you evidently did not understand what I meant when I wrote " “No such thing as Tulipa clusiana var. clusiana or Tulipa clusiana f. clusiana exists in nature.” According to the Kew monograph, and the Flora of Pakistan, this assertion is not correct. "Tulipa clusiana DC. is accepted here in a broader sense as a polymorphic species. S. Dasgupta and Deb (l.c.) having prepared the scatter diagram, using various morphological characters, tried to correlate the variation patterns with the geographical and altitudinal distribution. They came to the conclusion that five different forms may be recognised. According to the cytological information provided by Hall (l.c.) diploids, tetraploids and pentaploids are also involved in this complex, however, as the diploids and tetraploids are morphologically similar, they are classified together." http://tropicos.org/Name/18400355/… Note there is no statement to the effect that Tulipa clusiana DC, as pictured in Redoute, exists only as a clone. Or is a clone. So the repeated assertion that this is the case needs to be proved. Bob _______________________________________________ pbs mailing list pbs@lists.ibiblio.org http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/