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