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/ >