aworthia evisited Bruce BayerHaworthia Revisited ruce Bayer's previous book on Haw.rthia, the New Hawarthia Handbook, has been out of print for many years. Growers of these popular plants have long been clamouring for a new work on the Genus. It has now arrived and will be welcomed. by growers, amateur botanists and scientists alike. The book isthe culmination of more than 30 years of field and research work by Bruce Bayer. It is a complete revision of the Genus and introduces 6 new species and 27 new varieties. It is lavishly illustrated with photographs of plants in habitat ‘n cultivation and the landscapes of the habitats, Information on cultivation and the plant habitats 's also included. The distribution of the Genus is shown on 61 maps, ‘This long awaited book is a must for all those who are interested in succulents and particularly in Haworthia. Front Cover he reproduction of the painting by Gerhard Marx of Haworthia bayer is of a plant growing near Willowmore. Gerhard is well known for his skill in capturing the fascinating and delicate features of these intriguing plants. Not only is he a skilful artist but also has an extensive knowledge of the Genus Haworthia. His ability to depict the plants arises from his knowledge of the Genus in habitat as well as his great skill in cultivating these plants,aworthia evisited A Revision of the GenusThe production of this book was made possible by the generous support of FIRST NATIONAL BANK W welcome the opportunity to be involved with the publica- tion of this new book on the Genus Haworthia, We are also particularly pleased to be in a position to assist Umdaus Press with the valuable work which t rrying out in the publication of botanical books. It is a fact that works such as these are only published now-a-days largely as a result of altruism on the part of ‘enthusiastic individuals. Umdaus Press are to be congratulated on the «quality ofall their publications and I hope that they will continue with their work in this feld, thus ensuring the preservation of the species as well as creating much needed archives for the future. Steve Bales Group Ant Custodian First National Bank, Johannesburg, May 1999aworthia evisited A Revision of the GenusUMDAUS PRESS PO. BOX 11059 0028 HATFIELD. SOUTH AFRICA REGISTRATION NO. 94/06389/07 FIRST PUBLISHED 1999 COPYRIGHT® BRUCE BAYER 1999 EDITED BY FRANCOIS STEFFENS. DESIGN BY TERSIA VAN RENSEN PHOTOGRAPHY BY J.D. VENTER COVER PAINTING AND ILLUSTRATION BY J.G. MARX, REPRODUCTION BY PRISM GRAPHIX, PRETORIA PRINTED BY TIEN WAH PRESS (PTE) LTD, SINGAPORE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED, STORED IN A RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OR TRANSMITTED, IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC, MECHANICAL, PHOTOCOPYING, RECORDING OR OTHERWISE, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHERS ISBN 1-919766-06-5 (SPONSORS EDITION) ISBN 1-919766-07-3 (COLLECTORS EDITION) ISBN 1-919766-08-1 (STANDARD EDITION)This book is dedicated to my friends Kobus and Mirna Peter Steven WinnieMap of South Africa a ee ‘Map of South Africa, The distribution mags forthe species are subsections ofthis map.Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Introduction to The Haworthia Handbook ~ 1976 Version Introduction to The new Haworthia Handbook ~ 1982 Version Introduction to Haworthia Revisited = 1909 Version Historical sketch Collectors and contributors Cuhivation, propagation and plant health The gentus and species concept Synopsis of taxonomic changes Key to the subgenera A. The subgenus Haworthia 1. Haworthia angustifolia 11 var, angustifolia 12 var altissima 13 var. baylissii 1.4 var, pauctflia 2. Haworthia arachnoidea 2.1 var. arachnoidea 2.2 var. aranea 2.3 var, namaquensis 2.4 var nigricans 2.5 var. scabrispina 2.6 var setata 27 vat. xiphiophylla Contents 23 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 30 30 31 32 34 36 3. Haworthia anstata 4. Haworthia bayer 5. Haworthia blackburmiae 5.1 var. blackburniae 5.2 var. derustensis 5.3 vat graminifolia 6. Haworthia bolusii 6.1 var. bolusit 62 var blackbeandiana 7. Haworthia chloracantha 7. var. chloracantha 7.2 var. denticulifera 7.3 var. subglauca 8, Haworthia cooperi 8.1 var. cooperi 82 var dielsiana 8.3 var. gononiana 84 var leightonit 85 var pilifera 86 var. truncata 87 var. venusta 9. Haworthia cymbiformis 9.1 var. cymbiformis. . 9.2 var, incurvula 9.3 var. obtusa 94 var. ramosa 9.5 var. reddit... 9.6 var. setulifera 9.7 var. transiens 10. Haworthia decipiens 10.1 var. decipiens 10.2 var cyanea 10.3 var minor 10.4 var. pringlei 37 38n na 2 3 4 2 1a 122 123 1B. Ba 132 B3 B+ 135 14 14a 142 143, ca 15 15.1 152 15.3 4 16. V7, wa 2 18, 18.1 182 183, 18.4 18.5 Haworthia emelyae var. emely.ce var. comptoniana var major var, multifolia Haworthia floribunda var. floribunda var demiata var. major Haworthia gracilis var, gracilis var. isabeiae var, tenera var, picturata var. viridis Haworthia heidelbergensis var. heidelbergensis var. scabra var. toonensis Haworthia herbacea . var: herbacea var. flaccida var lupula var. paynei Haworthia lockwoodii Haworthia maculata var. maculata var intermedia Haworthia magnifica var. magnifica var. acuminata ‘var. atrofusca var. dekena var. splendens or 68 8 70 7 R 72 B "4 75 76 7 78 79 81 82 82 83 85 86 86 87 88. 80 90. 91 1 2 94 94 95 96 Conteris 19 19.1 19.2 193 20. 20.1 20.2 203 204 20.5 2 21a 212 213 24 215 216 217 218 22. 2A 222 23, 23 232 233 234 235 24 241 242 25, 25 252 253 Haworthia maraisii var, maraisit var, meiringi var, notabilis. Haworthia marumiana var marumiana var. archert var, batesiana var. dimorpha var. viridis Haworthia mirabilis var mirabilis var badia var. beukmannit var calearea var consanguinea var, paradaxa var, sublineata var, iebneriana Haworthia monticola var, monticola var, asemat Haworthia mucronata var, mucronata 1F habdomadis var inconfluens var, marrisiae var ryerafilana Haworthia mutica var. mutica var nigra Haworthia nortier var, nortiert var. globosiflora var. pehlemanniae26. 2. 28, 28.1 282 29, 29.1 292 30. 30.1 302 31 31.1 312 313 34 32 33 34 35 36.1 36.2 7 37.1 37.2 373 Haworthia outenigquensis Haworthia parksiana Haworthia pubescens var. pubescens var. livida Haworthia pulchella var. pulchella var globifera Haworthia pygmaca var pygmaet var argenteo-maculosa Haworthia reticulata var, reticulata var, attenuata var hurling var, subregularts Haworthia retusa Haworthia semiviva Haworthia serrata Haworthia springboiwlakensis Haworthia truncata var. truncata var. maughanit Haworthia turgida var. turgida var. fongibracteata var, suberecta 130 132 133 4 134 135 135 136 137 18. 138 139 40 - 140 140 141 142 145 147 148, 149. 150 151 192 133 154 156 Contents 38. Haworthia vanegata 38.1 var variegata 38.2. var hemierypta 38.3. var, modesta 38.4 var petrphila 39. Haworthia vloit 40. Haworthia wittebergensis 41. Haworthia zantneriana 411 var gantneriana 41.2. var. minor B. The subgenus Hexangularis 42. Haworthia attenuata 42.1 var. allenuata 42.2. var. radula 43, Haworthia bruynsit 44, Haworthia coarctata 44.1 var coaretata 44.1.1 forma greentt 44.2 var. adeaidensis 44.3 var cenuls 45. Haworthia fasciata 46. Haworthia glabrata 47. Haworthia glauca 47.1 var. glauca 47.2 var herrei 48. Haworthia koelmaniorum 48.1 var. koelmanionim 48.2. var. memuriryi 187 nit 158 159 159 160 162 163 lot lot 165 165 166 16749, Haworthia limifolia 49.1. var. limifotia 49.2 var. gigantea 49.3. var. ubomboensis 50. Haworthia longiana 51. Haworthia nigra 51.1 var nigra 51.2. var. diversifolia 52. Haworthia pungens 53. Haworthia reinwardti 53.1. var reinwardti 53.1.1 forma chalumnensis 53.1.2 forma kafirdrftensis 53.1.3 forma olivacea 53.1.4 forma zebrina 53.2. vat. brevicula 54. Haworthia scabra 54.1 var scabra é 54.2 var. lateganiae . 54.3. var. morrisiae 54.4 var. starkiana 55. Haworthia sordida 4 55.1. var, sordida + ‘ 55.2 var, lavranii 56. Haworthia venasa 56.1. subsp, venosa 56.2. subsp. granulata 56.3. subsp. tessellata 56.4 subsp. woolleyi 57. Haworthia viscosa 182 183 183 183 184 186 187 187 188 189 190 191 191 192 192 192 193 194 195 = 195, 197 - 198, 198 199 200 201 202 202 204 205 ‘Conients C. The subgenus Robustipedunculares 58. Haworthia kingiana 59, Haworthia marginata 60, Haworthia minima 60.1 var. minima... 60.2. var. poellnitziana 61, Haworthia pumila Excluded names Landscape and Habitat Bibliography Index to botanical names Subscribers 207 207 209 210 212 213 24 217 20 230 236 48Foreword 10 1977 DrDR Hunt, formerly of Kew Gardens, London, wrote in the Cactus and Succulent Journal of Great Britain that M.B. Bayer “has emerged in recent years asthe leading researcher on Haworthia”. Since the publication of the Ha- wworthia Handbook, now a rare item of Africana, many more books and a vast number of articles have been written on Haworthia, with the popular journal Haworthiad leading much discussion on issues of topical interest. Twenty years later itis without exaggeration to say that Bayer remains the leading expert on Haworthia, His experience of these plants inthe field and in cultivation is without parallel and itis con- sequently a great privilege for me to introduce his new and revised classification of Haworthia. The eighteen years that have elapsed since the New Hawor- thia Handbook appeared has been a period of unprecedent- ed botanical exploration of southern Africa, with more and more remote areas becoming accessible and being investi- gated. Succulents have received their fair share of the at- tention, Bayer’ previous two hooks greatly stirmulated interest in Haworthia among collectors. To some extent this has caused a “Haworthia-craze" on a smaller but similar scale 10 the “Aloe-craze” brought on in this country by the monu ‘mental works on Aloe by G.wW. Reynolds. In some cases, this had a very negative impact om plants in the wild but it has also had the effect of stimulating a new ethic of propagation from small numbers of field-collected plants. The present book will keep this interest alive. With the vastly increased success of cultivation and propagation of succulents it is hoped that the destructive collecting of large numbers of plants from their natural habitat is.a thing of the past. It is ry hope that this book will stimulate competent growers to new pinnacles of achievement on propagating Haworth rather than renewed efforts at pillaging their natural habitats, The great inctease in enthusiasm for Haworthia among col- lectots has brought with it plenty of controversy over names There is now a plethora of opinions, often strongly and not always wisely held, nor necessarily based on observable facts. Bayer has steadfastly maintained that species must be related to continuity in characters and continuity in distri- ‘bution of populations in the field and that any other arbi trary selection of individual plants or populations for recog- nition as species, without placing them properly in their geographical context, is worthless. This rational view enabled hhim to reduce the “species” from about 150 to 68 in 1976, Since then, the steadily accurnulating body of knowledge of these plants in the field has resulted in the reduction of the number of species 10 61 in this new book, inchiding 6 new species. It is particularly noteworthy that it has been possi ble to fit most of the newer collections into the scheme first proposed in 1976. In the new book he sets out to jus- tify the changes made by presenting a much increased pho- tographic record of each taxon and basing his conclusions, con material from the now reasonably extensive herbarium record. In addition he has maintained many names at vari- etal rank so that unusual populations are distinguished tax- onomically for the use of the enthusiast, My own experience of these plants in the wild has clearly demonstrated how com- plex the relationships between and within the different species are Bruce Bayer is to be applauded for creating some order in this maze of complexity and crystallizing out of this @ fur- ther, far more detailed and much expanded account of the genus. This should once more set the standards for the ‘group for many years to come, and also provide plenty of food for thought for those who take the trouble to read care- fully what he has written Dr PY. Bruyns Mowbray Cape TownPreface this book is written for my friends and at thetr instiga- tion, It is also for those who genuinely like these fasci- nating plants. | have been extremely fortunate to have been able to spend so much time in the field, and stil there is so ‘much to find and see. Despite this, Iam confident that this book presents a very sound hypothesis and it contains ‘many lesser and secondary postulates. [tis nested within a very wide experience and knowledge of other groups of or- _ganisms. The book rests comfortably on the 1978 and 1982 works, and is a very sound foundation for further con- struction, It is based ona firrn definition of what a ‘species? is, rather than on a personal construct. Discussion and comment on the issu of the names Havsorthia pumila and H, margaritjera could probably form a book in its own night and I could quote a number of other examples too. At the time Scott (and Dr L. A. Codd) worked out typ- ification and application of the name H. pumila, 1 said 1 thought they were correct, possibly for the wrong reason The obvious thing to do seems to me to opt for conserva- tion of the name. It was clear to me at the time that Linnaeus had used the name Aloe pumila to cover five different ele- ments, and [think there should be an Haworthia pumila. By choosing and citing Commelin’ figure 10 to represent his concept of Aloe pumila, Burman (1768) implicity typified Aloe pumila. Haworth (1804) selected Boerhaave’ figure 131 to represent Aloe pumita and, in so doing followed Aiton (1781), who chose the same illustration to represent his Ale arachnoidea var. pumila. Aiton had created a new illegitimate name Aloe pumila and he was followed by Haworth and then by Duval. Scott (1985) recognised Haworthia pumila (L.) Duval (with the support of Codd) ahead of the then fash- ionable H. margartfera (L.) Haw. Unfortunately Scott over- looked Burman and implicitly used the Aition illegitimate pumila (either asa new name or a Linnaean one). The fact thas also been overlooked that H. margartfera (L.) Haw: is based on a Bradley figure which is indisputably H. minima Thad intended to use the name H. maxima (Hay) Duval as the first and indisputable reference to a species everybody knows by apparently the wrong name. At this very late stage in writing the preface, I have chosen to revert to Scott and to Burman, This is to use the name H. pumila (L.) Bayer asa new combination to equate Hi. pumila (L.) Duval sensu Scott. I believe someone has decreed the Linnaean varieties, to be typified in some fashion. It is more than probable that this someone is no less fallible than several authorities who have gone before, have made similar mistakes, and also, stand correction, came to write about Haworthia because of my fascination with plants and because I saw a real deficiency there in the available literature, Lave concern that my own honesty, and the accompanying difference and reservation in my writing, will not be perceived and respecied by readers and other writers. Socrates wrote ~The living word of knowledge has, soul of which the written word is no more than an image’ King Thamus used the words ‘only a semblance of the truth’. Ihave tried my best to come as close to the truth as Tcan, and in doing this try to observe a fundamental principle of science Bruce BayerAcknowledgements ‘or a work of this kind, herbarium record isan absolute foundation and necessity. The work can be no better tan the evidence upon which itis built, tested and tried. No opin- ion ina work of this kind really carries weight unless the ev- idence can be examined and corroborated. Therefore | owe everything to the institutions and custodians whose work it is to curate botanical specimens and literature. These are the National Herbarium: Pretoria (PRE), the Compton Herbarium (NBG) at Kirstenbosch, and the Bolus Herbari- uum (BOL), University of Cape Town: Department of Botany and staff. These are people who care about what they do and who set high standards. [am grateful for their tolerance and patience, ‘Acknowledgement is also made to these who have con- tuibuted material and assisted me in the collection process, including particularly Dr PV. Bruyns and Mr J.D. Venter. Many others have assisted in one way and another and I am deeply grateful, in respect of material contribution or other- ‘wise, to even the least of these This work and its completion owe a great deal to: 1. the eternal cheerful optimism and friendship of Mrs \W Schwegmann of Sheilam Nursery, Robertson; 2. the resolute and steadfast encouragement and support of Kobus (.D.) Venter, his integrity, and his interest in Haworthia; 3. Steven Hammer for his interest and collaboration, and for the editing which he did on the manuscript; 4. Peter Bruyns for editing and correcting the text; 5. the publisher, Umdaus Press, and specifically Frangois Steflens for his meticulous editing and Kotie Retief for his patient co-ordination; 6. my wife Daphne, and our children, who have managed to endure and even come to share some of my absorp- tion in another world, without asking anything in return Readers should please note that the plants on the photo- graphs are denoted by JDV accession numbers, Some ofthese plants are from collections made by other collectors. These inchide’ Dr WB. Reddi, Dr PY, Bruyns, J.G. Marx, C. Marais, C. Rowe, V. de Vries, EJ. van Jaarsveld, J. Louw, J. Vlok, C. Burgers, T. Visser, C. McDowell, H. Gie, J. Bouwer, P Fourie, C. Grobbelaar, J. Meyer, G. Lombard, D. & T. Rossouw, D. Tribble, R. Kent, P Bosch, E. Dunne, M. Parisi D. Cumming, D. de Kok, E. Aslander, R. Kratz and E. Esterhuizen. Their cooperation and enthusiasm is grea ly appreciated. The contributions of Sheila Nursery, the Karoo Botanic Garden and Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens are also acknowledged Herbarium specimens ate cited according to the system of Edwards and Leistner (PRE), and mapped to the centre points of the quarter-degree blocks, except in a few cases ‘where the centre point represented the wrong aspect or the ‘wrong distance between collection pointsIntroduction to The Haworthia Handbook — 1976 Version nierest in Haworthia has been very largely an amateur cone, and this interesting succulent genus has a large fol- lowing among the ranks of collectors. Names are critical to collectors as they are indeed to any attempt to observe and record information concerning the plants. There is an ex- tensive literature to Haworthia and over 400 different names have been used at one time or another to refer to species, varieties ete. The present publication is an attempt to review the history and literature of the genus and present a list of ‘names which will be of practical value in dealing with it. This is by no means a definitive work and the author does not pretend that itis anything but a simplistic view of a com- plex situation, However, itis based on an extensive know!- edge of the plants in the field derived from the records compiled by G.G. Smith and from the author’s personal ex- perience. The work was in fact made possible largely by the systematic and dedicated contribution made by G.G. Smith, The illustrations are all from photographs taken by the au- thor of living plants mostly from the original type localities where these are known. In many cases mote than one photograph is required to ad- equately illustrate a species and even colour photography ‘cannot adequately demonstrate differences between species, The illustrations thus do not reflect the real diversity in the ‘genus, and similarly the checklist does not express this di- versity adequately either. Apart from the difficulties in ap- plying the ranks of subspecies, variety and forma consistently, there are several populations known to the author which car not be confidently inchided in any given species and thus could merit independent species status, The rank of forma has no particular significance other than to express a par- ticular form im a species where there may in any case be a high degree of variabihty: Many of the names tejected in this, work could easily be resuscitated at this level, An attempt has been made to use varietal rank to denote populations with some geographically associated differences, and sub- species where such a distinction is greater. ‘The keys to the species must be regarded as approximate only. particularly in the subgenus Haworthia where many of the couplets are indeed weak. This is particularly true towards the end of the key The nature of the available superficial char= acters and their vanabilty make it virtually ampossible to con- struct any infallible key The nuances of form, colour and ar= ‘mature and changes brought about hy differences in growing, conditions preclude an accurate and really worthwhile key. It is believed that the photographs will serve a better pur- pose than the possibly misleading keys, No attempt has been made to divide the subgenera into sections for much the same reason. The subgenera Hexangulares and Robustipendunc Lares are small enough to handle without sections, and in the case of the former the natural divisions may fragment it ex- cessively: In the subgenus Haworthia there are several small, natural sections leaving a residue of irreconcilable species. ‘A proper understanding of the genus Haworthia will have to be based on anatomical and ecological grounds, and this ac- count is presented in the knowledge that a more objective technical account is desirable. In all, 68 species are recog. nized together with 47 subspecies, varieties and forms. Introduction to The new Haworthia Handbook — 1982 Version he original title of the Haworthia Handbook should per haps have read ‘Illustrated Index of Haworthia names’ However, the Handivoit was intended to serve a specific pur- pose in bringing all the names and literature of previous years together. The purpose of the second edition is to present an up-to-date version with necessary corrections and al ations in a new format. [tis based on the G.G. Smith col- lection at the East London Museum acquired on loan and now housed in the Compton Herbarium at Kirstenbosch, Dr M. Courtenay-[atimer was instrumental in obtaining, quite considerable quantity of papers, drawings and photographs from G.G, Smiths estate, The collation of all this informa- tion and herbarium records has provided an ideal oppor- tunity to review species concepis in Haworthia, and estab- lish where problems exist. This was followed by many field ‘excursions and new collections, which have all tried and test- ced the author’ application of names, C.L, Scott has published several further papers which have contributed some useful ‘ideas and called for further explanation. Notable here is the application ofthe older names H. pumila and H. altlinea. Thelatter name is not accepted in this work, but the former is. A further consequence of Scott's work is that the name tessellata is resurrected in the place of recurva, but still as a subspecies of H. venosa Recent experience and observation have not led to any real solutions to the problem of recognizing species in Haworthia, They mostly tend to confirm the views expressed in the first edition, in the chapter on genus and species con- cepts. This includes the view tha species intergrade across {geographic barriers and vary actoss ecological barriers. Very few of the more widely distributed species can as yet be clear- ly circumscribed to establish infallible identifications. For example, H. cooperi clearly intergrades with H. bolusit H. bolusit has smal forms which are to all intents and pur- ‘poses similar to H. aranea. The small forms of H. bolusi lead, ‘with litte imagination, to H. translucens subsp. tenera. Sim- ilarly H. bolusit apparently transforms into H. translucens in the mountains near the southern boundary of its distri bution range. Ichhas long been clear that a taxonomic solution may be pos- sible for species together in one locality, and wrong in an- other. Thus H. herbacea and H. reticulata grow together and hybridize north-west of Worcester, but south-west of Robert- son there are populations which cannot confidently be ascribed to one or the ather species. Similarly this complex of H.reticulata*herbacea intergrades into H. turgida, The in tergradation unfortunately is not through a continuous series of plants, but leaps across from isolated population to isolated population, creating an irregular pattern cllfficult to unravel into separate species The relationship between H. turgida and H. retusa is possi- bly more complex than the above, and is pethaps a contest of small/proliferous versus large/Solitary plants. In other species too, there is variation coupled with distribution, and variation coupled with habitat. in an area of broken terrain, and diverse geology this will be aggravated, particularly in low rainfall areas and on skeletal rocky soils. In some cases this s easily demonstrated in the field, e.g, H. turgida north, of Heidelberg, H. habdomadis west of Ladismith, H. bolusit east of Jansenville, H. cooperi at Chalumna and at Kayser’ Beach. In other cases the presence of other species, or more. dramatic differences, confuses the issue. H. decipiens, 1H. bolusit, H. habdomadis, H. cymbiformis and H. cooperi all, Giffuse into the mountains of the Baviaanskloof, and the Groot and Klein Winterhoek, merging with H.translucens and presenting something of a nightmare, Dramatic vegetative Aifferences occur in the case of H. starkiana and H. scabra, which are both closely related and practically sympatric; 1H, marginata and H. pumila occur practically sympatrically as do glabrous and hairy forms of H. translucens subsp. tenera. H, radula and H. attenuata grow mixed together and ‘may in fact be only forms of one species. H. magnifica can sometimes be confused with H. retusa, which may bea true or false situation, ie., there may be plants or populations ‘which really are intermediate and neither one nor the other species. The same applies to H. magnifica and H. mirabilis, Field hybridization is definitely not the serious problem it has been made out to be. The mumber of known field really minimal and the author knows only the HL. pumila ——-X-_Astroloba muricata (© Astroworthia bicarinata) HL pumila XH. marginata H. minima XH. marginata Hotwgida XH flortbunda HL. graminifolia XH. arachnoidea Hherbacea XH reticulata Hcymbiformis XH. angustifolia H.scabra XH viscosa H viscosa XH longlana Htmumcata XH arachnotdea There are, of course, a number of difficulties such as H. fasciata forma browniana, H. glauca var. herrei forma armstrongi and H. angustifolia forma baylissii, which may pos- sibly be the consequence of hybridization, The low incidence of hybridization isa situation to be expected in a relatively young genus, as it would be difficult in the first place for species to arise until some form of isolation becomes en- trenched. Hybridization is more of a secondary mechanism operating where established species meet. In Haworthia there is definitely no sound basis on which problems of variability and identification in the field can be attributed 10 hybridization, This second edition, like the first, makes no attempt to meet the need ofthe collector in covering all those odd names, which have arisen over the years. Many clonotypes of species described by Von Poellnitz, Uitewaal, Resende and Smith are sill cherished in collections. There are also many plants beat- ing names by Haworth, Salm-Dyck and Baker which may ‘even be reasonably accurately identified. Descriptions and, illustrations are available in the literature and wait for an- other enthusiast to collate and present In this revised addition, three new species replace three species which cannot be further upheld, and there are sev- cral changes in the lesser ranks. Altogether 68 species are again recognized, with 47 subspecies, varieties and forms ‘These species are here grouped into 3 subgenera where they are arranged alphabetically and not in any phylogenetic, order.Introduction to Haworthia Revisited — 1999 Version the Handbook was first published in 1976 and revised in 1982, Itniow seems timely to revise the work again, es- pecially in view of the very extensive interest in Haworthia, and all the collecting which has been done since then. This has ed to new perceptions, and the object will be to wy and, synthesize these in a consistent way into a new arrangement Ic appears to me that much of the new material and evidence substantiate the robust nature ofthe old Handbook treatment, although many of the new finds cannot be accommodated comfortably in the existing nomenclatural framework, ‘The Handbook was originally writen to ‘present alist of names which will be of practical value in dealing with it’ (.e., ‘communication ~ the history, literature and cultivation of the genus). There were a number of very substantial differ- ceces between my treatment and that of Col. C.L. Seott and this is an honest attempt at reconciliation. Generally these differences will be treated in the text as they arise and there is no associated intention to be beitiing in the process of doing this. Some differences are due purely to the faet that my work did not address some tricky nomenclatural prob- lems. In some cases they are real differences of opinion and perception, and in others there does not seem to be any good explanation for gross divergence of view other than fntran- sigence on both sides. Hhope that readers will appreciate that their own perceptions as expressed in multifarious different journals, newsletters, round robins, ete. are very often alsa far removed from truth. These expressions are probably driven by the same misguided feelings and fervour common to us all I ceriainly erred in not recognizing the differences between the Uniondale Haworthia bayer and the westerly H. emelyae. | was aware of difference in flowering time but was so pre- occupied in trying to establish H. emelyae as a valid entity (as opposed to ‘picta'and ‘correcta which also took account ‘of H.compioniana that {just missed the obvious. The debate siill continues, which goes to show that a lot of effort is wast ed in unresolved conflict, while the need for stable reference points comes second, I did come to see that there were two species present at the locality for H. comptoniana near Georgida, and David Cumming also astutely intimated that there were two species, There are a number of other instances where I really was uncertain about what path to take, and the reasons will, hope, become clearer on close reading of the chapter on species concepts — and perhaps in the main text also I made a number of other ertors too, and these are much, more obvious in hindsight. particular case is with regard to H. dekenahii G.G.Sm. and H. argenteo-maculosa G.G.Sm. In reducing them first to synonymy and then to varietal rank, unnecessarily confounded a real problem. As pointed out above, the distinction between H, retusa and H. mag problematic, and the two varieties mentioned are in the trouble zone, Subsequent to the Handbook | also may have generated some problems by guessing at the identity of some troublesome finds. When I worked on Haworthia there were few fellow collec tors, Much of my effort was directed at establishing what hal in fact been collecied and where. I was, and still am, more comfortable with generalizing than with specifying. 1 was, sometimes quite comfortable with tentatively identifying a collection and adding a locality to indicate that I was real ly uncertain e.g, H. emelyae var. montana’ Swartberg Mts, ‘which is now H. vioki. Similarly, quite a few of my collec- tions were identified with a two-way arrow because I could tnot be sure to which of two species the plants could belong, Since then the quality and extent of collecting has indeed ‘been remarkable, although itis probably only PV. Bruyns who hhas followed the proper route of herbarium documentation, J.D. Venter is the next best properly documented collection which, while frequently lacking the formality ofthe herbar- ium record (for which lack of herbarium space is the main reason) will at least ensure that information is preserved for posterity. These additional collections have helped a great eal in clarifying some points. However, i appears to me that identification is always going to be a problem in Haworthia, and a sad truth is that a ‘workable key for Haworthia is an unattainable ideal, Tax- ‘onomy of succulent plants is often criticized and the ama- teurs who indulge are scorned for their efforts. However, there are probably many great taxonomic works by revered botanists which never receive a fraction of the critical ex- amination that the popular genera do. There has been a large degree of excessive, illegal, and dis- concertingly self-interested collecting which has made and will make no contribution to the scientific and herbarium record. Whatever growers and collectors have to say about nomenclature and much of the necessity and nonsense that ‘goes with it, this is what provides the reference framework, for all their communication Thave (o pretend to have some knowledge of taxonomy and deep insights into genetics and speciation. These I do not,have. My understanding is based on my life experience and is limited by my intellect, so it would be naive to think that everyone will agree with my perceptions. It has been dis- appointing to me that people better equipped than myself have often not come nearly up to my expectations, There seem to be other factors than training, education and intellect which determine the arrival at mutual and then good un- derstanding and truth. Many decisions are by the nature of, things subjective. It takes some effort to surtender one’s ‘own opinions, especially when no good reason appears to substantiate the alternative decision. This kind of difference ts illustrated in the description of 1. reddit, where the population was well-known to me and referred to in the Handbook. The Haworthia Society based in England first published its Newsletter in 1986, and this has continued as Haworthiad, This stnall magazine has done much to recapture the inter- est in Haworthia and bring it back to the level it appears to have enjoyed during the years preceding World War Il. My wish is to see the interest and skills of my collaborators combined as a tribute to a delightful group of plants, for whatever reason they attract the attention and interest that they do. The list of natural hybrids can be extended to include: H. sondida XH woolleyi H plackburniae XH. avachnoidea H. viscosa XH. fasciata H. viscosa XH. glauca var. hervet 1H. monticola XH. cooperi var. gordoniana Many commentators in the general literature on Haworthia have since commented on the ease of hybridization actoss ven the sub-genera, More important to me are those rare discerning commentators who have used this field to sub- stantiate that the three groups are real and not just a prod- ‘uct of Uitewaals or my own wishful thinking In this newer revised addition, 6 new species names appear while 13 are no longer upheld, and there are many changes in the lesser ranks. Altogether 61 species are recognized, with 105 lesser ranks. These species are again grouped into the 3 subgenera, arranged alphabetically within the subgei Historical Sketch 19 82; The first written record concerning Hawor- thia appears to be that of Oldenland, super- intendent of the Dutch East India Company garden at the Cape Colony in 1695, This record includes a list of 28 ‘aloe’ species and is found in Valentyn’s Beschryvinge van de. aap der Goede Hoope (1726). These descriptions appear ver- batim in Commelin’ Praeludia Botanica (1703) with am- plified descriptions, and also illustrated. Four of Oldenlands ‘aloes’ are now placed in Haworthia; these are “23. Aloe africana arachnoidea’ (Commelin, fig. 27) now Haworthia arachnoidea (L.) Duval, although this name haas not been previously associated with any field pop- ulation, Itis considered that the name is linked with HL setata Haw. “25. .Aloe africana folio non nihil reflex, floribus ex albo cet rubro variegatis' (Commelin, fig. 29) now H. venosa (Lam,) Hav. despite mention of white and red varie- gated flowers, °26. .Alov africana folio in summitate triangular, rigidissi- ‘mo marginibus albicantibus’ (Commelin, fig. 30) now H. marginata (Lam. Stearn, “27....Aloe africana erecta, triangular et triangular folio vis- ‘cosa’ (Commelin, fig. 31) now H. viscosa (L) Haw Commelin, in an earlier work of his, Horti medici Am- stelodamensis (1701), deseribed and illustrated four other Haworthia. These are “Aloe africana brevissimo crassissimoque folio flore sub- vinide’ (fig, 6) now taken to be H. retusa (L.) Duval ‘Aloe africana folio glabro et rigidissimo flore subvirice’ (Fg, 9) which is perhaps best regarded as H. marginal also ‘The two descriptions: Aloe africana folio in summitate tiangulari margaritifera flore subviride’ (fig, 10) and ‘Aloe africana margaritifera minor’ (fig, 11) ~ are here both regarded as H. pumila (L.) Duval. Commelin distinguished the latter by the presence of tubercles on both leaf surfaces and being half the size of the former These differences are not incompatible wit known variabilityin pumila. The diflerences in the taste of the sap ofthe two elements is inexplicable as no real difference can be readi- ly detected in the sap of H, pumila and H. minima (Ait.) Haw, as the only species which can be considered in this context. ‘The statement that the {wo elements grow together suggests that but one species is involved. Reynolds’ (1950) conclusion that Commelin used Olden- lands Kruidbock verbatim regarding, Aloe species, is thus not true for Haworthia. Neither H. retusa not H. pumila are listed by Oldenland, and Commelin did not consider Old- cenland’ n.26 to be the same as his fig. 9 (H. marginata). In the case of H. reniza and H. marginata, Commelin stated that at least the seed capsules were drawn {rom a book by (or ‘compiled for) Nicolaas Witzen, Mayor of Amsterdam and Di- rector af the Oriental Institute in about 1692. Notable additions to this total of 6 species ate in Com- rmelin’ Pracludia Botanica (1715) where * ... raangatitifera minima’ is taken to be the first real reference to H. minima, and Boethaave’s'.. minima, atrovinidis, spints herbaceis nu- reroxis ormata’,n.40 in his Index alter Plantarum (1720). This layer description is now interpreted as H. herbacea. These tight species were treated in various ways but without ad- dition until De Candolle described Aloe rigida (1799) and Jaquin A, radula (1804), That so much confusion could ensue from such an elementary breakdown becomes un derstandable when its realized that atleast ten distinct regates of Haworthia can be found in the Robertson Karoo, and a further eight in the South-western Cape atea alone. The Commelin and Boerhaave figures were probably regarded 4s a complete portrayal of the smaller Aloinese and subse- «quent collections identified accordingly ‘The value of historical records of the early exploration of the Cape in elucidating taxonomic problems in Haworthia must be regarded as dubious, Even Reynolds, despite an elabo- rate account of early botanical exploration, cannot provide earlier references to Aloe microstigma Salm-Dyck (1854) and A. speciosa Baker (1880), which are both abundant in relative close proximity 10 the Cape Peninsula, Conversely Reynolds could not relate the record of A. humilis (L.) Mill, bby Commelin in 1701, 10 exploration. Both this aloe and I viscosa (in Oldenlands Kruidboei) occur at their nearest point to the Peninsula, at Calitadorp and Barrydale respec- tively, both situated in the Little Karoo, From available ac- ‘counts, the area as far east as Swellendam was well-known, by 1676, while Cruse had already travelled overland from Mossel Bay to Cape Town by 1668. If historical records are of any value, there is no good explanation for the appear= ance of H. mirabilis Haw as late as 1804, or for that matter Poellit2ua rubrflova (Bolus) Litewaal in 1920. Specimens of 1H. mirabilis may, of course, as already suggested, simply have been placed under H. retusa, while P rubriflora could very well have been Oldenlands 28 ... Aloe africana, folio parvo et in acumen rigidissimum exeunte™. The description of H, reticulata Haw, very common in the Robertson Karoo, as late as 1812 also emphasizes the disparities between chrono- logical progress and botanical discovery. The stuggestion by Scout (1970) in his description of IL, springbokvlakensi, that H. mutica Haw. was probably collected by Bowie at Mossel Bay, also demonstrates the fallibiity ofthis kind of histori- cal evidence. A species (eco-type?) barely distinet from the Mossel Bay element is common in the south-western Cape, and at 1wo localities, adjoins deeply ratted wagon transport routes between the Cape and Swellendam. The basis of Ha- worth nine new species described in 180+ is apparently to be found in the collecting by Thunberg and Masson. How ‘ever, propagation from seed was practised from the incep- tion of the Company garcien at the Cape, and Miller (Gar- dener’s Dictionary, 1768) referred to a variety of H. herbacea raised from sced. Itis thus certain that artificial hybrids were intruding on the taxonomic scene at an early stage. Will now described H. fasciata (Willd.) Haw, in 1811, Salm- Dyck H. papillosa in 1817, and Haworth added another 13 species in 1819. Most of these additions by Haworth were of plants from Kew Garden, as were the six species added in 1821, In 1824 Haworth added a further six species re~ sulting from collection by Bowie (1816-1822), who un- deriook four journeys and travelled as far afield as Gra- hhamsiown eastwards, and Graaf-Reinet to the north. Bowte’s contribution extended to three more species by Haworth in. 1825 and one more in 1828. Several of Haworth’ species and varieties are referable to Salm-Dyck too, whose Mono- graphia was published in seven parts between 1836 and. 1863. No significant additions were made until Baker pub- lished some 17 new species in 1880, all stemming from col- lecting done by Cooper. Cooper was in South Africa from 1859 to 1862 and Reynolds brielly records that Cooper resided at Worcester before moving to Algoa Bay, inland to Graall-Reinet and then through the Orange Free State to Natal. There does not seem to be much hope for determining, the precise geographic origin of Baker's species and hence clucidating some of the problems these involve, Baker was responsible for the revision of the whole genus in Thiselton- Dyer’ Flora Capensis (1896). This was followed by Berger’ monograph of Aloe in Engler’ Das Pflancenteich (1908), New species of Haworthia were published by Wright (1- 1907), Marloth (2-1908, 1912), Schonland (2-1910, 1912), Archibald (2-1940, 1946), Barker (1-1937), Resende (5- 1938, 1946), Fourcade (1-1932), Scott (4-1965, 1968, 1970, 1979) Hardy and Mauve (1-1967) and Bayer (6- 1972, 1973, 1981). More extensive contributions were made by Von Poellnitz from 1929 to 1940, Smith, 1943 t01950 and Uitewaal, 1939 to 1948. J.R. Brown published many commentaries on Haworthia and in 1957, in “A brief review of the genus Haworthia’, noted the existence of 160, species and 210 varieties! An attempt to catalogue these names was made by Jacobsen in his Handbook of Succulent Plants vol. 2, published first in German in. 1954 and in English in 1960, This was followed by a review of the sec- tions and the species comprising these by the same author in Kahteen und andere Suekulenten (1965). In the now vast and often inconsequential literature oni Haworthia, men- tion can be made of the Haworthia Review, a roneoed pub- lication of “The Succulent Liliaceae League of America’. This first appeated in 1946, was edited by ] W Dodson and one number was accompanied by a comprehensive checklist Also of passing interest are the publications by Farden and Zantner, and more recently by Fearn, Pilbeam (including booklets, The first 50 Haworthias and The second 50 Havwor- thias), Speechiey, Scott and Bayer in publications at English American and Australian cactus and succulent soc ‘The genus has not lacked interested researchers so much as, ‘good observation of the plants, their affinities and distrib- tution in their native habitat Iis particularly unfortunate that G.G. Smith discontinued his work at a critical stage when he perhaps could have made a major contribution. In 1947 he wrote Views on the naming of Haworthia’ published in the Journal of South African Botany, in which he presented some of the difficulties arising from lack of authoritative field work. [anything this was a plea to be allowed to work to a conclusion, unhindered by duplication and developments elsewhere. Resende took violent and personal exception to Smiths comments and replied in acrid tones in ‘Variability and taxonomy in the genus Haworthia’ mm Portugaliae Acta Biologica (B) (1949). This attack undoubtedly led to Smuthis retirement from the field, Despite being responsible for sev eral errors of the same magnitude eriticized in his paper, Smith did leave an unrivalled legacy of herbarium specimens, photographs, field notes and literature compilation. Von Poellnit= was killed during the allied homing of Berlin in 1945, when a straying bomber pilot mistook his baronial cas ue for an industrial target. Familiarity with his work anous ‘es some sympathy lor the errors which he made. Obvious ly open-minded, with a willingness to concede mi terpretation and change, it is conceivable that he could eventually have revised the genus adequately. Most of his terial was destroyed during the war, but fragments are still available in the herbarium at Berlin (see Appendix 1). Flavio. Resende was a highly regarded Portuguese botanist who pub- lished several papers in Portugaliae Acta Biologica, Broteria, Boletim da Sociedada Broteriana, and Memorias da Sociedada Broteriana, Nearly all his new species and varieties were of unknown or garden origin and included polyploid hybrids, His work is thus respectfully discounted in this review Collectors and Contributors 1976." played by private collectors in adding to information on Haworthia has been a considerable one although not ever fruitfully collated, The revival of interest in the genus stems from Dr Karl Vor Poellnitz working at his home at Oberlodla in Germany, cou pled with the collection by Hans Herre at Stellenbosch ER. Long at Port Elizabeth, J.R. Brown in America and Wilhelm Triebner in South West Africa. Most of the plants received by Von Poelinitz were routed through Herre, Long and Thebner, Herres contnibution in the field of South African succulents generally, is very well known and does not need elaboration, Asan enduring record, very litle re- mains of an accessioned and labelled Haworthia collection at the Stellenbosch University Garden. The accessions are rather too sparsely recorted to be of much value in tracing localities, which are with the wisdom of hindsight, more im- portant than then appreciated 10 Tricbner was a nurseryman at Windhock —an indefatigable collector and enthusiast — his contribution is notoriously in. accurate and unreliable. Many collections were confused, lo- calities and collectors also frequently being incorrect. Plants distributed by Thiebner were on many occasions misnamed, although itis quite certain that Triebner was not entrely at fault, Many independent observers relate the expe submitting plants to so many recognized authorities and re- ceiving that number of different identifications. j.&. Brown, in correspondence with Long, noted that names of one-third of plants sent for r-identification did not agree with previous naming by Von Poclinitz. Long was superintendent of parks at Port Elizabeth from 1930 to 1940. Taking a keen inter est in Haworthia, he built up an enormous collection which he did not administer himself. In a protr radic correspondence with Brown, he mace very little con- tribution in the way of constructive and informative con ce of ted and sporent. In fact, apart from a compilation of photographs and refusing to accept plants from ‘America for certainly that reason. Any plant considered out of its natural habitat and without reference 10 the popula- tion from which it comes, particularly in Haworthia, has to be regarded with caution. Thus even J.R. Brown’ admirable commentaries and photographs are at most a reflection on, the contemporary taxonomy and interchange between col- Tectors, rather than a contribution to further order ie the ‘genus. J.T. Bates, ramway conductor of Hounslow, England, ‘was ina beiter position as many of Yon Poellnitz’ plants, found their way into his collection. Whether his collection will have retained its value as a privately administered record of Von Poellnitz$ work is doubtful, Brown felt thateven the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had failed in pro- viding any enduring record of Bakers work, and Von Poell- nitz must have felt this too regarding Wright's H. pearson This role of a botanic garden in relation to preservation of, types is vital one where herbarium material cannot (by oF- inary methods) be depended on as a certain chue to iden. tity, However, the conservation of a species with specific and restricted habitat preferences will depend on the preserva~ tion of habitats asthe only effective and realistic method. In recent times Col, C.L, Scott has published widely, often ex- pressing opinions.at great variance from those in this work, Allthese have been considered and incorporated wherever possible, 19 9 0; [A great deal shoul be added here to account for the huge volume of additional information that has accumulated in the informal literature, and among collectors and growers. Seed propagation and selection are far advanced. Many collectors are very knowledgeable and authoritative comment is almost the order af the day. Only one thought needs expression and repetition: a revision like this is only an hypothests built on the experience and knowledge of the author. It stands and falls on information, This is very largely the dry and seemingly uninteresting herharium record. However, without that tangible physical evidence, identifications become hearsay and idle talk There is a lot of evidence to suggest that feld-collected plants are being commercially exploited, Two kinds of peo ple are responsible ~ those who physically remove the plants from the field, and those who eagerly and irrespor sibly buy or receive such plants. | came early to the point where I could really only justly my own acquisitiveness by _going to work for an organisation whose function, it seemed, to me, was to collect and conserve plants. However, L was disappointed to find that such an ideal is also tov subject to human failing, and organisations seldom have the motiv tion and skills that personal interest generate. However, by far the greatest change and losses that I have observed in the field are those directly attributable to physical damage and destruction of habitat. Nevertheless, the potential for such loss should never be construed as an excuse to remove plants from habitat: that simply ensures non-survival. But collecting can be done in such a way that there is no detri ‘ment to natural populations, Offsets, seeds and moribund plants are often available ‘There is no doubt that a work ofthis kind stimulates interest and leads to further collection and potential exploitation of plants, However, the positive side is awareness of those plants and their survival status that also develops. It ts ridiculous to suggest that there should be no collecting when life subsists on hie, and we harvest from nature in so ‘many other ways, But we ned to tread the world lightly and learn circumspection and conservatism, Cultivation, Propagation and Plant Health 19 82. In nature, haworthias are very particular as to habitat, Where several species occur to- gether, they very seldom share the same ecological niche Species also change as habitats differ and so itis surprising, to find how easy they are in cultivation. Its generally ree- ognized that haworthias can be grown in nearly any potting, rmuxture based on a loamy soil, The essential requirement is good drainage, although this is not necessarily what they a ways get inthe field. Most species occur naturally under the protection of other plants or in rock crevices and crannies, They very seldom occur under a closed canopy of larger plants and in the field one looks for haworthias in stable habi- tats, in rocky situation or shallow soils, Established plants can tolerate full exposure and itis in such plants that real- ly beautiful colouring occurs. In some species the leaf-ips 2 naturally die back and itis unusual for H. longiana, tor ex. ample, to have tips on the older leaves, in H.lockwondit ancl H. semiviva the leaf-ends die back to afford the plants a protective umbrella of dry white leaf tissue. The complete dying away of the roots that so often occurs in cultivation is quite unknown in the field. Occasional large moribund lumps may occur where the centre rosettes begin to cle bat this is not the same condition as that of the cultivated plant losing its roots. This root loss is due to poor drainage and wrong watering schedule. A plant may tolerate a heavy soil if its watered less frequently. Mortality in the field seems to be very low whereas in cultivation plants may show signs, of ageing and frequently die, The development ofa ster in the characteristcally stemless species isa baud thing, Root de- velopment occurs immediately under the lowest living,Jeaves and the stem beneath these roots is of no value to the plant. In cultivation this superfluous stem may remain alive to the detriment of the plant and a good root system. When re-potting plants care must be taken to trim away excess stem tissue. It is then often best to remove all roots and so en- courage a completely new system. [¢ appears that nearly all species will grow froma whole leaf cutting if the lea is taken with some remnant of stem tise —and ifthe timing is right. Haworthias are essentially wintergrowing plants and all species occurring west of at least Port Elizabeth respond to a winter growth cycle. January, February and March are too hot and dry for haworthias to grow These statements will be contested by growers in summer rainfall areas and nat- rally by growers in the northern hemisphere where the sea- sons are reversed. However, successful cultivation also re- quires intuitive skills and there is no doubt that different approaches will work for diferent people. Propagation of ha- wworthias is more ofien than not by vegetative offet, and the ‘most common species represented in collections, are rep- resented by prolilerous, adaptable clones. Not all clones of the same species respond in the same way, and certainly a species considered to be non-proliferous may have indi- viduals which are proliferous. Cultivation is an artificial situation. There isa selective factor in favour of easy-to-grow clones. The presence of self sown seedlings and the speed and vigour with which they grow is evidence of this. Plants which do not normally offset can be forced to do so by dam- ‘aging the growing point. Alternatively the entire plant may be cut into separate pieces, or only whole leaves used for propagating purposes. Roots may be treated the same way as eaves, although there is no documented success story Var- ious authors have now suggested or shown (Majumdar and Sabharwal, 1968, 1970; Wessels et al., 1976; and Schargl & Rourke, 1979) that tissue culture isa feasible proposition. Because of the penchant to hybridize in cultivation, seed propagation has been greatly neglected. Indications are that the species are all self-sterle which means that genetically different clones must be used for cross-poltination. The parent plants must also be isolated from bird and insect pol- linators. Pollination is very simply effected by inserting a fine bristle into the flower tube immediately under the upper middle lobe. The bristle is then inserted similarly into the flowers of the second plant, Pollen is released from the youngest flowers and so pollen should be collected from the "upper open flowers of the one parent and transferred to the lower unvwilted flowers of the other. The quantity and qual- ity of pollen shed is not consistent and seems to be associ- ated with weather conditions and plant vigour. The seed cap- sules begia to forma immediately after successful pollination and may ripen within a few weeks. Not all species and clones are equally fertile and results can sometimes be dis- 13 appointing, Failure of pollination is indicated by the early abscission of the pedicels. Very litle is known concerning, cither how soon seed should be sown after the capsules open, or viability of seed. Indications are that seed should be col- lected only from dry, splitting capsules and sown at least with- in a few months of collection. Flowering time is not a good indication of when to sow seed as it varies very much from species to species. In the strictly winter rainfall region there are species in which the seed ripens in October, December, and February No documented results are available to nci- cate the best sowing times. At Worcester seed has been get~ inated successfully at all times of the year as it becomes, available after flowering, A well-drained soil mixture with some compost is used! and pebbles of 3-5 mm diameter are scattered over the prepared sowing surface. The seeds are lightly covered with the same soil mixture and the tray fi nally sprinkled with smaller pebbles. These at the same time support the seedlings, prevent washing away of the seeds, and provide a surface mulch, Watering can be done by standing the entire seedling tray in a water bath, by fine sprayer from above, or by watering onto piece of paper laid over the pebble surface. The tray must be kept moist for the first few days and in semi-shade. A glass covering to main- twin moisture may also be used early on, The seed should begin to germinate within 7-10 days and if not up after + weeks can reasonably be considered a failure. Haworthias are as a rule not particularly prone to either dis- ceases or insect pests. The Robustipedunculares are more sts ceptible than other species to mealy-bug attacking the heart of the plant. In outdoor cultivation there is also a weevil ‘which attacks the plants in the same way asa bigger version attacks aloes. The only other pest of note fs a white scale- insect, All these problems are very easily controlled by physical destruction. Ifthe infestation is already out of con- trol resort has to be made to any of the multitude of insec- ticide/fungjcide combination dusts available, Diseases are also seldom encountered but the softer species of the subgenus, Haworthia can develop a devastating heart rot andl be lost before one is aware of a problem. However, this is a prob- lem preceded by loss ofthe roots. Ifthe disease has recurred, plants must be regularly checked for firm root aachorage. Excess dying of the lower leaves is also symptomatic. The cause of the problem isa fungal disease initiated by unsuitable growing conditions such as poor drainage, poor ventilation, excess moisture or humidity and perhaps an otherwise un- suitable soil mixture. Again recourse can be made to a suit- able fungicide for watering onto the plants. However, it ‘would be better to first use a dust formulation and allow the plant to dry off. f poorly rooted then the whole plant must be cleaned of all dead and moribund tissue, dusted with a fungicidal compound and carefully replanted in fresh soil.1999 contributed by S.A. Hammer. Haworthia is a diverse genus in many respects, not the least in the varied horticultural requirements of its species. Most of these can adapt to widely different styles of growing, and almost all of them are easy to grow badly. A few seem universally fussy about what they need in order to grow well is therefore unsatisfactory to generalize, but perhaps. few points can usefully be made here. Some of the practices I dis- ‘cuss here are idiosyncratic, but they do work for me and cart be assessed against, or added to, other methods which also work, Its fortunate that there are now so many keen peo- ple working with the genus horticultural Roots are at the heart of the matter. | sometimes tell myself that I do not grow plants, {foster root systems; and while this may be only semantic, it does encourage me constant- Iy to consider root health. Roots are of course hidden from view, but an experienced cultivator can glance at a potted haworthia and obtain a good idea of root health, Healthy roots anchor the plants firmly and symmetrically, they absorb lange amounts of water quickly; and they do not rot, although they die off periodically and systematically. Ex- cessive root loss is taxing, but itis true that haworthias cart regenerate roots with amazing speed. Not all haworthias have the same type of roots; consider the fat, stlt-hke, long-last- ing roots of H. truncata versus the finer stringy roots of H. vena Roots are affected by many factors: the richness, acidity, tan- nie content, texture and aeration of potting media; the wa- tering regime (depth and rhythm); and heat. The latter fac- tors critical. If certain species need heavy shacle (H, pulchella isa good example), it is not so much that their leaves can- not endure bright light as that their roots cannot function well ifthey dry out quickly, as happens, of course, in bright and hot situations. Some plants have trouble establishing new roots in a hot environment. For example, a repotted H. an- _gustiola will reestablish very well below the bench, and can then be introduced to higher light; but it will have great dif ficulty if introduced to strong light before root formation 1s secure, ‘Why not grow them all in the shade? In a sense that would, be safer, and Ihave tried it, but the results are generally un- attractive; leaves bloat and turn a dull camouflage green, com paciness is impossible, and (with some species) rot is mote likely. Even worse, the species begin to look alike! Cultiva- tion should emphasize the individuality of plants, not mask it, So itis usually good to give haworthias as much light as they can tolerate without risking root less, tip burn, or the desperately selfshading bunched-in look that says: help! A bright and cool ambience is ideal. Bright = light strong, 14 enough to keep lithops from looking like newly-risen toad- stools; cool = under 30°C, thouigh plants will certainly tol erate far higher temperatures. Some species will tolerate frost, but itis better to avoid temperatures below 5°C. In any case good air movement is vital (One of the main difficulties with haworthias is that they do not readily wilt or wrinkle; they do not give one an imme~ die signal oftheir needs, This delayed response always puts one at a remove from the plants condition, it 1s lke read- ing last year’s newspaper. Itis true that a heavy watering is, quickly followed by obvious swelling and glossiness, but the elfects (which are often cumulative) of subtler factors ~ ‘isting, light feeding, adjustment of fertilizer ratios, slight changes of position, repotting, leaf removal, and, especial ly, root loss — take longer to manifest themselves A virtuoso grower, Bob Kent, once told me that lasts month’, sunlight = this month’ leaf colour. It took me a long time to appreciate what he meant. Colour change can be 50, gradual as too imperceptible to an ardent daily viewer, and it ean be positive (an increase in the reddish tints which at- tract most of us) or negative (reddish tints are also often in. dicative of stress) Haworthias bum in an obvious way only if they are suddenly introduced to a grossly brighter environment. They may, however, darken quickly ifthey are moved from dull quar- ters to situation in which more ultraviolet isavailable, they ‘may turn nearly black overnight. This is not burning, exactly. but it can compromise plants all the same. Certainly it slows them down. Asa corollary to Kent's observation, | would add that last ‘years feedings = this year’ beauty, the effects on symmetry (and on the expression of leaf patterns) are that long-last= ing. Should one feed at all? That partly depends on one’s pa- tience. But there is a sense in which feeding = strengthen- ing. And there is no virtue in waiting four years fora starved seedling to mature, when a compact look can be obtained in one-quarter the time, via dilute but frequent doses of low- nitrogen fertilizer! Such feeding will also improve flowering and sced-set on mature plants. It will, however, encourage offsetting, which can be a bit excessive Soil mixtures have caused infinite anxiety. Many growers ‘change their mixtures every few years and find that noth- ing works equally wel for everything, Nothing can: mots and needs are too diverse, but one can adjust proportions here and there, A light mixture (ie. fine-textured humus plus inert. drainage material like pumice, gravel, perlite, or clay aggre gate) is open in texture and will require frequent wetting, A heavy mixture (Le., loam + sind + drainage material) stays wet for a long time, which can be an advantage in adry warm climate, a fatal liability in a damp one, People who love the act of watering, for whom watering is synonymous with plant enjoyment, should either use a light mix, or em- ploy a hand mister frequently and avoid the hose. But it re mains true that haworthias will adapt to a wide range of pot- ting media as long.as the grower adapts along with them, Whatever the soil one uses, atop dressing of grt, gravel, ot pebbles is normally beneficial and always attractive. Ina hot greenhouse, dark pebbles can actually cook plant tissue, 50 pale ones are better; they also show off the plants mote ef- fectively. Mulches co conceal the condition of the soil, but ‘one lears to judge that simply from the state of the leaves, Thave avoided the difficult question: how often to water; ic is 100 individual, However, for plants in full groweh, acycle of, 1-2 days of saturation 3.~4 days of even moisture 1 — 2 days of neardryness gives a rhythm which is effective in and climates. In damp areas, and during, the dampest periods anywhere, the eycle will be radically slower. In any case, simall shallow pots dry ‘out much faster than one imagines; deep pots, on the con- wary, have hidden and dangerous reserves. Whatever the pot depth, one can consider an alteration of infrequent deep wa- tering, in which water runs copiously out of the drainage holes, and frequent shallow watering ~ almost a splashing oon the surface ~ which amounts to a light refreshment pethaps mostly for the grower. Too-frequent deep watering will lead to root Joss and stem- ‘ot; it will kill some haworthias and turn others into green behemoths. Slightly overwatered plants tend to develop cracks or crevasses on their leaf surfaces (curiously, the upper, not the lower surface, is subject to this); such crack: ing is unsightly though not injurious. 1 might note that some clones crack even if they are watered gingerly; asa mat- terof good horticultural practice these should not be prop: agated. The syndrome is genetically based and cannot be wholly eradicated. In my experience H. magnifica vat. atro- fusca, H. truncata and H. emelyae var. comptoniana are par- ticularly prone to this Many species grow continuously; their life is a perpetual spring. Has anyone ever killed, or even discouraged, H. cymbiformis? Others have obvious bursts of growth which should be observed and encouraged: one should run with the tide, Generally such tides flow in late winter and early, tw late spring. | will even water hyperactive plants twice in a row, on successive mornings, but only ifthe air is warm and dry. Some Haworthia species have unmistakable dormancy syn- dromes, possibly hecause they are adapted toa winter rain- 15 fall regime: H, lockwoodii and H. semiviva are the most ob- vious of these. Summer isthe time for their papery sleep; uring this period they need only light watering, enough to prevent complete desiccation, not of the leaves, which are already desiccated, but of the roots and meristematic core. ‘Other species turn inert and unresponsive for long erratic periods (e.g, H. bruynsii and H. springbokviakenss, those un- related behavioural twins), Generally this torpor occurs in ‘winter, when light misting is sufficient to maintain a slug- gish viability, but it may also occur in high summer, when extra shading is the safest response. Pollination is now taken seriously by many growers. It might be helpful to mention that seed procluetion is best on ‘well-fed plants and that flowers are most receptive a day or two after anthesis (fist opening). 1 generally pollinate a flower wwice a day, morning and evening, two days in a row. I spray my hands with alcohol when shifting from one species to another to prevent accidental transfers, because the barriers between species ~ particularly in the subgenus Haworthia — are slight or absent Some species are usually difficult to pollinate. H. limifolia is good example. Other species may elude one grower and not another; for me H. koelmaniorum is recalcitrant, for an ‘excellent grower in torrid Arizona it makes masses of seeds, but then his plants look better and healthier than mine, He successfully uses a fine fibre of nylon as a pollinating tool very narrow camel’ hair brushes are ideal but expensive. Clones of most species exhibst some self-ferilty but it is dit ficult o prove the absence of any animal vector. Often one will notice that the topmost flower of a neglected inflores- cence ripens into a fat fruit; itis always worth sowing the contents. (By the way, the offspring will not necessarily be uniform.) In other cases, the whole inflorescence seeins to ripen at once in a rush, skipping no fruits, this is certainly an instance of sel/-ertlity and the offspring will usually be sell-fertle as well Haworthias can be propagated by seeds, leaves, offsets, stolons, coring, tissue-culture, some even from roots. See raising is the best method for anyone who enjoys the pro- ‘mulgation of variability; tissue-culture is more efficient but it results in a massive sameness, For seed work, start with good seeds! Much seed in the trade has a low endospermatie content ~ the seeds are well- formed but small ~ and the resultant weakness can cause rmuch trouble. Seed germinates hest when a few weeks old, better than when newly ripe, but it will keep for a few years, up to seven in my experience. Seed can be sown at any time of the year. Preferably one should avoid the hottest and coldest periods unless one sowsindoors under lights; indeed I sow all seeds under lights, ‘which gives me far greater control of quasi-sterility, insects, and temperature, ca, 20 - 25°C being ideal. The lights can be the standard “cool” tubes, but those work best when paired with broad-spectrum “grow-light” tubes. For sowing | use a commercial sowing medium (peat moss ‘teated to improve its wettability + a litle sand + vermiculite) ‘which I cut with an equal part of fine-screened pumice (> 2mm diameter) or perlite. [sterilize the mixture in the mi- erowave and bleach the pots; this is tedious bur it pays off. fil the pots, tamp firmly, sow the seeds, and cover with a thin layer of grit. I sow the seeds in small pots, up to 100 seeds per pot. I prefer very small plastic pots (30 x 30 x 30 mm); these dry out quickly, which means that I can water them frequently and thus administer frequent doses of fer- tilizer. Itis important not to sow so thickly that seeds cover each other, leading to a tangled chaos. | soak the sown pots in distilled water, draining them after being thoroughly saturated (an hour or 50). The pots are placed ca. 15 em under fluorescent lights which are never umed off, and are covered with tight-fitting plastic. The next day Imake sure that the plastic shows a beaded film of mois- ture; ifit does not, I mist the pots. Alter four days I remove the plastic, misting the pots twice a day thereafter. Germi- nation should occur within a few moze days, 6 ~ 14 from the time of sowing, After germination I mist the pots once a day but I avoid saturation; aeration in the soil is entical A small fan kept on perpetually (along with the lights) helps to prevent damp-off and algal grow; the latter can also be stemmed by progressively mulching the seedlings. | transplant seedlings at the 4 ~ 5 leaf stage which usually occurs for me when they are ca. two months old; the wn- potted seedlings are soaked in an hour-long bath of distilled water to which [ add some Vitamin BI. I use the same medium as 1 used for sowing (though sterihzation is un- necessary and particle size can be larger). If newly trans- planted seedlings dry out, they will have a hard time re-toot- ing, and of course the soil mix may be difficult to re-wet Not all species have the same rate of growth, either as cut- tings or seedlings. H. bruynsi is always slow, taking at least four years to reach flowering size from seed under my con- ditions. H, sordida, H. scabra and H, koelmaniorum are also slow although the latter can expand quite rapidly once it pass- es the juvenile stage. The retuse species are much faster and most can be in flower at 12~ 18 months. H. bayert and its ally H. truncata var. maughanii are quite slow, both pass through a tediously prolonged (and similar) juvenile stage in which they are not quite themselves, ‘With all species, extra shading will promote seedling growth, 16 ‘Though this isat the expense of colour, that can quickly be (re-)gained, One should experiment with placement of seedlings; full morning exposure and afternoon shade are the obvious poles but many gradations between these states are possible. Seedlings (and adults) are highly responsive to changes in light and many troubles can be cured or court- ed by a simple shifting of pots. ‘Most haworthias will root from leaves, Thin leaves, g, those of H. arachnoidea, ate very difficult to root, and firm ones, e.g. H. sordida, are slow, taking many months, Plump leaves, and a bit of stem should be removed from depotied plants, dusted with fungicidal rooting powder, and placed in a sowing medium in a dim comer of the greenhouse. | mist them once a day, lightly; otherwise { ignore them. They. should start to callous in a few weeks and root soon there- after, but differentiation can take months. Incidentally, leaf- removal is probably the least damaging way to collect material in the field if the mother plants are not disturbed byit fists also amount to propagation from leaves, but the plant itself does the work, forming plantlets at the base of leaves which are nearing the end of their term of duty: The plantlets can be removed as soom as they have an indepen- dent root system. Coring plants — scooping out the meri tem, like removing the eyes on a potato — often results in pro- liferation from the basal leaves, but itisan ugly method. In another rather brutal method, which I mention only as an experiment, plants are subjected to a few hours just below freezing; this may kill them, or it may result in enormous- ly increased offsetting, Hybridization is not much touched on in this book, which focuses on species as they occur in nature, Here Iwill only ‘mention that hybrids have a great potential for horticultural beauty and taxonomic confusion, possibly for some eluci- dation as well. Hybridization includes, of course, pollinat- ing plants from different populations. When making hybrids, keep meticulous records (noting which species isthe pollen parent, which is the unorthodox father), use the most at- tractive parents, pollinate for three or four days in a row, and, dont give up if only a few seeds form To date the most attractive hybrids (attractive to me, any- way) have involved H. emelyae, H. magnifica and H. bayer but thousands of possible combinations have not been tried, especially when one considers those involving three or more alteady hybridized parents" Only a few of the hy- bids in cultivation have great horticultural merit; the rest should probably be caten or otherwise recycled Allied to hybridization in its artificiality, but more palatableto many growers, isthe practice of selection, The plants are so variable in nature that they offer limitless scope. One can pollinate the most atitactive examples of a species, the seedlings can be selected and back-crossed with the parents, and in this way many (any?) desired characteristics of form or colourcan be reinforced, Of course, it can not be assumed that seedlings cultivated from material from a specific locality will represent those which would have survived selection processes in their natural state. Nor is it clear how long-lived hhaworthias can be, either in nature or cultivation, though wwell-favoured plants can probably live for centuries, The lit- tle amount of this work that | have done to date is most promising, It is simply a way of beating the natural odds, ‘Whether or not these “antfcial” beauties should still bear the data their grandparents came with is a good question; my ‘own opinion is that they have crossed over from nature into ant. Fortunately a good collection of Haworthia can represent both realms! The Genus and Species Concept 19 82; Since Berger monograph in Engler’s Das jlanzenreich, the only real contributor to an understanding of the genus as a whole, and its relation to the Aloineae has been AJA. Uitewaal. This is expressed in 2 series of papers published in Desert Plant Life (1947), Cactus and Succulent journal of Great Britain (1947), Succu- lenta (1948) and Sukkulentenkunde (1951). Originally Ha- worth recognized only Linnaeus’ genus Aloe and it was Duval (1809) who erected Haworthia to contain the species in Haworth’ section Parviflorae. According to Uitewaal, Haworth and Willdenow independently applied the same name Apicra to the genera now recognized as Astroloba andl Haworthia respectively. Apicra Will. is thus a synonym of Haworthia Duval, and the name Apicra Haw. fora different genus sa later homonym and invalid, This is the reason for the creation of the name Astroloba Uitewaal. Actually Ha- .worthia is already a nomen conservandum in favour over the carliest name Cutevala used by Medicus (1786) Apart from Salm-Dyck, no authority with any reasonable knowledge of the Aloineae has suggested that the genera do not fairly reflect the diversity of the group. Parr has published (African Succulent Plant Society, 1971-2) what purports to be revision of the genus Astroiobw in which he includes these species together with Poellnitzia Uitewaal as the section Quinguefarize in Haworthia. The wisdom and intent of such a change is dealt with by Bayer (National Cactus and Suceu- lent Journal, 1972) and itis ejected for a number of reasons including that re-alignment of genera when the elements ‘within them remain poorly defined, is unquestionably pre- mature. Existing genera do portray natural groups despite ‘weak rationalization in terms of morphological and other ri- teria, The independent recognition of the different status of Haworthia and Astrojoba by Haworth and Willdenow is in- dicative of the ‘naturalness of the two genera. [tis rue that there was some confusion as tothe relation of H. viscosa (LL) 7 Haw to Astroloba prior to Haworth. Mrs P. Roberts-Rei necke in an unpublished revision of Astroloba (M.Sc. thesis, Department of Botany, U.C.T) also concludes fairly con- vineingly that Apicra aspera Haw. is in fact synonymous with H. nigra Haw. This is nevertheless easily attributed to poor observation of floral characters and doubtful evalua- tion of vegetative characters, The question of incorporation of Astrolobu in Haworthia needs consideration in light of recognition of three subgenera in Haworthia, This first finds, expression under Salm-Dyck, later Berger, then Uitewaal (1947) and then Bayer (1971). The distinction between Haworthia and Astroloba on the basis of bilabiate as op- posed to stellate flowers is extremely weak and Uitewaal’ Usage of ‘approximately’ (phis/minus) in his key is very apt. Mrs A.A. Obermeyer-Mauve in Bothalia (11: 119, 1973) included Chortolirion A.Berger (one species only) in Haworthia, and Chamaealoe A Berger in Ale L. She at the same time endorses Parr’ inclusion of Astroloba and Poelt nitzia in Haworthia, The sole reason given here is also that the latter genera have regular flowers while some haworthias do 100, and the claim is made that thete are no correlated distinctions. This is quite a fallacious argument for reasons, expressed elsewhere (Bayer, 1971, 1974). Mrs Mauve likens Chortolirion to H. graminifolia G.G Sin. when in fact the lat- ter is not the least bulbous and neither is there the degree of similarity in the leaves which she suggests, The flower of CChortolirion is like that of the Haworthia subgenus Hexan- sgulares and cannot be confused with that of the subgenus Haworthia where H. graminifolia belongs. In The Genera of Southern African Flowering Plants by R.A. Dyer (1976), Astroloba, Poelinitzia and Chortolirion are all included in Haworthia, For the purpose of this book the traditional ‘generic states are maintained. “The species concept in Haworthia is discussed brefly by both, Uitewaal and Resende who stress the view that speciationin the genus is still in progress, and that species are poorly defined. To a greater or lesser degree this must be true in the majority of plant genera, and is certainly not true for all species, even in Haworthia. Each species needs 10 be con- sidered in terms of distribution, variability and isolation. Spe- ciation and the evolution of discrete segregates (species. subspecies, varieties, etc.) is sell-evidently a function of isolationary mechanisms. Whether anyone can honestly claim to have an adequate proven explanation for sym- patric distribution of so many Haworthia species in so many areas, each with specific habitat requirements and consequent discontinuities is very doubtful. The isolationary mechanisms ‘operative where species are growing in the same near vicin ity can be of several kinds. Either the plants are not cross- fertile due to physiological or genetic barriers; or the fertile seed does not produce a seedling which can survive eco- logical selection pressure; or flowering times are staggered, Experience suggests that hybridization is a common phe- nomenon, at least in cultivation, and many ‘species’ are, by admission, gartien hybrids, Although hybridization in the field is far less common than this suggest, it does occur and it can be implied that species have arisen from such hybrids t00, Selection asa result of ecological requirements s, in the author’ opinion, a highly acceptable explanation for the de- velopment of Haworthia species, whether breeding barriers occur or not. Flowering time also differs consistently enough in the field to suggest that itis a good isolating mechanism, However, the species problem in Haworthia very seldom aris- es where species grow together, but rather from the difficulty i associating populations strung out in isolated localities These populations can be mostly recognized as species complexes, but populations do occur which cannot be con- Fidently assigned to either one or more of their geographi- cally obvious counterparts. The complexity of what species are is beyond the object of this book, beyond! providing some clue to the concept of a species accepted in the checklist. The species have been largely defined in terms of geographical listribution, on the assumption that selection across eco- logical gradients is mainly responsible for their origin. It is very comforting for the layman to know that even the most learned botanists cannot define a species in simple terms, Itisimportant to realize, though, that a species is more than a simple expression of differences between plants which the ordinary man in the street can recognize. Two plants may appear to be quite different in size, colout, markings and flower, yet may be easily recognized as the same kind (species) when seen growing together with a number of other plants sharing all the differences of the first two. If one oF several plants still stand out from such a group, then they can be recognized as distinerive forms. Normally a plant species can and should be considered to consist of several groups (populations) growing at different sites (localities). 18 Ione of these groups is considered to be suliciently cifferent from the others, then it may earn recognition asa variety. If several groups are different in this way, then they may be re ferred to as subspecies. In each case the degree of difference is important and different people may not share a decision to recognize differences by naming forms, varieties, sub- species or even species. In this way classification and tax- ‘onomy can become distorted by the judgement of the in- dividual applying himself subjectively to the naming and renaming of plants, The more information available, and the more thoroughly and objectively the work is done, the less likely i the final product to be a reflection of inckvidual idio- synetasy and personal opinion. The differences between plants ofthe same kind may result from external factors such as soil type, exposure to light, availability of water etc,, or from intemal factors such as age and genetic make-up, itewaal expressed the view that it would be possible to clas sily Haworthia even without a full understanding of how these factors actually affect the plants. The author agrees wit this view hecause experience shows that under moderate con- ditions of cultivation, plants can be expected to remain consistent. Vitewaal in 1951 was perhaps less optimistic that floral characters would be useful than he had suggested in 1947, but the importance of using flowers asa source of char acters is not diminished thereby. Most authorities have claimed that floral characters are too uniformly the same to be of any use in classification. Such a conclusion may have arisen only because similarities occurred where differences were expected and vice versa, based on the a priort pre- sumption that classification by vegetative characters was cor- rect, Vegetative characters have always been the predomi- nant basis for classification in Haworthia in complete contrast to other genera. Far too much weight has been attached to differences which may occur even between plants ofthe same kkind at the same locality. Examples are the presence or ab. sence of tubercles or spines, or the number of veins show: ing on semi-transparent leaf faces. Smith’ descriptions are models of detail and uniformity, but rather than circum: scription of species and varieties, are descriptions of single plants. Many other descriptions include few diagnostic ‘characters by which the identity of a plant among near rel atives can be determined with any certainty. The descriptions, are padded with measurements which have no reference to the range of dimensions in the entity or by characters equal- ly applicable to other, oral, members of the genus. The state of Haworthia classification is easily assessed by the past arrangement ofthe species in 20 sections compared with their natural disposition in the three subgenera. Ifeven sections have not been defined correctly to include related species, let alome variants of one species, there can be little confidence that the species themselves are all correct.