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

Re: [SANS] S. schweinfurthii and "stunted sansevierias"

Dear Juan,

Thank you for your point of view. It's simply a difference in interpreting
the facts before us.

Please don't make assumptions on what you believe I have and have not
experienced. I would never be so critical of you.

*******************************
The whole discussion of Sansevieria canaliculata 'Dwarf' was that of a
stunted plant. You even said that yourself. I have seen many underpotted
stunted Sansevierias in collections. That is how many growers maintain
Sansevieria fischeri with juvenile foliage.

*******************************
For the status of the name Sans.schweinfurthii, I have actually been
following the treatment Teketay which appeared in The Sansevieria Journal.
I am simply agreeing with his findings which meet all of your stated
criteria and providing additional supporting data. The original proposal is
not mine but his. All the data and references agree that all the synonyms
listed actually refer to the same plant.

The reasons for the invalidity of the name are based on the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature which was followed by Teketay and Eggli &
Taylor and are no my opinion as you imply.

I have a photocopy of the original in front of me and it is clear that
Tackholm & Drar alluded that they were renaming Sansevieria cylindrica
sensu Schweinfurth not Bojer even though they did not provide a clear
reference to it. They even mention the original collection Schweinfurth
made in Erythrea. The name Sansevieria schweinfurthii has never been
accompanied by a Latin diagnosis.

Here is a link to the on-line version of the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature.
<http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/Contents.htm>

The ICBN are the rules and we have no choice but to follow them even if we
disagree with them.

Anyway you look at it, the correct valid name for the plant will always be
Sansevieria erythraeae and never Sans.schweinfurthii according to the ICBN,
no matter what you or I say. Both names refer to the same plant but only
Sansevieria erythraeae is validly published and automatically has priority
any other later renaming of the same species.

Cereusly Steve
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
•Subject: Ref. S. schweinfurthii and "stunted sansevierias"
•From: Juan Chahinian <Chahinian@AOL.COM>
•Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:28:44 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,

Stephen, I have dealt with Sansevierias for almost twenty years, possibly
before you were born or you were 2-3 years old then, and I have never heard
of or seen a "stunted Sansevieria". Sansevierias, as other plants, may go
juvenile, and I know of at least ten of them that have, material for an
upcoming article. One can never stunt a Sansevieria by any mechanical or
fertilizing trick.

The fact that Teketay said that Sansevieria schweinfurthii is a synonym for
S. erythraeae does not make it correct. Needless to say the fact that it
was published in my journal does not mean that I agree with it.
In fact, I just studied an inflorescence of S. schweinfurthii , with the
help of Alan Butler, and it is certainly a plant on its own standing. The
invalidity of the name is due to the fact that there is no Latin
description, required at the time of publishing. There is no reason
whatsoever to change the name. Simply because Schweinfurth brought the
plant from Eritrea to Egypt and called it S. cylindrica does not make it
the plant that Täckholm and Drar described. So, Sansevieria schweinfurthii
'Variegated'  is also a combination that needs to be kept.

To do correct taxonomic work, and I told you this many years ago, one
requires
a) investigation of papers
b) study of live plants
c) study of plants in habitat
d) study of herbarium specimens

Stephen you are only doing a) in a very commendable way. But this is not
enough.
b), c) and d) are as important and it would be nice, and absolutely
necessary, that you do b), c) and d) as well. There is no short cut.
Taxonomic work is not the result of expedient elucubrations but of
thorough, patient work. Otherwise you are only adding to the confusion.
Mats Thulin, whose work you called a mess, did a) c) and d), so did
Teketay.
So please, slow up your race for bringing new things up and go back to the
drawing board and by all means do not give advice on questions asked unless
you have actual experience on them.

Cheers
Juan
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index