Aaron - the markings of "typical" cultivated L. socialis and those of L. socialis "Miner" make for an interesting comparison with those of paucifolia, yes? - Dave On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:57 AM, dave s <wusong@evilemail.com> wrote: > None of the paucifolia I've seen resemble the pics on the cactus-biz site. > An additional feature of paucifolia, IME, that hasn't been mentioned so far > is that while the leaves are green above and below, the bulbs themselves DO > show a purple color; it isn't simply an un-pigmented L. socialis "violacea." > On the other hand, the pics on the cactus-biz site do seem to be > un-pigmented specimens of the classic houseplant. > > - Dave > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:16 AM, aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> It would seem the combination Ledebouria paucifolia has never been made >> even though Baker described these new Scilla as "Scilla [Ledebouria] spp", >> knowing that they all fit within the Ledebouria section of Scilla at the >> time (1875). >> >> I also meant to mention that the type of Scilla paucifolia is clearly the >> more ovate leaved L. socialis in cultivation, but it is not clear if it is >> distinctly different. >> >> Aaron >> >> >> --- On Tue, 4/19/11, Nhu Nguyen <xerantheum@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> From: Nhu Nguyen <xerantheum@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [pbs] Scilla paucei pics ? = L. socialis >> To: "Pacific Bulb Society" <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> >> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 7:36 AM >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> There is certainly much confusion with this plant. I just made a quick >> Google search and found a plant that has beautiful leaves and flowers that >> look exactly like what we have come to know as L. socialis *except* that >> it >> lacks any purple coloring. Take a look at the link below and you can >> perhaps >> see into the past where Baker studied a plant similar to this one. So with >> that, I think the synonomy of this particular plant and L. socialis is >> pretty certain. >> >> >> http://cactus-art.biz/schede/LEDEBOURIA/… >> >> However, most of the plants out there, including Jude's plant do not have >> leaves that look like this at all. They are ovate and have faint minute >> markings. They a much slower growing plant as well, despite the ability to >> produce lots of offsets. I remember when I broke a leaf on my plant. It >> took >> months before the leaf was replaced. However, all of this does not mean >> that >> it can't just be another form of L. socialis. >> >> The Ledebouria-Scilla-Resnova-Drimiopsis group is a big mess and until >> someone works out the details, we will have to try and stick to the most >> correct name we know of. Both of the names "L. pauciflora" AND "L. >> paucifolia" are applied to this plant when doing a web search. The problem >> is that both of these names are not valid under any plant list, even the >> most comprehensive of them: http://www.theplantlist.org/. A Google search >> for L. pauciflora brings up 14,500 hits whereas L. paucifolia only brings >> up >> 2,640 hits. The entry on the PBS wiki is meant to catch the most searches. >> There is no synonym on the page so I'll add it to that page. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pbs mailing list >> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php >> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >> > >