The re-issue of this classical work after 80 years would seem rather
astonishing before turning over its pages. Focusing to the genera
Sempervivum, Aichryson, Aeonium, Greenovia, and Monanthes, it exhibits
some peculiarities which might be still of interest for the present
botanical research.
This monograph was written in a very practical scope, using broad
comparisons between field and garden observations, discussing the
frequent identification problems, especially exemplified by the hardy
Sempervivum species (p. 26), and even going into great detail about
horticultural questions (unfortunately without any precise cultivation
schedule, including temperature, moisture, etc.). This approach is
sensible also in the book format as well as in the concise author’s
style and in the numerous, self-explanatory and fine pictures (almost
all the taxa were skilfully drawn in vivo by Eileen Barnes, an artist
from the National Museum of Dublin).
The work is merely divided in three parts: a short general
introduction (p. 1-33) emphasizing all biological features, a
systematic treatment (p. 34-244), and a file of the excluded species
and doubtful names (p. 245-254), completed by lists of garden and
scientific names (p. 255-265).
This impressive and fairly thorough monograph bears yet the stamp of
its time by some weaknesses: it provided several relevant data
e.g. about parasites, epiphytes (mainly lichens) and teratology, but
no information about the phytosociological context and no more about
the root system, the soil pattern, or the branching and thickening of
stems, all features however closely related to horticultural
concerns. As expected, there are no chromosome study (highly complex
in this group, but useful for analysing the putative hybrids), and no
remarks about the conservation in the nature.
This book reminds us at the right time the study of living plants on
the field, prolonged by cultivation in garden and greenhouse, is yet
the most reliable source for a first understanding of the groups whose
some or all members are poorly preserved in herbaria, such as
succulent plants, and which exhibit often a broad herbarium sheet was
cited (except when it was the only available material), although a
detailed nomenclature was given below each taxon, and we may be
surprised too no reference was done to any spirit collection, but no
anatomical study was undertaken or even cited.
Currently many intermediate taxonomic ranks (sectio, varietas, forma)
are ascribable. Many taxa previously described as good species are now
transferred into notho-species or sub-species, such as recalled by
Gérard Dumont in his indispensable website dedicated to the genus
Sempervivum: Sempervivophilia (http://sempervivophilia.stalikez.info/).
The increasingly splitting botanists / gardeners relationships should
recover their nobleness through a new gathering of skills. In
addition, it is quite clear that the classical typification after few
specimens or even a single one is a severe hindrance, constraining any
useful comparison between protologues and features range observed in
Sempervivum populations (in situ and ex situ). This monograph basic
work for the study of the group and reprinted in 2012 raises the role
that should play the ex situ observations for understanding groups of
plants that cannot be kept well in a herbarium.
Jérémy Tritz, (Neuchâtel)
ADANSONIA sér. 3, 2013, 35 (2), page 391-392