Eranthis hyemalis Tubergenii Group 'Guinea Gold'

David Victor
Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:14:25 PDT
Hi Jim,

Firstly, my apologies for interfering with your original.  As you 
indicate, I have no idea what the consequences might be so I really 
should not have done it.

David, you sort of touched on the aspect of the capital G Group concept
which appeals to me so greatly, and which makes it such a useful tool when
sorting out plants without pedigrees: while it's axiomatic that the
categories of formal botany not be polyphyletic, the elements which make up
a capital G Group may be polyphyletic.

Exactly right.  As far as I read the rules, the basis of the Group 
can be as wide or as narrow as the author wishes, so long as he 
properly describes and publishes it.  Its intentionally a practical 
tool for the use of horticulturalists.  Of course, the more useful it 
is the more it will be used, the more useless it is, the reverse.

Has no subset (i.e. capital G Group) of Tubergenii Group been named for the
group of cultivars which are candidates for consideration as 'Guinea Gold'?

The answer is that I really don't know.  In particular, I don't know 
what the desciption of Tubergenii Group is or where it was published 
and I don't know if any other Group have been published which would 
be more helpful and which include 'Guinea Gold'.  The person who 
should know that is the International Cultivar Registrar (I'm that 
for Geranium and Erodium only) who is based at the Royal General 
Bulbgrowers Association in the Netherlands (who does a wide range of 
hardy bulbs).

But every once and a while one runs across a plant which has the sort of
characteristics which make an exceptional garden plant and seems to answer
to one's preconceived notion of what 'Guinea Gold' should be. These have
presumably been the source of the "false Guinea Golds" said to be making the

I guess that the reason the Group was created was that there were so 
many "close relations" floating around without any clear idea of the 
original cultivar.  That probably became problem due to a careless 
original description of the cultivar that was so wide as to include 
many of its subsequent off-spring.

Best regards,
David Victor 

More information about the pbs mailing list