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

[SANS] Taxonomy of Sansevierias

Commenting on Jim Waddick's letter:
        Without looking for 'trouble'', OR causing a fit, AND without
digging into the International Code for Cultivated plants, as I recall, a
cultivar name cannot consist of numbers. Thus a name like FKH 555 is simply
a garden name without 'validity" (to use a taxonomic term).

Comments Juan:
Again, with the same spirit exercised by Jim:

Recommendation 31A of the mentioned Code "strongly suggests that whenever
possible" number should be avoided.
It is a Recommendation, not an Article, therefore in the case of  'FKH424',
although against a recommendation, it is still valid.
That is clearly stated on Article 33, Note 2: "Cultivar names contrary to a
Recommendation are not, on that account, illegitimate."
In fact if one reads a few pages before, Article 10, Note 1, Example, one
can read a discussion about "tobacco described as 'MacNair 80' and 'NC
2326' "without any mention of invalidity.


-----------
        "Valid" cultivar names must be registered with the recognized
international registration authority and include a 'valid'
description(diagnosis), author, origin etc. All the parameters of validity
are usually proscribed by the registration authority.

Comments Juan: (you mean prescribed, for sure)
 Before Jan 1959 it had to comply with Arts.37,41 and 42 OR accepted by a
registration authority
Now, in order to be valid a name  must comply with Articles 37-42 of the
Code, which say nothing about a registration authority.
 --------------
        So...
        What/ who/ where is the official registration  authority for
Sansevieria?

Comments Juan:

So, as per above comments, a registration authority is not an absolute
necessity.
---------------

        I find it rather amazing that there are so many 'un-named'
Sansevieia in cultivation with undocumented, undescribed, unregistered
cultivar and species names. Surely something as distinctive as
"Mason-Congo" and "Baseball Bat' deserve serious taxonomic study. Then
let's worry about cultivars.

Comments Juan:
I have validly described 'Baseball Bat' as Sansevieria hallii (in italics)
as its origin was well documented. I chose that name on a request of Gordon
Rowley who also gave me the original plant and pertinent data.

As far as 'Mason Congo', thanks for writing it correctly. The origin of the
plant is quite vague: an entire country. It was collected by Maurice Mason,
a British collector who never owned the Congo, therefore it should not be
called 'Masons Congo' as it appears in some catalogs.
Huntington has it as ' Mason Zaire' and when still in California I talked
to John Trager about the name. When Mason collected it the name of the
country was Congo and it should so remain for the plant. Now that the
country has changed names again Huntington will have to change (change
hermine!) the name of the plant again.
The provenance is not the only problem with 'Mason Congo', but rather that
it strongly resembles some of the other Sansevierias.
-----------
        I know of no other plant group as widely cultivated that has so
many taxonomic and systematic 'gaps' in our knowledge of them.

        A major constructive function of this list would be to get some of
this mess in order. I applaud the now deceased "Sansevieria Journal" for
validy publishing new names and providing description for some confusing
cultivars. And Juan's book on S. trifasciata cvs is certainly still the
most comprehensive attempt to make sense of this one species and its cvs.

Comments Juan: Thanks. Yet I made a big mistake in assuming at that time,
12 years ago!, that my publication was not final (I so state on the
introduction). As published, save for errors, the names are final.
That prompted me to be more studious of the Code.
I did recognize my lack of sufficient research on the name S.trifasciata
'Lillian True', which I incorrectly called 'Slipped Stripes' due to
misinformation by one of the parties involved (or lack of sufficient
proof). That has been corrected in the Sansevieria Journal with hermine's
help.
-------------
        Major work remains to be done to clarify a host of taxonomic
problems in the genus.

        Any suggestions? How can we cooperate to document correct names and
encourage thier proper usage?

Comments Juan:
By using them and when somebody else uses an incorrect name one should
pretend one has not hear it (or read it) and use the correct name.
Thanks,

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