Agaveville

Just found a UK nursery with 4 varieties - elongata, maculata, undulata and an unnamed species.

Gallery has undulata, maculosa (is that maculata) but no elongata. Anybody know it?

Manfreda elongata Rose 1903 is a right name You see Manfreda elongata at San Marcos Growers

maculata/maculosa:

http://www.agavaceae.com/botanik/pflanz ... VE&gnr=110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

maculata is reduced to synonomy.

elongata:

http://www.agavaceae.com/botanik/pflanz ... VE&gnr=110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

treated as gracillima with elongata a synonym.

undulata is a whole 'nother problem.

I am sorry but your critical analysis of the species of Manfreda is incomplete

For the Pllant List and the Catalogue of Life 2015 Manfreda is a Genus . Manfreda maculata ,maculosa , elongata and undulata are accepted names.

For U. Eggli and J.Thiede in the Monocotyledons Study in 2002 Manfreda is not a Genus but an Subgenus of the Genus Agave with tow Group Manfreda and Polianthes
The name of Manfreda maculata and maculosa are Agave maculosa.
The name of Manfreda elongata is Agave gracillima.
They do not speak from Manfreda undulata !!!

This study is a remake of the old study of Alwin Berger in 1915
The most botanist of the world do not agree this classification.

Hmm, you don't seem to have a strong opinion on this subject

Ironically, having just spent some time checking out different species names...especially undulata, and in relation to brunnea (having just completed my latest novel in the Gallery - lol)... and then now happening across this discussion...I'll just post a couple of links from my brief researching here...
https://books.google.com/books?id=xZyg- ... 40&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the title Studies of Mexican and Central American Plants, Issue 3, 1905. Joseph Nelson Rose, U.S. National Museum;
with credit or reference to: Agave undulata Klotzsch 1840
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Klotzsch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rose's work published concluding in 1905 predates Berger's work of 1915.
Alwin Berger had yet to be born before Johann Klotzsch died in 1860.
"undulata" was used by Rose in 1905, but previously as Agave undulata by Klotzsch in 1840.

I'm just saying, I think it's probably difficult to navigate through the mess that was Agave, no...Manfreda, er...make that Polianthes, oops - back to Manfreda over the years. In any case, according to Rose 1905, and Klotzsch 1840 - "undulata" appears to be a good name, and at least a very old one.

mickthecactus wrote: Just found a UK nursery with 4 varieties - elongata, maculata, undulata and an unnamed species.

If it is C.G.F.I know this nursery. You can have trust . They sell Beschorneria Dyckia and Hechtia too.

Spination you have right
.
Personnally , i use the list of "The plantlist". Manfreda for me is different enough from genus Agave. if the flowers are often the same (Sub genus Littae) , the foliage is spineless unarmed some plants are deciduous and with a bulb .
In the UE nurseries, by the seed sellers i never seen Manfreda, Prochnyanthes or Polianthes with the label :Agave

That's the one henri - thank you.

I owe this thread my thanks as the inspiration for a great deal of reading lately about Manfreda. Yesterday, I was reading a bit on the bcss site looking for whatever they had on the genus, and I was a bit confused as to why their take on Manfreda is that it is Agave, not Manfreda. Agave maculosa, elongata...etc. Also..."Mangave" does not exist...and an example of the "correct" terminology for example would be Agave X Bloodspot, because they don't recognize it as an intergeneric hybrid. The person at that site whose opinion seems to carry a lot of weight and no one challenges, says that molecular data does not support a separate genus. So, I decided to check that out some, because that was all news to me.
As far as I can tell, the latest system of taxonomy - APG III of 2009 based on molecular systematics, does recognize Manfreda and Agave as separate genus, both in the Family Asparagaceae and Subfamily Agavoideae...
Is the info I'm finding outdated? Am I missing something? What little info I could find regarding why there is a discrepancy is "Some European taxonomists have lumped manfreda into the genus agave". Is that it? Why? Do they know something we don't? What's the basis for that conclusion, I wonder?
Just something I want to understand better, if anyone would care to enlighten me.

Hi Tom,

I found the attached PDF by Thiede that seems to throw some light on your Manfreda into Agave wonderment. I have not been able to look at some of the references, which is where the meat of the arguments to do this must be presented. Apparently, if you look at the plants strictly at the molecular level an argument can (must?!) be made, which of course for us is useless...

I guess it is hope and wait for a Star Trek style Tricorder to be developed that would immediately give you the answer when pointed at a plant...

Thijs,
Thanks for that. Yes, it does throw some light on it, much like a cloud on a sunny day - lol. Also, it's important to note the difference between making an argument, and "winning" or resolving one.
So, I read that, and googled the citations, and it seems the common theme is the use of words like:
"proposed". I guess what I was expecting or hoping to see was some more definitive or forceful or demonstrative information. Something like: "this is how it is, deal with it." LOL
Also, the weirdest thing of all about that particular proposal, is that bulbilifera 2008, paniculata 2008, parva 2009, petskinil (2009? - Global Species says recognized in 2014, and they call it MANFREDA petskinil), justosierrana (2011), umbrophila (2011), verhoekiae (2011) are all relatively newly accepted/discovered(?) species, and they are the only Manfreda species which appear to be covered by the proposed switch (er..."re-circumscription") over to Agave.
That's so crazy.
First, the proposal didn't take. Everyone is still calling all the new ones Manfreda, as well as the previously known species of Manfreda.
2nd... from my simplistic point of view, stated simply...here are "new" Manfreda species, and we're going to call them Agave now, but we're not going to deal with all the old Manfreda species...we'll keep calling them Manfreda.
LOL what a joke.
I don't see the value of calling new ones one thing, and the older ones something else. Seems a source of more confusion, not more clarity. Isn't the point of taxonomy to make clear the relations between genera and taxa for example? The Manfreda plants are either all Agave, or all Manfreda! Duh!

It's apparent there are profound differences between Agave and Manfreda. One's a tuberous plant, one isn't. One is usually monocarpic, the other not necessarily so. One is long-lived, the other can be deciduous in habit....and at the least certainly develops and matures and flowers much more rapidly. One usually has spines or built in armor, the other not. One seems well suited for xeric conditions, the other seems more tropical. From a practical point of view, it seems extremely obvious to me that one is NOT the other!

If there is definitive molecular data that proves Manfreda is actually Agave, then why not make a change, tell everyone what's what, and be done with it? And, why only deal with newly discovered or accepted species, but not the older ones? Seriously, that's the latest word on the issue, as of 2012?

Anyway, now I know more and understand better about what's been said, and exactly "proposed". Proposed, but not done. I see over and over "data supports....data suggests". I don't see over and over absolute and definitive resolutions. Big difference. Big difference in meaning, big difference in the willingness of the writers to out and out say what is what.

After all that, I still don't get it. After reading that actual proposal, and it's only apparent intention to take baby-steps, and only propose to name newly named/discovered species with the molecularly-based information which defines them as Agave, and Manfreda as an invalid genus (or a valid sub-genus)....it seems very clear to me that those who have wholesale decided to consider Manfreda as Agave have taken a large leap, and a premature action in my opinion.

Here's a very detailed study which is relatively up to date, and the actual basis for proposed genus name change:
http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/reu ... so2006.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (2005)
Although I can certainly appreciate the implications of the studies, I can't help but notice these types of phrases peppered thoughout:
"...not yet completely resolved", "...difficult to say whether this difference is influenced by the amount or quality of data, or perhaps an artifact of combining partial data.", "moderate bootstrap support of 72%.", "Manfreda virginica was not resolved from Agave in this analysis" (the ONLY Manfreda species actually sequenced according to Table 1. List of taxa included in sequence analyses and available GenBank accession numbers) !!, etc.
Going straight to the conclusion:
"When ndhF is combined with both rbcL and ITS data sets, the resulting tree is probably the best overall estimate of the phylogeny of Agavaceae currently available (Fig. 3). We think the addition of more taxa and sequence data will improve the resolution and stability of the relationships seen here." I get it. Who wants to hang out there on the edge of the limb? That's smart. What's not smart is folks taking that what was actually said, and subsequently drawing definitive and absolute conclusions.

I agree with the studies, in as much as I love science, and I appreciate the information, and look forward to the future anticipated clarifications in phylogeny. Apparently, they are far from complete, have miles yet to go, and judging from the word usage throughout, not yet completely definitive or conclusive.

It appears to me that the folks who currently say Manfreda is now Agave have jumped the gun, and are putting the cart before the horse. It looks like the horse cart is headed down a certain road, but has not yet arrived.

Unless there is more out there for me to read, I have seen absolutely nothing that currently states definitively that Manfreda is no longer a valid genus, other than opinions of people who do not appear to know how to read abstracts as actually written. Hypothesis - yes. More than Hypothesis - likely, definitely looks that way. Absolute conclusion - no, not yet.

As strictly a last piece of hilarity to throw in there, and evidence of a rather sad lack of investigation and verification in their literature cited - look again at all of the literature cited in that first abstract. Notice "Jankalski S. 2009. Re: Another X Mangave? AGAVACEAE@yahoogroups.com, message of 4.12.2009." OMG. How did that slip in there? That's a legit citation? Do they know who that joker is? And on a yahoo group? Wow. That's really, really an embarrassment! That is the one and only "arm-chair botanist" who's been banned from numerous forums for antagonizing actual authorities in the worlds of various plants. Since when does a character like that qualify as a reference? OOPS! Doesn't really add a whole lot of credibility when I see something like that. LOL
Google: S Jankalski Open Letter and see what you get. Yup, that's the guy. "Open Letter" was written by a noted Sansevieria expert and author, is quite enlightening and entertaining. Imagine all he must have endured to come to the point of writing that. As they say: and that, is that.
I still can't believe that that Haseltonia published abstract actually used that as a legitimate "Literature Cited". Wow.
Wow.

Despite it all I would still like a Mangave........

I am first and foremost a grower and not of a particularly scientific mind - I leave that to people far cleverer than me.

However, from an observational point of view Manfredas and Agaves seem a long way apart...

When I am asked to ignore the differences I clearly see, and that others clearly see as well - I am skeptical.

No doubt new technology gives us a different ways to look at things, which will prove useful.

That is no reason, however, to ignore what existing technology has shown us.

When all technologies provide answers in agreement, then we have gotten somewhere.

mickthecactus, Amen to that.

Are the Mangave hybrids not readily available in the UK yet? Here, they have become quite common. I recently picked up a "Bloodspot" from the garden center in town, grown by a commercial grower. I picked out the nicest of the dozen they had, by the next week, they were all gone - a testament to their appeal. Interesting is that some have reported these are monocarpic; others have indicated they live on after blooming. Also, some say their experience is they are solitary, while others have experienced offsetting. I wonder if that's a function of growing culture, or a battle for dominance in the expression of genes? Anyway, it would appear they are not all equal when it comes to the observed life cycle.

Anyway, I'm with you on that...growing is absolutely the most rewarding and satisfying hands-on expression of the love for these various plants. Apart from that, I have an affinity for the science of it and like to read as time permits. I would say the joy of watching life itself unfold as a plant grows is tough to beat, but figuring out and understanding how it works and all fits together is very satisfying as well.

Edit..... MJP agreed. I would not advocate ignoring the technology and the implied knowledge gained. For myself, at the same time, I'm not willing to jump off the deep end and completely reshuffle the current taxonomic structure in favor of what looks to be incomplete and uncertain study. As far as I can tell, academics have only "proposed" changes thus far, with the reclassification, and even then, only affecting the newest discovered Manfredas (I mean Agave - lol). Going forward, I would expect studies to provide more information, fill in the gaps, and become more complete. At that point, I expect that the language of abstracts presented to become more certain as well, and I would hope also inclusive of the entire genera (subgenera or nixed altogether).

Regret I cannot find one. There is a US nursery prepared to ship as long as I stump up $180 and a certificate from the Ministry of Agriculture.

That ain't gonna happen any time soon.......

It's the same with Sunbird Aloes - they aren't available in the UK either.

Spination: the Mangave 'bloodspot' I got on eBay a few years ago flowered really quickly after I got it, not at very great size (about half to two thirds the size of A. macroacantha - one of its parents). It is not dead yet, but also not growing, I'd say its slowly wasting away. Up to flowering it was solitary, but since then has produced about 5-6 offsets, which I am about to harvest.

Mick, maybe the next time Winston is in Arizona one of us that has a 'Bloodspot' can send it back to the UK with him and then you can arrange for an exchange or something.
As was discussed in a different thread it seems weird how hard it is to legally ship plants from the US to other countries.

Spination, I missed that @yahoogroups reference, definitely makes you take a pause and consider the seriousness of the publication. In the field I work in (earth sciences) the equivalent would be to refer to a 'personal communication' - ie. someone told you something about the subject you are discussing in the manuscript, but it is not published so the only way to 'refer' to it is that way. While not completely uncommon it has become frowned upon and several journals do not allow it anymore, since it is impossible for people reading the article to verify such a communication especially if they are reading it years after it was published.
What I think you are seeing is the very slow and probably to some extent controversial/contentious process of re-organizing plant nomenclature based on the new molecular and DNA data that has become available to botanists over the last few decades, which is giving them many different ways of looking at how plants may or may not be related. I am sure that not every botanist is going to be on board with that, so it is going to be a process. For us such wholesale changes are of course not helpful at all, because of the previously pointed out lack of Tricorders to tell us the plant's molecular signature. Eventually this proposed new organization of the plants in question might become accepted. I think something similar might also be in progress for the Aloes.

Thijs,
You are right on the mark. I think I am reacting to very confident and outright authoritative remarks made on the bcss website, basically saying that it's a done deal, and that Manfreda essentially does not exist now, that they are in fact all Agave. I would like to see legitimate basis for that revelation, because all I've read so far with available published information falls short of such definitive statements.
It raised eyebrows for me, and I was very happy to read the PDF file you provided, and was a bit shocked to see that those types of proclamations are in fact yet a stretch and a leap, to put it nicely, to say that Manfreda is already at this point an invalid genus.
Given also that the Bogler, et al link for that abstract I provided is the major basis (even more up to date than previous studies) for the Thiede abstract, and having read that in it's entirety...I could now make just an absurd proclamation based on the comments therein that there are no such things as Hosta either, that they are also Agave. LOL "The molecular studies described here provide strong support for the inclusion of Camassia, Chlorogalum, Hesperocallis, and Hosta in Agavaceae."
I think the "PHYLOGENY OF AGAVACEAE BASED ON..." (Bogler, et al) abstract is very thorough, well done, and worthy of respect and consideration. That's the type of work which will pave the way to the realization in the future for your astute observation that "What I think you are seeing is the very slow and probably to some extent controversial/contentious process of re-organizing plant nomenclature based on the new molecular and DNA data..."

As far as the Thiede abstract...it seems thin, oddly and inappropriately selective (only dealing with the newly discovered Manfreda species???). Also, I don't see any details of sequencing information for those particular species, only referenced literature seeming to stand mostly on the shoulders of the Bogler works. As mentioned previously, that abstract only lists analysis for Manfreda virginica, and no other species. I find it hard to fathom based on thin data, that some folks are jumping all over the Thiede abstract as the basis for abandoning Manfreda as a valid genus already at this point in time. Lastly, regarding Thiede, it's a real head-scratcher where they came up with including the Jankalski yahoogroup post as a legitimate literature reference. Yeah, that definitely does provide pause and due consideration for the seriousness of the publication. I'd have to call that one a major gaffe.

Anyway, it definitely looks to be the direction it's all headed, but I don't see the done deal yet.

I'm on board with your Tricorder tool. Sign me up!

I have a dozen seedlings of Bloodspot - and they are all scabrous. All of them.

The parent plant was not purposely cross-pollinated. It was left to nature in the garden as it were.

Every seedling from that plant is scabrous, which has me scratching my head.

They all appear as Agave and not at all Manfreda - except that some have spots.

They all have silvery leaves and teeth, some with very black teeth.

All in all, as wrong as it may be, I find it easier to imagine that the original cross was Manfreda sp. x Agave scabra. Either that, or every single seed from 'Bloodspot' came from pollen given by Agave scabra.

Presently I am willing to let all but two to go to other homes, as greenhouse space is precious.

I shall go outside now and take some photos.

That's interesting. One source I found that mentioned pups developing on a blooming rosette said they were spot-less, I mean sans spotting. Odd. They are clones, no?
As one would expect with hybrid plants, the crossing of them in turn may well involve a re-mixing of the genes, both those expressed in the phenotype and recessive genes not exhibited in the first generation. So, your seedlings are highly interesting from that point of view.
I would happily volunteer to provide a home for one of the orphans.

Here goes...

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

Missing photos

OK, that's amazing. From Mangave bloodspot to those seedlings you pictured.... wow, really amazing. They ARE very agave-ish.

They are all so scabrous it almost hurts to touch them.

To blur things even further - a few years back I took pollen from Agave lophantha and placed it on Manfreda sileri. A fruit was produced and I grew the seed, which produced two evergreen, spotted seedlings that survived many bad winters. The two seedlings bloomed this year, but the anthers failed to open on every flower, so no pollen. So I took pollen from my Hosta 'Dragon King' (from my one and only Hosta breeding attempt) and put it on three Mangave silantha flowers. I now have three fruits developing. All other flowers left to their own devices have no fruit set. Too early to check for seed. Way too early to know if any will grow - or into what.

Very cool, and pioneering type of adventurous undertakings. Fascinating! Mangave + Hosta. Tri-generic? Love it.