Crocus November 2012

[Gerry Webster]

The most recent, not yet published phylogeny, places hadriaticus and mathewii as sister species..........

 Aaron

Well, this is different to the results obtained by Petersen et al. Let's hope it is based on more than five plastid regions.

[tonyg]

The most recent, not yet published phylogeny, places hadriaticus and mathewii as sister species. They list 2n=70 for mathewii and 2n=26 for asumaniae. They estimate that their are probably about 150 species in the genus.

 Aaron

Perhaps this explains why several of my recent lots of C mathewii raised from open pollinated seed have produced unremarkable pure white flowers.  There are plenty of C hadriaticus in the same frame as the C mathewii.  I'll have to take a closer look at them.

[Janis Ruksans]

Perhaps this explains why several of my recent lots of C mathewii raised from open pollinated seed have produced unremarkable pure white flowers.  There are plenty of C hadriaticus in the same frame as the C mathewii.  I'll have to take a closer look at them.

There are populations in wild where well coloured at base C. mathewii is mixed with pure white specimens. I didn't see such populations by myself but I read about such plants on our forum. I don't think that hadriaticus could be crossable with mathewii, but in cultivation sometimes strange crosses can succeed. Only I recommend you to bring pots inside before opening of flowers and to take off anthers to avoid any possible self-pollination and effect of bees/flies and other wild pollinators. I'm using for such experiments bathroom's window and never got seeds from attempts to cross in all possible combinations CC. korolkowii, alatavicus, michelsonii, although such crosses are reported.
Janis

[Gerry Webster]

Perhaps this explains why several of my recent lots of C mathewii raised from open pollinated seed have produced unremarkable pure white flowers.  There are plenty of C hadriaticus in the same frame as the C mathewii.  I'll have to take a closer look at them.

Brian M mentions albino forms of C. mathewii  in his 'Crocus Update' (2002) together with a picture  of what look like  cultivated plants.

[tonyg]

Only I recommend you to bring pots inside before opening of flowers and to take off anthers to avoid any possible self-pollination and effect of bees/flies and other wild pollinators. I'm using for such experiments bathroom's window and never got seeds from attempts to cross in all possible combinations CC. korolkowii, alatavicus, michelsonii, although such crosses are reported.
Janis

If I only had the time!

[Afloden]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23123733

This is the paper soon to be published in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.

 They use 1 chloroplast region and 2 nuclear. The BS support on the branches seems high and the clades look good, but with what I know of Crocus doesn't mean much! I like them and grow about 2 dozen species.

 I've not read through completely to see where the chromosome counts originated.

 Aaron
 

[Tony Willis]

I have seen large numbers of Crocus mathewii in the wild and although the amount of purple staining varied it was always present and there were no white ones. Equally I have seen large numbers of C. asumaniae and they have always been white with no hint of staining.

[Janis Ruksans]

I have seen large numbers of Crocus mathewii in the wild and although the amount of purple staining varied it was always present and there were no white ones. Equally I have seen large numbers of C. asumaniae and they have always been white with no hint of staining.

The same is with me. Unfortunately I can't find in my notes who reported on Forum about such population. May be Maggi can help?
Janis

[ronm]

Is this the one you mean Janis ??

http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9360.msg259076#msg259076

[Maggi Young]

Here are a selection of posts where  C. mathewii is mentioned in the wild ......

Margaret Thorne ...
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=6228.msg175262#msg175262

YT wrote of a JJA collection : http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9360.msg259076#msg259076   ( this is the post mentioned in the post above by Ron  )

These  two websites have both been mentioned in the Forum......Kees Jan van Zwienen photos  http://keesjan.smugmug.com/Botanical-trips/Asia/Southwestern-Turkey-2007/14048085_h2L4cB#!i=1040748365&k=MdrfD5G

Marijn van den Brink photos
http://photos.v-d-brink.eu/Flora-and-Fauna/Asia/Turkey-nieuw2007herfst/14164115_Gw4r2/33/1045413931_jXcsH#!i=1045418276&k=PcXKR


Janis himself...
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=4369.msg134962#msg134962

Janis, Kees Jan .....

http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg124679#msg124679

Kees Jan ....
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=943.msg23911#msg23911

[Gerry Webster]

 Does anyone know what criteria  Pasche and Kerndorff used to distinguish C. mathewii as a new and/or distinct species? I presume it was not colour.

[daveyp1970]

Can i ask if in Janis's and Arons papers(Aaron why can't i read the rest of that paper) says the chromosone count is 2n=70 and other papers don't(Two question why?and how does that happen) could this mean thats Mathewii could have different chromsone counts also does a high chromosone count point towards a hybrid?And can we 100% from the work done say that these are distinct sp.Or will everbody be able to put there spin on it depending on how one interprets it?SSSSSOOOOOO many question but this side of the hobby fascinates me so sorry.

Does anyone know what criteria  Pasche and Kerndorff used to distinguish C. mathewii as a new and/or distinct species? I presume it was not colour.

Good question lets hope not.

[Janis Ruksans]

By new paper (it isn't still published so can't give more information, before official publication - it is reason, why you can't read full text at present) C. mathewii has 2n-70, but did they check this number or not - I don't know. But C. mathewii is closest neighbour of hadriaticus regardless of geographical separation.
Janis

[Gerry Webster]

By new paper .......... C. mathewii is closest neighbour of hadriaticus regardless of geographical separation.
Janis

This is a radically different conclusion to that reached in the phylogenetic study by Petersen et al . The latter also claim that their study supports the  claim by Kerndorff & Pasche (made on morphological grounds) that the closest relative of C. mathewii is C. asumaniae. These different conclusions require explanation.

[Janis Ruksans]

This is a radically different conclusion to that reached in the phylogenetic study by Petersen et al . The latter also claim that their study supports the  claim by Kerndorff & Pasche (made on morphological grounds) that the closest relative of C. mathewii is C. asumaniae. These different conclusions require explanation.

I will read new paper this evening, then I will see some motivation (may be). Really I belong to generation which as most important regards morphological features, genetics can only confirm some ideas. In any case at present I can't to image how morphologically separate Crocus chrysanthus complex where certainly are several species included without genetical research. But for rising up of all biflorus subsp. to species status I can only applaud. DNA taxonomy is quite new and nice that between its research subjects is genus Crocus, too. Greatest problem is that at present are checked only small part of genome and sometimes results of various researches can be contradictory.
Janis