Confusion and contradiction.

[DaveW]

I suppose the logic then Colin is if bulbs are not allowed because they are below the ground food organs why do we allow pseudo-caudiciforms with their underground parts wrongly planted on top of the soil in our shows without disqualifying them as wrongly grown?

As the pots of bulbs sold at Christmas show bulbs too can be planted on top of the soil with only their roots in it. Should Bonsai'd Succulents also be allowed in our shows, or should we say there is already a specialist society for Bonsai so take the pseudo-caudiciforms there?

https://www.bonsaiempire.com/blog/succulent-bonsai

[el48tel]

Got to have rules so people will challenge and break them. And it gives someone else a job .... to pronounce judgement.

[Stuart]

I can see why the Shows Committee exclude bulbs, we don't really want to go to a cactus show and see rows of daffodils and tulips, I grow a variegated Ledebouria Socialis though it's not eligible in shows. We can grew what we like, it's just when it comes to shows, the Shows Committee sets the rules.

Stuart

[DaveW]

Should that not that also apply to Journal and Bradleya articles though? General references to to non succulents growing around our plants in an article are OK, but surely not specific articles on plants that do not qualify as Succulents in our shows? Maybe we need a combined Society and Shows Guide to state what are considered Succulents and eligible for both entry in shows and specific articles in our publications?

It seems a bit of a nonsense to have two different criteria for what constitutes a Succulent, that for shows and another for the Journal. A few people always want the bounds of the Society enlarging to cover what they grow, but most join it because it deals with a specific group of plants and excludes those that do not comply with the designation and therefore are not eligible?

Some will have left general garden societies since there were not enough specific articles in their publications on their primary interest = Succulents. Just as others leave to form even more specialist societies like the Mammillaria and Mesemb societies because of the proportion of articles on their plants in a general Journal on Succulents is far less.

I remember in an early BCSS ZOOM talk a remark was made by the host that the BCSS is not a botanical society, but just a group of plant enthusiasts! The person saying so was taken aback by the reaction they got from the audience who forcefully stated we are a botanical society and not just a garden club.

You will never please everybody, but to work a society does need to set rigid boundaries on what it and its publications encompass and stick to them.

[Ernie]

One could reasonably ask if I or another ordinary member of the society had submitted something about Haemanthus, would it get published? Colin is a past president with a high profile in the society who submits very interesting articles but should that profile dictate acceptance of an article about a plant not generally recognised as a succulent within the society? Just asking, nothing personal at all. Perhaps an editorial explanation in the next journal would be in order. I have been told on a number of occasions by those who carry positions within the society that bulbs are not and never will be included.

[Al Laius]

One could reasonably ask if I or another ordinary member of the society had submitted something about Haemanthus, would it get published? Colin is a past president with a high profile in the society who submits very interesting articles but should that profile dictate acceptance of an article about a plant not generally recognised as a succulent within the society? Just asking, nothing personal at all. Perhaps an editorial explanation in the next journal would be in order. I have been told on a number of occasions by those who carry positions within the society that bulbs are not and never will be included.

Hi Ernie (and others)
I do actually look at the Forum sometimes, so you will have an "editorial explanation" here.
As far as the Journal is concerned, the Editors have always used certain works of reference as 'Standards' - so as to standardise names, grammatical points, and just about everything in the Journal. This standardisation goes across the board from issue to issue and over the years. I inherited the Journal Standards from Roy and of course some have been modified since, particularly as newer works of reference appear. So, as Colin alluded to, the main work of reference I use for the other succulents is the IHSP, which is currently being revised and some parts are already in their second edition. For cacti, until recently I used Hunt's CITES Cactaceae Checklist Third Edition (2016), but am now using the online Caryophyllales Network Cactaceae core checklist. For spelling I use the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and for author's names Brummitt & Powell (Authors of Plant Names, published by Kew). The list goes on but it would become boring here to mention them all. The point being that Standards are used and are necessary.

Now with regards to what is a succulent, that time old question! If they are in any of the works I use as a Standard reference, then that means they are 'in' with regard to the journal. What the Shows Committee decide is another matter completely, and as has already been stated twice in this thread, the reasons for it are basically to limit the number of classes to a reasonable amount. There is no BCSS rule or policy (and as far as I'm aware there never has been) that says what is a succulent and what is not, but anyway, what happens at shows has nothing to do with what gets published in the Journal [apart from reports on the National Show ]. And what gets published is not just what an Editor receives but is primarily based on what he is told by members what they want to read about. It is a juggling act to try and provide a balanced issue each time. For each issue I strive to have an equal number of articles on cacti and the other succulents. I aim to have a number of generalist articles in each issue. I'm trying to include more on cultivation topics which are useful for newer members and beginners. Regarding genera, I try to include ones that are popular, those that are requested, and sometimes introduce ones out of fashion or some that are less-grown. I know for a fact that many of our members grow succulent bulbs, so every now and again I try and cater for them.

I have just noticed in the latest MSG Bulletin that they have resorted to using a disclaimer "The information and statements in the Bulletin by individual authors are not necessarily the views of the Editor or the MSG". I'm planning to use a similar disclaimer in CactusWorld. Obviously I will replace 'Bulletin' with 'Journal and 'MSG' with 'BCSS'.

I hope that this has explained the editorial process a little but I'm afraid that the discussion on what constitutes a succulent will go on.

Al

[Ernie]

Thank you very much Al for coming on and offering an explanation which I understand. I guess some folk in positions of authority in our society are more flexible in thought patterns than others, you appear to be flexible and I thank you for that.

[MatDz]

To balance the opinions a little, I am very much looking forward to reading Colin's article on Haemanthus (I hope the journal arrived when I was away), and would equally love to see e.g. DT's one on his Bulbils collection (whether they are or not in the Handbook of Shows) and other non-cacti related ones.

Perhaps BCSS is a great "departure point" for other societies, as it's rather hard to find a lot of information on them elsewhere, but I also see no reason to leave BCSS because CW (CactusWorld, not Colin...) doesn't publish enough articles on Crassula or (species) Haworthia & Co.

[edds]

I agree - the breadth of species covered is a real joy to me. I don't care if it matches the shows handbook and don't think it needs to.

Maybe to satisfy both camps we could make sure that articles covering plants not currently in the BCSS shows schedule simply says that near the start of the article. Then if anyone doesn't want to read the article because of that they know straight away!

[el48tel]

I love to read about plants collected by other growers. Here .... CW ... MSG .... Haworthiad .... etc
Sometimes it triggers off a whole new venture both collection and my main hobby of photography of plants.
I get annoyed with people who must compartmentalise ..... everything ..... and then find greater pleasure in discarding items which don't quite match THEIR expectations .... rather than simply enjoying the diversity of plants .... especially the ones which we collect or discover for the first time.
But I suppose it takes all kinds of folk to make a world