Dear David and Robin, Is there any chance David of your posting pictures to the wiki of O. cathara, O. gracilis, and O. heidelbergensis? Thanks for your responses about the checklist. I have ordered it as it sounds like it would be helpful for my collection and for adding information to the wiki as well. David's example is fascinating however as I found several sources on my computer who described Oxalis crassipes as South American. Please help the rest of us in deciphering how to use your information. One reference from 1884 describes this as from tropical Africa. The second description indicates that a plant named as O. crassipes is really a form of Oxalis hirta. And then you have a third reference to a plant named Oxalis articulata forma crassipes. But there was no mention of where this plant is from. So what are we to conclude is the correct name for Lauw's plants, the ones Andrew B. is talking about and Uli's and presumably the ones in my archives that were recommended for the south. Are they all the same plant and should it be more correctly named Oxalis articulata forma crassipes? Or is this plant really Oxalis hirta? Mary Sue >O. crassipes Urb. in Eichl. Jahrb. Berl. http://iii.com:242/ (1884) >Status: Species >Habitat/Ecogolgy: Africa "trop", says Index Kewensis > >O. crassipes L. Bolus in Journ. Bo. lxvi:9 (1928) >Status: invalid name, synonym, see O. hirta L. var. tenuicaulis >Knuth, says Salter > >So, the name has been used twice to cover two different oxalis. More >recently, Index Kewensis has been updated to include O. articulata forma >crassipes (Urb) Lourteig, published in Phytologia 50: 138 (1982). Prof. >Alicia Lourteig is an authority, particularly on the weed forms of Oxalis.