On 5 Nov 2012, at 8:36, Hannon wrote: > Pertinent to recent discussions, Snijman has this to say about variation in > pubescence in H. albiflos: > > "*Recent collections have shown however, that the entire range, from hairy > to glabrous forms, exists within a very small area*." > > This demonstrates the important point made here by various writers that > often a species cannot be characterized by a single individual that is > known in cultivation. Some variation seems "impossible" until it is > witnessed in the field. This inspires me to haul out an over-used sermon on the subject and remind everyone, especially relative newbies, that the type specimen of a species may, in fact, be very atypical. Indeed, many type specimens are from the margins of a plant's natural distribution (where it's not particularly common and catches the eye of the collector) and hence more likely to deviate significantly from the average form of the species. Without being able to point to a single example, I'm quite sure that there have been cases where several marginal forms were given separate names and only when the full range of variation was later investigated was it realized that these were all the same species. So keep that in mind: "type" in the taxonomic sense does not mean "typical". -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Z. 7-8, cool Mediterranean climate