I doubt chionodoxic confusion will be sorted out any time soon for a couple of reasons. First, botanical research on this group is probably not a very high priority, and (at a guess) it's long overdue for a careful reinvestigation not only of specimens in herbaria, but also of what's actually growing out there in the wild. Second, it appears that chionodoxa is a promiscuous genus that will hybridize at the drop of a hat, even going out-caste by crossing w. scillas. Since we are *gardeners* dealing with *garden* plants, it's probably a safe bet that a lot of our plants are hybrids of indeterminate parentage. For the record, I've gone through my library and noted briefly what various publications say about Chionodoxa, as follows: 1949, Manual of Cultivated Plants, Bailey, rev. ed. C. luciliae Boissier includes cvv Tmolusii & Gigantea C. sardensis 1971, Collins Guide to Bulbs, 2nd ed. C. cretica C. gigantea C. lochiae C. luciliae C. nana C. sardensis C. siehei C. tmoli8 1973, "Bulbs", by Roy Genders C. cretica C. gigantea C. luciliae C. nana C. sardensis one other species not named 1973, Dwarf Bulbs, Mathew C. cretica C. nana included under C. cretica, whtever that means C. gigantea C. lochiae C. luciliae C. sardensis C. siehei C. tmoli included in C. luciliae 1976, Hortus Third C. gigantea = cultivar of C. luciliae C. luciliae Boissier C. sardensis C. tmoli = cultivar of C. luciliae no distinction betw. C. lucilise hort. and C. luciliae Boissier 1981, Bulbs, Bulbous Plant of Europe and their Allies, Grey-Wilson, & Mathew C. cretica C. nana C. albescens (remaining species are Turkish in origin) 1981, The Bulb Book, Rix & Phillips C. cretica C. lochiae C. albescens This is the original publication of the combination C. albescens, btw. The plant was formerly considered a Scilla. C. luciliae Boissier C. gigantea = C. luciliae Boissier C. siehei C. sardensis C. nana auct. = C. albescens 1986, The European Garden Flora, vol. I C. albescens C. cretica = C. nana C. sardensis C. forbesii C. luciliae hort = C. forbesii C. tmolusii = C. forbesii C. siehei = C. forbesii C. luciliae Boissier C. lochiae C. nana C. albescens 1987, The Smaller Bulbs, Mathew C. albescens C. gigantea = C. luciliae Boissier C. lochiae C. luciliae Boissier C. luciliae hort. = C. siehei or C. forbesii C. nana C. cretica = C. nana C. sardensis C. siehei C. tmolusii = C. siehei C. forbesii 1998, Plant Finder, 1998-1999 Edition C. cretica = C. nana C. forbesii - includes Siehei group C. gigantea = C. luciliae Gigantea group C. luciliae Boissier - valid species, includes Gigantea group C. luciliae hort. = C. forbesii C. mariesii - invalid name C. nana - good species C. sardensis - good species C. siehei = C. forbesii Siehei group C. tmolusi = C. forbesii 'Tmoli' I'm not altogether sure if this summary is very useful, but hopefully it will give us all some idea of the way in which chionodoxa classification has evolved over the last 60 years. To me, it looks like the nomenclature is stabilizing in terms of species boundaries, but Mary Sue's comments about some Chionodoxa being moved to Scilla suggests tha the situation is still very much in a state of flux. What, btw, has happened to C. albescens? A plant under is now sold in garden centers in the fall which closely resembles the picture in The Bulb Book, but the name is curiously missing from the 1998-1999 Plant Finder. I've had a clump of it for many years, unidentified though the Bulb Book was bedside reading. I believe this clump is traceable to the nursery run by Ed Lohbrunner until 1984 or thereabouts, so this stock probably goes back a long way. -- Rodger Whitlock Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Maritime Zone 8, a cool Mediterranean climate on beautiful Vancouver Island