Confusion and contradiction.

[Ernie]

The recent edition of Cactus World is fantastic. The article by Colin Walker has me confused, not by the excellent article and content, by the fact Colin refers to it as a succulent. Some years ago on this forum I posted a picture of my very large Albiflos, which is considerable bigger than Colins, but was told it was a bulb not a succulent and thus not for discussion. At our branch a member entered a photo of his Albiflos into the annual photo competition but it was declared not as schedule. Please someone enlighten me, are these Haemanthus plants succulents or not for the purposes of the BCSS. I am fortutnate to have; H. humilis ssp hirsutus, H. pauciflorous, H. careus. H. Humilis giant form. All ex Whitestone and complete with field data. ( and no I am not a hypocrite, I got these many years ago before I decided getting ex habitat plants was not a good idea).

[Tina]

are they in the guide to shows ?,

[DaveW]

Hi Ernie,

History shows it depends on what the Shows Committee wants to include in the Shows Guide in Succulents at the time, since unlike Cacti the term Succulent is purely an arbitrary one. You can maintain Pereskia is not really a Succulent but it gets in on the basis it is a cactus. In many other plant families the succulent members are a very small proportion of often even a single genus, let alone the family as an whole.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/wha ... lants.html

When I joined the Society in 1961 Haemanthus was eligible for our shows and Scilla too I believe. Other Succulents are not my interest, but some who grow them maintain there are plants not included in our shows that should be and others that are now included that ought to be excluded. You "Growers from the Dark Side" that grow such things will have to fight it out among yourselves Maybe a members poll is needed as to what does constitute a Succulent for the Societies purposes?

Is Welwitschia a Succulent, many would say its a geophyte not a Succulent. What constitutes a Succulent in our Society usually goes in fashions according to who are running the Society and drawing up the list at the time. We started to include so called caudiciforms as Succulents when Chris Pitcher, Keith Mortimer and Frank Horwood where leading lights in the Society, although there were few members who had even heard of them or grew them at the time.

I have always maintained that plants should be grown largely as in nature, therefore parts of a plant that grow below the ground should be disqualified if exhibited in shows with their underground parts above ground in order to produce a pseudo-caudiciform which is really more akin to Bonsai Succulents?

If you are going to have a list of included plants for shows and those which are excluded it would seem logical for the Journal to also abide by those criteria too?

Thankfully we don't have the problem with cacti since the whole family is included.

[Ernie]

Hi Ernie,

History shows it depends on what the Shows Committee wants to include in the Shows Guide in Succulents at the time, since unlike Cacti the term Succulent is purely an arbitrary one. You can maintain Pereskia is not really a Succulent but it gets in on the basis it is a cactus. In many other plant families the succulent members are a very small proportion of often even a single genus, let alone the family as an whole.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/wha ... lants.html

When I joined the Society in 1961 Haemanthus was eligible for our shows and Scilla too I believe. Other Succulents are not my interest, but some who grow them maintain there are plants not included in our shows that should be and others that are now included that ought to be excluded. You "Growers from the Dark Side" that grow such things will have to fight it out among yourselves Maybe a members poll is needed as to what does constitute a Succulent for the Societies purposes?

Is Welwitschia a Succulent, many would say its a geophyte not a Succulent. What constitutes a Succulent in our Society usually goes in fashions according to who are running the Society and drawing up the list at the time. We started to include so called caudiciforms as Succulents when Chris Pitcher, Keith Mortimer and Frank Horwood where leading lights in the Society, although there were few members who had even heard of them or grew them at the time.

I have always maintained that plants should be grown largely as in nature, therefore parts of a plant that grow below the ground should be disqualified if exhibited in shows with their underground parts above ground in order to produce a pseudo-caudiciform which is really more akin to Bonsai Succulents?

If you are going to have a list of included plants for shows and those which are excluded it would seem logical for the Journal to also abide by those criteria too?

Thankfully we don't have the problem with cacti since the whole family is included.

Hi Dave. Your penultimate sentence makes the point I was trying to make very well. There is confusion and contradiction. As much as I like the article by Colin, as you would expect me to given my interest in these plants, I don't understand how a plant that is not allowed in our shows can be included in the journal. I am not being personal but I recall a senior member of the BCSS telling me they are bulbs, end of and wont be allowed in shows. Same member NAS one at our local branch. If that is the official position then fine I am comfortable with it however to see one featured in our national journal raised my eyebrows this morning. I am easily confused these days so perhaps someone can clear it all up once and for all.

[Ernie]

In his excellent article Colin mentions Haemanthus pauciflorus. Here is my plant. Evergreen, flowers in December. Needs cool winters to get it to bloom. This was collected in South Africa Paris Dam between Vryheid and Louwsburg. As you can see there are bulbs growing just above the surface. Yes its a bulb but apparently also a succulent.

[Colin Walker]

Ernie, sorry if I've apparently caused you confusion.

My authority for what is considered to be succulent is The Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants, 2nd ed., 2020, which I referenced in the latest CW article on Haemanthus albiflos. There, as I said, four species of Haemanthus, out of the current total of 23, are considered to be succulent. The IHOSP also includes many bromeliads and other bulbous plants such as Bowiea volubilis.

However, as Dave has pointed out, what is considered to be succulent in terms of BCSS Shows is somewhat different and many true succulents are not allowed to be exhibited. So the above mentioned plants have been banished from shows, principally I guess for practical and pragmatic reasons as opposed to what biologically makes a plant succulent.

So I hope this explains your confusion and any apparent contradiction.

[Stuart]

It's not in the 'Guide to Shows', I'm saying this from memory but fairly sure it's not there. There's all sorts of semi succulents, very little if any succulent parts in Agave Attenuata, Uncarinas etc but there has to be a line drawn for what can be entered in a show. There have been quite democratic votes at the Judges Course on which new genera to add to the list but there's a lot of woody bonsai-type things that are pretty and collectable but just not succulent. Bulbs are probably succulent but are too far removed from our hobby to include. I can't see any harm in discussing semi-succulents here, the only rules are which plants can be entered in shows.

Stuart

[Ernie]

Ernie, sorry if I've apparently caused you confusion.

My authority for what is considered to be succulent is The Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants, 2nd ed., 2020, which I referenced in the latest CW article on Haemanthus albiflos. There, as I said, four species of Haemanthus, out of the current total of 23, are considered to be succulent. The IHOSP also includes many bromeliads and other bulbous plants such as Bowiea volubilis.

However, as Dave has pointed out, what is considered to be succulent in terms of BCSS Shows is somewhat different and many true succulents are not allowed to be exhibited. So the above mentioned plants have been banished from shows, principally I guess for practical and pragmatic reasons as opposed to what biologically makes a plant succulent.

So I hope this explains your confusion and any apparent contradiction.

Thanks Colin I now get it. I think the experience of a member at my local branch of the society having his photograph excluded from the photo competition because it was a bulb and not a succulent got me puzzled when I read your article. BTW excellent photo of your plant in flower! So far I have not managed to get two of the species I listed in my first post to flower.

[Colin Walker]

I see no reason why a photo of Haemanthus albiflos should be excluded from a BCSS photo competition unless part of a show judged using the BCSS Handbook of Shows.

BTW, I thought the pot would cause controversy rather than the plant.

Also Ernie, the plant you included has the correct name of H. pauculifolius, since it has few leaves rather than flowers. Having said that, my plants of this sp. have always been somewhat reluctant flowerers cf. to H. albiflos.

[Ernie]

Pot controversy? Not with me. I love pots that are different from the run of the mill. I have one of Elaines lovely Aynsley bone china pieces I put to similar use although Elaine draws a line at me drilling a hole in it. Yes its possible the handbook of shows was mentioned.