Waterlily Descriptions - Henry S. Conard
This section of the website is devoted to the taxonomic descriptions of Nymphaea species by Henry S. Conard, author of the classic The Waterlilies - A Monograph of the Genus Nymphaea. The texts gathered here are taken directly from the publication of 1905.
After the publication of The Waterlilies, Henry S. Conard became widely regarded as the ‘Father of Waterlilies’. Students and researchers, amateur gardeners and commercial growers, have turned to Conard for the final word on almost anything taxonomic concerning the genus Nymphaea.
|
Nymphaea alba var. rubra Nymphaea candida
|
Although research has continued, new species have been discovered, and much hybridising has taken place since 1905, Conard’s monograph still provides the foundation upon which all serious studies of the genus are based. It is an invaluable work, for not only does it embrace Conard’s original research and views, but also collates those of De Candolle, Planchon and Caspary, thereby bringing together an enormous wealth of botanical knowledge.
Henry Conard modestly describes his work as a review, but for those who are actively involved with the genus Nymphaea it is a solid corner stone upon which to build. Despite the fashions and changes of the last century there is still a consensus for most of Conard’s conclusions. This is remarkable, for the monograph is the outcome of only four years work. Full credit is given to Robert Caspary, a great pioneer in the study of the genus, and whose deliberations were incorporated. However, the fact remains that this material was assimilated into Conard’s own extensive research which used living material and vouchers from around the world, thereby making the writing of an astonishing achievement in such a short period of time. Indeed, it can be said that this was truly one of the great botanical publications of the early twentieth century.
Since 1905 there have been enormous horticultural developments within the genus. This has largely been the result of better scientific knowledge, but also the arrival of new species and forms which have enabled plant breeders to create decorative waterlilies, the like of which Henry Conard could never have imagined when he penned his masterpiece. Of course Conard did not delve too deeply into the horticultural world, even though Frenchman Joseph Bory Latour-Marliac had been busy for some years before producing a plethora of hardy hybrids. This is regrettable, for the taxonomic situation with the early hybrids is still chaotic despite the best efforts of the International Waterlily and Water Gardening Society which now serves as the registration authority for cultivated Nymphaea and Nelumbo. If only Conard had provided some guidance in those early days.
One of the great difficulties which Conard appeared to overcome easily was the deception which single waterlily plants can perpetrate during the growing season. An illusion can be given by varying water and climatic conditions that a plant is something other than one knows it to be. It is a factor which more recent researchers have wrestled less successfully. In his introduction to a paper entitled Nymphaea in Tanganyika Territory, R.R. Le Geyt Worsley, a biochemist working at Amani elucidates clearly upon the difficulties: ‘My observations have shown that not only do the ratios of length of stamens to petals vary considerably at different stages of growth, time of year, etc., but also the number of petals, stamens and carpels, and the size of flowers and leaves also vary for the same plant. In a mature plant in active growth these factors are, however, more constant. It is clear, however, that only by cultivation or by repeated observation in the field throughout the year can any form of classification be worked out; intermittent collection of specimens is useless. I am of the opinion that many of the new species as described by the authors (Gilgand and Peter) are in reality only others in different stages of growth.’
This is borne out by the status of N. burtii Pring and Woodson. Introduced from Tanganyika to the Missouri Botanic Gardens, St. Louis, USA in 1929, the famous tropical waterlily hybridist George Pring used it in his breeding programme in 1930. Within a few years the world of decorative tropical waterlilies was turned on its head. Nymphaea burtii was hailed as a new species and described in the Annals of Missouri Botanical Gardens. Today, however, the thinking is that if forms part of Nymphaea stuhlmannii (Eng.) Schweinf. and Gilg. In Flora of Tropical East Africa - Nymphaeacea (1989) B. Verdcourt states: ‘There is, I am "convinced, only one yellow waterlily in Central Tanzania occupying a quite restricted area about 250km in diameter. Undoubtedly, however, the flowers of the types of N. stuhlmannii are not identical with material collected subsequently, being wider and blunter, in fact narrowly obovate but there is one small flower on one of the syntypes which has narrower petals and does not match other sheets. As in so many species the flowers are very variable. Worsley considered the Stuhlmann specimens might be abnormal and also correctly assumed holoxantha, citrina and burtii conspecific.’
Verdcourt also notes in the same flora, when describing Nymphaea heudelotii Planch., that ‘At first sight there would be no problem about the delimitation of this graceful small-flowered small-leafed taxon but the existence of numerous specimens intermediate with N. nouchali var. coerulea first convinced me that it would be best treated as another variety of that species. The situation is complicated by the existence of small-flowered Indian specimens of N. nouchali scarcely distinct from African material.’ Further evidence of the immense complexity of the genus and the inevitable difficulties which taxonomists have in bringing it to order; an order that is rarely much different from that originally proposed by the remarkable Henry Conard years before in The Waterlilies.
 Click to join pondmessenger
|
|