E. ingens?

[Ronald Chisum]

Thank you for the correction. That is the great thing about this website. There are experienced plantsmen that keep things on tract. Still, by any name, that is an impressive plant. It even tell you which way the trade winds blow. RON

[guerrilla gardener]

Yea, I agree with palmbob - that's E. lactea in the lower photos.

palmbob, please add your 2 cents on what you think the first is photo in the tread.

[GermanStar]

Thanks, Post #19 is a more recent photo of the same plant.

[Stan]

whew-good. I was feeling puny with my 5' trigona rubra here in the bay area....

[agavemonger]

Hi, German!

Euphorbia abyssinica is a very rare plant; it is unforgettable once you have seen it. It has very much the appearance of melted wax with very large thorns stacked closely on top of each other. Most of the photographs on Dave's garden are not even remotely true E. abyssinica and are simply wrong. Most are E. ingens. The link to E. abyssinica at the very bottom of Guerrilla Gardener's post #17 which links to Cactus Art Nursery is correct and classic E. abyssinica. This plant also has a juvenile form which is represented on page #50 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1 (directly opposite E. acrurensis, conveniently!) Guerrilla Gardener has basically got it figured out.

Euphorbia ammak is also rather rare, although the variegated form is ubiquitous. It is a large tree with age. See page #53 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1, for photos of both standard and variegated forms. This plant has always been mis-identified with E. ingens, mature form. They are not the same.

Euphorbia Ingens is a large plant that becomes a tree. Juvenile forms have beautiful mottling, and look like a completely different species from the mature plant. The mature form of E. ingens is classically shown in many of the photographs called E. abyssinica on Dave's garden.

German, your plant has been grown in the trade for many years and is much smaller and fuller than the previous three species. It has always been called Euphorbia acrurensis to my knowledge, but I am not positive that this identification is absolutely correct. A picture of E. acrurensis can be found on page #51 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1. Although the picture shows a four-ribbed plant, the plants we used to grow were often three-ribbed as immmature plants. Guerrilla Gardener's picture of the larger plant in post #4 is the same species as your smaller plant. Notice that the larger arms have four ribs.

Furthermore, the plant we know and grow as E. acrurensis (as illustrated in The Euphorbia Journal) is definitely not synonymous with E. abyssinica. That is simply dis-information of the crudest form. People who have not grown these plants or seen them in the wild have absolutely no business pretending species they don't understand are synonomous.

[Tim Harvey]

Actually, E. acrurensis, along with about 10 other taxa (e.g. E. abyssinica and E. erythraeae) were "included" with E. abyssinica by Susan Carter-Holmes in the Dicotyledons volume of the Illustrated Succulent Handbook.

Having not seen as many of them in habitat as she has, I'd be inclined to believe her.

T

[agavemonger]

Then how would you explain the differences that most clearly and obviously define different species in all of these photographs? Perhaps somewhere a hundred years ago, someone might have called something something else. What we are talking about here is what is currently called E. Abyssinica, E ingens, and E. ammak. I clearly stated in my post that I was unsure about even The Euphorbia Journal's definition of E. acrurensis. The plants are all totally different, of different form, flower and habit, and internationally known for at least forty years. I have personally grown hundreds of each, I have seen mature plants, and there is simply no argument here. Do your homework, guys.

[Tim Harvey]

Monger,

Having just read Brown's 1912 description of E. acrurensis, I do not understand how you can be so sure. There are plenty of cases of misconceptions of plant identities that are propagated as easily as the plant, simply by feedback due to people seeing the same misidentified plant elsewhere.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of Euphorbiologist, just trying to provide the current status on thoughts on these plants.

What is your first hand source of information? Have you been to Africa? You could have grown hundreds of, and seen mature hybrids too.

T

[agavemonger]

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

[guerrilla gardener]

I agree with the Monger. They look very different. E. acrurensis is never more then 4 ribs (3 when a young plant) and E. abyssinica is always more then 5 or 6. I've grown both and they look very different in size, branching, and thorn structure.

I wrote to davesgarden (copy of response below) and said they go by two sources and they say synonym so they go with that.

davesgarden response:

Many references do consider it a synonym:

Aluka - Cookies are absent/required

http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plan...iaceae/Euphorb...

Euphorbia abyssinica information from NPGS/GRIN

http://search.usda.gov/search?q=Euphorbia acrurensis&x=14&y=...

From viewing the plants on several sites I can see that they are two varieties. E. abyssinica has 8 ribs. E. acrurensis has 4 ribs.

The PlantFiles follows Kew and GRIN.

Thank you for your help with the PlantFiles.

Aloha, Dave

[GermanStar]

I am likely the least knowledgeable participant in this thread, but I have looked into the issue here and elsewhere for some time now. Of one thing I am absolutely certain, the trade names E. acrurensis and E. abyssinica refer to two very different plants. I've seen mature and seedling pics of each, and am entirely confident that the white-spined 6-8-ribbed E. abyssinica is distiinct from the black-spined 3-4-ribbed E. acrurensis. I've seen pics of many different Euphorbias that bear far greater resemblance to my plant than those of E. abbyssinica. I don't know what the exact nature of the issue is in regard to this misadventure in nomenclature, but I refuse to accept that my plant is synonymous with a white-spined 6-8-ribbed E. abyssinica. Frankly, I find the discussions regarding E. ingens/E. acrurensis identification far more compelling.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by agavemonger

Hi, German!

Euphorbia abyssinica is a very rare plant; it is unforgettable once you have seen it. It has very much the appearance of melted wax with very large thorns stacked closely on top of each other. Most of the photographs on Dave's garden are not even remotely true E. abyssinica and are simply wrong. Most are E. ingens. The link to E. abyssinica at the very bottom of Guerrilla Gardener's post #17 which links to Cactus Art Nursery is correct and classic E. abyssinica. This plant also has a juvenile form which is represented on page #50 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1 (directly opposite E. acrurensis, conveniently!) Guerrilla Gardener has basically got it figured out.

Euphorbia ammak is also rather rare, although the variegated form is ubiquitous. It is a large tree with age. See page #53 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1, for photos of both standard and variegated forms. This plant has always been mis-identified with E. ingens, mature form. They are not the same.

Euphorbia Ingens is a large plant that becomes a tree. Juvenile forms have beautiful mottling, and look like a completely different species from the mature plant. The mature form of E. ingens is classically shown in many of the photographs called E. abyssinica on Dave's garden.

German, your plant has been grown in the trade for many years and is much smaller and fuller than the previous three species. It has always been called Euphorbia acrurensis to my knowledge, but I am not positive that this identification is absolutely correct. A picture of E. acrurensis can be found on page #51 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1. Although the picture shows a four-ribbed plant, the plants we used to grow were often three-ribbed as immmature plants. Guerrilla Gardener's picture of the larger plant in post #4 is the same species as your smaller plant. Notice that the larger arms have four ribs.

Furthermore, the plant we know and grow as E. acrurensis (as illustrated in The Euphorbia Journal) is definitely not synonymous with E. abyssinica. That is simply dis-information of the crudest form. People who have not grown these plants or seen them in the wild have absolutely no business pretending species they don't understand are synonomous.

Thank you. I know it's impossible to tell from the photos I posted, but the newest growth at the top of my side-by-side plants is 4-ribbed. I fully expect the plant to become nearly completely 4-ribbed as it matures.

[Stan]

If Palmbobn/lzdr isn't giving a definitive answer-I wonder if there is one.
My plant was labled E.abyssinica,all that resemble have been called that. But mine has as I said half and half,roughly, black spines and gray spines. A hybrid?
One thing that I'm not sure if it means much is,when I bought mine it was a huge cutting. Not tall huge,but girth. And I once saw an even larger one in girth for sale at a local C&S nursery. I even then wondered who would be willing to decapitate so many large limbs from must have been very large plants? And so which sp. would be so numerous as to be able to supply a Home Depot?

[agavemonger]

Palm Bob's photo (seen in German Star's post #10) is the same plant as the E. acrurensis as shown in The Euphorbia Journal. It is the same plant we are talking about here. He identifies the photo as E. abyssinica. Notice that he also, very clarevoyantly, states "assuming the plant is properly identified". It is absolutely not E. abyssinica!

This plant appeared in the trade some twenty years ago, and I built up a lot of stock. It was a cinch to grow and we sold a lot of them. It is a very nice Euphorbia.

When I closed the nursery to do landscaping, I sold all of my stock to Ken Altman of Altman Specialty Plants. They have since built up huge amounts of stock in order to fill their deliveries to Home Depot and Lowes, among other "big-box" stores. So of course, the plants are ubiquitously available due to the speed and ease of growing this plant to a marketable size. Does Altman identify this plant as E. abyssinica? If so, they must have slipped up when they did a "name change"?!

It is most probable (although this needs further research; Tim, are you out there?) that the plant in The Euphorbia Journal is misidentified! This is odd, because Susan Carter was deeply involved with The Euphorbia Journal since it's inception, yet she has dove E. acrurensis into synonomy with E. abyssinica! Perhaps she had not studied this species yet at that time, and didn't catch the identification problem. Perhaps only she knows for sure?! This mystery needs solving; But PLEASE realize that no matter what it ends up being called, this plant is definitely not E. ingens, E. ammak, E. abyssinica, or E. trigona!

The Monger

[Tim Harvey]

I can envisage a number of scenarios which would result in the current situation, but will wait for more data.

Does anyone know of material of either species which is of known origin - i.e. locality information or has a collector's number?

Also, is it fair to say that all the material we are talking about is propagated vegetatively?

T

[agavemonger]

Almost certainly the case due to the extreme ease of vegetative propagation. The plant is marketable from cuttings in a matter of a few months, or even weeks, for small sizes.

I don't believe this plant has set seed. However, the large plant in the earlier photo of Guerrilla's is approaching that size, I would think. Will it ever set flowers and seed? This would very much help the I.D. situation.

I wish I knew (or remembered) more about it. I believe I was one of the first to commercially propagate it, and I don't believe it was named until The Euphorbia Journal volume #1 came out!

The Monger

[Tim Harvey]

You are older than you look!

Euphorbia abyssinica J.F.Gmel. -- Syst. Nat., ed. 13[bis]. 2(1): 759. 1791 [late Sep-Nov 1791]

Euphorbia acrurensis N.E.Br. -- Fl. Trop. Afr. [Oliver et al.] 6(1.4): 595. 1912 [Mar 1912]
It may be significant that many of the other taxa described by Brown in 1912 are also those now included in E. abyssinica.

T

Originally Posted by agavemonger

I know I was one of the first to have it, and I don't believe it was named until The Euphorbia Journal volume #1 came out!

The Monger

[perez-suares]

It is my opion too, the picture shows Euphorbia lactea, in the south of
Gran Canaria, means the desert part of the island, you often find big
trees of Euphorbia lactea.
In my opion Euphorbia ingens and Euphorbia acruensis are two different
species, when I'm back on Gran Canaria the end of September I make
pics. In "The Euphorbia Journal" are only greenhouse fotos.
Saludos
perez-suares

[guerrilla gardener]

Hey everyone, so, the discussion continues.

The big plant (that the Monger referred to) has been growing next to my driveway for over 18 years and it has never flowered. I'm hoping it will so I can try growing this plant from seed. I have to cut it back every so often to be able to get around it with my car in the driveway so I get cuttings from time to time but I would still like to give seeds a try.

As long as someone brought in a photo of E lactea to this thread I thought I might share a few photos. The first 2 are of my E desmondi (also next to my driveway). I love the huge leaves on this great Euphorbia tree. I have a ton of seeds if anyone is interested.

The third photo is a euphorbia I need help with the name. Anyone?

[agavemonger]

Hi there, Scott!

This one is Euphorbia cooperi variety cooperi. See the drawing on page #67 of The Euphorbia Journal volume #1.

The Monger

[perez-suares]

I don't belive it is E. cooperii, E.cooperii has no yellow stips, my option it is grandialanata, look at my fotoalbum. The second pic is E. desmondii from
Nigeria, I think so too, the first E.poissoni ?
Saludos
perez-suares

[guerrilla gardener]

The first two photos are the same plant - e. desmondii. I looked up Euphorbia cooperi variety cooperi but I thank it might be E. pseudocactus - page 106 book #1

[agavemonger]

Hey, Scott....

Perez-Suares is right. I need my eyes checked, I guess! (seriously) I didn't catch the striping late last night!

However, Reineke, the correct spelling is Euphorbia grandialata. This plant is also in the first volume of The Euphorbia Journal (page #80). Unfortunately, the picture of the small plant doesn't display the showy constrictions which make this species such a standout!

This plant is closely aligned with Euphorbia cooperi, but stays shrubby rather than becoming a tree.

It is a very beautiful plant and not seen often enough. Properly grown plants have gorgeous mottling, and the deeply constricted sections are very attractive.

Scott, Euphorbia pseudocactus is a plant with minor constrictions, and also very full and pretty. It is very similarly marked but much smaller than E. grandialata. There is also a nice spineless form of E. pseudocactus that is very attractive.

Your plant is a classic showpiece!

The Monger

[Tim Harvey]

OK guys, I have what I consider to be a definitive answer. Before I post it, please tell me how many ribs A. acrurensis has, and how you know that to be the correct number.

T

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by agavemonger

Hi, German!

Euphorbia abyssinica is a very rare plant; it is unforgettable once you have seen it. It has very much the appearance of melted wax with very large thorns stacked closely on top of each other. Most of the photographs on Dave's garden are not even remotely true E. abyssinica and are simply wrong. Most are E. ingens. The link to E. abyssinica at the very bottom of Guerrilla Gardener's post #17 which links to Cactus Art Nursery is correct and classic E. abyssinica. This plant also has a juvenile form which is represented on page #50 of The Euphorbia Journal, volume #1 (directly opposite E. acrurensis, conveniently!) Guerrilla Gardener has basically got it figured out.

The part of your post which I highlighted above has been troubling me and this is why -- every time I hear "melted wax" or "melted candle" in relation to cactus for example, I know the reference is to a monstrosus version. So, I am left to wonder if one of the plants shown below is in fact E. abyssinica monstrosus. Possible?