This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: I.d.'s

Dear Tom,

I agree that even though the various plants may represent a range of
variation within Sansevieria suffruticosa, each one, at most, represents an
individual clone that is propagated vegetatively and cannot be considered
to represent true botanical varieties. That is unless, sometime in the
future, they can be shown to be part of morphologically distinct
geographically isolated populations in the wild and not just selected
variants within a single population. The question remains if each is
morphologically stable when propagated from seed?

The various collection numbers should be kept with the plants as a
reference as they represent distinctive cultivars with their own history
and distinctive traits. A collection number is just as useful as coining a
fancy cultivar name for the plant. They may have been given different
numbers because they were collected by different people at different
localities.

Cereusly Steve

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
•Subject: Re: [SANS] I.d.'s
•From: Thomas & Clover Schultz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey all,
I still think that all these suffruticosa type plants should be
considered at least their own variety since I don't think(I could be
wrong) that my bally 12681 could start cascading and on a regular basis
have regular suffruticosa on one stolon, Kenya #1 on another, and so on
and so forth interchanging at will.  It seems to me that all of these
are fairly stable and thus is the reason they were given different names
and thus it seems, their own cv. status.

Have a good one,
Tom
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index