Intergeneric and interspecific hybrids
John Bryan (Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:56:22 PDT)
Dear Jim:
I just checked in W. J. Bean, he states Magnolia X soulangiana was first
raised in the garden of Mr. Soulange - Bodin and first flowered in 1826.
The seed parent was M. denudata fertilised by pollen of M. liliflora
Cheers, John E. Bryan
John Bryan wrote:
Dear Jim:
Magnolia denudata is from E & S China, has flowers which are white to
ivory and leaves to 15 centimeters in length. M. liliflora is more
widespread has flowers which are white flushed with pink to claret and
pink and garnet beneath, the leaves are up to 20 centimeters in length.
There are also other differences between the two species, such as seed
pod size. M. X soulangeana has the habit of M.denudata but is more
slender. If my memory is correct, the first crosses between these two
species was made in France, I think in a nursery in Angers. Cheers, John
E. Bryan
Jim McKenney wrote:
Dear All:
When, in the early nineteenth century, the handsome Magnolia now widely
known as soulangiana appeared, it was described as a hybrid between
Magnolia denudata and M. liliiflora. Magnolia xsoulangeana proved to be
very fertile, and soon there were lots of little xsoulangeanas in gardens
everywhere.
It surprises me that in the century and a half since, so few people have
questioned the significance of what really happened. In the early
nineteenth century, M. denudata and M. liliiflora were part of the received
canon. Because they are readily distinguished (but then, so are wolfhounds
and chihuahuas), no one called into question their status as distinct
species.
Some of us would say that the vigor and fertility of M. xsoulangeana is all
the proof anyone needs to assert that M. denudata and M. liliiflora are in
fact the same species.
In a post to this list months ago, it was mentioned that there are orchid
hybrids the ancestry of which involves plants from eight different genera.
Some of us would say that that suggests that those eight purported genera
are actually just one very polymorphic species.
What better proof of relationship and similarity can there be than the
ability to produce viable, fertile progeny? People are too much hungup on
what things look like. And that hangup seems to apply not only to those
looking at gross morphology, but also to those looking at chromosomes, dna
or the results of the latest and greatest technological innovations.
I wish that those about to name genera and species - notho or otherwise -
would keep these things in mind. Once a name is validly published, it
becomes a part of our cultural virus load: it will always be there,
weighing us down, and there is no way to get rid of it.
Jim McKenney
jimmckenney@starpower.net
Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where luckily there are no
viable, fertile progeny to distract me from my present interests.
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php