Just an opinion...but having grown many of the "forms" of *L. socialis*, and adding a few more this summer....I think many of them are hybrids. With all due respect to Arid Lands, their knowledge of *Ledebouria* taxonomy is terrible. Making the argument that *Ledebouria socialis* and *Scilla violacea* are OBVIOUSLY two distinct species....ugh. It only takes a few minutes of research to see that regardless of the identities of the two plants mentioned in the catalogue, *Scilla violacea* is an invalid name. I love their plants, have been a customer for years, but they are WAY off base there. - Dave On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Peter Taggart <petersirises@gmail.com>wrote: > How does L ovalifolia and L luteola tie in with this L pauciflora and with > L socialis? > Peter (UK) > > > http://aridlands.com/catalog/popup_image.php/… > > > 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. However, all of this does not mean that > > > it can't just be another form of L. socialis. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >