I keep an eye on what Out-of-Africa nursery is selling since they send me their email updates. I do occasionally buy something but thats not the point now.
I also use Bihrmann's site as a reference. Great site.
My question is about Adenia firingalavensis and A. epigea on each site. They have them ID'ed differently or the opposite.
You should ask out of Africa. I can tell you I was looking for a specific Adenia and used the name listed on Bihrmans name to order it from Huntington. I received the wrong plant. I e-mailed out of africa and got the correct name and plant from them.
Hi helenchild: I'm picking up an old thread (and the link to OOA takes me to their current catalog which always changes so I can't be sure exactly what was there when you originally posted).
But I'll chime in... I have Adenia firingalavensis stylosa from Mike and Maureen Massara at Out of Africa. I wondering if the differences you were asking about, helenchild, might be differences between the stylosa subtype and the species type.
Incidentally, and just in case I'm misreading it, I'll add some value to my follow-up with a photo of my plant from OOA. :-) I love it!
dean http://sentientmeat.net/ with Succulent Sunday, a new series of plant mini-profiles
Here is my plant. I thought it was A.epigea because of Bihrman's picture (I lost the tag) but it came with from OutofAfrica. The caudex is about 2in in diameter. The plant is closing down for a dormancy hence the leaves look rough.
Here is the plant I thought was A. firingalavensis, again because of Bihrman's. But then I began to notice the switch in the IDs on Out of Africa site. That is where my original question comes from. Is it Bihrman's or Outof Africa that has the correct ID?
The OofA site labels the first plant pictured in the this thread as A.firingalavensis. On Bihrmann's site it is labeled as A.epigea. I don't believe the species or subtype is relevant. If you look at A. epigea on Bihrmann's you can clearly see it is the same plant that OofA labels A.firingalavensis. The OofA site I referenced above is current.
Hi Helen... I guess we tend to word things somewhat differently. I'm going to make a serious effort here to penetrate the different ways you and I use words.
In particular, the phrasing "... A. epigea on each site..." in seemed ambiguous; I couldn't figure out exactly what you were asking. But now I think I got it. If I have it right, I see now you wanted me to compare 3 different plants:
Plant #1. (Actually, different individuals of presumably the same type) Whichever Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa happens to be listed for sale on any given day at Out of Africa. What I was trying to say is this: keep in mind OOA rotates this page with pictures of actual plants... this is not a reference page like Bihrmann's (for their sales plants). So when you say the "link is up to date", this ignores the fact that we are possibly looking at a different plant every week at http://www.out-of-africa-plants.com/2006PlantCatalog.htm . The pictures change as they sell their stock. I am not criticizing, I'm just trying to be helpful and to be precise, and I'm getting stuck on what seem to be some mistaken assumptions underpinning the question in the original post.
Plant #2. Bihrmann's reference Adenia firingalavensis (species type v firingalavensis, not v stylosa) in your second link.
Plant #3. And then you wanted me to follow the 2nd link in your 1st post and search for Adenia epigea. (I'm sorry we must have gotten our wires crossed... I didn't get that out of your first post.)
A couple things... one which I have written a couple times, but somehow which doesn't seem to be coming across clearly. Maybe I'm not writing it clearly.
First, I believe Adenia firingalavensis looks different from Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa. So it is not a contradiction for Adenia firingalavensis at Bihrmann's to look different from Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa at Out Of Africa. These are different types. I believe they should look different.
Next, the conclusion that Bihrmann's Adenia epigea is the same type as Out Of Africa's Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa -- this seems to be your conclusion from looking at the web photos. Why not check the publication dates and formal description of these rather than relying on web photos which are a notoriously error prone way to compare plants? But even if Adenia epigea resembles Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa... again, this does not seem like a contradiction to me. Nothing in plant taxonomy guarantees that Adenia firingalavensis v stylosa must resemble the species type of Adenia firingalavensis (i.e. NOT stylosa)... MORE than it resembles Adenia epigea (in web photos from sellers).
Web photos and seller representations are a very handy shorthand (especially for experienced folks like yourself who actually GROW many of these plants first-hand), but I take Tim Harvey's advice... when in doubt, go to papers and books. There really is no substitute. Web photos are just not detailed enough and web descriptions are too prone to error. But from the start, the question in your original post seems to be stuck on an enigma which does not exist. There is no conflict in A firingalavensis appearing different from A f v stylosa.
Apologies if I'm still missing the point of your post. I really tried! All the best, --dean
PS Eureka! I did some research for you and I think I have an answer.
Tropicos has a pretty good, if technical, database of plant names. It appears that perhaps I have an answer from this research: it appears that Adenia stylosa (the actual, accepted name; see http://www.tropicos.org/Name/100000018) has variously appeared as a subtype of Adenia firingalavensis AND of Adenia epigea.
Your answer is down right inspirational. I love it. So thorough. You are way ahead of me in the taxonomy department which is great. I have trouble keeping the tags on the plants and remembering their names.
But I do see exactly what you mean about the names of the plants and the how the same plant can have variations on the theme ie."Adenia epigea var stylosa listed as synonym of Adenia firingalavensis var stylosa"
So all that to say both are correct, the name OofA and Bihrmann, give to the same plant.
Thank you so much. I appreciate your diligence and the information you found to help answer my question.
Your admirer, Helen
Hi Helen! No problem! Phew! So glad it was helpful.
Taxonomy is one of the things I love about the hobby, but I have much, much to learn. And I have total respect for my friends who are ahead of me in their culture skills and at the same time don't get the same charge I do when researching names. If I'm honest, it has all the... um... excitement of librarianship and all the... well... glamour of horticulture.
My other passion is digesting and then de-mystifying abstract or technical facts.
Tangentially, I don't have the same passion for hybrid and cultivar names as I have for botanical types.Tracking down hybrid and cultivar names doesn't interest me. So... it's another case of... I was going to use the cliche, "different strokes", but let's reach a little farther: chacun a son gout.
Succulent Sunday is new last night! This week Dorstenia lavrani
In my family it was 'De gustibus non disputandum est ' So true.
Your passion for de-mystifying abstract and technical facts is a gift.
For me the plants is about keeping them and learning about them on a very casual level - like mental bubble gum. But with DG the 'hobby' has become much more interesting with the crowd that gathers with information and ideas. I have for decades been interested in fat plants without anyway od knowing how to get involved. Now my collection is extensive and gets more facsinating each day.
Thanks again dean.