Agaveville

Succulent Hostas - that would be good.

MJP wrote:I am not entirely tech savy, and didn't get all the photos loaded.

Missing photos

BldSpt x line up.jpg

BldSpt x 1.jpg

Very ingenious! And absolutely gorgeous plants. Jkw

To me it definitely looks like some of those 'bloodspots' had a different Agave parent than A. macroacantha, which I have always been told is the Agave parent of Mangave 'Bloodspot'. I am not sure if that means those other 'Bloodspot' plants should be given a different name or not, but if yes it might provide an interesting naming opportunity!

In case you missed it - I offered to send Bloodspot seedlings to those willing to re-imburse me for shipping (not handling or any other nonsense, unless phytosanitary certificates are required, in which case my offer is void).

I retain seedlings # 1 & # 2 for myself.

# 5, #8, and #9 are spoken for.

That leaves #s 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11.

Send me a private message if you are interested.

First come - first served.

Thanks for the generous offer! If I was forced to guess, they have almost an A. pygmae look to them.

MITS, that's exactly what I thought when I looked at #5... A pygmae "Dragon Toes"
This is what mine looked like when small - a striking similarity. Different, but similar.

How rough are those? I've never had the chance to fondle one.

It might have been smoother then, but I'd say it's definitely a good 180 grit nowadays.

Thanks. 180 isn't real smooth...maybe MJP can comment!

Some of the seedlings obviously lean toward 'Bloodspot', with the same frail, upwardly-curved terminal spines...e.g. #11 and to a lesser degree #3. Others look very much like A. pygmae...I suspect that the mangave was crossed with something else. Anyone know how wide an area hummingbirds forage? My gut feeling is it could be quite a bit.

Down to #'s 4, 7, 10, and 11.

They do look like your Agave pygmae.

I reckon 180 grit is about right. The grit almost bites you on most of them.

I apologize if my interest for the best up to date answer to the question of Manfreda as a genus (yes or no) might be getting to be a bore. For me, truth and knowledge are not boring, and it's well worthwhile.
I've seen that elsewhere in Internetlandia, this discussion has been referenced, and additionally characterized as "chatter".
At least according to the meaning of the word as I understand it, that was obviously not intended in any complementary way. OK, whatever.

I've been digging furiously for more information on the actual evidence where people say DNA indicates Manfreda is not a genus of it's own. Sure, there are opinions aplenty. What I'm looking for is fact, based on the actual scientific studies of molecular data referenced. I can't find more than what's been already mentioned, that is current and relevant. The most current study I'm aware of incorporating molecular data for classification is the "PHYLOGENY OF AGAVACEAE BASED ON"... (Bogler, et al. 2005) for which I already provided the link previously.

1. Data for only Manfreda virginica has been considered, according to Table 1.
2. "Manfreda virginica was not resolved from Agave in this analysis..." page 10
3. The tree illustrated on page 6 indicates a Bootstrap Support Value of 72 at the node where Manfreda is listed.

So where is the evidence whereby one can eliminate Manfreda as a genus?

After some research, I can capsulize that values close to 100 are considered well supported. 72 is considered "moderate". I fail to understand how one interprets moderate as certain. Furthermore, when one investigates this concept, you will find:
"Evolutionary trees are often estimated from DNA or RNA sequence data." Key word: ESTIMATED
"The bootstrap ... is a computer-based technique for assessing the accuracy of almost any statistical estimate." We're talking statistics, and probabilities. NOT certainties....difference.
Here's a good simplification/explanation I found offered by someone from the University of Vermont:
"Bootstrapping is a resampling analysis that involves taking columns of characters out of your analysis, rebuilding the tree, and testing if the same nodes are recovered. This is done through many iterations. If, for example, you recover the same node through 95 of 100 iterations of taking out one character and resampling your tree, then you have a good idea that the node is well supported. If you get low support, that suggests that only a few characters support that node, as removing characters at random from your matrix leads to a different reconstruction of that node. ....I would suggest that a maximum likelihood tree with bootstrap values of 70% throughout would probably not go over well with reviewers."
So, it's very important that one looks at a tree diagram, one must be mindful that we are looking at probabilities, likelihoods, and estimates.
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/bootss5.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have just a bit more chatter in conclusion.

Here's an abstract published in 2012.
Mexican Geophytes I. The Genus Polianthes.
http://www.liliumbreeding.nl/FOB_6(SI1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)122-128o.pdf
"The genus Agave L with a c. 166 species is the largest genus in the family Agavaceae, a family that contains 9 genera and c. 293 species (Eguiarte et al. 2000). The genus Agave is paraphyletic to the genera Manfreda Salisb., Polianthes L. and Prochyanthes S. Watson, and the entire clade comprising the 208 species that belong in the four genera has been termed Agave sensu lato (Eguiarte et al. 2000). The genus Agave sensu stricto is predominantly monocarpic and harbors the most dry-adapted (and succulent) members of the family Agavaceae (Good-Avila et al. 2006). It is divided into two subgenera, Liattaea (53 species) and Agave (113 species) based on the inflorscence (Gentry 1982). The three genera that are additionally included in Agave sensu lato, Manfreda, Polianthes and Prochnyanthes are predominantly polycarpic, herbadeous, and inhavit a more temperate environment."

It would appear that not everyone, even folks publishing abstracts, yea...even in these modern times, are on board with the reclassification which supposedly makes "Manfreda" obsolete. Now, why is that?

Plant taxonomy is no more than pseudo-science, an attempt to utilize a fauna-specific system for flora. Under this adopted system, rules seem entirely malleable. I wouldn't take it too seriously. Perhaps one day, we'll understand what we're attempting to classify and categorize to an extent at which hard, fast rules are applied, but that seems a long way off.

I think I know a lot, and I keep striving to learn more about that which I want to know about. Even so, I am very reluctant to take certain stands on that which I know to be still in a state of flux. However, I find the information useful, and interesting. What I have difficulty understanding is when folks I perceive as authoritative take an absolute stand on a matter which seems to be in current debate.
I began today's research starting from scratch... these are some notes I pulled out of the sea of information.

"GENUS - taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms. In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family
The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera. There are some general practices used, however, including the idea that a newly defined genus should fulfill these three criteria to be descriptively useful:
monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
distinctness – with respect to evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow
ECOLOGY scientific analysis and study of interactions among organisms and their environment
MORPHOLOGY branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features
BIOGEOGRAPHY study of the distribution of species and ecosystems in geographic space and through geological time."

Based on the very definition of "Genus", I find the term Manfreda very useful, and it does not seem to violate the criteria listed above. I'm not sure I can relate with the reasoning whereby the usefulness of the Genus name is tossed in the rubbish bin.

I agree though that I shouldn't take it too seriously. On the plus side, the research was very informative.

Spination wrote:I think I know a lot, and I keep striving to learn more about that which I want to know about. Even so, I am very reluctant to take certain stands on that which I know to be still in a state of flux. However, I find the information useful, and interesting. What I have difficulty understanding is when folks I perceive as authoritative take an absolute stand on a matter which seems to be in current debate.
I began today's research starting from scratch... these are some notes I pulled out of the sea of information.

I assume it's because different folks apply highly subjective rules to plant taxonomy. These rules are far more objective when dealing with the Kingdom for which they were designed. If Agaves and Manfreda were animals, they might all be considered a single species, with two or three subspecies and a couple hundred varieties. Since plant naming rules are far more subjective, disagreement ensues. Since Manfreda easily "hybridizes" with Agave, there is probably little scientific basis for maintenance of that genus. Frankly, I don't care. I find maintenance of the genus completely useful, and I am a pragmatist at heart. AFAIK, this particular "chatter" has been ongoing for at least 14 years.

Ah yes. The hybrid test.
Wholphin
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7508288/ns/te ... ZXc2RtViko" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rama the Cama
http://taylorllamas.com/Camel-LamaCrossPhotos.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a Geep for your Jeep
http://www.today.com/news/baby-geep-cro ... 1D80007977" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jest havin' fun...

When I participated in superdominance studies in grad school, we were directed to destroy the progeny of our efforts (satan spawn). There are places on our planet where taxonomists are (mostly) all in relative agreement regarding outside the box nomen issues. One which I am extremely familiar with involves dynamic speciation, as these species and genera appear highly unstable while they continue their rapid evolution. With varying degrees of intervention, all manner of hybrids might be produced. Frog people coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

That's pretty interesting.

Regarding the Frog People, I consider myself very fortunate that there's a couple thousand miles+ between me and Ohio. So, I'm probably safe... for now.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/creature ... eople.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ribbit

Come 2 AM at the bar, even they start looking good.

LOL! Not fair, you made me fall off of my chair.

As a statistician who works in disease taxonomy and detection I would say that applying similar statistical techniques to plant taxonomy, when done well (as with anything), is a much more precise way of doing things than saying "looks like a hybrid between x and y" which we see a lot of even among folks who are quite knowledgeable (take for example my line on cv 'chocolate chips').

As to qualifications linked to the use of probabilities versus certainties -- welcome to life, it is all probability and rarely if ever certainty!

Whether one agrees with a specific probability being sufficient to render a hard classification is another matter. But probabilities are not the issue, interpretation of them and how they are used/abused for demarcating discrete classes where a continuum might exist is.

Keep going Tom, I think this "chatter" is a very good distillation of the issue and it is great to see you consolidating this information in a single thread -- good resource.

Thank you Dan. You well capsulize the the pros and cons of classification based on the what seems to me the more and more heavily weighted field of phylogenetics. Probability, and as you astutely add, the interpretation of the probabilities. I am certainly not dismissing advances in and the relevance of that technology, but when I read for example the Thiede abstract, it feels to me that more traditional means have been dismissed in favor of this modern and relatively new science. To explain better what I mean...say I just heard "Agave paniculata" for the very first time. I would have absolutely no clue as to the true nature of that plant. In fact, I would very wrongly assume it was something likely xeric, likely with what I would imagine are typical agave-like features. Now, if I instead heard "Manfreda paniculata", even never having heard of the species name before, I would have a mental image far more accurate which would give me a sense of what that plant is, and it's general characteristics. Therein lies the value and purpose of a Genus name. It bands together a group of like plants with like characteristics, different enough from the family it belongs to, to warrant it's own name. It makes sense to call a Manfreda a Manfreda!

Fair enough, but there are are many xeric Manfreda and many tropical/montane Agave that are not xeric, and some of those xeric Manfreda are much tougher than their tropical/montane Agave cousins. I'm not in one camp or the other -- I actually don't give a shit, but I do find it interesting.

This discussion was recognized by Gentry, 1982, but he noted that amongst Agave enthusiasts very few had any interest in Manfredas.

They do seem like a different animal.

Since a hosta and an agave have been successfully hybridized (not by me, but it has happened and was confirmed by DNA analysis as the offspring looked so much like a hosta) the line seems blurred.

It is always blurred.

It is less blurred when descendants of a branching lineage are separated by time and space which allows genetic differences to accumulate.

However, with the agave proper, the decades (+ -) it takes to reach maturity allows them to mix DNA whenever the opportunity arrises. Their DNA remains "old" enough that a reproductive barrier has not developed, not even, apparently with hostas from which they have been separated for millenia.

This makes the taxonomist's (and the layman's) work a bit more hairy, er fuzzy, er difficult.

Dan, absolutely correct. Exceptions to every rule. Although, by and large, Manfeda is quite different from Agave; tuberose, deciduous, lacking in armor, tending towards more temperate to tropical climate. Also, the flowers have a quite distinctive morphology compared to Agave.
In my mind, too many differences to lump them into Agave based on probable sequence affinities.

MJP, well said. Also, it's quite true that Manfreda has not generated widespread interest among collectors in the past, but I perceive that is changing with the advent of irresistible new hybrids and cultivars, and the explosion of information/advertising/availability forthcoming. They are becoming much less obscure, and more likely to be seen available in general marketplaces. I'll bet if they put 50 Manfreda Chocolate Chips, or Silver Leopard at my local garden center, they'd be cleaned out in days. If you've never seen one, there's no way you can just walk by without a double-take, and a closer inspection.

For me, I was initially attracted to Agave at first, and only more recently with interest strongly expanding into the relatives; Beschorneria, Furcraea, Manfreda.....Calibanus, Hesperaloe, Yucca... It's like those potato chips...you can't have just one.

What about Nolina and Dasylirion?

I like these woody lilies for their evergreen architecture. Something the Manfredas tend not to have in my North Carolina climate Z7b.

The Agave ovatifolia x Manfreda at Juniper Level Botanic Garden are very attractive and surprisingly cold hardy, but do suffer disfiguring leaf damage in our winters. They recover quickly when the weather warms.