Hello all,
I grow in my collection the two following plants:
- Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 sp. nova (from Mesa Garden ref. 1809)
- Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
Could anyone explain to me what made Desmond Cole doubt that the first mentioned plant was a true Conophytum verrucosum? Why did he add the "aff."?
About the second plant, on Ralph Martin's site, the specified species for the Field number R&Y1866 is "Conophytum irmae / sponsaliorum". Should I conclude that there is a doubt about its identity, between Conophytum irmae and Conophytum obscurum ssp. sponsaliorum?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,
Sylvain
Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 & Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
Forum rules
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
For the discussion of topics related to the conservation, cultivation, propagation, exhibition & science of cacti & other succulents only.
Please respect all forum members opinions and if you can't make a civil reply, don't reply!
- Mafate79
- Registered Guest
- Posts: 140
- https://www.behance.net/kuchnie-warszawa
- Joined: 23 Feb 2015
- Branch: None
- Country: France
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: France
Re: Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 & Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
I will let R comment on the R&Y number.
Des Cole has been very single-minded in his field trips and concentrated on his Lithops to the exclusion of most other plants. However he did make a few collections of other things without knowing much about what they might be. So the aff. verrucosum would have been applied by somebody such as Steve Hammer when he was based at Mesa Garden. This is the collection from the farm called Sidi Barani (not in North Africa!) which is well into the eastern extreme of conophytum distribution and based on geography, one would expect any Ophthalmophyllum section plants from there to be C. friedrichiae. It is probably best to regard CM142 as an extreme form of this with very verrucose bodies. The classic C. verrucosum grows a long way away in south-western Bushmanland, thus although CM142 looks very similar to this, the disjunction makes the identification as verrucosum unlikely. The ophthalmophyllums are a difficult group to sort out and this is just one of the problems associated with them.
Des Cole has been very single-minded in his field trips and concentrated on his Lithops to the exclusion of most other plants. However he did make a few collections of other things without knowing much about what they might be. So the aff. verrucosum would have been applied by somebody such as Steve Hammer when he was based at Mesa Garden. This is the collection from the farm called Sidi Barani (not in North Africa!) which is well into the eastern extreme of conophytum distribution and based on geography, one would expect any Ophthalmophyllum section plants from there to be C. friedrichiae. It is probably best to regard CM142 as an extreme form of this with very verrucose bodies. The classic C. verrucosum grows a long way away in south-western Bushmanland, thus although CM142 looks very similar to this, the disjunction makes the identification as verrucosum unlikely. The ophthalmophyllums are a difficult group to sort out and this is just one of the problems associated with them.
- Mafate79
- Registered Guest
- Posts: 140
- Joined: 23 Feb 2015
- Branch: None
- Country: France
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: France
Re: Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 & Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
Hello Terry, hello all,
Thank you for your answer. I have a verrucosum (EH980) from you and it's true that it is really difficult to see any significative difference with my CM142, at least for my eyes. This is a difficult section... Anyway, in the light of your information, I will change my label.
Thank you again.
Thank you for your answer. I have a verrucosum (EH980) from you and it's true that it is really difficult to see any significative difference with my CM142, at least for my eyes. This is a difficult section... Anyway, in the light of your information, I will change my label.
Thank you again.
- ChrisR
- BCSS Member
- Posts: 2054
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007
- Branch: SHEFFIELD
- Country: England
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: Sheffield, UK
Re: Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 & Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
The Rietkloof area is rich with different conos.......when we found R&Y1866 they were out of flower, sheathed and shrunken and impossible to tell which species it was as both irmae & obscurum ssp.sponsaliorum grow there. So it was much later after Ralph got the info that the plants flowered to show they were yellow and not purple, thus irmae.
Chris Rodgerson- Sheffield UK BCSS 27098
See www.conophytum.com for ca.4000 photos and growing info on Conophytum, Crassula & Adromischus.
See www.conophytum.com for ca.4000 photos and growing info on Conophytum, Crassula & Adromischus.
- Mafate79
- Registered Guest
- Posts: 140
- Joined: 23 Feb 2015
- Branch: None
- Country: France
- Role within the BCSS: Member
- Location: France
Re: Conophytum aff. verrucosum CM142 & Conophytum irmae R&Y1866
Hello Chris,
Ok it's clear, thank you for your answer.
Ralph, if you read this, you can update your data about this reference.
Sincerely.
Ok it's clear, thank you for your answer.
Ralph, if you read this, you can update your data about this reference.
Sincerely.