Talk:Crocus

Untitled

It would be nice to expand this page with data on:

• how to plant crocuses
• other gardening details

This would be actually nice to have for all plants.

A useful site to look for this information is: www.ehow.com/how_5050_plant-crocuses.html (ehow is now blacklisted, so cannot be a proper link)

Discoleo 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)]

I ageee, it would be good to include appropriate cultivation details (or control details, for invasive plants) for every plant page. On the other hand, if every page contained such details in full they could get very long. Perhaps a general "Cultivation of bulbs" page could be linked to instead, with any extra information specific to the plant in question being kept for its own page? This page, by the way, has become rather disorganised. I'll have a go at re-ordering it. SiGarb | Talk 10:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Misused names

Can common names be "misused"? I've asked for a citation that the common names "Autumn crocus" and "Prairie crocus" are errors, rather than simply the usual disconnect between common names and botanical taxonomy. --Toby Bartels 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Crocus tommasinianus

I have taken a photo of what looks like a Crocus - would anyone be able to advise me which one it is? Flickr.com Crocus. I'm quite happy for this pic to be used on Wikipedia. UPDATE: Thanks for your message Réginald. Again, I'm happy for this to be used on Wiki as an example. --~Xytram~ (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Crocus longiflorus

I have replaced the picture of the taxobox by that of the true Crocus longiflorus taken in my garden. This beautiful autumn-flowering Crocus has a fragrant lilac flower with 3 red stigmas and an orange throat. --Réginald (To reply) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Range is incorrect

The ranges given do not include North America. Growing up in Long Island, New York, the crocuses were a familiar sight on the first sunny days after winter. Since it's 'original research' I'm not going to modify the article, but perhaps someone could find a good source to cite which gives the correct and complete ranges for this plant. SteubenGlass (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The ranges refer to where crocuses are native plants. They are widely grown in North America but not native to that continent. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Caption on photo

The caption on the photo of crocuses growing "in the foothills of the Eiger" is perhaps a little misleading. Though the Eiger does appear in that photo, it's just the peak at the far left; the peak in the center is the Mönch, and the one on the right (the highest of the group, and the most prominent one in the picture) is the Jungfrau. Probably the most accurate way to describe it is to say that the crocuses in question are growing "in the foothills of the Bernese Alps," or perhaps just "in the Bernese Oberland. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that "in the foothills of the Bernese Alps" sounds good. Feel free to be bold and change it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultivars

I was surprised there were no pages for the common cultivated species, so I created them. Mgoodyear (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unknown species

In Series Aleppici Crocus saris was added by 213.149.97.38 on 29 October 2005. I do not find any reference about this species. I guess this is a wrong input. I propose to delete it. --Réginald (To reply) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

There are a few Google hits, excluding Wikipedia mirrors, for c. saris. Only a few, and none that I can find look especially reliable. The burden normally should be on whoever added it to cite a source. On the other hand, there are umpteen species listed there, others of which may have a dearth of information online. I'd suggest tagging it (like this: {{fact}}), leaving a message for the editor who added it, then removing it after a reasonable interval if you get no response. Rivertorch (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done it. I will watch it. If there is no reply within 2 to 3 weeks, I will remove it. --Réginald (To reply) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Have a look on Crocus and Krokusse, which have recently been updated by Muscari and myself, respectively, and do no refer to Crocus saris. --Réginald (To reply) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent update

Adding the results of the recent phylogenic study is of course an excellent update. However, changing the list of species looks premature. As the authors are stating, "…further studies are required before any firm decisions about a hierarchical system of classification can be considered." Although the Mathew's classification is not ideal, I propose to return to it till the results of these further studies are available. --Réginald (To reply) 08:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia practice is to go with verifiable, established, mainstream thought, admitting other views if they're significant but taking care not to give undue weight to them. Specifically in this case, I don't know; I have no expertise in botany and approach all such articles from a horticultural perspective. My gut reaction to the edits in question, for whatever that's worth, was that they provided valuable information but were presented awkwardly in what had been essentially a list. In any event, I've left a note here here, inviting the relevant editor to come and talk to us. Rivertorch (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As the editor in question, 'hello'! I'm afraid I haven't much time to talk in the coming fortnight, as I'll be away from home. My thinking behind my edits was that it is quite a long time since the DNA work was done. Since then at least two articles have been published by various groups of the people who undertook the work. Both the articles that I know of were part-authored by Brian Mathew, who is the quoted authority for the existing list, which dates from 1982 and was based on morphological comparisons only. The list has been used here as if it was the last word on such matters, which it clearly isn't. A ref was given for it to the first report on the DNA studies, in Taxon, (the list was published there and in The Plantsman as reflecting past best guesses against which the new evidence should be weighed), but bizarrely it did not mention any of that report's important findings! I agree that the way I presented the changes is clumsy, but there are so few options for styling entries in Wikipedia that I found it was the best I could do. So I have left the crossed-out names in the sections where they appear in the original list, but have also added them into the sections that are supported by the DNA evidence. Perhaps an extra degree of indenting would help make it clear that they are not in their original place in the list, but this option has already been used for Crocus sativus.

Basically, I think that to present the list as it stood, with no notes concerning the serious doubts now held about its accuracy (as I pointed out, Mathew says he had reservations about some of the categories even when he put the list together), is very misleading. SiGarb | (Talk) 16:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise to make the page more legible I propose to amend it as follows:

The taxonomic classification proposed by Brian Mathew in 1982 was based mainly on the presence or absence of a prophyll (a basal spathe) and the aspect of the style and the corm tunic. The 7 species that have been discovered since then have been integrated in this classification.

Molecular analysis carried out at the University of Copenhagen suggests that this classification should be reviewed. In particular, the DNA data suggest that there are no grounds for isolating Crocus banaticus in its own subgenus Crociris, even though it is a unique species in the genus. Because it has a prophyll at the base of the pedicel it would therefore fall within section Crocus, though its exact relationship to the rest of the subgenus remains unclear. Another anomalous species, C. baytopiorum, should now be placed in a series of its own, series Baytopi. Crocus gargaricus subsp. herbertii has been raised to species status, as C. herbertii. Perhaps most surprisingly, autumn-flowering Crocus longiflorus, the type species of series Longiflori (long regarded by Mathew as "a disparate assemblage"), now seems to lie within series Verni. In addition the position of Crocus malyi is currently unclear.

DNA analysis and morphological studies suggests also that series Reticulati, series Biflori and series Speciosi are "probably inseparable". Crocus adanensis and C. caspius should probably be removed from Biflori; C. adanensis falls in a clade with C. paschei as a sister group to the species of series Flavi; C. caspius appears to be sister to the species of series Orientales.

The study shows "…no support for a system of sections as currently defined," although, despite the many inconsistencies between Mathew's 1982 classification and the current hypothesis, "…the main assignment of species to the sections and series of that system is actually supported." The authors state that "…further studies are required before any firm decisions about a hierarchical system of classification can be considered." They conclude: "Future re-classification is likely to involve all infrageneric levels, subgenera, sections and series."

Here below you find the classification proposed by Brian Mathew in 1982 adapted in accordance with these findings.

A. Section Crocus : species with a basal prophyll

Series Verni : corms with reticulated fibers, spring-flowering (apart from C. longiflorus), flowers for the most part without conspicuous outer striping, bracts absent

• Crocus etruscus Parl.
• Crocus kosaninii Pulevic
• Crocus longiflorus Raf. - Italian crocus
• Crocus tommasinianus Herb. - Woodland crocus, Tommasini's crocus
• Crocus vernus (L.) Hill - Spring crocus, Dutch crocus

Series Baytopi : corms with strongly reticulated fibers; leaves numerous, narrowly linear; spring-flowering, bracts absent; anthers extrorsely dehiscent

• Crocus baytopiorum Mathew

Series Scardici : spring-flowering, leaves have no pale stripe on the upper surface

• Crocus pelistericus Pulevic
• Crocus scardicus Kos.

Series Versicolores : spring-flowering, corms with tunics, which for the most part have parallel fibers, flowers with conspicuous exterior striping

• Crocus cambessedesii
• Crocus versicolor Ker Gawl. - cloth-of-silver crocus
• Crocus corsicus Vanucchi ex Maw
• Crocus imperati Ten.
• Crocus minimus DC.

Series Longiflori : autumn-flowering, yellow anthers, styles much divided

• Crocus goulimyi Turrill (see also Constantine Goulimis)
• Crocus ligusticus M.G. Mariotti (Syn. Crocus medius Balb.)
• Crocus niveus Bowles
• Crocus nudiflorus Smith.
• Crocus serotinus Salisb. - late crocus

Series Kotschyani : autumn-flowering, anthers white, styles for the most part three-forked

• Crocus autranii Albov.
• Crocus gilanicus B. Matthew (discovered in 1973 and named after Gilan province in Iran where it was first found)
• Crocus karduchorum Kotschy ex Maw
• Crocus kotschyanus K. Koch - Kotschy's crocus
• Crocus ochroleucus Boiss. & Gaill.
• Crocus scharojanii Ruprecht
• Crocus vallicola Herb.

Series Crocus : autumn-flowering, anthers yellow, style distinctly three-branched

• Crocus asumaniae B. Mathew & T. Baytop
• Crocus cartwrightianus Herb.
  • Crocus sativus L. - saffron crocus (a sterile triploid mutant or hybrid), presumably derived from Crocus cartwrightianus
• Crocus hadriaticus Herb.
• Crocus moabiticus Bornm. & Dinsmore ex Bornm.
• Crocus mathewii H. Kemdorff & E. Pasche (1994)
• Crocus naqabensis Al-Eisawi (2001)
• Crocus oreocreticus B.L. Burtt
• Crocus pallasii Goldb.
• Crocus thomasii Ten.

Position unclear

• Crocus malyi Vis.
• Crocus banaticus Heuff.

B. Section Nudiscapus : species without a basal prophyll

Series Reticulati : corm tunic for the most part decidedly covered with reticulated fibers, flower produced in winter or spring, style three-forked or much divided

• Crocus abantensis
• Crocus ancyrensis (Herb.) Maw - Ankara crocus
• Crocus angustifolius Weston - cloth-of-gold crocus
• Crocus cancellatus Herb.
• Crocus cvijicii Kos.
• Crocus dalmaticus Vis.
• Crocus gargaricus Herb.
• Crocus herbertii B. Mathew
• Crocus hermoneus Kotschy ex Maw
• Crocus reticulatus Steven ex Adams
• Crocus robertianus C.D. Brickell
• Crocus rujanensis Randjel. & D.A. Hill (1990)
• Crocus sieberi J. Gay - Sieber's crocus, Cretan crocus
• Crocus sieheanus Barr ex B.L. Burtt
• Crocus veluchensis Herb.

Series Biflori : tunics of corms split into rings at the base, either entire or with toothlike projections, leathery in texture, spring- or late-winter flowering, style three-forked

• Crocus aerius Herb.
• Crocus almehensis C.D. Brickell & B. Mathew
• Crocus biflorus Mill. - Silvery crocus, Scotch crocus
• Crocus chrysanthus Herb. - Golden crocus, Snow crocus
• Crocus cyprius Boiss. & Kotschy
• Crocus danfordiae Maw
• Crocus hartmannianus Holmboe
• Crocus kerndorffiorum Pasche (1993)
• Crocus leichtlinii (Dewar) Bowles
• Crocus nerimaniae Yüzbasioglu & Varol (2004)
• Crocus pestalozzae Boiss.
• Crocus wattiorum (B. Mathew, 1995) B. Mathew (2000)

Series Speciosi : corm tunic splits into rings at the base, leathery or membranous, foliage after the flowers, autumn-flowering, style much divided

• Crocus pulchellus Herb. - hairy crocus
• Crocus speciosus M. Bieb. - Bieberstein's crocus, large purple crocus

Series Orientales : corm with parallel fibers or lightly reticulated, numerous leaves, spring-flowering, style three-forked

• Crocus alatavicus Semenova & Reg.
• Crocus caspius Fischer & Meyer (formerly in series Biflori)
• Crocus korolkowii Regel ex Maw - celandine crocus
• Crocus michelsonii B. Fedtsch.

Series Flavi : tunics of the corms membranous, split into parallel fibers, spring-flowering, styles much divided

• Crocus adanensis T. Baytop & B. Mathew (formerly in series Biflori)
• Crocus antalayensis Mathew
• Crocus candidus E.D. Clarke
• Crocus flavus Weston - Yellow crocus
• Crocus graveolens Boiss. &Reut.
• Crocus hyemalis Boiss.
• Crocus olivieri J. Gay
• Crocus paschei H. Kerndorff (1993)
• Crocus vitellinus Wahl.

Series Aleppici : tunics of the corms membranous, with split, parallel fibers, foliage produced at the same time as the flowers, fall- or winter-flowering

• Crocus aleppicus Baker
• Crocus boulosii Greuter
• Crocus veneris Tappein ex Poech

Series Carpetani : undersurface of the leaves rounded with grooves, upper surface channeled, spring-flowering, style whitish, obscurely divided

• Crocus carpetanus Boiss. &Reut.
• Crocus nevadensis Amo.

Series Intertexti : corm tunic fibrous with fibers interwoven, spring-flowering

• Crocus fleischeri Gay.

Series Laevigatae : corm tunic membranous or splitting into parallel fibers, sometimes leathery, foliage produced at the same time as flowers, autumn-flowering, anthers white, style much divided

• Crocus boryi Gay
• Crocus laevigatus Bory & Chaub.
• Crocus tournefortii Gay.

Footnotes

--Réginald (To reply) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's looking better. But don't you feel that the moved species need to be highlighted in some way? (PS I've just demoted the Footnotes title so that it doesn't end up as a section of this page!) SiGarb | (Talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Saffron: "certain species"

This is unnecessarily mysterious, as though the re-editor was unaware that saffron is derived from Crocus sativus, a sterile triploid mutant of C. cartwrightianus. The layout for this page has been busted, leaving white gaps.--Wetman (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Crocus olivieri istanbulensis

This taxon is one on the three subspecies of Crocus olivieri. Its correct name is Crocus olivieri Gray subsp. istanbulensis B. Mathew. --Réginald (To reply) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To close the discussion I have added the 3 subspecies and a reference of the RHS to substantiate it: [1]. --Réginald (To reply) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For consistency purpose I have added the subspecies of the other species (cf. World Checklist). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to England?

Just wondering when they were introduced to the UK, who by and where? I have heard there is a native variety, is this true? Cheers JMRH6 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no native Crocus in the UK. Two species from Southern Europe are locally introduced in the UK: Crocus vernus subsp. vernus and Crocus nudiflorus.

I do'nt know when the first Crocus were introduced in the UK. I guess it was by the Romans, as for the snowdrops.

Take care: Do not mix Crocus with Colchicum (commonly known as autumn crocus), which is well native in the UK.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ahh thats great info, thanks. what about snowdrops? you mentioned them... did the romans introduce them? as i have always believed that it was the Crimean War when the soldiers brought them back for their wives and gardens. I think it must have been the autumn crocus that i have been told about is native then cause i always thought the crocus was chinese. I shall look into it though as they look stunning as a carpet and i would like to plant lots of them in my garden! JMRH6 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Romans introduced the common snowdrop, Galanthus nivalis, which is native in Central and Southern Europe (see Galanthus, section Ecology). The soldiers of the Crimean war introduced other species, which are native in Eastern Europe: G. elwesii (giant snowdrop) and G. plicatus (Crimean snowdrop). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image taxobox

I do not think that the "Dutch yellow crocus" is the most appropriate for the taxobox. The yellow crocus is not a botanical species, but a sterile horticultural product issued from the crossing of Crocus flavus and Crocus angustifolius. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. Maybe there's a guideline for taxobox images that would provide some guidance, but my initial thought is that in making a selection we should consider several criteria, including the quality of the image. The one you've chosen now is really dull-looking and, although it shows a wild species, appears not to be a particularly wild setting. (It looks like a mown field.) It might be helpful if you'd explain why botanical species are more appropriate for taxobox images. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear River, I have also mixed feelings about it.

Originally the picture of the taxobox was File:Crocus longiflorus1.jpg, a close-up of a true species taken in my garden. The other user replaced it without explanation by File:Yellow Crocuses.jpg. Perhaps the other picture of another wild location, that he had put in the meantime (File:Eiger.jpg) into the text, would be more appropriate? Or a good picture of another true species, as File:Crocus albiflorus 2.JPG?

I think that for the taxobox of a page devoted to a botanical genus, with a list of the species, we should use a picture of a "true" species, not of a horticultural (sterile) product. What do you think?

Best botanical regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reorganised the page. It think it is now more logically ordered, i.e., "description" after "history", and "gardening" after the list of the species. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the reorganization you did, and the new taxobox image seems fine. Depicting a species seems reasonable as a general rule (although I still am not quite sure why—I think I dimly sense the reason but would like to be able to articulate it). Anyway, it works well for crocus. With certain plants, it might not be such a good idea; consider tulip or, far worse, hyacinth. Rivertorch (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For hyacinth I fully agree, because, so far I know, none of the three wild species is in horticultural cultivation. For tulip I would more mitigated. There should perhaps be two pages: one devoted to the horticultural hybrids and selections, and another to the wild species, of which about twenty are also in cultivation or even naturalised (e.g., Tulipa sylvestris). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, or T. clusiana or various others. But the sort of tulips most familiar to most people (including Wikipedia's readers) are almost certainly among the hybrid cultivars from several divisions in the bulb registry. And that's what I'm getting at: what should be the main criterion for selecting a taxobox image? Does familiarity count? If so, then it would be valid to use a popular C. vernus or flavus cultivar for the image here; that's probably what most en.wp users think of when they think of a crocus. Taking a more global perspective, C. sativus might be better choice since it has vast economic significance where it's grown and is at least somewhat familiar around the world. You're right about hyacinths, of course, and that's exactly my point: hardly anyone except a few botanists is familiar with wild hyacinths, but why should that matter for the taxobox? I can't find anything in the taxobox guideline about image selection, so I'm relying on logic and common sense with a liberal sprinkling of WP:NPOV. I'm not trying to make this complicated (believe it or not!)—I'd just like to know exactly how we're arriving at the decision. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. In this prospect we could perhaps put again the "yellow crocus" picture, but with a more accurate legend, alike "Crocus 'Yellow Mammoth', a well-known selection of Crocus flavus". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not really suggesting we should do that, merely that we should specify a reason for doing whatever we do. Rivertorch (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was surprised some years back to discover the original registered name was 'Golden Yellow', with 'Yellow Mammoth' one of several listed synonyms (enter Crocus flavus in the search box here). Both names are common enough in North America, but 'Yellow Mammoth' is much nicer. Rivertorch (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

color

It would be interesting to know what gives crocus its color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.226.138 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Changed image in taxobox

I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes and I apologize if I did. Personally, I like botanical drawings or a good picture of the type species for the taxobox image. Feel free to change it. I added the previous image to the species gallery.User-duck (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's good to be bold, as you did, and it's exceptionally good to note on the talk page what you did before anyone objects, so don't worry about stepping on toes. You may have a preference for botanical drawings, but the question we need to ask is: does it best serve our readers? In this case, the answer is no. The new image is pretty, but it is not the most accurate representation possible of a crocus, mainly because the color is way off: neither C. sativus nor vernus have flowers of the hue depicted. So I'm undoing the change you made. That said, I don't think the current image is necessarily the best we can do. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930210449/http://www.thealpinegarden.com/thumbnailindexcrocus.htm to http://www.thealpinegarden.com/thumbnailindexcrocus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crocus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813162311/http://www.vialibri.net/item_pg/3686108-1886-maw-monograph-the-genus-crocus.htm to http://www.vialibri.net/item_pg/3686108-1886-maw-monograph-the-genus-crocus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)