Scadoxus multiflorus question

Started by Steve Marak, June 14, 2022, 11:56:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Steve Marak

I have two clones of this species. The tag on one says "1987", with no source. The other has "Croft 2003" on the tag. They are grown side by side in the greenhouse, moderate light, and LOTS of water, almost every day year round, whether dormant or not, because the things around them get watered often. They don't seem to care, and obviously are very tolerant in general. Both clones exhibit dormancy of a few months every year, and generally flower every year. But they're different in behavior.

The 1987 clone flowers with no leaves (picture attached of inflorescences from about 3 weeks ago). Leaves start about the time the inflorescence fades. It has produced only 2 offsets in the ~35 years I've had it. The 2003 clone puts leaves up before flowers (it currently has leaves almost fully developed and has yet to flower this year), and has produced 5 offsets in 19 years. After reading the PBS wiki entry for this species, my question is what subspecies are these?

The wiki entry says ssp. katharinae has "very short to no dormancy in cultivation" and "multiplies rather rapidly by rhizomes", which doesn't seem to match either of these. Ssp. multiflorus might match the 1987 clone - flowering in late May (before midsummer here in NW Arkansas), slow to offset, goes completely dormant, like Bob Lauf's picture flowers without leaves. But which subspecies is the 2003 clone? Or am I misinterpreting the "multiplies rapidly" part of ssp. katharinae?

Kew lists a ssp. longitubus, but the only hits I get in online searches are just for the nomenclature, and the wiki suggests it's rare in cultivation.




Somewhat late, but referring to Amaryllis, Duncan, Jeppe, Voight, the distribution of the species is a whole lot of sub-Saharan Africa and into the Middle East, and he also states that flowers may appear before, with or after the flower.

Multiflorus and longituba are noted as being very similar and over-lapping in range. (Maybe implying some doubt over the validity of longituba????)