Thank you, all > I have a form of Scilla peruviana here, which also makes bulbils on the > roots. These bulbs are splitting less then the usual S. peruviana. On the > other hand your bulb could be S hughii, which I was given with that name: > looses its leave later and also produces bulblets on the roots. I think > that Angelo Porcelli can give more information on this species. > Greetings The mist is clearing, I think, well it is sunny today for a change. Once, maybe twice, I have grown "Scilla peruviana" from seed exchange donations, at least one was labelled "Alba", but when it eventually flowered turned out to be a dull, muddy, pale grey blue. Could this be "hughii"? The closest in colouring from memory, is that of Scilla dimartinoi on the pbs wiki, though I can't remember if the flower scape differed at all from my other S. peruviana. The only trouble is yesterday I labelled another pot, with no root bulbils, as "pale form", which was what I originally called it to differentiate it for my own purposes, so maybe this was not this form but another that has lost its label over the eons. Now I will have to flower them both to see if they are different flower forms, and that may take more than a year from the smallish sized bulbs. (only 1 has the root bulbils) Brian Whyer, Buckinghamshire, England > > it was the same as the Scilla peruviana which I am splitting up. Hardy - it > > has been outside under a tree. Bulbs currently 2 - 3cm in diameter. > > But > > a) it is not shooting new growth like all the others, but still has this > > years tired leaves > > b) it looks very similar to the scilla bulbs, and increases the same in that > > I am splitting old root plates. Brownish tunic, some signs of yellowing > > around neck. > > c) it does not smell quite the same, sort of sweetish, (not pungent like > > allium) > > d) it has small bulbils forming along some of the roots > > > > In thought at first I had thrown seed in with the bulbs, but no, they are > > growing on the roots. Likely candidates are camassia, other than leichtlinii > > (quamash or cusukii?), ornithogalum, galtonia; or something I have forgotten > > all about. Leaves were probably long and channelled, not broad.