Scilla paucei pics ? = L. socialis

dave s
Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:57:22 PDT
None of the paucifolia I've seen resemble the pics on the cactus-biz site.
An additional feature of paucifolia, IME, that hasn't been mentioned so far
is that while the leaves are green above and below, the bulbs themselves DO
show a purple color; it isn't simply an un-pigmented L. socialis "violacea."
On the other hand, the pics on the cactus-biz site do seem to be
un-pigmented specimens of the classic houseplant.

- Dave

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:16 AM, aaron floden <>wrote:

>  It would seem the combination Ledebouria paucifolia has never been made
> even though Baker described these new Scilla as "Scilla [Ledebouria] spp",
> knowing that they all fit within the Ledebouria section of Scilla at the
> time (1875).
>  I also meant to mention that the type of Scilla paucifolia is clearly the
> more ovate leaved L. socialis in cultivation, but it is not clear if it is
> distinctly different.
>  Aaron
> --- On Tue, 4/19/11, Nhu Nguyen <> wrote:
> From: Nhu Nguyen <>
> Subject: Re: [pbs] Scilla paucei pics ? = L. socialis
> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <>
> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 7:36 AM
> Hi everyone,
> There is certainly much confusion with this plant. I just made a quick
> Google search and found a plant that has beautiful leaves and flowers that
> look exactly like what we have come to know as L. socialis *except* that it
> lacks any purple coloring. Take a look at the link below and you can
> perhaps
> see into the past where Baker studied a plant similar to this one. So with
> that, I think the synonomy of this particular plant and L. socialis is
> pretty certain.
> However, most of the plants out there, including Jude's plant do not have
> leaves that look like this at all. They are ovate and have faint minute
> markings. They a much slower growing plant as well, despite the ability to
> produce lots of offsets. I remember when I broke a leaf on my plant. It
> took
> months before the leaf was replaced. However, all of this does not mean
> that
> it can't just be another form of L. socialis.
> The Ledebouria-Scilla-Resnova-Drimiopsis group is a big mess and until
> someone works out the details, we will have to try and stick to the most
> correct name we know of. Both of the names "L. pauciflora" AND "L.
> paucifolia" are applied to this plant when doing a web search. The problem
> is that both of these names are not valid under any plant list, even the
> most comprehensive of them: A Google search
> for L. pauciflora brings up 14,500 hits whereas L. paucifolia only brings
> up
> 2,640 hits. The entry on the PBS wiki is meant to catch the most searches.
> There is no synonym on the page so I'll add it to that page.
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list