At 09:16 PM 8/20/2004 -0400, John Lonsdale wrote: >Colchicum macrophyllum is always first here, and true to form, came through >in a couple of spots a few days ago. > >Does anyone know how much variation there is in this species? I've heard of >white forms? The leaves are large but attractively pleated and it is a >great plant. John, I wish I could share your enthusiasm for Colchicum macrophyllum. You must have a particularly good form. As it bloomed here, the flowers were pale and the tessellation smudgy, more so than even our old friend 'Agrippinum'. My plant of C. variegatum looked just like those seen in Jane's photos on the wiki. As I grew it, it produced small flowers with narrow tepals, but with better color and more clearly differentiated tessellation. This was a step in the right direction, but it was still not the "holy grail" of Colchcium. Maybe the "holy grail" no longer exists, but Bowles described clearly checkered forms with tepals about an inch wide at the base. Col. Grey described a form with flowers "in which the tesselation [sic] is almost as regular as that of a draught-board". Has anyone out there ever seen such plants? Many years ago, when the late Peter de Jager company offered 'Agrippinum' they used a color photograph of a tessellated Colchicum which had much better color and form than any Colchicum variegatum or 'Agrippinum' I've ever seen. As I recall, the flower had a distinctly angular look due to the width of the outer tepals. When the plants of 'Agrippinum' they sent bloomed, I was momentarily confused, so different were they. Jim McKenney firstname.lastname@example.org Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where I long ago fell under the spell of Parkinson's words "yet when it flowreth any thing early...it is the glorie of all these kindes".