Do these names ring any bells?

I wonder if, among your readers, there is a family member, relative or simply a good friend, who can tell me something about any of the individuals mentioned below. They all had a genus named after them.

Name Genus Family Author Date published
G Berrisford Berrisfordia Aizoaceae L. Bolus 1929 (?)
R A Rabie Rabiea Aizoaceae N.E. Br. 1930
E Stoeber (?) Stoberia Aizoaceae Dinter & Schwantes ?

This information is needed for an update of the late Prof WPU Jackson’s (1990) Origins and Meanings of Names of South African Plant Genera. The only information I have discovered about these individuals is that the species name of Berrisfordia is khamiesbergens, so maybe Berrisford lived in the Northern Cape; Rabie was a priest, (a missionary?) living around 1927-1930 in South Africa or Namibia; and Stoeber lived in Lüderitz, Namibia”

Any information provided would be a contribution to South African botanical history. I can be contacted on 021 685 4953 or gascoyne@mweb,co.za or at 68A Dean Street Newlands, 7700 (Cape Town). Your help would be appreciated.”
Hugh Clarke, Cape Town

Feu de Joie

The mountain garden
Grows dark in Winter,
Mantled in shadows
While the truant Sun
Courts the North.
Yet wonderfully,
In this gloom and chill
The terraces begin
To glow with a heat
Of their own.
Like spears reddening
In the forge,
The Aloe buds are raised,
Defying the dark
With burning brands of
Hot colour,
Rust and Gold,
Molten Copper,
Fiery Corals,
Smouldering Crimsons
And Scarlets.
And now the insurrection spreads,
New explosions errupt
As Strelizias burst into flame
And Kniphofias shoot up
Incandescent rockets of
Fiery Yellow and Orange.
This is Winter's
Blaze of Glory!
C. Emily Dibb, Muizenberg

Cliff hangers for BotSoc Conservatory?

I attended Ernst van Jaarsveld and Eric Harley’s stimulating lectures on Vertical Gardening at UCT’s Summer School earlier this year. Ernst mentioned that he has plans for a new display of these fascinating hanging cliff plants in one of the Botanical Society Conservatory’s corner houses, which would be a world first for Kirstenbosch. Apparently he needs to raise funds in order to do this, and mentioned that he would be approaching the Botanical Society. There was a spontaneous round of applause at this suggestion from the packed lecture hall. This is something that I would be very happy for the Botanical Society to use my membership subscription to support. What a wonderful way to mark Kirstenbosch and the Botanical Society's joint centenaries with a new, unique display of our world famous succulent flora!
R. Tait, Rondebosch

Photo: Cliff Bells (Cotyledon pendens) by Monique McQuillan. See article Succulent treasures for the garden by Ernst van Jaarsveld, Veld & Flora March 2012, page 27-29.

Bad Science?

Under sweeping new rules, botanists have made their first formal plant species identification solely through DNA sequencing. Prior to January 1, new plants had to be described by their visual characteristics in Latin. There are no Latin words to describe DNA results, so the technology could not be fully applied. But now, Latin is no longer required so the door is open to a faster and more efficient way to identify new species.’ A statement on the website Planet Ark.
For some groups, such as yeasts, DNA sequencing is proving useful for establishing new species. It has also helped discover cryptic species amongst the birds. However, some botanists have pointed out that point 32.2. of the code states that to be validly published a new name must have ‘a diagnosis’ which is a statement on how this new taxon is distinguished from others. In the past this has implied a morphological description. Unfortunately, point 32.2 is vague enough to probably allow just the comparison of DNA sequence data.
One of the disturbing things about modern classificatory paradigms is that a whole level of organization (organismal morphology) is being written off as scientifically worthless. Am I the only one who is scared by the implications of this?
I personally think this is bad science. Biodiversity presents us with information at the molecular, the genetic, the organismal and ecological level – and data from all level gives us important information about how organisms manifest and change with time. The acceptance of strict monophyly is allowing scientists to discount groups of organisms defined by unique morphologies. These groups are valid and could easily be accepted under a paraphyletic classification. This is possibly arguable, but if we are to create classifications in which data from all levels of organisation are acknowledged for the value that is inherent in them, then we must accept paraphyly. Besides all new major evolutionary lines start off as paraphyletic side branches -- and paraphyly says a great deal about the way in which organisms evolve.
Hopefully, in time, taxonomy will become somewhat rational on this matter and acknowledge that we need to take cognisance of the data we obtain from all levels of reality. If we accept this then, certainly for multicellular plants, I think any diagnosis based on molecules should also be accompanied by morphological descriptions. We will have to see if the code in future takes note of this or not. My faith in the code ended abruptly last year.
Fortunately, I think there are many taxonomists out there that feel the same way.
Ashley Nicholas, University of KwaZulu-Natal (via Plant-chat@yahoogroups.com)

Closer to the source

Has anyone pointed out to the Australians the word ‘Acacia’ is from the
Old Testament: Num. 25.1 and Joel.3: 18 and elsewhere? I would have
thought that as we in Africa are part of the Great Rift Valley system
which comes through Israel, our right to retain the name Acacia is closer
than Australia’s by a long shot.
Clive Walker

A genus apart

I have been following the Acacia saga from afar. (I live in Melbourne having left South Africa many years ago). I was born in South Africa and lived there for 36 years and as they say, you can take a person out of Africa, but you cannot take Africa out of that person and I am very sad indeed that our beloved and iconic thorn trees can no longer be called Acacia. Having nurtured them in my Johannesburg garden from seedlings and watched as they gradually assumed the characteristic flat-topped shape, I know they have no equal outside of Africa. The new generic name Vachellia leaves much to be desired. However, another way to look at it, our splendid African acacias deserve to be a genus apart from the scrappy Australian trees that now have sole right to the name Acacia. It was insulting to the stately African acacias to have had to share a genus with the shapeless Australian wattles!
Alex Teare, Melbourne

See How we lost the African acacias on page 26 of the March 2012 issue of Veld & Flora. (Or click here to read).

Up the garden path without a map

I wish to thank Graham Duncan for his most informative and interesting article on Kirstenbosch in the December 2011 issue. It would have been more helpful, if the article had had a map of Kirstenbosch attached, to indicate the different areas described within the article. Would it possible to have this published in the next edition of the journal?
Dudley Werner

There is a very good map on the website which you can download or view
at http://www.sanbi.org/sites/default/files/documents/documents/kbgdnmapweb.pdf