Almost weekly pictures of Haworthia bayeri are posted on Internet Haworthia discussion groups
labelled ‘Haworthia correcta’. It
seems that the ‘correcta’ label found
particular appeal in Japan as many Japanese Haworthia collections still contain
H. bayeri plants labelled as H. correcta. However, the photograph below is of a plant
corresponding fully to the original description and photo of the type plant of Haworthia correcta. If you find this
confusing or surprizing, read the text below.
The origins of the
name ‘Haworthia correcta’ Poelln.
·
Firstly, the name Haworthia correcta was originally applied to the specimen Triebner 978 which clearly represents
the species we currently refer to as Haworthia
emelyae /H. picta/ also H. tricolor) . The name ‘correcta’ was applied as correction to
replace the name ‘blackburniae’ which
had been used already at the time.
 |
|
A
photo of the original publication of H.
blackburniae in Kakteenkunde. On the right is the enlarged and clearer
photo of the Triebner 978 plant.
|
The picture above shows the
original Triebner 978 plant that had
been collected by Mrs E. Blackburn near Calitzdorp and which was published in
1937 as Haworthia blackburniae by Von
Poellnitz in Kakteenkunde (9):132.
Soon afterwards Von Poellnitz
realized that W.F. Barker had published the name Haworthia blackburniae for another Haworthia species only a few months earlier. W.F. Barkers’ H. blackburniae is the grass-like leaved
species we still recognize today. The latter also grows near Calitzdorp. Von
Poellnitz then corrected the error by renaming the Triebner 978 specimen Haworthia
correcta in Feddes Repertorium 43 page 103 in 1938.
There should be little doubt with
anyone familiar with these plants that the Triebner
978 specimen was a plant of the species we now refer to as H. picta/ emelyae/ tricolor. The black
and white photograph of Triebner 978 shows
a rather poorly cultivated specimen clumsily potted and protruding above ground
but the shape of the leaves are clearly that of H. picta/ emelyae with flecked and very subtly pimpled upper
windows bordered by toothless margins and opaque leaf-sides. Most
characteristic is the upward-curving sharp leaf-tips ending in a sharp bristle.
Why then, may one ask, don’t
we currently refer to H. picta/ emelyae as H. correcta and how on earth did Haworthia bayeri get mixed up in the mess?
The confusion seemed to have
originated with Col. C. L. Scott who initially referred to the plants we know
today as H. bayeri as H. willowmorensis V. Poelln. but later he
became convinced that the original collection of H. correcta was near Uniondale and proposed that H. correcta should be the correct name
for these plants. Scott wrote that Mrs Blackburn had indicated to him that the
original collection of H. correcta/
willowmorensis was at Uniondale.
In addition, he also suggested
that the name H. emelyae be discarded
upon grounds that it was insufficiently known and of doubtful origin and
without exact locality.
The confusion was then strengthened
and continued by M.B. Bayer who strongly defended the name H. emelyae and explained in a 1979 article in the National Cactus
and Succulent Journal, 34:28 that G. G. Smith’s records indicate that his G.G. Smith 5437 ‘H. emelyae’ had been collected by a Mrs Le Roux of Vanwyksdorp who
then gave it to Mrs Emely Ferguson who passed it on to Smith. Bayer published a
photo of the latter G.G. Smith 5437
specimen with the article and apparently he could not see that the photograph
of the G.G. Smith 5437 specimen was
the same type of plant as the Triebner
978 ( H. correcta) specimen. He
even argued that perhaps the latter was a form of H. turgida. This is actually very ironic, since the original H. emelyae (Long 322) specimen looks far more similar to H. turgida than the H.
correcta Triebner 978 specimen.
 |
| The original H. emelyae specimen Long 322 |
However, perhaps his confusion
was influenced by the fact that the old Fourcade photographs that were taken in
1941 included photos of plants that are clearly H. turgida and one (Fourcade 242)
was labelled “H. correcta,
Riversdale’ while two other photos also of H.
turgida are labelled ‘H. emelyae,
Riversdale, ex Ferguson’ and another ‘H.
emelyae , Gamka River ex Geldenhuys’ ( Fourcade
144). Bayer also mentioned a photo by Dr G.J. Broekhuisen in the Fouche
collection involving the same misidentification.
 |
|
Fourcade
photos: ‘H. emelyae, Ferguson,
Riversdale’ 1941 ( left), ‘H. correcta,
Riversdale’ centre and ‘H. emelyae,
Geldenhuys, Gamka River’ 1941 on the right. All are various forms of H. turgida.
|
It should also be pointed out
here that at the time Bayer’s focus seems to have been fairly undefined and
sketchy as he did not see H. emelyae
(incorporating H. picta ) and H. bayeri as separate elements. In the above-mentioned
1979 article in the National Cactus and Succulent Journal he published photos
of H. bayeri from Dysselsdorp as well
as H. bayeri from Uniondale both labelled
‘H. emelyae’.
As a result of M. B. Bayer’s
failure to recognize the differences between H. bayeri and the H. picta-type emelyae , people inevitably started
using the most conveniently available name to differentiate the bayeri type, which was Col Scott’s name ‘H. correcta’. So that is how it happened
that the name H. correcta became such
a widespread label to indicate H. bayeri.
Only in 1997 did J.D. Venter
and S.A. Hammer correct the situation by giving H. bayeri separate species status.
 |
| Haworthia bayeri ( Uniondale form) in cultivation. |
Let us take a brief but more
detailed look at the various elements involved in the complicated confusion
surrounding the names Haworthia correcta
and Haworthia emelyae.
Several names got dragged into
the confusion and these were H.
blackburniae, H. correcta, H. emelyae, H. willowmorensis, H. emelyae
var beukmanii , H. turgida, H. ryderiana,
H. picta and recently the name H. tricolor was also added to the list.
Both H. correcta and H.
blackburniae have been explained and illustrated above, so there is no need
to re-discus them below.
Haworthia willowmorensis V. Poeln.
The original photo and
description of the plant that Von Poellnitz described as H. willowmorensis strongly suggests a variant of H. mirabilis (Published in Feddes Rep.
41 in 1937).Firstly the plant’s leaves are less strongly recurved than found in
any H. picta or H. bayeri forms. The leaves are described as green above and
greenish red below and the lower leaf surfaces are described to have “oblong
tubercles arranged in longitudinal rows from the middle to the tip”.
Furthermore, the leaf edges and keels are described having minute teeth.
 |
| Triebner 840, the type plant of H. willowmorensis that appeared with the original publication of the species. |
All these features suggest H. mirabilis, however the locality was
erroneously given as “Willowmore, collected by Mrs Helm”. No specimens of these
plants have ever been found near Willowmore and remain extremely unlikely to
have come from that area.
 |
|
Typical H. mirabilis
in habitat between Greyton and Genadendal, north of Caledon.
|
In an article in ALOE 11(4)
1973 : 42-44, Colonel Scott gave the name ‘willowmorensis’
prominence by publishing a full re-description of it based upon plants he had
found near Uniondale and which he then believed to be H. willowmorensis. The description that Col. Scott published differed totally from the
original description and he simply used the name ‘willowmorensis’ and applied it to his own description of the plants
(H. bayeri) that he had found at Uniondale
and which to him was a close enough locality to Willowmore to justify the
identification. In fact, today it is known that a form of H. bayeri actually does occur much closer to Willowmore on
Vaalkrantz farm, within a stone-throw from H.
comptoniana .
It should perhaps also be
mentioned that Colonel Scott’s initial concept of H. willowmorensis incorporated H.
correcta V. Poelln. and H.
atrofusca G.G. Smith. as synonyms of H. willowmorensis and he gave the distribution to include
localities like Willowmore (= H. bayeri)
,Uniondale (= H. bayeri), Oudtshoorn
( =H. bayeri ), Springfontein (= H. breueri or H. multifolia, presumably)
towards Barrydale and Riversdale (= H.
atrofusca).
Haworthia emelyae var beukmanii Poeln.
In the short additional notes
to his description of Haworthia emelyae,
Von Poellnitz mentioned that “our new
species must be compared to H. willowmorensis Poelln., H. ryderiana Poeln. and
H. whitesloaneana Poelln.”
As mentioned above, Von
Poellnitz’s original description and accompanying photo of H. willowmorensis was clearly that of H. mirabilis. So, Von Poellnitz’s concept of H. emelyae was evidently much closer to a H. mirabilis -type of plant than to the H. picta kind. This also explains why he published H. picta only a year after H. willowmorensis as a totally different
species and in his notes he did not compare it to H. emelyae at all.
A few years later during 1940,
Von Poellnitz also published a variant of H.
emelyae, the variety beukmanii in
Feddes Rep. 49: 29.
The description, photos and
locality of this variety indicate without any doubt the plants we know today as
Haworthia mirabilis var beukmanii.
 |
|
Long 555 ,
the original specimens of H. emelyae var
beukmanii.
|
This close association between
the name H. emelyae and H. mirabilis was further supported by J.
R. Brown who published an amended description of Haworthia emelyae in Cactus & Succulent Journal (USA) 37:114. Both the photo and description of J.R. Brown’s
H. emelyae also indicate a form of H. mirabilis and in the same article
Brown also deals with H. emelyae var beukmanii and mentions that “ Haworthia emelyae and the var. beukmanii are very similar, the
distinction mainly based on the crowded tubercles on the back of the leaves and
the somewhat larger size of var beukmanii.”
H. turgida Haw. and
H. ryderiana Poelln.
It was mentioned above that
the photo of the original Long 322
specimen of H. emelyae does seem to
correspond more closely to H. turgida
than to the general H. picta type
plant. It was also mentioned above that the 1941 Fourcade photographs of ‘H. emelyae’ are clearly H. turgida and another, Fourcade 242 labelled “H. correcta, Riversdale’ is also H. turgida. Two other old photos also of
H. turgida are labelled ‘H. emelyae, Riversdale, ex Ferguson’ and
another ‘H. emelyae , Gamka River ex
Geldenhuys’ ( Fourcade 144).
It is in particular Haworthia turgida var suberecta that corresponds most closely
to the Long 322 photo of H. emelyae.
 |
|
Haworthia turgida var suberecta at
Brandwag. The plants are very variable, ranging from solitary to clustering,
long-leaved to short-leaved, rosettes with few leaves to others with more, etc.
A selection effort at this locality may yield plants that come much closer in
appearance to the Long 322 specimen
of H. emelyae than the one in the
picture above.
|
Haworthia turgida is of course a very variable element mostly
confined to almost vertical hillsides and it seems to be somewhat connected
throughout its range to a few slightly larger and solitary-growing species
found on the flats and gentle slopes of low hills. Around Riversdale H. turgida links with H. retusa and in areas it appears to be
a clustering cliff-dwelling variety of H.
retusa. Eastwards there is an undeniable link to the H. turgida/ asperata-type
plants on the steep hills west of Herbertsdale and the H. pygmaea var argenteo-maculosa
plants on the coastal flats and further east there is the H. turgida var suberecta
around Brandwag and Hartenbos dam which also links somewhat to H. pygmaea var argenteo-maculosa.
 |
|
Haworthia turgida/
asperata from Towerlands, west of
Herbertsdale. Another H. turgida-like
element quite comparable to the original description of H. emelyae.
|
The H. turgida-like Long 322
plant almost appears as if it could well be a similar cliff-dwelling element
linked to H. picta. But this is pure
speculation, of course, as no such population is known to date. It remains a
distinct possibility that somewhere along some steep banks of the Gamka-,
Wabooms- or Gouritz rivers such a turgida-like
link to H. picta may hide
un-rediscovered.
 |
|
The H. emelyae type
plant Long 322 in the centre compared in black and white pictures to H. turgida var suberecta from Brandwag ( left) and MBB 7105 from N/E Ouvloere on the right.
|
Haworthia ryderiana Poelln. was described in 1937 in Desert
Plant Life 9:103 from a plant sent to Kew by Mrs Ryder of Durns, England and
Von Poellnitz compared it to his H.
emelyae, H. willowmorensis , H. cuspidata ( presumably H. turgida or a form of H. retusa) and H. mirabilis.
Authors like J.R. Brown, M.B.
Bayer and C.L. Scott all rejected the name H.
ryderiana as ‘species non statis
cognitae’ while Ingo Breuer claims that it was possibly a garden hybrid.
Fact remains, the photo and
description of H. ryderiana are more
similar to H. turgida than to a H. picta type plant.
H. picta Poelln.
As a result of the foggy and
complicated origins of the name H.
emelyae, many collectors and Haworthia enthusiasts have been using the name
H. picta during recent times. Ingo
Breuer also gave it preference and it is indeed a handy, descriptive and
unambiguous label for the glabrous brown-green plants with flecked windows and
sharply pointed leaves.
H. picta Poelln. was originally published in 1938 in *Feddes Rep.
44:133 from a specimen numbered Triebner
1063 which had also been collected by Mrs S. Blackburn and with habitat
data mentioning “Moeras River near Little Brak River”.
 |
|
Triebner 1036, the Type plant of H.
picta.
|
It remains a mystery that H. picta was published during the same
year as H. correcta and only a year
after H. emelyae and H. willowmorensis, so Von Poellnitz dealt
with all these specimens over the time period of a number of months and yet
they seemed to him to be different enough to publish them as separate species.
However, at least in the case
of H. picta, Von Poellnitz had more
or less correct habitat data (although Moeras River is much closer to
Oudtshoorn than to Little Brak River) and the photo and description published
with the article on H. picta in
Desert Plant Life 10:127 match the plants known to occur near Moeras River,
south of Oudtshoorn.
H. tricolor I. Breuer and H. janvlokii I. Breuer
As mentioned, one of the
authors who also decided that the name H.
emelyae was not justified to uphold and preferred to recognise H. picta is Ingo Breuer. In 2004 Ingo
went ahead and added two varieties to H.
picta : H. picta var janvlokii and H. picta var tricolor.
Ingo Breuer is an excellent researcher
and archivist who had sorted through all available old literature and assembled
and organized all these historical names and descriptions into two tremendously
convenient and invaluable volumes ‘The World of Haworthias’ (1999).
As taxonomist Ingo Breuer also
attempted the very brave effort in subsequent books to re-evaluate the many
species described by Dr Hayashi and integrate these with the drastic
reductionist approach of M.B. Bayer. The solution that Breuer used to achieve
this without having to re-describe and officially re-combine the many Hayashi
species as subspecies or varieties, he came up with the concept of Aggregate
groupings. This implied that he abandoned all previous subspecies and variety
rankings and made ‘species’ the end status.
That is how it happened that
in his 2010 species list H. comptoniana,
H. tricolor and H. janvlokii became species under his ‘Aggregate Picta’.
H. janvlokii is the very smooth-leaved and slightly larger-sized
variant growing on the hills east of the Kammanassie Dam. It is in many aspects
transitional towards H. comptoniana.
 |
|
A plant of ‘H.
tricolor’ Breuer in habitat near Assegaaibosch, east of Vanwyksdorp. This
is also the locality of M.B. Bayer’s Epitype for ‘H. emelyae’.
|
H. tricolor refers to the population on the foothills of the
Rooiberg east of Vanwyksdorp and south of Calitzdorp. As mentioned above, this
might have been the original locality of H.
correcta and it is also the locality of M.B. Bayer’s designated *epitype
for H. emelyae. The G.G. Smith 5437 specimen mentioned above
under H. correcta seems also to have
been from this locality. With other words, Breuer’s H. tricolor involves the exact same locality and plants as Bayer’s epitype
for H. emelyae.
So what then, one may ask,
should be done about the name H. emelyae
that still seems to enjoy frequent use as a result of M.B. Bayer’s persistent
application of the name?
Haworthia emelyae V. Poelln.
The logical thing to do is simply
to take a look at the original description of Haworthia emelyae . Ideally the whole original description needs to
be reprinted here, but that will burden the reader with tedious evaluation, so
let us just look at some of the most relevant features:
The
plant size is given as 40 mm in diameter, which is smaller than the regular H. picta type plant that is on average 70
mm (and up to 90 mm) wide. The average solitary H. turgida plant is 40 mm in diameter though.
The
leaves of H. emelyae are described as
being green in colour, oblong in general shape, broad at the base, erect or
little spreading, with the leaf-tips ‘obliquely truncate’ and the leaf margins
and keel having ‘minute, somewhat confluent teeth’. The triangular leaf-top
(end area) is described to have ‘somewhat pellucid tubercles which are sharply
pointed on the younger leaves’ and the window area has ‘three longer and fewer
shorter lines of which only the middle one reaches the tip’.
When
above description is compared to the general H. picta type of plant, the following differences stand out: the H.
picta plants have darker more brown-green leaves, not erectly spreading but
strongly recurved, the leaf margins have no teeth. On the rae occasion when
teeth are present they are extremely inhibited and hardly visible. In H. picta type plants there are no
sharply pointed tubercles on the young leaves and although the window area does
have lines these are often not clearly visible, being somewhat obscured being crowded
by dense flecking.
Most important also, are the sharp acuminate leaf-tips of
H. picta plants ending in a
frequently upward-curving end bristle.
It remains very difficult to believe that the Long 322 specimen was indeed a form of
the H. picta type plants and if it
was, it was definitely a drastically untypical plant of smaller size, with unusually
blunt leaf-tips, semi-erect leaves, almost un-flecked windows and with the very
rare occurrence of having a few minute suppressed teeth along the margins and
keel near the leaf-tips.
It is obviously very different from the G.G. Smith 5473 specimen from the
well-known Rooiberg locality, 25km east of Vanwyksdorp (the locality for M.B.
Bayer’s designated epitype) and it remains rather inconceivable that the Long 322 specimen came from there.
It is marginally easier to accept that if the Long 322
specimen was indeed a H. picta kind
of plant collected near Vanwyksdorp, that it could have come from the
Arrievlakte locality a few kilometres
south of the latter town.
 |
|
The Arrievlakte form of H.
picta/emelyae in habitat.
|
The Arrievlakte population of H. picta/’ emelyae’ is somewhat different in certain respects and
both the plants and locality differ from all other known populations of the
species.
These Arrievlakte plants grow in a very arid situation on
shale scattered with quartzite and amongst dwarf succulents like Gibbaeum dispar, Crassula columnaris and Avonia
papyraceae. The haworthias at this locality are extremely well camouflaged,
being dull reddish-ochre to dark brown in colour in the wild and blending very
well with the soil colour.
 |
|
The dark Arrievlakte form of H. picta/’emelyae’ in cultivation.
|
It is particularly in cultivation that these Arrievlakte
plants most display their distinctness by having a much darker, almost
black-green colour and less dense and variegated flecking in the leaf windows.
Of all the known forms of H. picta/’emelyae’, these Arrievlakte plants are perhaps
slightly closer in appearance to the Long
322 specimen, provided one allows for rather bold and rough comparison.
Conclusive
comments:
Not everybody’s interpretation of the old photos and
descriptions may agree but even dogged devotees of the name emelyae must agree that it remains a slightly
uncomfortable fit, almost like the old joke of the guy who wore a poorly
constructed suit but if he lifted one shoulder and walked with a limp, the suit
seemed to fit fine.
However, the problem is that if one does decide to
discard the name H. emelyae like Col
Scott who declared it as “of doubtful origin and without exact locality” then
the next name with priority would be H.
correcta….. Remember that the name H.
emelyae was published in 1937 in * Feddes Rep number 42, while H. correcta was published in 1938 in Feddes
Rep number 43 and H. picta also in
1938 but in Feddes Rep number 44. This means that the name H. correcta has a very slight priority over H. picta.
In practical terms, however, it would take many years and
lots of quarrelling amongst Haworthia authors,
students and enthusiasts to accept the name H.
correcta as replacement for H. picta/
emelyae , particularly in view of the fact that many collectors still have H. bayeri labelled as H. correcta !
In addition, the description and photo of the Triebner 978 specimen of H. correcta have been studied by all
Haworthia authors to date and somehow none of them seemed to have been nearly
as convinced as I am that the plant is indeed of the H. picta type, so perhaps in view of this persistent cloud of distorted
doubt and misinterpretation, the name correcta
should also be totally discarded. Besides, there is, like in the case of H. emelyae, also no preserved specimen
or precise locality.
Therefore, the advantages of applying the name H. picta are numerous as there are no
doubts regarding the precise features and locality. Furthermore, the name ‘picta’ is very suitable and descriptive
of these plants and the Moerasrivier area is also reasonably central within the
distribution range of the species and it is quite suitable to consider the Moerasrivier
plants as typical.
Consequently the best solution seems to be to use the
name H. picta, as many people have
already been doing.
……………………………………………….
*Epitype- An epitype is a specimen or illustration
selected to serve as an interpretative type when the holotype, lectotype, or
previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a
validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically
identified for purposes of the precise application of the name of a taxon.
* Feddes Rep –
Feddes repertorium specierum novarum regni vegetabilis.
Chronological
summary:
* 1937 – W.F. Barker published Haworthia blackburniae in the Journal of South African Botany 3:93.
The type specimen ( Reynolds1842) was
collected by Mrs Blackburn south of Calitzdorp and sent to Dr Reynolds. This is
the thin grass-like leaved plant known today as H. blackburniae.
* 1937 – Later that year Von poellnitz also published a
plant named H. blackburniae in
Kakteenkunde 9:132, but his description and photo of the plant (Triebner 978) matches that of what is
known today as H. emelyae/picta/tricolor. The Triebner 978 specimen was also collected by Mrs Blackburn, near
Calitzdorp.
* 1937 -Also during the same year Von Poellnitz published
Haworthia emelyae in Feddes Rep 42)
from a plant received from F.R. Long that originally came from Mrs Emely
Ferguson but without exact locality.
* 1937 – A plant that seems to match our current
understanding of Haworthia mirabilis
was also published in the same year by Von Poellnitz as Haworthia willowmorensis. The plant (Triebner 840) came ex Mrs Helm reportedly from Willowmore, but the
locality must certainly have been an error.
* 1938 – Von Poellnitz has since discovered that the name
H. blacburniae had been used before
his publication, so he simply corrected the error by replacing the name for the
Triebner 978 specimen with H. correcta in Feddes Rep 43.
1938- Later the same year Von Poellnitz also published Haworthia picta in Feddes Rep 44 from Triebner 1063, also originally sent to
Triebner by Mrs S. Blackburn and reported from Moeras River area. Somehow Von
Poellnitz could not see that this H.
picta plant was the same species as his H. correcta.
* 1940 – Von Poellnitz published the Long 555 specimen from Caledon area as Haworthia emelyae var beukmanii
in Feddes Rep 49. This is the same plant known today from the Caledon area as H. mirabilis var beukmanii.
* 1965 – J.R. Brown publishes an amended description of Haworthia emelyae in Cactus &
Succulent Journal (USA) 37:114. Both the photo and description of J.R. Brown’s H. emelyae indicate a form of H.
mirabilis.
* 1973 – Colonel C.L. Scott wrote in ALOE 11(4) that he
had learnt from Mrs S. Blackburn that the original plant of H. correcta had been collected near
Uniondale. He then concluded that H.
correcta must be synonymous with Haworthia
willowmorensis with Uniondale being not too far from Willowmore and no
plants matching H. willowmorensis to
be found in the Willowmore area. Col. Scott then went ahead and simply ignored
the original description and picture of H.
willowmorensis and re-described H.
willowmorensis according to the Uniondale plants and even added a photo of
the Uniondale plant (known today as H.
bayeri) labelled H. willowmorensis.
1979 – M.B. Bayer adds to the confusion by publishing
photos of the above-mentioned Uniondale plants as ‘Haworthia emelyae’ in his
article ‘Natural Variation and Species
Delimination in Haworthia Duval. Part 4: Haworthia emelyae Von Poelln. and a
new variety’ in the National Cactus and Succulent Journal 34 (2). Bayer
also considered H. picta as
synonymous with H. emelyae and referred
to the H. bayeri plants from
Dysselsdorp and Uniondale as ‘more scabrid and with rounded leaf end areas’.
1985 – Colonel C.L. Scott’s book was published wherein he
finally rejected the name H.
willowmorensis and decided in favour of H.
correcta. So, the beautiful colour photograph of H. bayeri in Col. Scott’s book is labelled H. correcta.
Therefore, as a result of M.B. Bayer’s refusal to see the
dull-grey, scabrid and rounded-tipped leaved plants (H. bayeri) as different from H.
emelyae ( including H. picta) ,
people started using Col. Scott’s name H.
correcta to differentiate.
1979- J.D. Venter and S.A. Hammer finally corrected the
situation by publishing the Uniondale, De Rust, Dysselsdorp, etc. area plants Haworthia bayeri in the Cactus and
Succulent journal (U.S.A.) 69:75.
* 1999 – M.B. Bayer adjusted his view of H. emelyae to exclude H. bayeri and also designated a Epitype for H. emelyae from the Rooiberg, south of Calitzdorp (- Mrs Schnettler in KG335/71 (NBG).)
* 2004 – I.
Breuer publishes two varieties of H. picta in Alsterworthia International
Special Issue 7: 20 - 22. These were H.
picta var janvlokii and H. picta var tricolor.
* 2010- Alsterworthia International publishes Ingo
Breuer’s ‘The Genus Haworthia’ Book 1 wherein he does away with all ranks below
species and his ‘Aggregate Picta’ then includes H. picta, H. comptoniana,
H. tricolor and H. janvlokii.
References:
Bayer, M.B., 1979. Natural Variation and Species
Delimination in Haworthia Duval. Part 4: Haworthia emelyae Von Poelln. and a
new variety. National Cactus and Succulent Journal 34 (2): 28-31.
Bayer, M.B., 1999. Haworthia Revisited. Umdaus Press.
Breuer,I. 2000. The World of Haworthias Vol. 2.
Arbeitskreis fur Mammillarienfreunde e.V. (AfM), Niederzier and Homburg/Saar.
Breuer, I. 2004. New Haworthia species/combinations
published subsequent to Haworthia Revisited. Part 1. Alsterworthia
International Special Issue 7 :3-33.
Breuer, I. 2010. The Genus Haworthia. Book 1. Alsterworthia International.
Brown, J.R. 1965. H. emelyae. C & S Journal of
America 37: 114.
Marx, Gerhard. 2009. Haworthia emelyae, the ‘Klein Karoo
Kliprosie’. ALOE 46(4): 67-95.
Scott, C.L. 1973. A Revision of the Genus Haworthia,
Section Retusae. ALOE 11 (4): 8-45.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1937. Neue Formen der Gattung
Haworthia Duval. Kakteenkunde (9): 132-134.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1937. Zur Kenntnis von Haworthia
Duval. Feddes repertorium specierum novarium regni vegetabilis 41: 216.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1937. Vier neue Haworthia-Arten .
Feddes repertorium specierum novarium regni vegetabilis 42: 271.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1938 . Three Interesting Species of
the Genus Haworthia Duval. Desert Plant life. July 1938 : 125-127.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1938. Haworthia Duval: Scabrae
Berger, Retusae Haw and Coarctatae Berger. Feddes repertorium specierum
novarium regni vegetabilis 43: 103.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1938. Neue formen der Gattung
Haworthia Duval. Feddes repertorium specierum novarium regni vegetabilis 44: 133.
Von Poellnitz, Karl. 1940. Zur Kenntnis von Haworthia
Duval. Feddes repertorium specierum novarium regni vegetabilis 49: 29.
