2 headed cyclamineus

2 comments for “2 headed cyclamineus”

1. Hi Malcolm,

   Well, I don’t think that just because we’ve seen one with two heads that it means that it’s a characteristic of N. cyclamineus.  I think it’s an anomaly.  I’ve also seen a few 2-headed bulbocodiums in the wild.  One made its way to Ohio, and it’s never bloomed with two heads here.  So I tend to think it’s a “one time wonder” that was fun to see.  I can’t test that theory on the cyclamineus, as it didn’t come home with me.

   Mary Lou

2. Hello Malcolm and Rozanne,

     I think you’d have to pose the question to Sharon McDonald as Secretary who would put it on the agenda for the next meeting. However, my personal view, and one I’d be expressing, is that to transfer the flower in question, (and many others with a mixed N.cyc. and jonquilla or apodanthe sections parentage) to Div. 6 would open a can of worms. It would also mean a fairly dramatic removal from the characteristics of true N.cyclamineus. Actually the debate did take place some time ago when, I think, ‘Tete-a-Tete’ and ‘Jumblie ‘were transferred to Div. 12 which I think is where they rightly belong. No doubt someone will correct me if my memory is at fault.

    

   Div. 12 can suddenly become much more exciting with a clutch of little flowers of this type rather than the ‘Refuse Bin’ for misfits.  I still remember  admiring Bill Dijk’s ‘Daffy Duck’  as a lovely little flower and I have several seedlings of similar type from N. cyc. x N. fernandesii – and I hope to have more.

   You raise an interesting question – which causes me to ask what do I do with a split corona and a couple of doubles with obvious N.cyclamineus characteristics!

   I think these would enter the ‘can of worms’ if double headedness were to be considered for Div. 6. 

   Brian

Comments are closed.