Groups etc

Graham Rice
Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:14:31 PDT
Agree about the iris at Oxford BG, and Brian Mathew does say that of 
those he's sunk "the majority are most likely to be cultivars" so the 
good folks at Oxford should perhaps at the very least have labelled 
their plants "clone 1", "clone 2" etc pending further study.

But surely if Wilson's Tilia is now considered a form of T. 
amurensis, then it has a valid name - preumably Tilia amurensis f. 
insularis. However, the PlantFinder still recognises T. insularis so 
the distinction is currently being maintained in the trade.

Graham Rice
Milford, PA
20sF again

>I think that Dylan's question (see below) about taxa 'lost' in a botanical
>revision is an important one. After Brian Mathew's revision of Iris came out
>and he lumped a lot of horticultural 'species' (probably ancient selections)
>into Iris germanica, the powers that be at Oxford Botanic Garden, where
>there was a good range of these old plants, went out and changed all their
>labels at one stroke to Iris germanica. All the history attached to the
>former name was lost instantaneously and no doubt in future curatorial
>decisions the need to maintain so many accessions of the same species was
>questioned, and some discarded. In such cases there is a very good case for
>using either a cultivar name, if it is a recognisable clone, or group name.
>A current example that is interesting me is a Tilia - not bulbous, sorry,
>but I have broad interests. In 1919 Ernest Wilson collected a lime from
>Ullung-Do (Takesima Island) between Japan and Korea. It was named Tilia
>insularis but it is only minimally different from the mainland T. amurensis
>and is now considered to be a form of that species and placed in synonymy as
>such. Wilson undoubtedly collected elite material of it, and sent it to the
>Arnold Arboretum, who passed on a tree to Kew. This has become a most
>beautiful specimen, with large inflorescences of wonderfully scented
>flowers. In consequence it has been much propagated-from and I'm sure that
>all trees in European cultivation labelled Tilia insularis are in fact this
>clone. To my mind it should be given a cultivar name under T. amurensis to
>enable this exceptional entity to be properly recognised.
>This case also illustrates a favourite theme of mine, that gardeners
>frequently get an image of a species based on a very limited sample of
>specimens or indeed an illustration, and then are quite surprised when a
>botanist (who has studied a wide range of material) says that an apparently
>dissimilar plant is also the same species.
>John Grimshaw
>Dr John M. Grimshaw
>Sycamore Cottage
>Nr Cheltenham
>Gloucestershire GL53 9NP
>Tel. 01242 870567
>Easter Monday 9 April, Arboretum Weekend 15-16 September
>Gates open 1pm, last entry 4 pm
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dylan Hannon" <>
>To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <>
>Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [pbs] Arum
>>  John,
>>  Thank you for that concise clarification. On a related note, I have
>>  long wondered if there is any provision (from botanical or
>>  horticultural codes) for validly published names that are synonymized
>>  in the scientific literature yet represent 'taxa' that retain
>>  recognizable characteristics useful in horticulture. Some nurserymen
>>  will use these names parentheically, after the accepted "mother name",
>>  but is there a better way?
>>  The basis for such distinctiveness (in the eyes of some) can be
>>  natural- clones that stand out as different, or sampling from slightly
>>  distinct wild populations- or from goings on in the garden. Whatever
>>  the case they were conceived under nomenclatural rules and have proper
>>  published descriptions, type(s), etc. These taxa, if they are that,
>>  end up in a sort of no-man's land but of course they may be
>>  resurrected later in the scientific literature after further study.
>pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list