I'm sorry Tim, I'm not trying to "yank your chain" or anything. What I am trying to say is that the plant we are
talking about here has been
called E. acrurensis since
The Euphorbia journal was first published. Wether or not the editors of
The Euphorbia Journal are correct in their identification of the plant in their photograph labeled as
E. acrurensis is a different argument. Once again, the
plant we are talking about is
the same plant as the Euphorbia Journal's photograph of
E. acrurensis. This plant is absolutely not
E. abyssinica regardless of wether
The Euphorbia Journal is correct or not. They (The plant formerly known as
E. acrurensis in the
Euphorbia Journal and
E. abyssinica) are totally different species. The
real problem lies more within the massive mis-identifications in Dave's Garden.
People assume that simply because
E. acrurensis has dove (at least for now) into
E. abyssinica, That the mis-identified plant in the photograph of
E. acrurensis in
The Euphorbia Journal is now
E. abyssinica. Nothing could be further from the truth! A rank amateur could easily see the manifold differences between the two species when seen side-by-side. And I don't believe this is the same sort of "clone" trickery a-la the
Agave titanota formae F.O. '76 most-visited-ever-thread-in-history fiasco. Perhaps we are looking at a long-misidentified, unnamed species here. I hate to use the so-often-misused "H" word, but I suppose a hybrid is another possibility; but I don't really think so.
But who knows?
Is this a little more clear now?!
The Monger