Unknown bush

RB · Post by RB » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:22 am

I could not find this in any book, not even Weber's latest, or Blamey's.

The nearest Stephen and the books got to, is a Coronilla valentina, possibly glauca, but all the pics I have been able to find of this, show a plant with leaves that are very noticeably different, with prominent veins, prominently folded, not as succulent, and more green. This plant's colour is decidedly greyish.

Take a good look, maybe it is Coronilla RBensis

RB

Sdravko · Post by **Sdravko** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:25 am

Coronilla valentina sth like glauca. Some Maltese botanists think it might be a new, undescribed ssp.

RB · Post by RB » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:28 am

I must agree with them also, as there is quite a considerable difference from the pics of valentina / glauca that I have managed to find on the internet - in fact I would go as far as to say that quite possibly it's a new species rather than just a subspecies. But then I'm no scientific person. Another endemic possibly?

RB · Post by RB » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:13 pm

I have just looked at Weber's latest book, and the photo there shows a plant with POINTED leaflets, not indented/notched for ssp glauca. And again they are distinctly folded, not flat as this plant.

Blamey's book has illustrations not photos but again the fold and veins are evident.

I find it hard to accept this as a valentina ssp glauca.

Sdravko · Post by **Sdravko** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:27 pm

thats because he put 2 photos of Lotus cytisoides by mistake.

RB · Post by RB » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:42 pm

Well as regards Weber yes in fact I did think that maybe the book has a mistake! It was a bit extremely different! But then I thought it was not possible for him to make a mistake!! Now that's respect ehh

jackpot · Post by **jackpot** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 pm

RB- thanks for your respect

Sometimes, --- happens- and in this case it was my fault! Close before printing I had the wish to change the right pic for a better one (now on the left, p 163) and did not regognize during the last correction before final printing that they moved the valentina pic away). You will find another greater mistake on p. 146: the last 2 text lines of E. peplus were removed, which I noticed only after a helpful comment by il-Pine. In addition, there are several other smaller mistakes, which will be removed in the next edition. It is always interesting: many people corrected the text, and I by myself did it 4 or 5 times, and there are still mistakes in, like in all other books. Even you will find mistakes in books after the 50th edition....

However, soon I will send the original pic of C. valentina ssp. glauca to this forum that people can print and change the no. 2 on page 163.

jackpot · Post by **jackpot** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:28 pm

... s-h-i-t happens (see above)