Kalanchoe v Bryophyllum

Discussion in 'Plants: Nomenclature and Taxonomy' started by GreenLarry, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. GreenLarry

    GreenLarry Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Darlington, England
    Many years ago I had a succulent that I came to know as Kalanchoe diagremontiana. It was a cool plant for me back then,with its baby plants on the leaf edges,but I since learned its name is Bryophyllum diagremontianum and I now refer to it as such. Now, is it just the unique method of asexual reproduction that puts the plants in that group or are there other factors? Are the geographical ranges similar and when was the distinction made?
     
  2. cactologist

    cactologist Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The genus Kalanchoe was published in 1763, the genus Bryophyllum in 1805. In 1907, Raymond Hamet published a major work integrating Bryophyllum into Kalanchoe. This decision has been controversial since. Significant numbers of botanists recognize the 2 as separate genera. Many others consider Bryophyllum a Section within Kalanchoe.
    Either way, the species in the Bryophyllum group are all (probably) from Madagascar, and have pendant flowers. Most species in Bulbophyllum also produce bulbils (plantlets along the leaves). Species in the Kalanchoe group occur over a much larger range have upright flowers.
    "The Catalogue of Vascular Plants of Madagascar" project and the Missouri Botanic Garden both treat Bryophyllum as part of Kalanchoe. Urs Eggli in his recent monograph on succulents Crassulaceae treats it the same way and points out numerous species that do not fit easily into either group, having features of both. Others treat them as 2 separate genera so you can take your pick.

    Tracy
     
  3. GreenLarry

    GreenLarry Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Darlington, England
    Thanks for that Tracy for that excellent explanation,I never realised the flower morphology was so distinct like that!
     

Share This Page