes or donations. Some are willing to come on forums such as these, massive respect to them. Others prefer to pronounce to the masses, I personally find this suspicious. The rest of us (nursery people, amateur botanists, hobby growers and students of the written botanical word, et al. ) simply follow whichever path we feel most comfortable with. Nothing wrong with that.
I am however becoming more and more uncomfortable with pronouncements made on this forum without any form of factual, technical or even historical support. Some forumnists are very helpful, posting a link / lead / documented support for their suggestions. For me this is excellent and surely nobody can criticise this approach. It gives us all a chance to learn from the person who has posted. Others however simply see a picture from a fellow member and pronounce 'such and such'. No explanation as to why they feel this to be the case. So nobody really learns anything!. Many members who don't want to feel they are 'upsetting the apple cart' will just let it go and not ask " why is your x different to your y? They look the same to me". These are the very people who deserve to have the why? explained.

[Lesley Cox]

http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7657.msg209671#msg209671

As Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?..."

But surely facts don't change. Just more information becomes available so what was THOUGHT to be a fact, is found not to be. I hope my mind is sufficiently open to accept new information - or others' suggestions, as options - but I shan't go there.

[ronm]

I suppose, at the end of the day, perception is everything Lesley.

[Lesley Cox]

True Ron.

[ronm]

Maybe this will help us make our own minds up on the Turkish Frits, ( or not  ).

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/botany/issues/bot-11-35-5/bot-35-5-1-0812-9.pdf

[Gerry Webster]

http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7657.msg209671#msg209671

As Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?..."

But surely facts don't change. Just more information becomes available so what was THOUGHT to be a fact, is found not to be. I hope my mind is sufficiently open to accept new information - or others' suggestions, as options - but I shan't go there.

This could lead to a very long discussion so I'll restrict myself to a few remarks. The  view  that 'facts' are 'given' or just 'out there' is characteristic of a particular position in the philosophy of science - positivism. An alternative, & in my view superior, position is realism. Here 'facts' are conceived as theory dependent - the theory being either tacit or explicit. Hence, when the theory changes, the facts change. The history of syphilis provides a well documented example. I can provide references for anyone who wishes to explore further but I should point out that the relevant literature is quite technical.