E. ingens?

[agavemonger]

German, the plant on the left is a cutting taken from the mature form of Euphorbia abyssinica (The cutting was taken from an older, larger plant) where the one on the right is still immature. The plants are growing faster at this stage, so the distance between spines is greater.

However, I am afraid that the plant on the right is probably Euphorbia ammak, and not Euphorbia abyssinica!

And a monstrose form would be even more compact!

Both Euphorbia abyssinica and the green form of Euphorbia ammak are very rare in cultivation; Euphorbia cognascenti would really have to search high and low for these to obtain them for a collection, and even experts are tricked by these plants!

And Tim, the amount of ribs on a plant is dependant on many variables; it is a notoriously unreliable tool for species identification. Nobody said anything about ribs being "definitive"! That being said, This plant being "called" E. acrurensis has far fewer ribs than true E. abyssinica. It is also very full and shrub-like, where E.abyssinica is a stately tree.

If E. acrurensis is truly now the same species as E. abyssinica, than this plant ( "The plant formerly known as.. ." ) is simply miss-named!

The monger

[perez-suares]

Most of my big plants has four rips, that is E ingens, but there are two
others big plants with more rips,taller and very sensitive against heat and hot winds, these plants are E.ammak, I think so. The view of these two
plants are different, and from my E." ammak" never I have seen fruits.
perez-suares

[Tim Harvey]

Monger,

Answer the question - an easy one!
How do you know it has far fewer ribs? What is the source of your information?

T

[agavemonger]

Fifteen to twenty-foot tall full-sun grown trees! These are showing mature growth form. Thirty-five years of hard-knocks experience also plays a subtle factor here.

However, the truth lies in the original descriptions of the species and their subsequent re-alignments.

It is certainly possible that these plants are NEITHER E. abyssinica OR E. acrurensis, sincerely identified or not! Many times growers stick a name on a plant based on the best available knowledge at the time of naming. Subsequent research and realignments, ad infinitum, will certainly change the scenario over the years.

In the meantime, until photographs prove what species (or, God forbid, "hybrid") these plants truly belong to, I suggest we keep the names as they are! Just because a plant is misnamed E. acrurensis does not suddenly make it E. abyssinica just because a botanist does a species realignment!

The problem largely lies with self-appointed "experts" spewing tripe on sites like the "Generic Garden Bogs". This complicates things dramatically.

Also, many professional growers do not have either a sound grounding in scientific method, the extensive experience, or the research tools (among these, an expensive, substantial botanical library) necesary for proper species identification. Certainly newbie amateurs usually lack the tools and knowledge necesary for this task!

There is nothing wrong with a botanist realigning a species and the growers having to change labels. But I would prefer to wait to order new labels until I see irrefutable proof of what species a plant TRULY is!

Another problem arises when botanists publish their work without properly photographing the cultivated appearance of these "new species". Where are the seed-grown plants or cutting material from in situ collections?

The disconnect is total, and there is often animosity between botanists and growers.

When we remove arrogance and ego from the picture, and prioritise cooperation and uncompromising scientific method, perhaps great things can happen!

Show us your cards, Tim!!

The Monger

[GermanStar]

There are some (3) fun pics of E. abyssinica here: Prelude Medicinal Plants Database specialized in Central Africa — Metafro Infosys

Not surprisingly, none resemble my plant, and none resemble the offering at cactus-art.biz.

[agavemonger]

Actually, German, these plants probably are E. abyssinica!?

They are greenhouse-grown versions of the immature form of the plant. Check out the I.D. of E. abyssinica in The Euphorbia Journal, Volume #1;

I believe this is the same plant!

The monger

[GermanStar]

Oh, I do believe they are. The source seems fairly credible, and the pics are certainly consistent with each other -- gorgeous plants, btw.

That being the case, my less than amateur conclusions are that my plant is not E. abyssinica (a given) and I'm back to wondering about the melted candle pics being v. monstrosus. I'll say this, credible pics of E. abyssinica to support any claims seem few and far between.

[agavemonger]

This is very true. E. abyssinica itself is still very rare and an exceptionally beautiful plant.

I will try to document E. abyssinica further in the coming months with photographs of the different species for comparison purposes. I believe Jeff Brusseau still has a plant that I planted there many years ago; I will look into this.

Unfortunately, many of the great nurseries that carried this species in the past are no longer around. Most garden plants are grossly misidentified. Does anyone know if the Euphorbia Reference Collection still exists?

The monger

[Tim Harvey]

Well, I asked Susan Carter about the status of E. abyssinica and E. acrurensis. Here's what she said:

"There are two photos in the Euphorbia Journal, the first, on page 51, is a typical, 8-angled branch of E. abyssinica except that its spines have not developed fully, i.e. they are very short. On page 52 is a photo of what purports to be E. acrurensis, a name I've put into synonymy under E. abyssinica in the lllustrated Handbook. This species was described by N.E. Brown as having 6-7 angled branches, which certainly does not match the specimen shown in the Journal, a spindly thing with only 4 branches. In my opinion this could be anything between a weedy spec. of E. abyssinica, or a weedy spec. of E. candelabrum, or a weedy spec. of E. ingens. Bear in mind that propagated material, usually of cultivated, rooted cuttings often taken many times over from any of the species in this particular group of trees, ends up, in my experience, as just such few-angled, weak specimens, having lost all recognisable features of the true species. The several species described by Brown and others that are included in synonymy in the account, were almost all described from single specimens, or from uncharacteristic cultivated material, and are known with certainty only from the type specimens themselves. The authors had only sparse material to work from, but were eager to keep up with all this fascinating stuff that was coming out of darkest Africa at the time. They had very little or no information as to what these plants really looked like, so it is not surprising that they saw only differences between their specimens and had no clue as to variation or even distribution of each 'species'. I am always very suspicious of cultivated material, it often changes drastically from what was collected in the wild."

Here's the original description of E. acrurensis:

http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/359865

T

[GermanStar]

Which leaves my plant as what, E. genericus v. fourribbedweakling? That's just sad, it's the fastest growing, most robust plant in my entire yard.

I'm certainly in no position to dispute Ms. Carter on any front, but her assertion that several cultivated species of Euphorbia devolve toward the same generic unrecognizable morph seems beyond peculiar, and certainly far beyond my experience on any level.

[agavemonger]

I couldn't agree more, German!

Your plant, and Guerrilla's plant, couldn't be seen any healthier anywhere in the world!

I would agree that plants in a glasshouse @ Kew gardens or other conservatories in Europe or elsewhere bear little resemblance to in situ material. But this may be more related to the poor growing conditions of the conservatory, with a climate far removed from Africa.

I would challenge anyone in the world to grow healthier Euphorbia stock than what we can produce here in Southern California or Arizona! You simply can not grow a plant in a greenhouse in England like we can here in the full sun outdoors.

The plant photographed in The Euphorbia Journal (The plant formerly known as E. acrurensis) is a well-grown plant that looks exactly like the plant we are discussing here. To say that it is a "weedy" example of any of the three Euphorbias mentioned (E. abyssinica, E. ingens, or E. candelabrum) is certainly ill-advised.

Now that I've gotten that spume out where does that leave us?

Apparently Susan Carter has not yet had the chance to see the photographs on this site. It is also very apparent, from her imput, that whoever assigned the plant in The Euphorbia Journal to E. acrurensis was simply wrong! So who put this photograph in The Euphorbia Journal, and how did it get to be named E. acrurensis? Certainly Susan could help to answer these questions as she was deeply involved with The Euphorbia Journal.

I am certain that, given a fair chance, such an accomplished botanist would immediately recognize the profound differences between German and Scott's plants and Euphorbia abyssinica (As well as any of the other afore-mentioned species!)

At this point, I am left with no alternative than to grow all of these species under identical conditions and photograph them together after they are totally full-sun hardened and subjected to similar and exactingly perfect growing conditions.

I am hoping this can go somewhere with Susan's imput, Tim; clearly it needs further analysis by her!

The monger

[Tim Harvey]

Monger, what utter crap. Please re-read the message.

When you have visited a plant in habitat or have grown material with any kind of provenance I shall listen to you. I'm sorry I tried to help.

T

[agavemonger]

I have re-read it several times.

I stand by my statements.

I have since calmed down somewhat and have tried to edit and reduce the offensive nature of my previous post.

It is my experience that cultivated plants, when properly grown, FAR EXCEED the quality of in situ plants. Plants that are well-grown are much easier to assign to species than poorly grown plants. They do not become weedy in cultivation under the care of an experienced nurseryman, but rather become even healthier and more robust and tend to develop even MORE ribs than described from the type collections from in situ plants. That is why I earlier stated that the number of ribs on a plant is not always indicative of the species and can be a very poor identification factor when considering immature plants. That being said, I have never, ever, ever seen more than five ribs on our mystery plant. Even "spindly" plants of Euphorbia abyssinica have many more. How many ribs are there on the spindly, under-developed, immature-form plant pictured under Euphorbia abyssinica in The Euphorbia Journal? Either I'm blind, or I can't count, or there are MORE THAN FIVE.

It has also been my experience that occasionaly, plants true to species that are proffered around in the market are very poorly grown, and virtually unrecognizable as to what they truly are. Trying to analyze species based on sickly material is a near impossibility. They change radically when they come under the care of a seasoned grower. Perhaps this is what Susan is alluding to. However, I disagree with the "spindly" comment and re-state that the photograph in The Euphorbia Journal under E. acrurensis is a reasonably well-grown representative of the mystery plant.

There is absolutely no chance that the plant formerly known as E. acrurensis in The Euphorbia Journal photograph could EVER be assigned to E. ingens, E. abyssinica, E. candelabra, E. ammak, or E. trigona.

Anyone who claims otherwise is simply not looking closely at the species.

Well-grown plants of the above five species, situated in full-sun situations, under an exacting fertilizer regimen, couldn't be more different from each other and are as recognizable as seperate species as species can get.

The plant formerly known as E.acrurensis is EVEN MORE different than the others.

I am certain that Susan Carter would see the same thing I see when looking at these plants placed together.

That still leaves us with the mystery as to what this plant is. It is clearly unidentified, and not assignable to any of the discussed species.

I am sorry about my tirade, but I vehemently resent these personal attacks. I, also, am just trying to help...

And I will continue this post when I have assembled some larger, well-grown specimens to back me up that are clearly photographed as to their differences...

The monger

[Tim Harvey]

1) What part of 'described from cultivated material' don't you understand?

2) You have never seen any of these plants in habitat, yet you question how a plant can be a weedy example of something you never seen - how ridiculous!

3) E. acrurensis was described as having 7(+) ribs. You can not even be bothered to read the protolog! Did Brown get the description wrong?

4) You have no provenance for any of the material you consider to be E. acrurensis.

In summary, the mystery plant can not be E. acrurensis. Furthermore, E. acrurensis was a redescription of E. abyssinica.

I'm sorry if pointing out irrational arguments and glaring errors seem like personal attacks, but those are the facts.

T

[agavemonger]

I am very sorry to all you folks out there that this thread has devolved into personal attacks.

Certainly this was never my intention.

I am going to leave this thread alone for now.

In the future, I hope my posts are less controversial.

If not, perhaps I will join the many other professionals out there who warned me to confine my interests on this sight to that of a lurker.

With all the best intentions...

The Monger

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by Tim Harvey

1) What part of 'described from cultivated material' don't you understand?

2) You have never seen any of these plants in habitat, yet you question how a plant can be a weedy example of something you never seen - how ridiculous!

3) E. acrurensis was described as having 7(+) ribs. You can not even be bothered to read the protolog! Did Brown get the description wrong?

4) You have no provenance for any of the material you consider to be E. acrurensis.

In summary, the mystery plant can not be E. acrurensis. Furthermore, E. acrurensis was a redescription of E. abyssinica.

I'm sorry if pointing out irrational arguments and glaring errors seem like personal attacks, but those are the facts.

T

You know, you and monger are fighting two different fights. Your primary concern is establishing E. acrurensis as a valid synonym of E. abyssinica, which you have certainly done to my satisfaction. Monger, OTOH, is more focused on identifying my plant, a plant he has a great deal of personal experience with. All he said was that my plant is called A. acrurensis in the trade (thus a trade name). He also fervently stated that my plant is not E. abyssinica. From my uneducated perspective, you're both right, but the identity of my plant, the subject of this thread, remains undiscovered. I have a hard time accepting Ms. Carter's assertion that several cultivated species of Euphorbia devolve toward the same generic unrecognizable morph. OTOH, I understand that her reference was to a picture in a book, and not the plant in my yard.

[Allen Repashy]

Well,

I have actually enjoyed reading you guys going back and forth and trying to make your points. It difficult to decide from reading typewritten words, whether they are written in anger, or in good fun. The fact that so much can be brought to light on such a small subject, and that you guys have gone to the lengths to bring in opinions of outside experts is commendable.

Just keep your panties from bunching up too much when you get a conflicting opinion, and everything will be just fine ... I learn a lot from peoples debates on here, so lets just make an effort to stay civilized and sometimes, agree to disagree.
Allen

[guerrilla gardener]

I agree with GermanStar - it seems like Tim and Monger are both right in a way.

I'm am only a layperson with no formal education in botany so I rely on those that are experts in these matters. In doing so I used the euphorbia journals to ID the plant for GermanStar and that's where I got the name.

No disrespect intended Tim, BUT Susan Carter Homes is part of team that put those books together. They show 2 distinct, different plants that are not listed as synonyms of the same plant. There is only one listing for E. acrurensis in all 10 books and it is to the picture in book 1 page 51. With no reference to it being a synonym of any other plant. So I feel they/she deserve some of the credit (in my case - using only their books - all the credit) if there is confusion as to whether they are the same or completely different plants.

Also, name and classifications of plants are changing all the time.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here or to cause any ill feeling.

[amanzed]

I learn a lot from these discussions.

I'm struck more and more that one major source of disagreement is the basic philosophy behind our naming system. As things stand, the same system is pressed into service for two related but different fields: botanical science and the horticultural trade. Even allowing for the ways taxonomy is specialized for horticulture (such as cultivar names), these fields need (and want) different things from a naming system.

Name changes which make perfect sense from the standpoint of biology (new genetic tools... improved models of evolution... ) are often noxious -- or at best useless -- to the horticulturalist. Let alone the amateur or hobbyist.

And that leaves aside disagreements within these fields. (Wait, you mean all scientists don't agree?)

I realize xeric botany and horticulture overlap. (Tell me, did they once overlap even more, when field collection was more widespread?) But the magnetic poles of advancement in these fields -- they rightly pull in different directions.

That's perfectly understandable. And it allows me to observe Lumper v. Splitter debates without resorting to the dark questioning of scientists' motives I sometimes overhear at Cactus and Succulent club meetings.

--dean

[Stan]

Here's mine in the SF bay area,6 sided,black thorned and grew like a totem pole then branched very high. What do you think? Sorry about the spider webs,and the large leafed plant is Wigandia urens,quite xeric. I water it when I remember..

[Boo Hollow]

Also, name and classifications of plants are changing all the time.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here or to cause any ill feeling.[/quote]

You are right in that Volume 1 is from 1983, was probably finished from the writing standpoint in 1982 - so it is nearly 30 years old and lots of name changes since then. I wonder is Susan's New Succulent Spiny Euphorbias from East Africa publication makes reference to any of the name changes, it was published in 1994. Does anyone have the original citing reference for each plant? I believe Tim made reference to it in one of his tags. What do the herbarium species look like?

The comment that cultivated plants lose their morphological similarity with wild plants is very valid in some instances. The one item that is missing as well is that there is a bunch of hybridized plants on the market with invalid names or dubious origins. Euphorbias were even listed in Harry Johnson's early 1939 catalogue for sale and in earlier catalogues as African Cactus. So the naming of the shrew begins.

[Tim Harvey]

Dean,

There are two separate sets of rules for naming naturally occuring species and cultivars.

ICBN - for species
ICNCP - for cultivars (including named selections from wild populations and hybrids)


I'm not sure what the two different things that horticulture and botany need are?

T

Originally Posted by amanzed

I learn a lot from these discussions.

I'm struck more and more that one major source of disagreement is the basic philosophy behind our naming system. As things stand, the same system is pressed into service for two related but different fields: botanical science and the horticultural trade. Even allowing for the ways taxonomy is specialized for horticulture (such as cultivar names), these fields need (and want) different things from a naming system.

--dean

[amanzed]

Hi Tim,

I had in mind examples like this:

1. Two plant types, call them Planta speciosa and Planta mirabilis, are easily distinguished in habitat and in cultivation. Say their habitats are also separated geographically. They are sold under separate names for years. Say P. mirabilis is more rare, beautiful, desirable, and difficult to propagate (it also has long, blue hair).
2. At some point, it's discovered that P. speciosa and P. mirabilis are biologically too similar to warrant species or subspecies distinction, so they are lumped together.
3. Because of this new synonymy, P. speciosa is sold as P. mirabilis, or they are crossed because, "it's the same plant", and the offspring are sold as P. mirabilis (which was described first, in 1791).

I guess I'm saying that horticulturalists (I gather) or hobbyists are motivated to distinguish based on beauty, growth habit, and other morphological or cultural differences, even if the subpopulations are not (yet) named cultivars. But the biological rationale for doing so does not always stand the test of time.

Maybe the problem is that taxonomy is pressed to perform tasks for which it is not well suited. Maybe the answer is to to keep (and supply) more information about provenance. Tim, you've called for this, and it would certainly solve the hypothetical problem of P. speciosa versus mirabilis.

The Linnaean binomial is so convenient that it's asked to do an awful lot of heavy lifting.

--dean

[GermanStar]

^ Real life example: Agave angustifolia / A. pacifica (invalid), synonyms that describe two very different looking plants. Because of those differences, A. pacifica survives to this day as a trade name.

[Stan]

As far as changes in the same plant just based on wild grown,ornamental grown,greenhouse..you consider Epigenetics plays in ? It must run wild in the plant world.