Much of the early work on Haworthia was based on fairly limited observations in nature. These were essentially point collections (often very close to roads) from which seemingly discrete elements were recognized as species. … When Bruce Bayer started his studies of the genus Haworthia circa 1970, a new era of more methodological collection and thorough recording of the material resulted.
Kobus Venter, from the Foreword of Haworthia Update volume 1
These Updates were written in the face of confusion and ignorance about the subject of taxonomy and its purpose. The first and most important objective was to gather information on which to base a better classification. The second was to explore classification itself to resolve the problem of why there is so much conflict and confusion. The third objective was to reach some personal goal of understanding and a basis for good communication with others.
Bruce Bayer, 30 October 2011
Thank you for this very practical question. I suggest that you ask on the two Haworthia Facebook sites. Your question also raises the issue…the variety was described from a single plant and so the Latin name should be H. gigantea ‘Gigantea’. But in recent years it is fairly evident that the plant came from a population in the Ithala Game reserve – so the name H. limifolia var gigantea should perhaps be used for those. But it widens out to other populations that look different eg H. limifolia var gigantea ‘Striata’ and then H limifolia var gigantea subvar striata. Or should all the subvarieties become varieties, or the varieties become species? Curiously this is the first Haworthia that I know of that was propagated from leaf and I still have a plant of the original one dating from 1947. You would think it was commonly available. Perhaps that is how Lawrence’s post should have been worded?
Thank you for the feedback. “Should all the subvarieties become varieties, or the varieties become species?”, oh well, I think, I prefer not getting into that question. I am not educated enough for to hold up such discussion. I had such exchange once before about the Ech. Agavoides. My point was, if the donkey caravan would have dropped off the botanist X km down west from the first viewed location things would have looked and been worded differently.
All the ISI, scientific, botanic and hard core collector mentality kills the fun out off these plans. Especially these collectors, really shady people, they are worst than Belgium poodle breeders! I think, every plant should be right away DNA analyzed (various looking plants same DNA, same plant. period), tissued and propagated. So, any chance to get a young plant out of your original 1947 dating plant? Cheers
Thank you EM – yes I have approached the whole thing as though had the roads been different we would have a different picture. The DNA story is still very far from adequate and the current argumetnt is that Aloe, Gasteria, Haworthia etc have virtualy the same DNA therefore one genus! No luck there.I am sorry that I do not have any propagated material of gigantea – ask Steven Hammer? Peter Alonso?
So rather on going discussion in it’s most refine details than one genus. She is Swiss, he is Dutch, they are German…. and me, well, I just though I would have liked to have one of these plants. I would like to try these gentleman but in other occations, with other type of plants, I made the experience that one must sport an expert very much to get a plant. As said I am not that well educated to hold up such thing. Thank you the exchange, you are very kind. Best wihes