x Mangave ‘Bloodspot’ going to flower

[Diane]

I suspected last year that this x Mangave ‘Bloodspot’ was starting to form a flower spike, and today I’m quite sure it is. Fortunately it has produced offsets a few years ago, so those are growing on to replace it.

x Mangave ‘Bloodspot’

[Phil_SK]

I think these tend to produce bulbils in the inflorescence, so you may end up with a few more yet.

[Herts Mike]

Wonder what the flowers will be like? Manfreda flowers are mad.

And another lovely plant.

[Colin Walker]

My Agave 'Bloodspot' flowered and died in our first year here in Scotland. It was sad to lose a lovely plant.

My plant didn't produce bulbils on the inflorescence, nor did it offset.

BTW I don't accept the genus Manfreda so for me this is an infrageneric (not intergeneric) hybrid hence my label of Agave. I'm supported by good molecular evidence.

[juster]

That's beautiful, always a mixed blessing when they flower, so it's fortunate you have offsets.

[Herts Mike]

So what are Manfredas Colin? Is molecular evidence the only criterion btw?

[ralphrmartin]

Interesting that Colin claims that he is supported by good molecular evidence. I have never doubted his existence.

But whenever the DNA tells us something like "Weingartias are embedded in Sulcorebutia" or "Monadeniums are embedded in Euphorbia" there are always two choices:
- lump everything, and lose a useful name which people thought they had a grasp of (which is what usually happens)
- split up a rather large genus into many smaller genera, thereby keeping the said name, and inventing quite a few new ones (with different downsides, but generally, more names tells you more about a plant).

Sedum got usefully split up a while back. I'm waiting for Euphorbia...

[edds]

There are lots of examples of paraphyly (Reptiles and fish being prime examples) and I think the possibility of having a distinct clade that arises out of another genus or group seems to match the classic neo-Darwinistic geographical method of new species being formed when a group of one species is isolated from the rest.

For these plants I don't see why a single clade, more closely related to each other than any other plant couldn't form a distinct genus within a larger 'parent' genus. Especially when cladistic software can throw out different looking trees with the same data (depending on the quality of the data).

So Manfreda could sit as a distinct genus arising from Agave. I know it's not the current trend but I think it makes much more sense in many situations as genetics continues to show how messy our system of classification actually is!

[Herts Mike]

I never understood why Aloes were split but Lomatophyllums were lumped.

[ralphrmartin]

And Senecios were split, and ...

That's the trouble. There's no proper definition of species or genus, etc that always works, that unequivocally says where to draw the line in a way everyone agrees on. They are a human invention, to help humans talk to each other, that are sometimes a more reasonable model for the real botanical world than others. Without an objective definition, individual opinions come into it.