BCSS - Forum

One for Tony or Stuart. or indeed anyone who may the answer.
I got this quite a few years ago from ABBEY Brook cacti.
Gasteria biclour 'Vavorosa'
The data that came with it; Abbey Brook 7491 (Their reference number) Old Kistenbosch clone of 1964 ex selecta 6/98.
Can either of you explain that for me please.

I can't come up with any bright ideas on this one, it looks a bit like what might be expected if there was a cross between Liliputana and Verrucosa. I don't like nurseries using accession numbers, it gives a false sense of 'pedigree' about a plant. The newest main leaf on the right looks textured but the offsets look smooth.
Let's see what Tony thinks about it.

Stuart

A pity we don't know more about "the old clone from Kirstenbosch 1964". Having looked through all my photos (and Al's and Derek's) taken in the reserve collection at Kirstenbosch in 2011, I don't see anything similar (but that does not mean it wasn't still there).
So Etwin Aslander had some of this material at Selecta Succulents in the 90s from where Brian Fearn obtained it.
I wonder who gave it the cultivar name 'Vavorosa'.
It bears some resemblance (in part) to Gasteria bicolor var. fallax we saw at Swartwaterpoort.

Beyond that, I would not like to comment on its purity or pedigree.
Only Brian, Etwin or Ernst might be able to help you further.....

I have managed to speak to Gill at Abbeybrook and the origin of my plant is.
Brian got it from Peter Brantam at Kew in the 1980's. Key got the original plant from Kirstenbosch botanical gardens in 1964. There's doubt about the spelling its either Vavorosa or Vavarosa. Gill has no idea who assigned the name but suggests it would be someone at Kistenbosch not Kew.
Next stop e mail to Kirstenbosch.

Hi Tony. perhaps the following photos may help you form an opinion about it. All the leaves are textured.

Hi Ernie

The name looks like it is a scrambled version of Gasteria variolosa which is one of the gasterias described by John Baker of Kew which are now regarded as synonyms of other species.

He described it in the Refugium Botanicum; Volume 5, June 1873 on Tabula (aka Plate) 347. One of the wonders of the web means that it can be viewed at
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 287&q1=347

The description has an excellent coloured illustration with it. Baker says it is “Closely allied to G. maculata with which it agrees in inflorescence and perianth, but differing in the shape and arrangement of the leaves.” (The name G. maculata has been replaced by G. bicolor).

In Ernst Van Jaarsfeld’s ‘Gasterias of South Africa’ book page 85 (in the list of Gasteria Synonyms) he has Gasteria variolosa as a synonym of Gasteria bicolor var. bicolor.

On page 7 (Introduction) he said that during his research “live plants obtained from various European botanical gardens were also studied” which would account for it being at Kirstenbosch.

But it doesn't match the appearance of your plant! However, Ernst also writes that juvenile gasterias can be different to adult plants and their appearance can be changed by growing conditions. Does anyone know of G. bicolors that are as proliferous as your plant Ernie?

Steven

Brilliant work Steven. Thank you for taking the time to research this plant. I hope it flowers soon, perhaps then all will be revealed. Your efforts are exactly what this forum is about and I very much appreciate it.
I wonder what Tony thinks about your comments.

Great research, Steven. Good deductions. G. bicolor var. fallax can certainly cluster as much as this, though it is not an 'exact' match for the fallax examples I have.

Thank you for your kind comments Ernie and Tony. It's a pleasure to assist!

The name 'rang a bell' with me so I went to Ernst's book. Having found the name, I went to the International Plant Names Index https://www.ipni.org/ to find the publication that has the original description. Then I copied and pasted the reference of the publication into a search engine and found it. 40 minutes beginning to end!

I've been very pleased of late to find that, increasingly, Victorian-era publications are appearing in pdf type searchable open access format. Stuff that used to be tucked away only in specialist libraries can now been seen on your own home computer.

Steven

StevenT wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:28 pm I've been very pleased of late to find that, increasingly, Victorian-era publications are appearing in pdf type searchable open access format. Stuff that used to be tucked away only in specialist libraries can now been seen on your own home computer.

Reading old books and journals online is my major recreational activity. Being a dusty old antiquarian is so much cheaper and easier nowadays. Not just Victorian, many 16th, 17th and 18th century editions are out there in many languages.

It helped amazingly with the Frerea article I wrote. If you ever want more information about the history of Stephanotis floribunda than is strictly necessary, I believe my blog is the only place you will find most of it together. I even found a description of the species three years before the generally accepted one and convinced at least one person at Kew that this was a valid first description of the species. So, to some at least, it is now Stephanotis floribunda Jacques rather than Stephanotis floribunda Brongn.

https://pattheplants.blogspot.com/2020/ ... notis.html

Primary sources were also helpful with sorting out the early history of the drink punch, about which an awful lot of nonsense has been written. I discovered why many descriptions had rosewater as an ingredient, despite that being rather unlikely on board ships. Thankfully, the Dutch use a more legible alphabet now.

https://pattheplants.blogspot.com/2019/ ... -dash.html