R. Hobbiense, blomsterklase hos CA Lehmann, HE
R. Hobbiense, plante hos J.C. Birck, JCB
Knop hos J.C. Birck, JCB
Overside af blad hos HE, H. Eiberg
Underside af blad hos HE, H. Eiberg
Kapsel hos HE, H. Eiberg
Kapsel - ung hos HE, H. Eiberg
Planten om vinteren hos HE, H. Eiberg
R. Hobbiense blomsterklase hos Carl Adam Lehman hos Carl A. Lehmann, H. Eiberg
R. Hobbiense - described by Hans Eiberg ; 20th March 2006
Synonymes: R. 'Hobbies bureavii'; poluninii aff.; R.luciferum sold by K. Cox
Indumentum (hairs) from R. hobbiense and R. lanatum var. luciferum (Bartholomew). Foto Klaus YdeSome comments from Stephen Fox 30/9 2007 R. circinatum was found on the Bimbi La by Kingdon Ward in July, 1935. (KW 11964). This plant was originally classified by Davidian as a member of the Taliense Series (with a supposed resemblance to R. adenogynum). Chamberlain subsequently moved it (along with R. lanatoides) to the Lanata Sub-Section. Flower colour white or pale yellow. R.luciferum was found by Ludlow and Sherriff in May 1936 in and around the Lung Chayul Chu (LS1557), and by Ludlow, Sherriff and Taylor in 1938 (LST 3620, 6549, 6652), at and around Molo. The flower colour was "lemon". Both Ken Cox and I collected seed from Lanata plants on the Bimbi La (one species only). Those plants have ramiform indumentum of in a yellowish colour and a coiled structure. They conform to the description of R. circinatum, as do plants raised from their seed. (However, Ken sold these plants as "luciferum" until this year. He now calls them "circinatum/luciferum"). If you have a plant from the LST 1938 collections (above), it surely must be R.luciferum, as the name was so defined from these plants. Certainly the indumentum should be reddish-brown, not the yellow-brown associated with T. circinatum (and R. lanatoides). However, it seems to me that your "hobbiense" is most likely circinatum, as the leaves are basically similar and the presence or absence of glands on the ovary may not be critical. I remember Elizabeth Hobbie telling me that her father was a great seed-collector. When I asked where he had been plant-hunting, she replied "mostly England"! So can you rely on the real provenance of your plants? Mr Birck's plants seem different from the others and might well be R. luciferum. Your survey of the Lanata omits Davidian's "tsariense magnum" and "tsariense trimoense", (with its 3-metre high variant at Muncaster) not to mention a plant sold by Glendoick in the 70's as "lanatum aff". It's a low spreading dwarf with very thick indumentum.
31/9 2007 Comments to S. Fox H.Eiberg My R. Hobbiense has yellow-brown indumentum and not reddish-brown indumentum and my plant is the same clone as Birck's plant G. Dixon 10/10-2007 comment regarding Stephen Fox's remark about 'Hobbie's seed-collections' . He never collected seed out of English gardens and assumed the resulting seedlings to be good species. His definition of a 'good species' was anything that grew from seed that he'd received under a collectors' number from the RBG Edinburgh and he took this very seriously. Even the obvious natural hybrids such as 'erythrocalyx' he treated as species, purely because of their natural provenance. This attitude was of course a little uncritical but he certainly never collected just any old seed and sold the seedlings as species.
May 10 2006 from Gerald Dixon For about 25 years I was a close friend of Hans Robenek (sadly he passed away last year) and during his time as Hobbie's nursery-manager, also got to know Dietrich Hobbie a little. The plant we're talking about was always known as 'bureavii aff.': the best plant was growing beside the main pathway, was (in the late 80s) only about 60cm high and according to Hans Robenek, had never been known to flower. There were further seedlings, more open growing, that had flowered and this seems to be the plant that Carl Adam Lehmann and others grow? In the mid-eighties Peter Cox and his family were visiting Jan Wieting, also a good friend of Hans Robenek, and Jan took his guests to see Hans Robenek's garden/nursery in Linswege. According to Hans, Peter Cox saw the 'bureavii' and immediately said that this was in fact Rh.poluninii. Since then, this name has seemed to travel to Scandinavia, possibly due to the annual visits of the 'Danes' to Linswege. If you look at Cox's species book, on page 96 picture number 3 shows foliage extremely similar to 'hobbiense' (apart from the less shiny upper leaf surface) and certainly not what we normally grow as lanatoides. The picture of poluninii on page 98 shows much more rounded foliage that hobbiense, nothing like the typical tapered form. From the text on the following pages it seems that the main difference between luciferum and lanatoides should be the flower colour, yellow in luciferum and white in lanatoides. The open-growing form of hobbiense has white flowers as far as I know so this rules luciferum out. I've attached a photo of a small, unfortunately rather sickly plant of the compact hobbiense: the mature leaves have a definite olive shade which certainly separates this plant from what was usually considered to be bureavii in Germany. I have a plant of bureavii which originated from Hobbie with the typical thick stems and a near orange indumentum so I can't imagine Dietrich Hobbie assuming that these were the same species but he had to call it something? I think it's a great shame that Dietrich Hobbie's name has not been used for this plant so I hope you and other experts persevere with the argument.
Dear Carl and Hans, Dec 2007 John McQuire and I looked at the leaves you kindly sent of 'luciferum' 1* and hobbiense yesterday using his powerful microscope, and his long experience! 'Luciferum', as expected, keys out to circinnatum - bistrate with scattered small rosulate hairs underneath the thick layer of ramiform hairs which have the distinctive curly ended branches. We believe that all the Glendoick plants sold as luciferum are circinnatum, and their latest catalgoue suggests that they think so too. Hobbiense is very interesting. The indumentum is, in fact, bistrate, with widely scattered small rosulate hairs under the ramiform layer, which is even thicker than luciferum on the leaves we examined. You need high magnification to see the rosulate hairs. Now, the ramiform hairs look exactly the same as those on circinnatum, and these distinctive curly hairs do not occur, to our knowledge, on any other species. However your description states that there are no glands on the ovary of Hobbiense, and dosn't mention glands on the pedicel or calyx, all of which are mentioned by Davidian. The question that arises, therefore, is what do the flowers of 'luciferum' (= circinnatum) look like? Are there glands present at all, and is Davidian's description wrong (unlikely, we think). Has it flowered in Denmark? We have never seen a flower. We should also very much like to see the flowers of Hobbiense as well, and hope you would send a truss of each if and when. Tentatively we have to say that Hobbiense is an eglandular expression of circinnatum, but we have to make sure. Thanks for opening up this fascinating puzzle. There should be a publication in this eventually! All the best for Christmas and the New Year, Mike Robinson 1* 'luciferum' was the R. lanatum, Bartholomew 185B-76.0891D Benmore
DETERMINATION by J.F.J. McQuire May 2009 of two small packets containing 4 corollas of R. hobbiense (sic) ( leaves sent in 2008 –none in 2009). From Hans Eiberg. Leaves: Oblong-elliptic 8-12 cms long 2.5 to 4.5 cms wide.: Apex –some abruptly acute and some abruptly acuninate : base rounded. Upper Surface: Shining dark green , floccose in grooved midrib- mainly towards the base- detersile on old leaves. Lower Surface: Covered with a thick dark brown (some rust-coloured) continuous UNISTRATE indumentum of thick short-stemmed dendroid hairs (superficially appearing ramiform) with long and very long filamentous branches. Petiole: Densely tomentose with hairs as lower lamina. Inflorescence: Corolla: Unknown number in truss (See heading) funnel-campanulate : narrow base 3.5 to 4 cms. long: 5-lobed minutely emarginate. Very pale yellow without spots. Stamens: Unknown number (diffused and part decayed in packets) Unequal, very pubescent third of way from base. ie . the height of the ovary. Style: 2.5 cms glabrous.: eglandular Pedicel: 1 –1.8 cms long: DENSELY FLOCCOSE with some hairs having red resinous parts which can be mistaken for glands : EGLANDULAR. Calyx:: Small, nearly a mere rim: green: floccose/ pubescent Ovary: DENSELY TOMENTOSE similar to the pedicel hairs : conoid : EGLANDULAR
