Thanks for pointing that out, Ron. Not only did you answer a question I've long pondered, but you brought back some memories. Decades ago the John Scheepers company used to send out a brochure listing bulbous conservatory plants. As I recall, Clivia and what was then known as Haemanthus katherinae were typically listed. This was my introduction to the plant we now know as Scadoxus multiflorus. That's the memory you rekindled. And the answer you provided concerns the difference between Scadoxus m. multiflorus and S. m. katherinae. In a photo they look alike to me, and I long doubted that they were different. But you have pointed out that they are indeed different from a cultural point of view. After writing that, I realize that in a photo, if you know what to look for, they do not look alike. What I mean is that S. multiflorus katherinae blooms with foliage, doesn't it? S. m. multiflorus, as I grow it here, produces its inflorescence as the new foliage is emerging, like an Ismene, and the inflorescence quickly overtops the new leaves. I was surprised to hear Jim Shields report that S. m. multiflorus did not bloom for him. Here it has bloomed every year for perhaps ten or fifteen years - only recently has it become run down and in need of some extra attention. Scadoxus multiflorus katherinae has always been an expensive plant, but dry bulbs of Scadoxus m. multiflorus can sometimes be found in local shops for about two or three dollars each. In my experience, those newly purchased dry bulbs have always flowered, too. If I had a digital slide copier, I would post some of the photos I've taken over the years of Scadoxus m. multiflorus to the wiki. Jim McKenney Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where it's another day of cold rain and a gardener reluctant to go out into it.