Crocus November 2012

[Gerry Webster]

Janis - I too belong to the generation which regards morphology as fundamental to classification. While  genetic/phylogenetic analysis may eventually prove illuminating,  at present the procedures are too limited to draw any definite conclusions or to discard a taxonomy based on traditional morphological criteria. Incidentally, the 'genetic concept of species' was severely criticised by by Harland in the 1930's &, in my view, his criticism still seems valid.

[daveyp1970]

Thank you Janis and Gerry for your answers,i too think morphology does play apart but when we start using colour and length of stigma and do the anthers extend over the stigma or not ect it just doesn't seem right to me, when every sp has or should have a wide variation with in its genetic parameters and when a plant slightly strays from that is it right to give it a name?
Are the papers that differs are they just two different  interpretation of the findings.

[Janis Ruksans]

Thank you Janis and Gerry for your answers,i too think morphology does play apart but when we start using colour and length of stigma and do the anthers extend over the stigma or not ect it just doesn't seem right to me, when every sp has or should have a wide variation with in its genetic parameters and when a plant slightly strays from that is it right to give it a name?
Are the papers that differs are they just two different  interpretation of the findings.

Yes, Dave, in some degree I can agree with you, but what to do in cases when you know/feel that they are different and must to find features easy visible and allowing to determinate species? That I noted this year (see my topic - Crocus speciosus fever). Each taxa which I separated has good area in which only one type of flower/corm/tunic/habitat dominate. They are well separated geographically from others. My guideline in speciosus case was two subspecies separated by Brian Mathew - ilgazensis and xantholaimos. So I continued his way. May be I'm right, may be not. Everywhere (inclusive locus classicus of ilgazensis and xantholaimos) I found some atypical specimen. But crocuses are very variable. We see a lot of biflorus group subspecies now raised up to species level by genetical research. But morphologically we separate them just by some minor features, inclusive position of style comparing with anthers. In same time I'm always thinking about Fritillaria persica forms which looks as absolutely different species but are regarded as one. Does we must follow this concept in crocuses, too? I don't think so. But it is individual opinion. I don't like subspecies status. In my collection I left subspecies only for very few Crocus species, one of them is speciosus complex, but most of others are registered as species. I started this in my Crocus book with melantherus, with sieberi complex, and now I'm very disappointed that I hadn't courage to be consequent and left subspecies in biflorus, pallasii (soon must be published research confirming that subspecies of pallasii are independent species), especially I'm disappointed for my timidity in case of cancellatus, although in my catalogue I'm using species level for lycius. Now I think that new one, completely rewriten book is needed. Hope soon will come Helmut's and Eric's complete revision on biflorus. But what to do with chrysanthus? I'm too old to start on this complex. May be some will have courage?
Janis

[Gerry Webster]

Janis - I too belong to the generation which regards morphology as fundamental to classification. While  genetic/phylogenetic analysis may eventually prove illuminating,  at present the procedures are too limited to draw any definite conclusions or to discard a taxonomy based on traditional morphological criteria. Incidentally, the 'genetic concept of species' was severely criticised by by Harland in the 1930's &, in my view, his criticism still seems valid.

I should perhaps amplify this a bit stimulated by Daveyp's comments and an email from Pascal Bruggeman taking me to task for what he sees as my dismissal of phylogenetic studies.

Classifications based on morphology are far from unproblematic. The problem is of course variation. In principle this can lead to a mutiplication of classes where the end point involves regarding each individual plant as a separate & distinct species. This can only be avoided if we suppose that some characteristics are more important than others (in the jargon, are 'essential characteristics'). This judgment involves an element of subjectivity, hence  the final classification does so also. Nevertheless it is interesting that the phylogenetic analysis by Persen et al broadly supports the 'traditional' morphological classification by Brian Mathew - although there are some differences.

I believe current phylogenetic  studies, while interesting, are at a very early stage of development & still rather limited in terms  what is actually analysed; the two papers mentioned in this thread analyse different, but still limited, elements. Furthermore, the construction of the 'trees' involves assumptions which, in principle can be criticised (not that I am competent to do it!). So, I believe that they cannot at present be regarded as definitive, merely suggestive.   Pascal believes that eventually they will replace morphological studies & he may be right.

[daveyp1970]

Wow two fantastic answers.
With two different sp being found to be Mathewi's sister sp could it be as simple as they were its parents,before everybody shouts at me tell tell me those two sp don't overlap in their distribution,not now they don't well the last hundred or so years we have been recording but i am talking hundreds of thousands of years ago,could it be the mathewi in its tiny little pockets where its found was once the overlap of distribution but over time the sp retract to leave the pocket of mathewi behind....sorry again about my ramblings but just another question in my head.

[Melvyn Jope]

A few variations seen in Crocus boryi, C. goulymi and C. niveus in the Peloponnese earlier this week.

[Melvyn Jope]

Crocus biflorus ssp melantherus was present in its usual large numbers I but didnt see as many 'stippled' forms this year. The following images were taken near the village of Adami last Tuesday, all growing in an area of about ten sq. m.and show some of the variation readily found in the 'striped' form

[Melvyn Jope]

And a couple more Crocus biflorus ssp melantherus from Adami, Peloponnese.

[daveyp1970]

Beautifull pics Melvyn,do you think the stipled forms are dissapearing,it would be a shame for that colour form to go?I really like the dark goulymi.

[Melvyn Jope]

Beautifull pics Melvyn,do you think the stipled forms are dissapearing,it would be a shame for that colour form to go?I really like the dark goulymi.

Hello Davey, I have no reason to think they might be disappearing, I think we were just not there at the right time. For those not sure what I am going on about I attach an image taken in 2009 of the two forms together.

[I.S.]

  Melvyn wonderful crocus from wild. specialy melantherus with yellowish background and dark goulimyi.
Thank for these small  beauty...

[daveyp1970]

Hello Davey, I have no reason to think they might be disappearing, I think we were just not there at the right time. For those not sure what I am going on about I attach an image taken in 2009 of the two forms together.

Melvyn stunning thing thank for posting,when you said there was none about i had an awful thought the site had been poached on(i won't say collected).

[Hans A.]

Fascinating pictures of beautiful finds, Melvyn! Thanks for sharing the pictures.  Another area to visit...

[krisderaeymaeker]

Great to see Melvyn . My dream to visit the Pelops in november is only getting bigger after this postings ....

[Hans A.]

Some Crocus in bloom today, due to the strong winds they are a bit untidy...

Had missed your pictures, Oron - great plants and so well grown! -  C.aleppicus, C. veneris and C. ochroleucus albus are my favourites - is your C. ochroleucus albus clonal or do there exist white flowering populations of this species?