Introduction

[Griffin]

I have read a number of the posts.... I had to register just to weigh in. I find that many of the posts have a distinct slant here. What was apparent to me was that there was shade cast and inference to knowing next to nothing by some about people that are not in on the discussion. Even if unnamed, it is kind of lousy. So specifically with regard to titanota ~ I found it interesting that the plants that occur together and cross with one another are considered by some as two distinct species. This is put forth without the benefit of any flower comparisons. If they are here, I have not seen them. The type locality of titanota which is given in the description as ca. 17 miles west of san antonio, Since the original location was given as About 17 miles west. So how do you know for certain that you were at the type locality? I know Rancho Tambor does not not exist now. So exactly how did you establish that the plants you saw where indeed the same as Gentry's plants? Not doubting you found it but how do you know for certain? 1 or two degrees off and you are in the next drainage which contains plants that are both blue and green. The plants at "Tambor" are mostly alabaster as the name implies but the location is higher up and more exposed and so there is a push to be glaucous. The green ones don't succeed as well there but they do under some shade and lower down where the contour can provide some. This is not unlike the waxy white Dudleya brittonii which grows on the exposed rocks with the green form under the shrubs where it is protected within just feet of one other.

I find it confusing that leaf morphology is leading this discussion. We are not talking about Lithops. My conjecture is and continues to be that titanota is a relatively young, polymorphic species with very likely some incursion from Agave kerchovei but that there are three species here is a bit of stretch for me. I say that because the drainages they grow in are not hundreds of miles separated but by a mere 4 to 5 miles tops as a pollinator flies. If the contention is that there are three species and in places that becomes a confusing hybrid swarm, I could wrap my mind around that but still your lines of how you are defining these 3 species are not just blurred but erased.

Also I have heard the continued reference to FO 076 (mind you someone said in the 80's) Felipe Otero ~ the 76 was the collection year ~ I was told and not the collection number. I think it is a leap to assume that anything that "looks" like what someone thinks is FO 076 is in fact the plant is in error. The collection was made 41 years ago. The plants we sold RSN as green titanota came from the new toll road. If one can assert that they are not titanota, then one can also assert they are not FO 076.

The motivation is clear here. Someone wants to describe and new species. The problem is that there would have to be clear and defined evidence that there are succinct and consistent floral differences. I have not see that.

Finally, what is the current take? Agave kerchovei, clearly defined Agave titanota, for anything that is blue, acuminate and from "Tambor" (ignoring the green ones there?) and finally Agave ? , for anything that does not fit those two???

I include a photo of flowers I took on plants that bloomed in cultivation. One blue, one green the blue one was acuminate "white" and the green one was the more typical green form from near the toll road. I know which one is which can you tell?

More work should be done and conclusions should be backed up by fact and science and not hyperbole. I would also put forth that people with a personal bias should not be the ones doing the work. I say that, mind you, from the "Crass Commercial Aspect" of not serving my own interests....( Usually we crass commericalists are admonished for our incessant splitting in order to sell more plants and products!) if you may note , I am not on that side. Just for everyones info I am proud of the fact that you have Agaves like impressa and chazaroi and the long list of introductions that my work has brought about even if it is viewed by some as insignificant.

Kelly Griffin

[Gee.S]

Welcome Griffin. This is just a discussion forum. Folks show up and exchange ideas because we enjoy it. Opinions are shared, agreed upon and disagreed upon. No hard feelings one way or another. There is no authority or arbiter of nomen here. We're just shootin' the sh*t, and hopefully learning a thing or two in the process.

Oh, and FO-076 was basically picked out of a hat as reference to any titanota-like Agave that does not fall under Gentry's description. Technically incorrect, we know, had to call 'em something.

[Viegener]

Nice to see you here ;-)

[Luc]

Great, here we go again.

[Spination]

I'm a know-nothing, but an enthusiast and a fan of both Agave and Aloe (and of course a lot of the KG hybrids), so for me personally, it's very nice to see you here to weigh in and share your thoughts. I enjoy the reading and learning... hopefully with some sinking in. It's all good! Thanks!

[KLC]

Awesome to have you here Kelly. I hope you check in regularly and join in our conversations. As GeeS has mentioned, we agree, we disagree, it's all good at the end of the day.

[Luc]

In this titanota "story" I don't really have any opinion, if it's a solely species or several, for me that's the same thing but like many of us I' m wondering what is the explanation of the diversity of phenotypes.
Yes Greg will feel probably really proud to give us some extra explanations and probably more proud yet if he can put some order in this mess and may be, in the end describe a new ( Or several ) species.
Could you tell me who can and want do that except him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the floral structure is not the only characteristic which is observed when a new species must be described. The flowers are "just" the less changing parts of a plant depending on its environment the one of the more reliable but not the only one. You didn't mentioned if the flowers you photographied are similars or not, according to your point of view, I guess they are. But be honest, the entire flowers are similars ( Stamens, pistils, petals and tepals ) ?
And again I'm wrong or not ?
There is already 2 species of marginatae which share the same floral structure and are separated just by morphological characteristics ( xylonacantha andanother, can't remenber which one).

Finally, do you really think that Agave kerchovei is a clearly defined species ? My feeling says no.

PS : I think that many more people think that your work is important than insignificant.

[Gee.S]

The type locality of titanota which is given in the description as ca. 17 miles west of san antonio, Since the original location was given as About 17 miles west. So how do you know for certain that you were at the type locality? I know Rancho Tambor does not not exist now. So exactly how did you establish that the plants you saw where indeed the same as Gentry's plants? Not doubting you found it but how do you know for certain? 1 or two degrees off and you are in the next drainage which contains plants that are both blue and green.

I have not been, so have no dog in this hunt whatsoever. I only know that HSG's description of titanota is very narrow compared to the range of plants with "titanota" labels affixed in the commercial market.

But I have visited enough type localities to know that there may be clues or information available there not available anywhere else, thus it is VERY bad science to expand, constrict, or otherwise mitigate or tinker with existing type descriptions without first visiting said localities.

Finally, that is an excellent point made above. I've chased down plenty of pre-GPS localities from a variety of sources, and Gentry's cites are generally more accurate than most, but I imagine there would always be some doubt in regard to the accuracy of localities as remote as Tambor.

[Griffin]

But I have visited enough type localities to know that there may be clues or information available there not available anywhere else, thus it is VERY bad science to expand, constrict, or otherwise mitigate or tinker with existing type descriptions without first visiting said localities.

See comments on Greg's response to having seen five localities of titanota ( I am certain I have seen a few of these as well ) Greg says Gentry's type locality is incorrect. So so much for bad science. Wrap your mind around that.

[Griffin]

54321

[Griffin]

12345

[Griffin]

54321