On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:57 PM, totototo@telus.net wrote: > (The correct > name for 'Rolf Fiedler' seems to be Tristagma peregrinans. The > cultivar name remains valid.) > I've seen this name given before. What are the arguments for placing 'Rolf Fiedler' in the genus Tristagma rather than in Ipheion? Both its bulbs, leaves, and flowers are so similar to I. uniflorum that it's difficult to distinguish until the flowers open. I would think that these two are what I would call sister species. Otherwise, I would wonder why I. uniflorum isn't also place in the genus Tristagma. More generally, I thought Tristagma was mostly a Chilean/Andean Argentine genus that looks very similar to Ipheions. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but just as Ravenna is claiming (I believe) that Rhodophiala bifida and related Argentine/Uruguayan species shouldn't be in the same genus as the Chilean and Andean Argentine Rhodophialas (which I tend to agree with not that I've seen and grown some of both), I think the Chilean and Andean Tristagmas ought to be in a different (but related?) genus to all the Ipheions including 'Rolf Fiedler'. The one thing that seems to tie them together more closely is that despite having a mainly wet warm summer and drier cool winter on the eastern half of southern South America, both the Ipheions and the Rhodophiala bifida clan still go dormant during the summer and grow during the winter as is typical with the mediterranean-climate Tristagmas and Rhodophialas of the western half of southern South America (aka Chile) which get no rain in summer at all. --Lee Poulsen Pasadena, California, USA, USDA Zone 10a