Adromischus Updated!

[Phil_SK]

He's given the small Opuntias a similar treatment recently too.

[Apicra]

Hi Lindsey,

Yes, I was thinking about adding an Adro Cultivars page to the Adro web site, but only two were published previously.

Rowley has caused more trouble than he realised by applying cultivar names to wild plants without thinking about the scope of their application and providing usable distinguishing characteristics. It is a complex mess and will take quite a while to decide on the best way forward for each new name. To pass a judgement, a knowledge of the rules for naming cultivars is needed and I will have to visit the RHS Lindley Library and seek advise.

I think I am justified in grumbling. We have prefectly good collector's numbers and locality data to identify these plants beforehand. Gordon has added very little except label-clutter!

Definitely not happy,
DT

[Phil_SK]

I haven't seen the work on Adromischus in Cactus & Co so can't comment on it's quality. I can comment on the worth, in principle, of what he seems to be doing, namely creating 'non-botanical' (for want of a better term) names for all the thousands? of plants we treat as special but which have no place in treatments such as the New Cactus Lexicon (and presumably the IOS Handbook of Succulent Plants).

This seems a worthy cause. Gordon make a good argument for it in his recent article in CactusWorld (2007, 25(4), 227-232). Bits of it jar and Chris highlights one when he writes:
I'm not impressed with the work. He quotes from pictures and catalogues, which was the practice donkey's years ago.
Reading Gordon's articles brings to light that, for cultivars, this is all perfectly acceptable, if not the most desirable way of establishing names.

When done well, this is valuable work. His article on Lophophora (CactusWorld 2006, 24(4), 201-210) seemed to me to be thorough and the tables and photographs made it fairly clear what he was on about. On the other hand, the listing of names with no other reference, photos or description (as seen in the special edition of the Tephrocactus Study Group journal last Autumn) is of questionable value. I would argue that an International Register of Succulent Cultivars needs to be in place before this sort of work is done. Without it, there's likely to be an awful mess! Gordon seems to argue that lists of names should be published first and then the cultivars registered.

Clearly, this is something that has been on his mind for a long time - he doesn't reference it in his 2007 CactusWorld article but as long ago as 1997 he was discussing how best to name cristate and monstrose succulents (BCSJ 1997, 15(4), 202-203).

I think there is a great danger in a single author, however knowledgeable s/he may be, doing this work in isolation. There may be critics of the "taxonomy by committee" in recent works but I do think that two heads are better than one, and it seems as if wider discussion about Adromischus before publication could have made for a better end result.

[ChrisR]

I think establishing valid cultivar names for some Adromischus, is a good idea. There are quite a few very old clones which are widespread in cultivation, which have either very little, confused, or no data at all. They (or we as collectors - the plants don't care!) could benefit from this.

What I don't see the point in, is inventing names for a plant which already has one, e.g. Gordons A. cristatus 'Derek Tribble' already has a valid and accepted specific name - it has a stated locality of Gamtoos Ferry, NE of Jeffrey's Bay AND a collectors number of DT.4777. Why does it need another name?

I'm not a taxonomist and frankly don't give much credence to names. To have the reference of locality first, and collectors designation second, is quite enough for me. I haven't studied the system or rules for publishing cultivars, but it strikes me it must be quite (too?) complicated - or why do so many get it wrong?!

So I can't personally fault Gordon for not following the ICNCP rules, if this is the case.

But I do know that he's got some basic identification wrong. Just two examples; in the case of A.cristatus v zeyheri DMC.336 Oribi Gorge, he's mistakenly used the exact same plant and given it TWO different cultivar names! He's then invented A.caryophyllaceus 'Halesowensis' - when the plant known as halesowensis, is actually a Sect.4 plant and not related to the Sect.3 caryophyllaceus at all.

As Ian says, "it seems as if wider discussion about Adromischus before publication could have made for a better end result". I'm sure it would have and don't know why GDR didn't approach JP, DT, or myself, before he published this paper.

[Lindsey]

Is this the one?
[attachment 9463 PVB3877.jpg]
Sorry, a fuzzy photo, probably others can do better.

Mind is boggling ::oat any resemblance to Chris for which Gordon may have named it! But a very choice form whatever the name.

[ChrisR]

That's it Lyndsey - but Derek has pointed out that GDR's cultivar name is invalid. No description of how this differs from other forms of herrei, was, or has ever been, published.

[Aloenut]

Has anyone seen the article by Rowley in the latest issue of Alsterworthia?

There is an article titled Haworthia-Conserving Names of cultivars

To summarise he says: 'my concern here is not the the ultimate,perfect classification, but the fate of large numbers of botanical names currently confined to to synonymy and in danger of being lost and forgotten'. He then goes on to suggest that these should be recognised as cultivar names. The article concludes with a list of recognised names, and then the synonyms/suggested cultivar names underneath.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Personally I don't agree with his reasoning. If a name in circulation is lost, so be it. The taxonomists have for whatever reason failed to recognise a particular plant as a true species or variety. Why must a particular clone of plant be assigned that name just to perpetuate the name?

Thanks
Aloenut

[Bill]

Hi Frank,

I actually mentioned that article in the "All These Names" thread ago 10 days ago.

http://www.bcss.org.uk/forum/read.php?1,85264,85291

I actually tend to agree with some of what he says, the sensible use of old names as cultivar names for plants that are not different enough to retain varietal status, but sufficiently different to be worthy of cultivation seems a good idea to me.

[Apicra]

Hi Phil_SK,

I agree in general with your comments. Rowley's 2006 article about Lophophora appears OK (after a superficial reading). It presents a table of characters to differentiate each cultivar with.

Alas, the Adromischus article is less good and was not even published on April first. Gordon gets carried away coining new names, rather than just listing existing names. It describes no distinguishing characters for any, other than the occasional word within a name. Thus many of the new names are unusable and invalid.

Yes, it would be very helpful if some person or institution took on the role of ICRA (International Cultivar Registration Authority) for cacti & succulents and provided guidance to authors and editors to avoid such poor quality work in future.

Can someone tell us what the Alster-wots-it list of Haworthia cultivars is like? Does it contain completely new names or just resurrected old botanical names? Does it give distinguishing characters for the new names?

Best wishes,
Derek Tribble

[Bill]

Hi Derek

They are all resurrected names, giving the original reference source(s) and the current species where known with a few question marks and some blank.