pbs Digest, Vol 10, Issue 17
David Victor (Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:31:48 PST)

Mary Sue wrote:

Dear David and Robin,

Is there any chance David of your posting pictures to the wiki of O.
cathara, O. gracilis, and O. heidelbergensis?

I'm sorry that I didn't reply earlier, but we were away for a long week-end
to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary. Yes, I will post some as soon
as I have them developed - they are all on 35mm slides.

So what are we to conclude is the correct name for Lauw's plants, the ones
Andrew B. is talking about and Uli's and presumably the ones in my archives
that were recommended for the south. Are they all the same plant and should
it be more correctly named Oxalis articulata forma crassipes? Or is this
plant really Oxalis hirta?

I think that there were three issues involved in this conversation, which
became a little confused. My understanding of the three is as follows:

1. You raised references to a South American plant called O.
crassipes. I have not been able to find any material referencing this,
including Index Kewensis. If it ever has been properly published, it
should be on IK. I deduce that, in some way, this is a wild goose chase
that will lead nowhere.

2. O. crassipes Urb. This was described and published in 1884 and was
the first valid use of the epithet crassipes within Oxalis. In 1982,
Lourteig deduced that it was not a separate species and clumped it into O.
articulata as forma crassipes (Urb) Lourteig.

3. O. crassipes L. Bolus. This refers to a plant that was described
in 1928 under this name. However, the name had already been used and was,
thus, invalid. What's more, Salter deduced that it was not a separate
species and clumped it into O. hirta var. tenuicaulis R. Knuth.

To sum it up: 1 probably doesn't exist, 2 is the plant that we were
originally discussing and 3 is a different plant altogether, which we
should reference under the name O. hirta var. tenuicaulis R. Knuth.

Best regards,
David Victor