Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Bulbs => Ian Young's Bulb Log - Feedback Forum => Topic started by: annew on February 23, 2011, 10:16:36 PM
-
The little cantabricus type in Bulb Log 8/11 (http://www.srgc.org.uk/logs/logdir/2011Feb231298469223BULB_LOG__0811.pdf) looks like what I have been growing as N. cantabricus tananicus. This is an invalid name, and I think Rafa calls something very similar N. eualbidus.
Edit to add link direct to that Bulb Log
-
I should have said, the flowers are very small.
-
The little cantabricus type looks like what I have been growing as N. cantabricus tananicus. This is an invalid name, and I think Rafa calls something very similar N. eualbidus.
Anne - let me add to the nomenclatural confusion:
RBG Kew does not even recognise the existence of a name N. eualbidus but accepts the name N. cantabricus subsp. tananicus as legitimate**.
In her 2009 list Rannveig Wallis includes N. cantabricus var. eualbidus whose name she attributes to Mike Salmon. Her description sounds like your plant. Needless to say, Kew does not even recognise the existence of such a name.
In the AGS Bull. 68 (2), June 2000 Ron Beeston pictures a plant like yours which he calls N. cantabricus subsp. clusii but mentions that Mike Salmon believes it should be called subsp eualbidum [sic].
I have more, but I think this is enough to be going on with.
I have the impression that Mike Salmon follows the 'Spanish splitters’ whereas Kew tends to ‘lump’.
Take your pick.
Edit:
**As does Blanchard, but his plant sounds completely different!
-
Hmm, I think you'll find that the official tananicus is quite different - mine has been called tananicus in the trade or some such expression. I think I'll indulge in a little gallic shrug. ::)
It's nice anyway!