Reisebericht von Marko Doboš zum Naturformen-Eintrag S. marmoreum from Durmitor NP (2 forms)
jezour already wrote a lot about Semps in Durmitor.
Unfortunately I didn't had (and I still don't have) any detailed topographic maps with local names of the area so my description of locations will be very wide.
I do have the coordinates of the locations where I observed plants, but I don't have the right map to overlap it in GIS software.
We started on sedlo (English:saddle) towards Bobotov Kuk (the highest peak of Durmitor), saw Ledena pećina (English:Ice cave) end ended on Crno jezero (English: Black lake) near Žabljak.
I visited this place with a group of my friends on 8.8.2016. on our Bosnia/Montenegro trip.
Most of the time we were quite high and above the tree line, so Sempervivum and Jovibarba could be observed almost all day.
I saw Jovibarba heuffelii and 2 forms of Sempervivum marmoreum.
Glabrous form of S.marmoreum is probably S.marmoreum ssp. marmoreum, and pilose could be called S.marmoreum cf. ssp. reginae-amaliae . Both look very similar or even identical to the forms that I observed in Croatia and Bosnia.
Crno jezero (Black Lake)
At the time we reached Crno jezero (Black lake) we were too tired and we decided to visit it the next day. It's surrounded with forest, but there are some open rocky habitats around it and there I also saw S.marmoreum
Hope you like my pics,
Marko
Zum Antworten auf den Reisebericht muss man sich hier auf www.sempervivum-liste.de einloggen.
Comments
Antwort von Sempernicki am 09.03.2017
Hallo dear Marko,
so many fine pictures.
Tomorrow I look at the different forms. Are all the red ones glabrous and the others pilose? I cannot see that exactly.
Thank you very much for the pictures and the text.
Hallo dear jezour,
what do you think of the names?
LG
Sempernicki
Antwort von Marko Dobos am 10.03.2017
I'm sorry I had to scale down the resolution, many details are lost.
Hope you can see 2 forms better on this 2 pics:
pilose form
glabrous form
I think both forms get red coloration on tips.
And about the names; S.marmoreum is probably an aggregate of species.
It exists in many local forms and variations that very often can't be separated geographically (they are distributed reticulated).
H. 't Hart, B. Bleij & B. Zonneveld in Eggli (ed.) Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants: Crassulaceae divided this species in 4 subspecies, Letz later described new species (S.matricum) that is only another (5th) subspecies according to Miklanek.
This system of classification is criticized by Letz, he wrote ''...these taxa are more appropriate for the cultivated forms of Sempervivum fanciers’ collections than a comparative study of populations in the field.''
Earlier authors like Parnell in Flora Europaea also wrote ''...it does not seem possible to recognize infraspecific taxa, except perhaps at varietal level.'' He wrote this because of huge variation of species.
However at the time we don't have a better system than this one with 5 subspecies so we can try to join our plants to one of the closest categories.
What do you think jezour?
Antwort von jezour am 12.03.2017
Marko,
thank you for many beautiful photos from Durmitor! The plants are magical. During my visit of Durmitor, I observed variability in number of petals by Sempervivum marmoreum, from 12 to 16 petals. Did you observe the same variability?
Sempervivum marmoreum is very complicated species. It grows on very large area, it is very variable and it creates many habitat forms.
1) Description of Sempervivum marmoreum and situation about the description
Sempervivum marmoreum was described by Grisebach in 1843, original description of Sempervivum marmoreum was based on the plants from mountain Athos, but only glabrous plants were choosen for the description. Letzt studied Sempervivum marmoreum on mountain Athos and reported, that he observed there glabrous and also pilose plants (Letzt reports these plants as S. erythraeum).
2) Taxonomy of Sempervivum marmoreum
In my opinion is not the taxonomy of Sempervivum marmoreum solved. I think, that the taxonomy suggested by Zonneveld, Hart and Bleij is not good. There, I must agree with Letzt, that this taxonomy does not mirror the situation in the nature. I use modified taxonomic system suggested by Konop.
Sempervivum marmoreum ssp. marmoreum
Are very variable plants. You can observed it on my photos from habitats here in forum. The plants differ in size, a bit in shape of rosette leaves, number and size of rosette leaves. All these plants have similar blooms.
Sempervivum marmoreum var. dinaricum
These plants are different from Sempervivum marmoreum ssp. marmoreum. They differ in shape of rosette leaves, number of rosette leaves and also in conditions on habitats, on that are these plants growing.
Sempervivum matricum
Differ in shape of rosette leaves, blooms (have always less petals), the area is seperated from other Sempervivum marmoreum
Sempervivum erythraeum
Also different plants - differ in rosettes, shape of rosette leaves, number of rosette leaves and also in blooms.
Sempervivum macedonicum
Another different plants - differ in rosettes, offsets, shape of rosette leaves, number of rosette leaves.
Names, that must be proven:
Sempervivum ballsii
- near to Sempervivum marmoreum ssp. marmoreum?
Sempervivum balcanicum
- habitat form of Sempervivum marmoreum from high places from Stara planina mountains?
Sempervivum reginae-amaliae
- near to Sempervivum macedonicum?
Sempervivum kosaninii
- what is it?
3) Situation pilose and glabrous forms of Sempervivum marmoreum
There are quite many problems and questions by pilose forms of Sempervivum marmoreum. There are habitats, on that I observed only glabrous plants of Sempervivum marmoreum, there are habitats, on that I observed only pilose forms of Sempervivum marmoreum, on next habitats there were growing both form mixed. The habitats, on that are growing both forms together, blooms both forms in the same time - it is very probable, that there create hybrids between these two forms (if the is not any barrier).
If you observed the surface of rosette leaves of pilose rosettes, you find out, that the "hairs" on the surfaces of these plants vary considerably. There are differences in density of hairs, there are differences in the length of hairs and there are also differences in the form of hairs (some plants are hairy, some plants are only pilose, some plants are glandular hairy and some plants are glandular pilose).
4) Solution?
It is necessary to find out, what it is. Is the cause of pilosity only any hereditary deviation, or it is anything more (is there any difference in DNA structure; have pilose plants other differences, that it is not possible to observe by eye).
If it is only hereditary deviations, I think the best solution is to modify the description and not to separate these plants. If there are next differences it would be necessary to separate these plants and give them new status (variety, subspecies).
I think, the name "reginae-amaliae" is not suitable for these plants, the name "reginae-amaliae" was used for different plants. Maybe now is the best solution not to separate these plants and report them as Sempervivum marmoreum ssp. marmoreum with note, that the plants are pilose (also with information about habitat).
Sorry for my "hard" text - the situation is very complicated and it is not possible to write own point of view in few words.
Regards,
jezour
Antwort von Marko Dobos am 12.03.2017
Dear jezour,
I'm in a (very slow) process of writing an article about Sempervivum in Croatia, so your opinion and this kind of brainstorming is very valuable to me.
I have to be honest, I've never considered number of petals very important in part of
S.marmoreum range that I've observed. I know they are crucial for e.g. telling differences
between S.marmoreum ssp. reginae-amaliae and S.macedonicum...
Can you please give me a reference of the source where I can see classification made by Konop.
Zonneveld, Hart and Bleij noted for S.kosaninii:
''Closely related to S. marmoreum and most probably derived from one of its subspecies by autopolyploidization or through allopolyploidy after
hybridization between S. marmoreum and another,
still unknown, diploid red-flowered taxon''
What is your opinion about that?
I have to say I've never bothered in observing pilosity in more details. It is usually considered there are no transition forms in populations where both forms exist. If there is so much variability in pilosity, than maybe some of the lax pilose forms could be hybrids?
If they are only forms or subspecies of the same species, and hybrids are completely fertile, in that case, wouldn't plant in populations mix so much until there is no glabrous forms, or at least hybrid would be dominant?
If 2 forms are just multiple alleles, than I agree description should be modified, probably just like Parnell said, different forms should be separated just on varietal level, rather than infraspecific taxa.
I somehow think only good study that would include morphometry, DNA testing and controlled hybridization experiment would solve this :D
Marko
Nach oben
Antwort von jezour am 12.03.2017
Hi Marko,
thank you for your fast reply, you are faster than I am.
First, I have to write, that my knowledge is based on observations - in nature and in culture. I took photos of the plants, so that I can see better some characters of plants, I evaluate observations from habitats (geographical position of habitat, elevation, type of rock, orientation, partial ecology and climate) and also evaluate the observations and experience with cultivation from cultural conditions.
Konop published his point of view in book Netřesky in 1987. He found original descriptions and translated them in Czech. There is also the key how to determine the species. He stated following names (with some relationship to Sempervivum marmoreum):
Sempervivum balcanicum
Sempervivum ballsii
Sempervivum erythraeum
Sempervivum kosaninii
Sempervivum macedonicum
Sempervivum marmoreum var. marmoreum
Sempervivum marmoreum var. marmoreum f. brunneifolium
Sempervivum marmoreum var. marmoreum f. rubicundum
Sempervivum marmoreum var. blandum (northern part of Balkan peninsula, plants from Transsylvania, Maramures, Muntenia, Kováčkovské kopce)
Sempervivum marmoreum var. dinaricum
Sempervivum reginae-amaliae
I see one fundamental problem by Sempervivum kosaninii - can we be sure, that the plants in our collection are really Sempervium kosaninii? I do not know anything about living original material. Maybe it still exists, maybe is cultivated in Beograd.
We know, that original habitat is in Šar planina, in mountain range of Ošljak above Prizren, but the plants were not observed there since 1925.
The theory is nice, but our life is too short to confirm this theory. I give one example - one study reported very interestring things - for example, that the color of blooms is not important in genus Sempervivum (nice example - S. pittonii and Sempervivum montanum ssp. stiriacum are relatives) and although some plants look similar they are less relative that we now think (another nice example - S. marmorem ssp. matricum is more relative with S. iranicum than with rest of Sempervivum marmoreum).
The variability in pilosity is in whole area of distribution of Sempervivum marmoreum, in one smaller part of area of distribution there is present mostly one type of pilosity.
Unfortunately I can not give anwers on your questions about pilosity. I only observe plants and blooms - in culture and in nature, and I did not try hybridization between glabrous and pilose forms of Sempervivum marmoreum.
Regards,
jezour
Nach oben
Antwort von Sempernicki am 12.03.2017
Hello Marko and jezour,
thank you very much for your long and interesting discussion.
I think that I can take it in our Naturformenlexikon like this:
1) S. heuffelii from Durmitor NP
2) S. marmoreum (2 forms) from Durmitor NP
Or better divide the marmoreums like this? S. marmoreum from Durmitor NP (hairy form) and extra S. marmoreum from Durmitor NP (glabrous form)
LG
Sempernicki
Antwort von Marko Dobos am 13.03.2017
Dear jezour,
I know you are very perceptive and I really hope you will publish more in the future
Thank you for the translation!
I will write more, and I hope we will continue our discussion, but I'm in a bustle, and I will be away next 10 days because of work.
Dear Sempernicki,
I think your first suggestion is better,
1) S. heuffelii from Durmitor NP
2) S. marmoreum (2 forms) from Durmitor NP
because It's the same location and this might be 2 forms of the same species.
Thank you for the trouble of listing this in Lexicon.
Antwort von Sempernicki am 13.03.2017
It's not too difficult, if you help me.
Thank you.
LG
sempernicki
Antwort von illustrator am 10.04.2017
about the damage on some leaves: I have the same in my collection from time to time. This is caused by hail. Larger plants with more open rosettes are vulnerable, the damage does not show on smaller plants with closed rosettes. I don't know how it is in your place, but where I live, summer hailstorms (after a hot day) can be extremely violent and I think that the same happens high up in the mountains. Very typical: Petasites leaves in the forest have more or less round holes and tears after such a storm.
Antwort von Sempernicki am 11.04.2017
Übersetzung in Kurzform:
illustrator hält die Blattschäden auf einem der gezeigten Fotos für Hagelschäden.
Antwort von Sempernicki:
Das sieht wirklich so aus.
That really seems to be the reason.
LG
Sempernicki