BCSS - Forum

Hi,
My Senecio stapeliformis has just produced it's second flower and at the same time the first flower has produced some seeds.

So would this seed be viable and true to type? and if so how should I deal with it, sow it now in my usual cactus mix, wait and try next year!

Anyone grown this plant from seed before!

Any help or advice welcome..

Mel.

I'm not so sure that it has produced seeds. I think these are the shrivelled remains of the unfertilised ovaries.

BrianMc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 5:51 pm I'm not so sure that it has produced seeds. I think these are the shrivelled remains of the unfertilised ovaries.

I concur with Brian. Succulent daisies, i.e. members of the Asteraceae, are notorious for not producing viable seed in cultivation.

BTW the currently accepted name for this species is Kleinia stapeliiformis.

Most but not quite all succulent daisies formerly in the genus Senecio have been moved elsewhere, mainly to Kleinia and Curio, but a few other smaller, newer genera such as Caputia. However, a few orphans remain in Senecio but new homes will be created for them shortly. This particularly applies to those species endemic to Madagascar.

When the forgotten plants are reclassified, will any of the remaining true Senecio be succulent?

Hi,
Thank you all for your replies. I must admit the seeds? seem very small, so I looked at it with my 8X loope and they just look like a dry piece of stem! and as mentioned may be unfertilied.

As for plant names, I can't keep up with all the changes, but I now should sort out my Rebutias from my Alosteras, and then there's all my Mediolobivias too!!

Mel.

Phil_SK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 8:38 pm When the forgotten plants are reclassified, will any of the remaining true Senecio be succulent?

Senecio was a huge genus of 2,000 or so spp. but is gradually being split up. So eventually NO succulent spp. will remain in this genus since they're evolutionary far removed from Senecio vulgaris, the common groundsel, which is the type sp. of Senecio.

Smel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:24 am Hi,
Thank you all for your replies. I must admit the seeds? seem very small, so I looked at it with my 8X loope and they just look like a dry piece of stem! and as mentioned may be unfertilied.

As for plant names, I can't keep up with all the changes, but I now should sort out my Rebutias from my Alosteras, and then there's all my Mediolobivias too!!

Mel.

I know taxonomy is an ever changing field, but stay with us here Mel - we'll try to help.

Meant to say, the genus Kleinia is far from a new name since it was first described back in 1754.

It has though had a very chequered history and was only properly recognised at Kew in the 1990s where much study of Senecio and its relatives was being undertaken.

Kleinia is now THE largest genus of succulent daisies with around 80 spp. ranging from the Canary Islands, through Africa, Arabia, Madagascar to India in the east. (Othonna is slightly smaller in size and this too has been split into two, the other new name being Crassothonna.)

The other key name for succulents in this group, Curio, was newly named in this period, but not by Kew. This has around 20 spp. with mainly trailing or creeping plants, THE most familiar sp. being C. rowleyanus, which is undoubtedly THE commonest succulent daisy in cultivation. C. radicans is also common since it too is easily grown from cuttings.

Caputia is a much more recent innovation, endemic to Southern Africa with just 6 spp. Here C. tomentosa is also a very common plant. These plants have an unusual soft hairy (tomentose) coating to stems and leaves.

Another small genus that'll be unfamiliar is Pittocaulon dating from 1975. This consists of just 5 spp. of Mexican "tree daisies" of which P. praecox will be the only one most folk will have heard of.

That’s a really useful summary, thanks Colin.
I guess I’m not the only one here who has some interest in taxonomy, but not the inclination to find or read too many scientific papers, so your brief guide is very welcome.

So, when is this splitting approach going to be applied to Euphorbia?

esp wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 10:32 am That’s a really useful summary, thanks Colin.
I guess I’m not the only one here who has some interest in taxonomy, but not the inclination to find or read too many scientific papers, so your brief guide is very welcome.

So, when is this splitting approach going to be applied to Euphorbia?

Right, now Euphorbia. Well this is a completely different story. I'm going to disappoint you because I'm in the middle of writing this up for the Dec. CW so I'm not going to do a spoiler here. Suffice to say for now that hot off the press current research supports the unified concept of a huge genus Euphorbia, also with around 2,000+ spp. This contrasts starkly with Senecio where the opposite is the case because this genus in not monophyletic whereas Euphorbia is. What I mean briefly by this is that all the components of Euphorbia have a common origin. Not so with Senecio as currently constituted, or at least as it was before its fragmentation began over two decades ago.

Sorry Edward, but you'll have to wait till the Dec. CW for the full current Euphorbia story, unless of course you do your own research.