Lithops Scrapbook I

Introduction

An abridged version of these notes was published over three issues by the BRITISH CACTUS AND SUCCULENT SOCIETY in their journal CACTUS WORLD, in December 2007, March 2008 and June 2008. This is the complete, unedited project, transcribed into book format for veiwing online.

The following notes evolved from my intention to provide an update (without any duplication) to Professor DESMOND T. COLE’s original Lithops monograph - LITHOPS FLOWERING STONES, published in Randburg, Republic of South Africa by Acorn Books in 1988. An attempt was made to briefly document all of the subsequent discoveries within the genus, with emphasis on the originating source. I gave consideration to every “new” Lithops I saw mentioned (the vast majority of which were termed cultivars) and documented, further researched and where possible obtained photographs of those I considered worthy of the rank afforded them. Over the years I therefore amassed quite a reasonable number of entries. Early in 2003 I learned through the pages of the M.S.G. Bulletin that Professor Cole was going to update his work and have a second edition Lithops monograph published. Subsequently I was able to make contact with Professor Cole, and I sent him a rough copy of these (then embryonic) notes hoping that they would be of some assistance to him in compiling his new book. Although he and Naureen kindly mention my help on p. 11 of ‘Cole’05’, I learnt a great deal more from the Coles’ than they could ever have learnt from me!

Professor Cole’s reply (which included some Lithops seed) was most informative. He pointed out that mere appearance on a seed list or such like does not count as valid publication of a new plant. Only when properly published in accordance with the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE does a new plant become valid (or indeed in the somewhat less exacting INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS become “established”). Somewhat paradoxically though, the Coles’ Lithops research has highlighted doubts that historically all the relevant conditions of the Botanical Code have always been met. This point is highlighted in the Classification section of these notes. Taking Professor Cole’s guidance into account, I further rechecked my sources and revised my format, initially splitting these notes into four sections, which were as follows: Introduction, Classification, New Lithops post ‘Cole ‘88’ and Hybrids. The publication of DESMOND T. & NAUREEN A. COLES’ second and updated Lithops monograph – LITHOPS FLOWERING STONES published in Italy by Cactus & Co. in 2005, accordingly necessitated a 5th section called (rather unsurprisingly): New Lithops post ‘Cole’05’. A few lines at the beginning of each of these sections explain the general theme.

Although it has been my experience that many unpublished and un-established Lithops names have been advertised for sale by various sources, I expressly decided against a section on taxonomic errata. Suffice to say that in all such cases I have found these names (usually advertised as cultivars) to be synonymous with taxa already recorded within the Coles’ monographs or subsequently within these notes. I venture that any name pertaining to be a Lithops that does not appear in the Classification list of this project be treated with suspicion, and carefully researched.

Although academically unqualified in botany, Professor Cole stands as the undoubted world authority on Lithops, and I view his two monographs (the second of which was co-written with his wife Naureen) as fundamental to the understanding of this fascinating genus. The quality benchmark of the 1988 Lithops monograph later served to lay the foundations for the superb 2005 revision, which is now unquestionably the ultimate Lithops publication. By comparison these amateur companion notes pale into insignificance, but none the less it is my hope that fellow Lithops enthusiasts will find them of some help and amusement.

Acknowledgements

Even a short set of notes like these could not have been put together without help from many other people, to who I send my thanks.

Special thanks go to Desmond and Naureen Cole, as without their extensive field research in the first instance these notes would be impossible and pointless. They have also been readily forthcoming with help, advice and guidance on all aspects concerning my understanding of Lithops.

Thanks too to Steven Hammer who has been instrumental in the discovery, production and reporting of "new" Lithops. He further discusses some of these in his book LITHOPS TREASURES OF THE VELD that was published by the B.C.S.S. in 1999, and I have indicated the plants concerned in the text. Despite his fame throughout the succulent world his readiness to enter into dialogue with “unknowns” such as I is a credit to him.

Even though we do not share a common language Mr. Shimada of Japan too has been of great assistance. He produced an excellent reference book called THE GENUS LITHOPS that was published in Japan in autumn 2001. The text is mainly in Japanese, but even for those un-educated in the language the photography is quite stunning. With help from his son Norihiko and Ms. Miyako Tannowa as translators we have shared knowledge and plants.

Thanks also to fellow growers: David Blythe, Jonathon Clark, Lindsey Deaves, Will du Toit, Vincent Formosa, Francois Hoes, Tim Jackson, Kevin Mason (especially for his efficient delves into his archives), Petr Pavelka, Jim Porter, Terry Smale, Bernd Schloesser and Willie van der Westhuizen for information, communication, friendship, photographs and plants, and to Suzanne and Tony Mace for their stoic efforts with the Mesemb. Study Group.

Finally, thanks to my family. To my father Charles, for introducing me to succulent plants at the age of 5 years; to my mother Louisa, my wife Debra and my two sons Christopher and Clive (who also took some of the photographs) for support, academic help and tolerance.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations used throughout this text include:-

• A (type cv) = "instances of white flowers in species which are normally yellow flowering" (‘Cole‘88’ p. 83).
• ‘acf’ = aberrant colour form
• B.C.S.S. = British Cactus and Succulent Society
• Botanical Code = INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
• C = Cole (Lithops colony) number
• ‘Cole’88’ = D.T. COLE, LITHOPS – FLOWERING STONES (1988)
• ‘Cole’05’ = D.T. & N.A. COLE, LITHOPS - FLOWERING STONES (2005)
• Cultivar Code = INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS
• cv = cultivar
• G- (type cv) = "instances of plants which lack their normal pigmentation and have an unusually green or yellow green basic colour" (‘Cole’88’ p. 83), the letter “Y” having been dropped and the “-“ sign being added in ‘Cole ’05’ to describe cultivars with aberrant colour forms.
• ‘Hammer (1999)’ = STEVEN A. HAMMER - LITHOPS TREASURES OF THE VELD (1999)
• I.S.H.S. = International Society for Horticultural Science
• I.S.I.J. = International Succulent Institute Japan
• L. = Lithops
• M.S.G. = Mesemb. Study Group
• M.S.G. Bulletin = Quarterly publication of the M.S.G.
• p. = page
• pp. = pages (more than 1)

• R (type cv) = instances of unusually red coloured mutations.
• R- (type cv) = instances of unusually red coloured mutations the “-“ sign having been added in ‘Cole ’05’ to describe cultivars with aberrant colour forms.
• ‘Shimada (2001)’ = YASUHIKO SHIMADA – THE GENUS LITHOPS (2001)
• subsp. = subspecies, subspecies
• var. = varietas, variety
• vol. = volume
• W- (type cv) = "instances of white flowers in species which are normally yellow flowering" (‘Cole‘88’ p. 83) the letter being changed and the “-“ sign being added in ‘Cole’05’ to describe cultivars with aberrant colour forms.
• Y- (type cv) = instances of yellow flowers on normally white flowering Lithops (‘Cole’05’ p. 67).
• YG (type cv) = "instances of plants which lack their normal pigmentation and have an unusually green or yellow green basic colour" (‘Cole’88’ p. 83).
• * = invalid, unestablished or excluded name, number or status.

All photographs reproduced with permission of the © holders. Text and author photographs © Keith Green (2008).

Lithops Classification

In this project I have tried to maintain the Cole Lithops classification system whilst adhering to the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE and the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS as closely as possible. It should perhaps be noted that the rules governing cultivar publication in general are less exacting than the rules that govern publication at the higher “botanical” ranks (e.g. variety, subspecies, species etc.). In response to a question I had previously posed him, Professor Cole sent me a fax dated 17th July 2005 in which he stated: “You are right, publication of cultivars has less stringent conditions than formal taxa, for example no Latin diagnosis is required. However, there are rules which must be adhered to”.

The Coles’ emphasise theirs is not a botanical study, and raise doubts that some of the taxa included in their research has ever actually been correctly published in full accordance with the Botanical Code (see p. 4 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 6 of ‘Cole’05’). It would obviously be preferable that every Lithops so thoroughly described and designated within the Coles’ research project had been accorded publication that exactly met the requirements of the Botanical Code, and whilst I know for a fact that all botanical Lithops taxa published by Professor Cole have met all the laid down conditions, it is possible other authors may not have been so diligent. The publication of ‘Cole’88’ however, provided a “clear and solid foundation” (p. 5 of ‘Cole’05’) for botanists, taxonomists or horticulturalists to study and correct.

Along similar lines 8 cultivars were published in ‘Cole’88’ on the basis of single specimens that strictly speaking did not conform to the Cultivar Code, where replicable groups of plants are required. These plants were: L. julii subsp. julii ‘Peppermint Crème’, L. lesliei subsp. lesliei var. hornii ‘Greenhorn’, L. lesliei subsp. lesliei var. minor ‘Witblom’, L. meyeri ‘Hammeruby’, L. otzeniana ‘Aquamarine’, L. pseudotruncatella subsp./var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’, L. terricolor 'Silver Spurs’ and L. terricolor ‘Speckled Gold’. With the exception of L. pseudotruncatella subsp./var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ (the specific anomaly of which is discussed below), these were all inadvertently established as cultivars in conformity with the Cultivar Code in ‘Hammer’99’, although there the 2 L. terricolor cultivars were recorded under *L. localis.

A further point is that Professor Cole has not applied the minor rank of forma (form) as a divisive tool when classifying this genus. The following passage is a quote from an article written by Professor Cole in 1969 that appeared in the BULLETIN OF THE AFRICAN SUCCULENT PLANT SOCIETY. This part of the text directly followed his negative stance on retaining some examples of L. julii as varieties: “One might reduce them to the rank of forma, but even this does not seem to me to be justified – if we do, then we shall end up with a host of “forma” in any number of colonies, according as they may or may not have open windows, reticulations, subcutaneous venations, etc.” In fact the previously held varieties just mentioned were all eventually sunk under subsp. julii (see p. 146 of ‘Cole’88’& p. 189 of ‘Cole’05’). Suffice to say that natural variations within wild Lithops populations are such that the consistent application of forma (usually abbreviated to “f.”) is inappropriate. Many commercial growers however have continued to use this rank in their seed lists and publications, presumably for their own reasons. The use of the forma rank for mutations or aberrations was also dismissed on p. 83 of ‘Cole’88’ and p. 65 of ‘Cole’05’.

Photographs of L. aucampiae subsp./var. aucampiae ‘Storm’s Snowcap’, L. lesliei subsp. lesliei var. hornii ‘Greenhorn’ and a representation of L. pseudotruncatella subsp./var pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ are shown here because suitable images were not available when either of the Coles’ monographs went to press. The three taxa are depicted so as to ensure every Lithops on this classification list has a photographic record either in the Coles’ monographs or within these notes. Unfortunately the ‘Albiflora’ representation does not show the white flowers for which these seedlings were selected, and hence may simply be a normal subsp./var. pseudotruncatella.

The following then is a list of all accepted plants within the Lithops genus. Plants from Professor Cole’s original 1988 Lithops classification together with the two new cultivars that first appeared in ‘Cole ’05’ are shown first. Plants from my “New Lithops post ‘Cole‘88’” section follow and then plants from my “New Lithops post ‘Cole ‘05’” section. My “Hybrids” section is shown last.

Lithops Lists

Plants from Professor Cole’s original 1988 Lithops classification together with the two new cultivars that first appeared in ‘Cole ’05’.

• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae
• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae 'Betty’s Beryl'
• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae 'Storms's Snowcap'
• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. koelemanii
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. euniceae
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis
• bromfieldii var. bromfieldii
• bromfieldii var. glaudinae
• bromfieldii var. insularis
• bromfieldii var. insularis 'Sulphurea'
• bromfieldii var. mennellii
• comptonii var. comptonii
• comptonii var. weberi
• dinteri subsp. dinteri var. dinteri
• dinteri subsp. dinteri var. dinteri 'Dintergreen'
• dinteri subsp. dinteri var. brevis
• dinteri subsp. frederici
• dinteri subsp. multipunctata
• divergens var. divergens
• divergens var. amethystina
• dorotheae
• francisci
• fulviceps var. fulviceps
• fulviceps var. fulviceps 'Aurea'
• fulviceps var. lactinea
• gesinae var. gesinae
• gesinae var. annae
• geyeri

• gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. gracilidelineata
• gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. gracilidelineata 'Ernst's Witkop'
• gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. waldroniae
• gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. waldroniae 'Fritz's White Lady'
• gracilidelineata subsp. brandbergensis
• hallii var. hallii
• hallii var. ochracea
• hallii var. ochracea 'Green Soapstone'
• helmutii
• hermetica ‘Green Diamond’
• herrei
• hookeri var. hookeri
• hookeri var. dabneri
• hookeri var. elephina
• hookeri var. lutea
• hookeri var. marginata
• hookeri var. subfenestrata
• hookeri var. susannae
• julii subsp. julii
• julii subsp. julii 'Peppermint Crème'
• julii subsp. fulleri var. fulleri
• julii subsp. fulleri var. fulleri 'Fullergreen'
• julii subsp. fulleri var. brunnea
• julii subsp. fulleri var. rouxii

• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. karasmontana
• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. aiaisensis
• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. lericheana
• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. tischeri
• karasmontana subsp. bella
• karasmontana subsp. eberlanzii
• karasmontana subsp. eberlanzii 'Avocado Cream'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei 'Albiflora'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei 'Albinica'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei 'Storm's Albinigold'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. hornii
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. hornii ' Greenhorn'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. mariae
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. minor
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. minor 'Witblom'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. rubrobrunnea
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. venteri
• lesliei subsp. burchellii
• marmorata var. marmorata
• marmorata var. elisae
• meyeri
• meyeri 'Hammeruby'
• naureeniae
• olivacea var. olivacea
• olivacea var. nebrownii
• optica
• optica 'Rubra'
• otzeniana
• otzeniana 'Aquamarine'

• pseudotruncatella subsp. pseudotruncatella var. pseudotruncatella
• pseudotruncatella subsp. pseudotruncatella var. pseudotruncatella 'Albiflora'
• pseudotruncatella subsp. pseudotruncatella var. elisabethiae
• pseudotruncatella subsp. pseudotruncatella var. riehmerae
• pseudotruncatella subsp. archerae
• pseudotruncatella subsp. dendritica
• pseudotruncatella subsp. groendrayensis
• pseudotruncatella subsp. volkii
• ruschiorum var. ruschiorum
• ruschiorum var. ruschiorum ‘Silver Reed’
• ruschiorum var. lineata
• salicola
• salicola 'Malachite'
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. schwantesii
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. marthae
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. rugosa
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. urikosensis
• schwantesii subsp. gebseri
• steineckeana
• terricolor
• terricolor 'Silver Spurs'
• terricolor 'Speckled Gold'
• vallis-mariae
• verruculosa var. verruculosa
• verruculosa var. glabra
• villetii subsp. villetii
• villetii subsp. deboeri
• villetii subsp. kennedyi
• viridis
• werneri

New Lithops post ‘Cole‘88'

• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae 'Jackson’s Jade'
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. euniceae 'Hikoruby'
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis 'Chieruby'
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis ‘Green River’
• bromfieldii var. bromfieldii ‘White Nymph’
• coleorum
• gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. gracilidelineata 'Cafè au lait'
• hermetica
• herrei 'Splendido'
• hookeri var. hookeri 'Envy'
• hookeri var. marginata 'Shimada's Apricot'
• julii subsp. julii 'Hotlips'
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei ‘Fred’s Redhead’
• marmorata var. marmorata 'Polepsky Smaragd'
• olivacea var. nebrownii 'Red Olive'
• optica ‘Rubragold’
• otzeniana 'Cesky Granat'
• pseudotruncatella subsp. archerae 'Split Pea'
• salicola 'Sato’s Violet'
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. rugosa 'Blue Moon'
• schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. urikosensis 'Nutwerk'
• terricolor 'Violetta'
• vallis-mariae 'Valley Girl'
• verruculosa var. verruculosa 'Rose of Texas'
• verruculosa var. verruculosa 'Verdigris'

L. aucampiae subsp./var. aucampiae ‘Storm’s Snowcap’ (see p. 102 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 86 of ‘Cole’05’) photograph © Yasuhiko Shimada.

L. lesliei subsp. lesliei var. hornii ‘Greenhorn’ (see p. 164 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 220 of ‘Cole’05)’ photograph © Kevin Mason.

Seedlings selected from var. pseudotruncatella C68 by Kevin Mason for white flowers and hence L. pseudotruncatella subsp./var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ (see p. 182 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 259 of ‘Cole’05’) photograph © Kevin Mason.

Lithops pseudotruncatella subsp./var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ was not in existence when either of the Cole Lithops monographs or ‘Hammer’99’ were published, and accordingly has not been established in accordance with the Cultivar Code (see point (d) in the New Lithops post ‘Cole‘88’ section of these notes and point (b) in the New Lithops post ‘Cole ’05’ section). Therefore a rift exists between the Cole Lithops classification system where var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ is recognised and the Cultivar Code where it is not. However, the fact remains that *L. pseudotruncatella forma albiflora was published (? validly) under the Botanical Code by “Jacobsen” in the NATIONAL CACTUS & SUCCULENT JOURNAL vol. 10, p. 81 (1955), was subsequently transferred to cultivar status in ‘Cole’88’ and given ‘acf’ status in ‘Cole’05’. It is really down to the individual to decide whether to recognise this as a form under the Botanical Code (*forma albiflora) or as an ‘acf’ cultivar (‘Albiflora’) under the Cole classification system (or not at all!). As mentioned above I try to adhere to the Codes as closely as possible, but in relation to Lithops I hold the Cole classification system supreme and therefore regard var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’ as an ‘acf’ cultivar (albeit an “extinct” one). If at some future date a white flowering var. pseudotruncatella should be established in accordance with the Cultivar Code, the author would then be at liberty to choose a new name.

New Lithops post ‘Cole‘05

• amicorum
• aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae ‘Firebrandt’
• aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. euniceae ‘Bellaketty’
• bromfieldii var. glaudinae ‘Embers’
• dorotheae 'Zorro'
• fulviceps var. laevigata
• gesinae var. annae ‘Hanawared’
• gracilidelineata subsp. brandbergensis ‘Vertigo’
• hookeri var. dabneri ‘Annarosa’
• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. karasmontana ‘Rosary’
• karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. aiaisensis ‘Orange Ice’
• lesliei subsp. lesliei var. venteri ‘Ventergreen’
• olivacea var. olivacea ‘Angel's of Tony’

Lithops Hybrids

• ‘Harlequin’
• ‘Kikukaseki’
• ‘Kikusiyo Giyoku’
• ‘Kosogyoku’
• ‘Sunstone’
• ‘Talisman’
• xhybrida

New Lithops post ‘Cole‘88’

These are the Lithops that came to light and were published subsequent to Professor Cole’s 1988 monograph, and were included in the second edition 2005 book (although the pattern bred cultivars were only mentioned there in the Taxonomic index). With two notable exceptions (please refer to the introduction of the section entitled: New Lithops post ‘Cole’05’, point (a)) this section can be seen as a simple “add on” of newly discovered Lithops to the first (1988) monograph, up to the point the later work went to press. The plants have been cross-referenced as necessary, and the term “‘acf’” applied retrospectively. For an explanation of this term (and my use of the term “pattern bred”) please refer to the introduction of the section entitled: New Lithops post ‘Cole’05’, point (c). It is perhaps worth commenting on a few of points from Professor Cole’s 1988 book.

(a) "The problem of Lithops localis" discussed on p. 41 of ‘Cole’88’ (& p. 36 of ‘Cole’05’), now appears to be settled. Steve Hammer reported at the M.S.G. show in Banstead 1996 that Professor Cole then agreed the name *Lithops localis was correct. After further consideration however, Professor Cole reverted to the name of Lithops terricolor, and continued to use that name in his LITHOPS LOCALITY DATA of October 2002, and in ‘Cole’05’.

(b) The latest thinking on the subject of Lithops steineckeana is that it may be an inter-generic hybrid between Lithops pseudotruncatella and a Conophytum. The subject was further discussed on p. 108 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, and further is mentioned in the Hybrids section of these notes.

(c) On pp. 129-130 of ‘Cole’88’ (& pp. 148-149 of ‘Cole’05’), concerns were expressed as to the correct naming of L. gracilidelineata plants from colonies C243 & C385, together with further doubts as to maintaining the cultivars ‘Ernst’s Witkop’ & ‘Fritz’s White Lady’ as two separate types. The publication of DESMOND T. COLE – LITHOPS LOCALITY DATA in October 2002 however, saw C243 remaining as var. waldroniae and C385 remaining as var. gracilidelineata. This situation remained the same when ‘Cole’05’ was published. I view Professor Cole’s non-action of transferring plants from either colony to the other variety as acceptance of the status quo, and therefore that the two

cultivars be maintained as separate types, albeit chiefly due to small differences in flower size. “Nature does not provide for equidistant relationships within or between any categories which we humans find it convenient to establish” (p. 35 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 33 of ‘Cole’05’).

(d) According to the I.S.H.S. (2005), a cultivar pertains to: “a group of individual plants”, yet as discussed on pp. 83-85 of ‘Cole’88’ (& pp. 65-68 of ‘Cole’05’), an aberration can pertain to a single plant specimen. Partly to avoid a plethora of “dull and unimaginative” Lithops named at the rank of forma, the Coles’ utilised the cultivar format for publication of colour specific aberrations; the establishing of which (as cultivars according to the Cultivar Code & the I.S.H.S. above) subsequently become the focus of many growers. The adoption of the term “acf” in ‘Cole’05’ perhaps clarified this matter further (see points (b) & (c) in the New Lithops post ‘Cole’05’ section of these notes).

(e) The next point is self explanatory, and is therefore a direct quote (including a couple of apparent printing errors) from a communication from Professor Cole in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 16, p. 60 (2001). It read as follows: “In the “Readers’ Corner” of MSGB [2], p.44, Keith green raises the question of the colour of Lithops fulviceps var. lactinea as illustrated in Lithops – Flowering Stones [1988]. He is quite correct, of course, in his view that the illustrations on p.123 of the book are excessively blue. This was manifest when we saw proofs of the book, and we complained at the time, but because of some colour printing technology concerning which we have no knowledge or insights they were not able to do anything about it. So, the book came out with the colours of var. lactinea excessively blue, but it did not seem appropriate at the time for me to write a critical review of my own book. Perhaps I should have do so!”

(f) Another point of discussion occurred on p. 77 of ‘Cole’88’ (& p. 61 of ‘Cole’05’) where it stated: “Lithops should be grown in pots or trays not less than 125mm (5 in) deep”. Steve Hammer stated in a special issue of the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF AMERICA vol. 67, p. 23 (1995) that: "all Lithops will grow and thrive in deep or shallow pots; of course the available depth will affect root length, one's watering regime, and the ultimate size of the plants." I was perplexed by this contradiction until (in the same article as (e) above) Professor Cole explained his reasoning. In the M.S.G.

Bulletin vol. 16, p. 60 (2001), he stated: "As regards size of pot: With very rare exceptions, Lithops do not grow in "open fields", but only in stony areas, usually on ridges or hills. Sometimes a seed settles in a crevice in a rock, and then one gets a "bonsai" plant which may even flower and produce two or three heads. However, this is unusual, and typically these plants grow on stony ground with roots penetrating 2-3 inches (50-75 mm) or more. Respecting their preferences in habitat, we always grew them in pots or trays/pans with a minimum depth of 4-5 inches [approx 10-12 cm]."

(g) One further point concerns the case of *Lithops halenbergensis as mentioned of p. 222 of ‘Cole’88’, where it stated: “the problem awaits satisfactory resolution”. This is indeed the "lost" yellow flowering virtual L. karasmontana subsp. eberlanzii that was described by Dr. Arthur Tischer in 1932, but cannot be found again. In ‘Hammer (1999)’ it was suggested that the plants Dr. Tischer observed could possibly have been natural hybrids between L. karasmontana subsp. eberlanzii and L. francisci, a theory discounted by Professor Cole to me in person in 2006. Steve Hammer wrote of his suggestion in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 11, p. 84 (1996), and talked of it in more detail on p. 118 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ where two black and white photographs were illustrated. N.E. Brown also observed this plant, and produced an illustration of it on p. 31 of his album entitled "Drawings of Succulent Plants", which was subsequently lodged at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. For many years I considered *L. halenbergensis may have been a browner than usual form of L. franscisci, a thought I based on comparison of N.E. Brown’s illustration and Mr. Shimada’s photograph as shown below. The subject was further explored on pp. 35-36 of ‘Cole’05’ where the deciphered description stated alongside another black and white photograph: “probably, a network of rubrications”. If this is indeed the case, my L. franscisci guess can be ruled out. Then in October of 2006, I was verbally informed by Professor Cole that *L. halenbergensis was in fact published without any flowering specimens having been observed, the yellow flower colour only being assumed (a point expanded on p. 35 of ‘Cole’05’). This, when coupled with the extensive and fruitless searches undertaken by the Coles’, strongly suggests L. karasmontana subsp. eberlanzii is in fact the plant in question. Whatever the true identity here, I am convinced that *L. halenbergensis does not, and never did exist as a separate species.

*L. halenbergensis (left) photograph © Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. L. francisci (right) photograph © Yasuhiko Shimada.

(h) The title of L. lesliei subsp. lesliei var. venteri on p. 167 of ‘Cole’88’ has been incorrectly recorded, as the subspecies rank (ie. The words “subsp. lesliei”) has been omitted.

Lithops coleorum. (species)

As stated on p. 332 of ‘Cole’05’, Lithops coleorum was validly published by Steve Hammer and Ronald Uijs in ALOE vol. 31, pp. 36-38 (1994). This yellow flowering species was found on an isolated kopjie somewhere in what was the northern Transvaal, well away from any other known Lithops colony. It had been known to a local farmer for some time, but was recognised as unusual by a young relative who had begun to study botany. He drew it to the attention of a South African Society official. L. coleorum is among the smallest of all Lithops, although cultivated specimens tend to be somewhat larger than their wild counterparts. It was named in honour of Professor Desmond T. Cole, and his wife Naureen. On p. 52 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ it stated among further information that the plants are: “usually 2-3(-6) headed”, and that the colour is: “pale tan to pinkish-grey or orange-buff”. This species was described in detail on pp. 104-105 of ‘Cole’05’, where the number of heads was given as: “rarely up to 8, mostly 2” and C396 given as the type locality.

Lithops hermetica. (species)

SH2003 was also discussed on p. 61 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ with a photograph on p. 63. However, as stated by Suzanne Mace in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 16, p. 22 (2001) valid publication by Professor Cole in the Italian publication CACTUS & CO vol. 4, pp. 156-161 (2000) was at species rank, and here the plant was numbered C397. In the same article Suzanne went on to state: "Lithops hermetica has been so named by Prof. Cole after a proposal by Steve Hammer "in reference to the 'hermetically sealed' Protected Diamond Area, the only area where Lithops and other succulent plants are reasonably safe from predators"”. This same phrase appeared on p. 163 of ‘Cole ’05’, and the whole naming issue was explained at length in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, pp. 43-44 (2006) where it was made clear that the name was indeed the suggestion of Steve Hammer. It should also be noted that Professor Cole stated in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 16, p. 60 (2001) that: "In fact L. hermetica is a highly distinctive species, with no clear relationship whatsoever to any other species", a point reiterated in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 44 (2006). L. hermetica was described in detail on pp. 162-165 of ‘Cole’05’, although due to a typo error the collection date recorded there was incorrect, it should read 1994 and not 1995 as explained by Professor Cole in the afore mentioned article in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 43 (2006).

Lithops aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae 'Jackson’s Jade'. (cultivar)

This is a YG or G- ‘acf’ that was established by Professor D.T.Cole in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 7, p. 87 (1992) as follows: "in all other respects the same as L.aucampiae 'Betty's Beryl' (see Cole[‘88] P100), but has yellow flowers. It was first noted and reported by Tim Jackson of Whitter, California. It appeared among cultivated plants grown from seed, and is not known to occur in habitat." It was also mentioned and tentatively named *'Golden Beryl' by Steve Hammer in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 7, p. 65 (1992). This ‘acf’ was further mentioned on p. 49 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ and on p. 86 of ‘Cole’05’ with a photograph on p. 85.

Lithops aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. euniceae 'Hikoruby'. (cultivar)'

This is a "neon red" R or R- type ‘acf’ that was bred by Yasuhiko Shimada in Japan, and mentioned by Steve Hammer in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 15, p. 55 (2000). The cultivar title comes from the breeders Christian name (Yasu)hiko, and it is likely this is the result Steve Hammer was trying to achieve when he referred to the radiating “Jack-o’-lantern” var. euniceae on p. 49 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. ‘Hikoruby’ was established on p. 90 of ‘Cole’05’ with a photograph on p. 91.

Lithops aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis 'Chieruby'. (cultivar)

This is a "neon red" R or R- type ‘acf’ that was bred by Yasuhiko Shimada in Japan, and mentioned by Steve Hammer in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 15, p. 55 (2000). It was named after Mr. Shimada’s wife whose name is Chei(ruby). ‘Cheiruby’ was established on p. 93 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis 'Green River'. (cultivar)

This is a YG or G- type ‘acf’ of that was mentioned and initially thought by me to have been established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer following the discovery of a wild specimen. Frik du Plooy called this cultivar *'Flavivirens' on a seed list in 1997, although he never attempted to formally establish that name which he numbered it F010a, stating that it originated from a colony "nr. Hopetown CP". This plant was further mentioned as “a work in progress” on p. 49 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where it was described as having a “soft grey-green” colour; possibly a reference to the plants shoulders. Another report of this ‘acf’ came via e-mail to me from Will du Toit in 2006, where he reported the earlier collection of a two headed specimen in the veld by Louw Pretorius of Kimberley. Louw used the title *’Jewel of the Gariep’ (Gariep – the old Orange River) for the plant, but again this title was never established. On p. 68 of ‘Cole’05’ an un-established G- ‘acf’ from L. aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis was recorded (this may have been Louw Pretorius plant), but on p. 93 the same mutation was given full status as an ‘acf’.

Editing of these notes for publication in CACTUS WORLD by Roy Mottram, concluded that due to there not being a reproducible number of plants in existence at the time, ‘Green River’ had not in fact been established in accordance with the Cultivar Code by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995. As a “reproducible number” of specimens certainly do now exist, I offer the following description here to formally establish ‘Green River’: Lithops aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. fluminalis ‘Green River’ is an unusually green bodied aberration, distinctive in colour, but in all other respects essentially as for the type.

Lithops bromfieldii var. bromfieldii ‘White Nymph’. (cultivar)

This is a white flowering A or W- type ‘acf’ that was established by Yasuhiko Shimada of Japan in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 17, p. 62 (2002). In 1994 he noticed a white flower among a batch of plants from C279 seed sown in 1991, and the subsequent F3 generation was 50% white flowered. A presumably white flowering var. bromfieldii was offered (without a description) by Frik du Plooy on his 1997 seed list named as *‘Albiflorus’, numbered as F013 and said to also originate from colony *C279(a). This mutation was further mentioned on p. 50 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ without being named, and recorded as an ‘acf’ on p. 97 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops gracilidelineata subsp. gracilidelineata var. gracilidelineata 'Cafè au Lait'. (cultivar)

Steve Hammer described and established this pattern bred cultivar in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 as follows: "The "fuscous" form of this species seen in COLE (p. 129) has finally been stabilised, using seed from C309. The species is usually whitish or buff-coloured, rarely pinkish or grey. The combination of whipped cream islands floating on a cappuccino sea is unique”. ‘Café au Lait’ was also mentioned on p. 65 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. The reference Steve made to p. 129 of ‘Cole’88’ included two photographs taken before this form was stabilised and named. As this is a pattern bred cultivar it did not appear in the main text of ‘Cole’05’, although the two photographs just mentioned were reproduced again: one on p. 147 and one on the back cover. ‘Café au Lait’ was recorded on p. 332 of ‘Cole’05’ in the taxonomic index.

Lithops herrei 'Splendido'. (cultivar)

This is an A +YG or W- + G- type ‘acf’ that was established by Giuseppe Maria Piccione of Verona, Italy, in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF AMERICA vol. 73, p. 76 (2001). There he mentioned the plants pale green body, and the fact it can be distinguished from the otherwise similar L. marmorata by its facial pattern, smaller flower size, capsule structure and seed form. ‘Splendido’ was documented as an ‘acf’ on p. 169 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops hookeri var. hookeri 'Envy'. (cultivar)

This is a lime green YG or G- type ‘acf’ that apparently first appeared in cultivation in Australia, but was grown again from seed ex Cole 336. This cultivar was once referred to as *'Hookersgreen', but this name was dropped prior to official publication. It was mentioned in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 12, p. 58 (1997), and on p. 73 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. ‘Envy’ was established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer, and further documented as an ‘acf’ on p. 173 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops hookeri var. marginata 'Shimada's Apricot'. (cultivar)

This is an R or R- type ‘acf’ that arose from the normal "red form" of C053. It was produced by Yasuhiko Shimada, and established by him in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF AMERICA vol. 72, p. 302 (2000). There he stated: "The top surface is bright plum red” (although I consider it orange-pink) “and the separating groove is half translucent and slightly greenish red, with bright red rubrications within. The sides are paler and slightly pinkish". Steve Hammer stated in the same article that the "plants have an unusual intensity". This ‘acf’ was further mentioned on p. 182 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops julii subsp. julii 'Hot Lips'. (cultivar)

This is a pattern bred cultivar that was reported and established by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 as follows: "The first anagrammatic cultivar, named for its splendidly widened and dark fissure markings, familiarly known as "lips" though "lipstick" would be apter." This plant was further mentioned on p.77 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where it stated the plant "was bred to match a wild plant" Steve "once admired near Rambawd". As this is a pattern bred cultivar it was not included in the main text of ‘Cole’05’, although it did get a passing mention on p. 68, and was documented on p. 337 in the taxonomic index.

Lithops lesliei subsp. lesliei var. lesliei 'Fred’s Redhead'. (cultivar)

This is an R or R- type ‘acf’ that was established by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995, and further discussed by him in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 12, p. 32 (1997). On p. 85 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ it was described as: “a fantastic neon-red sport of a normal Warrentonian var. lesliei”. It actually came about as an abnormally coloured branch of a normal plant that was taken as a cutting and self-pollinated. It can be similar to some of the redder forms of var. rubrobrunnea (see p. 167 of ‘Cole’88’, p. 225 of ‘Cole’05’ & p. 227 of ‘Cole’05’), but grows larger and is brighter in colour. Steve Hammer also reported in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 19, p. 39 (2004), that the plants have: “huge flowers with red petal tips”. ‘Fred’s Redhead’ was recorded as an ‘acf’ on p. 220 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops marmorata var. marmorata 'Polepsky Smaragd'. (cultivar)

This YG or G- type ‘acf’ with a "strong yellowish-green undertone" was referred to in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer as *'Chartreuse'. However, after developing this plant in the Czech Republic it was established by Petr Pavelka (who actually came up with his name first) as ‘Polepsky Smaragd’ in CACTACEAE ETC. vol. I, pp. 24-29 (1996). This plant was further mentioned on p. 88 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where it stated: ""Smaragd" (Czech for emerald) was well-chosen; the plants have a really green colour". Steve later found a wild specimen during a field trip, and reported it in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 16, p. 77 (2001). 'Polepsky Smaragd' was recorded as an ‘acf’ on p. 234 of ‘Cole’05’.

Pavelka, P. (2021) E-mail to Keith Green, 13 February.

“Polepsky Smaragd. Originator is my friend Vladimir Vojacek from a small village Polepy (therefore adjective Polepsky). Vladimir was breeding his green plants for a few generations. Parents came from usual marmorata without any collection number and I found plants at Vladimir place and described them.“

Lithops olivacea var. newbrownii 'Red Olive'. (cultivar)

This is an R or R- type ‘acf’. An un-named red form of L. olivacea was actually mentioned by O.Hoeval in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF GB vol. 9, p. 79 (1947), where its appearance was attributed to: "an extremely rich production of anthozyan pigment". However, as var. nebrownii was not collected until 1969 (see p. 176 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 244 of ‘Cole’05’) it is doubtful that this was ‘Red Olive’. The possible R-type ‘acf’ from var. olivacea referred to on p. 68 of ‘Cole’05’ raised further suspicions that the 1947 report may have been an unpublished mutation from var. olivacea. The tenuous difference of profile shape and size would identify O. Hoeval’s report; var. nebrownii (& hence ‘Red Olive) being generally cordate and larger than var. olivacea which, is generally truncate and smaller (see p. 16 of ‘Cole’88’ & p. 18 of ‘Cole’05’). ‘Red Olive’ was mentioned on p. 92 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer and recorded as an ‘acf’ on p. 246 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops optica 'Rubragold'. (cultivar)

This yellow flowering L. optica 'Rubra' was classed as an “R- + Y- form” on p. 67 and a “Ywc + R-form” on p. 251of ‘Cole’05’. Initially considered a hybrid, this plant was named *Lithops ‘Ruberoid’ by Vincent Formosa in an article in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p. 56 (1998) but not described. Steve Hammer explained on the following page (M.S.G. bulletin vol. 13, p. 57 (1998)), that this could actually be a cross between L. optica 'Rubra' and L. geyeri. It was further discussed on p. 93 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where the possibility of it being L. optica 'Rubra' x L. herrei was also mentioned. The plant was referred to as * “L. optica “Rubra Yellow Flower form”” on p. 158 of ‘Shimada (2001)’, as a chance mutation from seed of C81A, sown in October 1997. Then in December 2002 Mr. Shimada informed Professor Cole that he had named it L. optica ‘Rubragold’ after he had produced 12 more specimens. Professor Cole sent a fax to me on the 28th of May 2003 in which he stated: “L.optica ‘Rubragold’ – to me this is a most astonishing phenomenon, but Shimada is such a careful cultivator, with whom I have been in contact for very many years, that I have decided to accept his information on this.” Its non-hybrid status is somewhat doubtful, but it qualified as an “honorary” ‘acf’ after being established p. 251 of ‘Cole’05’. The name had there been corrected from *L. optica ‘Rubra Gold’ as it appeared on p. 220 of the book SUCCULENTS published by the I.S.I.J. in 2004, because L. optica ‘Rubragold’ was how the originator, Mr. Yasuhiko Shimada presented it to the Coles.

Lithops otzeniana 'Cesky Granat'. (cultivar)

This is a red R or R-type ‘acf’ that was developed in the Czech. Republic, and first mentioned in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 15, p. 55 (2000) by Steve Hammer, where it stated: "("is fantastic plant")". Petr Pavelka described this plant in 2001 via e-mail to Kevin Mason as follows: "Plants have opaque, light ruby bodies, islands and peninsulas, and obscurely translucent dark ruby windows. Mr. Hejtmanek got seeds of typical L. otzeniana from Ed Storms about 20 years ago. Seedlings, however, bore ruby colour and were eliminated from the collection as freaks. Fortunately few plants were kept till now". He also said the plant was named: "after Czech famous garnat – Czech spelling is different!!!". Prior to this Petr had established ‘Cesky Granat’ in the Czech journal KAKTUSY, vol. XXXV11, pp. 27-29 (2001). This plant was briefly mentioned as an ‘acf’ on p. 255 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops pseudotruncatella subsp. archerae 'Split Pea'. (cultivar)

This albinistic YG or G- type ‘acf’ was established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer. A photograph was shown on p. 97 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, and on p. 101 Steve stated that: “in spring they” (‘Split Pea’ plants) “have a very pale and delicate colour which darkens slightly by summer”. It was further documented as an ‘acf’ on p. 266 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops salicola 'Sato's Violet'. (cultivar)

This is a striking lilac-purple (or raspberry) colour variant of L. salicola that arose in Japan via Mr. Tony Sato, and was described as "a really fine thing" by Steve Hammer in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p. 57 (1998). It was mentioned again by Steve in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 14, p. 24 (1999). On p. 104 and p. 132 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ this cultivar was further discussed and unfortunately named in error as *‘Bacchus’, "for the Greek god of wine, [as it] has the beautiful shade of ripe grapes". On p. 173 of ‘Shimada (2001)’ it stated: “L. salicola “Bacchus”=”Sato’s Violet””. This R- form ‘acf’ was further erroneously documented as *‘Bacchus’ on p. 278 of ‘Cole’05’ where it was described as being a “dark red wine” colour, which indicates that there can be quite a variation in shade intensity. Editing of these notes for publication in CACTUS WORLD by Roy Mottram concluded that in fact this ‘acf’ had been named as *‘Bacchus’ against the wishes of Tony Sato. Therefore in order to comply strictly with the Cultivar Code the name of ‘Sato’s Violet’ had priority and had to be used.

Lithops schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. rugosa 'Blue Moon'. (cultivar)

This is a pattern bred cultivar that was reported and established by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 as follows: "Norm Dennis,...once sent me an amazing powder-blue seedling of COLE 247, from which I have now bred several similar plants, named for their rarity ("once in a blue..."), colour, and general resemblance to lunarian backsides". Steve also mentioned this plant on p. 108 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ with a photograph on p. 107. Because it is an intensification of the “normal” bluish colour of var. rugosa that distinguishes ‘Blue Moon’, it qualifies as a pattern bred cultivar and is not considered to be an ‘acf’. It was therefore only recorded in the taxonomic index of ‘Cole’05’, on p. 331, where the sometimes used incorrect title of *’Bluemoon’ was highlighted.

Lithops schwantesii subsp. schwantesii var. urikosensis 'Nutwerk'. (cultivar)

This is a brown pattern bred cultivar with an intensely dark network of markings that was developed and first mentioned by Steve Hammer in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p. 57 (1998). He named and established the plant on p. 108 and pp. 132-133 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where he also stated that ‘Nutwerk’ has: “an unusual concentration of brown netting” and "can easily be distinguished from the average Cole 75 by its consistent intensity" (of pattern). In the same book, Figures 214 and 215 on p. 107 showed the original parent plants. Photographs of normal C075 plants (the *nutupsdriftensis form) can be seen on p. 197 of ‘Cole’88’ and p. 287 of ‘Cole’05’, and comparison to the photographs here highlights the intensified “brown netting” effect of ‘Nutwerk’. As this is a pattern bred cultivar it was only mentioned on p. 342 of ‘Cole’05’ in the taxonomic index.

Lithops terricolor 'Violetta'. (cultivar)

This is an R or R- type ‘acf’ from L. terricolor that has an "intensely purple cast", as reported and established by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995. A similar form was actually mentioned by O.Hoeval in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF GB vol. 9, p. 79 (1947), where its appearance was attributed to: "an extremely rich production of anthozyan pigment". This may or may not have been 'Violetta', and it was not named at that time. This plant was further discussed on p. 87 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, and on p. 293 of ‘Cole’05’ as an ‘acf’, where it was pointed out that publication was done under the species name of *localis.

Lithops vallis-mariae 'Valley Girl'. (cultivar)

This is a white flowering A or W- type ‘acf’, otherwise identical to the normal form that was reported and established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer. ‘Valley Girl’ was further mentioned on p. 110 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ where it stated: "It originated amongst seedlings of Cole 281 reared by Jane Evans", and was recorded on p. 296 of ‘Cole’05’.

Lithops verruculosa var. verruculosa 'Rose of Texas'. (cultivar)

This is a brightly flowered form that was established in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995 by Steve Hammer, where he wrote: “This is distinguished by its uniform and shocking rose-red petals, which emerge from a normal or green body”. This cultivar was bred by Ed Storms, and was mentioned on p. 111 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. Although the flower colour is the point here, ‘Rose of Texas’ falls into the patterned bred cultivar group, so in ‘Cole’05’ was recorded in the taxonomic index (on p. 344). It seems the natural tendency of L. verruculosa to produce flowers of varying colour is maintained by this cultivar; Mesa Garden choosing the descriptive term “great pink flowers” in its seed listings (plant number 1757.2 in the 2004 catalogue but likewise recorded in other years). The colour range is highlighted by the two photographs shown here, but note that in both the colour is “uniform” over the whole flower.

More than two decades after the initial publication, personal communications between Steven Hammer, Petr Pavelka and Norihiko Shimada suggested the original description had either been mis-interpreted by Roy Mottram and Keith Green, or poorly written. In fact, ‘Rose of Texas’ has uniformly rose-red flowers and a normal or greenish-blue body.

Lithops verruculosa var. verruculosa 'Verdigris'. (cultivar)

Although this albinistic YG or G- type ‘acf’ was mentioned by Steve Hammer in PIANTE GRASSE SPECIALE 1995, editing of these notes for publication in CACTUS WORLD by Roy Mottram concluded that the description there was: “insufficient to distinguish it from ‘Rose of Texas’ which may also be green-bodied”. Official establishment by Steve Hammer was therefore on p. 111 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, where Steve explained the plant came about accidentally whilst attempting to raise a stock of L. verruculosa var. verruculosa 'Rose of Texas' plants. ‘Verdigris’ has normal var. verruculosa flowers and is only distinguishable from green bodied examples of ‘Rose of Texas’ (which has rose-red petals) when flowering. ‘Verdigris’ was further documented on p. 302 of ‘Cole’05’.

More than two decades after the initial publication, personal communications between Steven Hammer, Petr Pavelka and Norihiko Shimada suggested the original description had either been mis-interpreted by Roy Mottram and Keith Green, or poorly written. In fact, ‘Verdigris’ has a green (or light green) body and variable flower colours that are often salmon pink.

Lithops Hybrids

Natural hybrids were discussed on pp. 69-71 of ‘Cole’88, and on pp. 55-57 of ‘Cole’05’. Most of the “possibilities” there documented however, seem to have a greater affinity for an already given parent taxon and have been classified accordingly (albeit with the acknowledgement of a possible hybrid element).

Steve Hammer has produced many cultivated hybrids, and commented on the subject in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF AMERICA vol. 67, p. 234 (1995), p. 27 (& elsewhere) of ‘Hammer (1999)’ and in various other sundry articles.

Many hybrid Lithops have indeed been cultivated (intentionally or otherwise), but few have been formally described. Some (rare) true intermediates could also currently exist in the wild, such as Lithops gracilidelineata x Lithops ruschiorum as mentioned on p. 71 of ‘Cole ’88’ & p. 101 of ‘Hammer (1999).

As stated elsewhere in these notes, Lithops steineckeana may well be a hybrid, but it has gained species status courtesy of p. 200 of ‘Cole '88’ and p. 290 of ‘Cole’05’. The link of L. steineckeana to the genus Conophytum remains a possibility but cannot be confirmed. In a similar vein Steve Hammer suggested a link between Lithops steineckeana and Muiria hortenseae in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 19, p. 55 (2004), although subsequently this speculation proved unfounded. Steve reported this in answer to a question I posed him at a B.C.S.S. lecture he gave at Woodley in 2007. Generally however, I consider inter-generic hybrids that include Lithops to be beyond the scope of these short notes.

Few inter-species hybrids within the Lithops genus are given any more than a passing mention within various texts. It should also be noted that by their very nature the progeny of hybrids can be highly variable, and careful selection is often required in order to maintain some kind of standard in cultivation. Further, cross-bred Lithops produced from within a given species using subspecies or varieties are sometimes labeled according to which parent they most resemble, and this can cause confusion. A hybrid becomes more obvious the greater the difference between the parents or where some bizarre form using a cultivar or mutant is involved.

To the best of my knowledge there is no laid down rule under either code for the correct naming of hybrids that have not been formally described, and therefore we must revert to “common English”. I consider unestablished or invalid inter-species hybrid Lithops (including those of uncertain parentage), together with non conformist cross-breeds from within the same species group be best treated by “lumping” them all together under the convenience title of “hybrid”. This name translates to “hybrida” using standard “life-science” Latin, and the addition of the prefix “x” ensures the hybrid (or notho-species rank) element is instantly apparent. Hence I include Lithops xhybrida in my classification list, although this format is perhaps unique to me.

Lithops 'Harlequin'. (hybrid)

Lithops ‘Harlequin’ was established by Nick Rowlette of Oregon on p. 62 of his book LITHOPS FOR THE CURIOUS, THE COLLECTOR AND THE CULTIST, which was privately published in Portland, Oregon in 1990. This plant looks to be a cross that heavily involves L. julii subsp. julii, and in my experience this white flowering hybrid is virtually identical to all subsp. julii forms. Indeed I speculate that in many instances much of any other genetic material has largely been bred out through subsequent generations. Unfortunately the parent plants were not recorded by Nick in the establishment article, but his description did include: “generally greyish orange-brown”. Steve Hammer has commented to me on the “robustness” of L. ‘Harlequin’, and therefore I venture these plants need to be selected for colour and size in order to maintain the tenuous standard. Because details regarding official establishment were unknown at the time, this hybrid was recorded as an excluded name (& probable “selection” from subsp. julii) on p. 337 of the taxonomic index of ‘Cole’05’.

As subsequently recorded in Lithops Scrapbook II, L. ‘Harlequin’ = “L. julii subsp. julii *f. chrysocephala X L. hallii var. ochracea”.

Lithops 'Kikukaseki'. (hybrid)

This is a hybrid of uncertain parentage that was established by Yasuhiko Shimada on p. 222 of the Japanese book SUCCULENTS that was complied by Hiroshi Kobayashi and published by the I.S.I.J. in 2004. Mr. Shimada considered the parents of this plant were probably from the L. julii complex (which of course encompasses subsp. fulleri) and accordingly the flower colour is white. It is a striking plant reminiscent of L. ‘Kikusiyo Giyoku’ (documented next) but with markedly indented margins. In spite of the publication date, this hybrid was unknown by the Coles when the second edition monograph went to press.

Although unconfirmed, it seems likely the plants we know as L. ‘Kikukaseki’, L. ‘Kikushogyoku’ and L. ‘Kosogyoku’ were selected from the same batch of unstable hybrids a decade or so before being formally described.

Lithops 'Kikusiyo Giyoku'. (hybrid)

The initial scant information I received regarding this plant was e-mailed to me by Roy Mottram as follows: “Lithops ‘Kikusiyo Giyoku’ T. Sato, Report of contest Japan Succulent Society 1990 New Year party in Tokyo, Cactus & Succulent Journal of Japan 4(6): 8. (Feb) 1990. Standard: Japan; photo of a large cluster, accompanying the protologue. A hybrid of unknown parentage.” A comment relating to the protologue photograph just mentioned was translated into English by Andy Walker of Surbiton thus: “A Lithops “made in Japan”. Richly pleasant, with a window leaf pattern”. Further investigation revealed this plant was produced by Mr. Kisata Tanaka who once ran a succulent nursery in Nagano, but is now deceased. The name was actually translated into English incorrectly in the establishment article (it should have been ‘Kikushou-Gyoku’). This was highlighted to me by Norihiko Shimada who explained that the literal translation means “chrysanthemum crest” (the mark on the cover of Japanese passports), and that the word “gyoku” is often used in naming Japanese Cactus and Succulents. The exact parents are unknown, but Yasuhiko Shimada (Norihiko’s father) considered that L. julii subsp. fulleri may have been strongly involved. It has white flowers, greyish shoulders and strongly streaked reddish brown windows that pertain to resemble a chrysanthemum. Under the rules of the cultivar code the name as published must be maintained in this instance. This hybrid was unknown by the Coles when ‘Cole’05’ went to press.

On p. 46 of “Cultivars from Shimada’s Kitchen, Kaktusy, LV11 Special (2): 30-50. 2021”, Norihiko Shimada corrected the spelling of the above epithet to ‘Kikushogyoku’. Japanese growers had been aware of ‘Kikushogyoku’ since at least 1979, and had already accepted the English translation reported by Norihiko in Kaktusy. Although unconfirmed, it seems likely the plants we know as L. ‘Kikukaseki’, L. ‘Kikushogyoku’ and L. ‘Kosogyoku’ were selected from the same batch of unstable hybrids a decade or so before being formally described.

Lithops 'Kosogyoku'. (hybrid)

The initial scant information I received regarding this plant was e-mailed to me by Roy Mottram as follows: “Lithops ‘Kosogyoku’ T. Sato, Cactus & Succulent Journal of Japan 5(4): 11. (Dec) 1990. Standard: Japan; photo of a large cluster, accompanying the protologue. A hybrid of unknown parentage.” Further investigation revealed this plant was produced by Mr. Kisata Tanaka who once ran a succulent nursery in Nagano, but is now deceased. The name was actually translated into English incorrectly in the establishment article (it should have been ‘Kousougyoku’). This was highlighted to me by Norihiko Shimada who explained that the literal translation means “red window” and that the word “gyoku” is often used in naming Japanese Cactus and Succulents. Apparently this plant was derived from L. ‘Kikusiyo Giyoku’, although I would guess that L. salicola was somehow involved. It has white flowers, greyish shoulders and reddish brown windows. Under the rules of the cultivar code the name as published must be maintained in this instance. This hybrid was unknown by the Coles when ‘Cole’05’ went to press.

As reported by Norihiko Shimada on p. 45 of “Cultivars from Shimada’s Kitchen, Kaktusy, LV11 Special (2): 30-50. 2021”, L. ‘Kosogyoku’, had previously been “introduced” as a hybrid in 1970. It appeared on p. 214 of the “Japanese book Cacti and Succulents” by Kenji Matsui, with the same spelling as that used by T. Sato in 1990. Although unconfirmed, it seems likely the plants we know as L. ‘Kikukaseki’, L. ‘Kikushogyoku’ and L. ‘Kosogyoku’ were selected from the same batch of unstable hybrids a decade or so before being formally described.

Lithops 'Sunstone'. (hybrid)

Lithops ‘Sunstone’ was established by NICK ROWLETTE of Oregon on p. 61 of his book LITHOPS FOR THE CURIOUS, THE COLLECTOR AND THE CULTIST, which was privately published in Portland, Oregon in 1990. Unfortunately the parent plants were not there recorded, but this hybrid looks to be the result of crossing various forms of L. karasmontana and therefore it flowers white. Nick’s description included: “generally light yellow-orange to brownish-orange;” and that the: “Markings consist of narrow to broad strips of the window, which usually run continuously from the fissure to the margin.

Usually the plants are marked with a distinct reticulate pattern, but at times the markings can also be vague and/or irregular. The lighter coloured islands, when present, are usually not sharply outlined, but rather blend gradually into the window strips.” Further he stated: “A large number of plants show hybrid vigor (rapid growth, flowering at an early age from seed, and becoming quite large as adults).” In a personal communication to me Kevin Mason of Carmarthen once aptly described this hybrid as having "rusted iron coloured windows, with a metallic sheen". Also, in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p.14 (1998) Steve Hammer commented: “Sunstone looks like karasmontana (of the reddish laterita type) x bella”. Although L. ‘Sunstone’ had been offered on many seed lists, details regarding official establishment were unknown when ‘Cole’05’ went to press. Therefore this hybrid was only recorded there as an excluded name on p. 346 in the taxonomic index.

As subsequently recorded in Lithops Scrapbook II, L.‘Sunstone’ = “L. karasmontana subsp. bella X L. karasmontana subsp./var. karasmontana *f. summitatum”.

Lithops 'Talisman'. (hybrid)

Lithops ‘Talisman’ was established by NICK ROWLETTE of Oregon on p. 61 of his book LITHOPS FOR THE CURIOUS, THE COLLECTOR AND THE CULTIST, which was privately published in Portland, Oregon in 1990. Unfortunately the parent plants were not there recorded, but in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p. 14 (1998) Steve Hammer suggested that this yellow flowering plant: “might be a triple hybrid, perhaps pseudo x gesinae x gracilidelineata”. Nick Rowlette’s original description included: “very light grey-brown (beige) with slight violet tinge; lines are dark purplish-brown, narrow and distinct, running continuously from the fissure to the margin in a conspicuous and attractive reticulate pattern. A purple-brown line runs along the entire length of the fissure. Numerous grey spots are scattered at random across the top, or sometimes coalescing near the lines.” In my experience seed from this hybrid is often not true to type, and careful selection is required to maintain the desired characteristics. Although L. ‘Talisman’ had been offered on many seed lists, details regarding official establishment were unknown when ‘Cole’05’ went to press. Therefore this hybrid was only recorded there as an excluded name on p. 346 in the taxonomic index.

As subsequently recorded in Lithops Scrapbook II, L. ‘Talisman’ = “L. gesinae var. annae X L. gracilidelineata subsp./var. gracilidelineata”.

Lithops xhybrida. (casual name)

Lithops xhybrida is the name I use for hybrid Lithops that are unrecognised by either the Botanic or the Cultivar Codes. Although the genetic history of inter-species hybrids must be more diverse than that of cross-breeds from within the same species group, all cross boundary Lithops present with similar challenges.

All are taxonomically awkward, interesting to fathom and unable to consistently produce true to type seed through the generations. Perhaps partly for the last reason and also perhaps because so many hybrids are “un-natural”, Professor Cole has paid little attention to cultivated hybrid Lithops in his studies. However, as many such plants have been produced they cannot be over looked. The images shown are examples of the many officially unrecognised but possible L. xhybrida formulas.

New Lithops post ‘Cole '05’

A few months before the second edition Lithops monograph hit the bookshelves (both English and Italian versions were produced), Mr. Lino Di Martino made mention of it in an editorial written in CACTUS & CO. vol. 8, p. 165 (2004) as follows: “It should be emphasised that this new edition is co-authored by Desmond and his wife Naureen. The Coles have painstakingly gone through the old text, revising and updating it wherever necessary (adding inter alia several new taxa and locality data)….The book will surely stand as a ‘work of art’ as well as THE standard reference on the subject.” Mr. Di Martino’s prediction was indeed correct, and the Coles’ 2005 updated monograph quickly became the ultimate single Lithops reference.

Research on the genus did not stop there however, and the following are Lithops that were validly published after the Cole’s 2005, second edition monograph went to press. As with the section on “new Lithops post Cole ’88” (points (a), (c), (f) & (g) from that section equally apply here) a few comments now follow.

(a) First of all it should be noted that two new cultivars or “aberrant colour forms” were established in this work that I knew nothing about until I saw the book. They are Lithops hermetica ‘Green Diamond’ on p. 165 and Lithops ruschiorum var. ruschiorum ‘Silver Reed’ on p. 274.

(b) Although not so documented in ‘Cole’05’, by the time this book was published 7 cultivars (but not L. pseudotruncatella subsp./var. pseudotruncatella ‘Albiflora’) recorded from single specimens in ‘Cole’88’ had been established (inadvertently) in accordance with the Cultivar Code (in ‘Hammer’99).

(c) On p. 33 of ‘Cole’05’ reasons for splitting cultivars into two camps were given. The Coles’ only included “aberrant colour forms” abbreviated to “acf” in the main text when dealing with this rank (a development of the terminology on pp. 83-84 of ‘Cole’88’). These are the specific colour aberrations mentioned in (d) below that have occurred either in nature or in seed collected from nature without interference (at least initial interference) from human propagators. At the M.S.G. mini-book launch of ‘Cole’05’ held in Reading on April 23rd 2005, Professor Cole pointed out that much can be produced by selective breeding, and cultivars produced in this way are different from aberrant colour forms as the selectively bred, or in my words “pattern bred” Lithops (where normal features have been artificially intensified and or stabilised) are not natural. Although the term “acf” is not currently recognised by the Cultivar Code, the two types are of equal rank and both established “pattern bred” and ‘acf’ Lithops have the same status as cultivars. There is of course a clear distinction between cultivars and hybrids as discussed in the previous section.

(d) In ‘Cole’05’ the terms “G-, W- and R-“ replaced the terms “YG, A and R” when dealing with "aberrant colour forms", and the term “Y-“ was introduced.

(e) Another point of note in the new work was the spelling of Lithops gesinae. In a fax to me dated 2 December 2004, Professor Cole stated: “In the first edition of Lithops I followed the rules as I knew and applied them to sundry other names, and changed de Boer’s spelling from gesinae to gesineae. When we started editing for the new volume, I consulted a taxonomic expert in the Botanical Institute in Pretoria, and he concluded that while gesineae is the more correct, it is better to stick to the spelling that de Boer used, that is, gesinae. I really do not follow his logic, but in keeping with his advice, I have used de Boer’s original spelling gesinae in the new edition of the book.”

(f) Included in a fax to me from Professor Cole dated 7 May 2006, was the following: “we have already noted four typos in the new edition of Lithops – Flowering Stones, and may well find more”!

(g) Information gained subsequent to the publication of ‘Cole’05’ placed *L. salicola ‘Bacchus’ (as mentioned there on p. 278) in synonymy of L. salicola ‘Sato’s Violet’. An explanation for this is given in the relevant entry above.

Lithops amicorum. (species)

This white flowering species was found growing in three locations by Professor Cole during a field trip taken in early May of 2004, after he had received relevant information from Mr. Tok Schoeman. In a text message to me dated 25th May 2004, Professor Cole described the plants as: “ small, maximum facial measurements 18 X 12 mm, generally very pale, almost white, in colour, mostly with relatively few markings, and VERY difficult to see and find in its habitat of smallish quartzite stones.” Then at the M.S.G. mini-book launch of ‘Cole’05’ held in Reading on April 23rd 2005, Professor Cole made several further points. He stated the name pertains to “of the friends”; the plants are the smallest yet discovered, generally being only around 15mm across at the widest point (although despite this L. dinteri subsp. frederici is perhaps on average slightly smaller as its size was given as “mostly about 14 X 10 mm” on p. 115 of ‘Cole’88’ & p.117 of ‘Cole’05’); the flower completely covers the plant body when fully open and that there is some resemblance to the “fulleri” complex. Professor Cole validly published L. amicorum as a new species with a number of C410 in CACTUS & CO. vol. X, pp. 58-60 (2006), where the maximum facial measurement had been revised to “19 X 13 mm, mostly about 15 X 10 mm”.

Lithops fulviceps var. laevigata. (variety)

Compared to the type variety, var. laevigata is smaller, smoother and generally lacking in rubrications. On p. 60 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ the observation was made that the Pofadder population of L. fulviceps: “…which occurs on yellow gneiss, is quite distinct-looking”, and that the plants differ from var. fulviceps in so much as they are: “…mustard-coloured, smooth and surprisingly convex”. Professor Cole had not visited this location prior to the publication of ‘Cole’88’, but subsequently did so with his wife Naureen in May of 2004. Further to ‘Hammer (1999) Professor Cole made a few points at the M.S.G. mini-book launch of ‘Cole’05’ held in Reading on April 23rd 2005.

These included that in fact this colony is quite a considerable distance from Pofadder (I subsequently learnt on a farm named Swartmodder) and that the dusky dots sometimes form channels and islands. After careful consideration Professor Cole validly published this plant as a new variety of L. fulviceps in CACTUS & CO. vol. X, pp. 60-63 (2006), with a number of C412. The photographs here show that there can be some variation in colour.

Lithops aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae ‘Firebrandt’. (cultivar)

This is an R or R-type ‘acf’ that was established in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 42 (2006) by Keith Green. With hindsight it would have been preferable for me to have used the term “formal establishment” in place of “valid publication” in that article (as I was dealing with the Cultivar Code), but otherwise it was self explanatory and the relevant section is reproduced here as follows (in this article D.T. & N.A COLE, LITHOPS – FLOWERING STONES (2005) = ‘Cole (2005)’ : “A colony of Lithops aucampiae subsp./var. aucampiae “Nr. Olifantshoek, CP” was given the name *’Rubrobrunneus’ and numbered F005 on Frik du Plooy’s seed list in 1997.

Presumably these were “reddish” examples, but no description was offered at that time. Subsequent examples from this seed I have seen have been dull red at best, not really anything different from normal plants, although I fully accept that somewhere out there truly red examples may exist.

Around the same time but quite independently, an R-type mutation of subsp./var. aucampiae was produced by Jossie Brandt from the self-pollination of a "hyper red freak”. This was reported in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 12, p. 58 (1997) by Steve Hammer, and again mentioned on p. 49 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. This form had the name “Firebrandt” tagged on to it in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 18, p. 55 (2003) with a photograph on p. 56, although the text at that time stated the plant had not been stabilised.

I have also seen a photograph of a red form of subsp./var. aucampiae on the web page of Francois Hoes of Belgium with the name *’ Rudisheim Ruby’ attached. It seems that this colour freak appeared in a batch of seed from subsp./var aucampiae that Mr. Shimada of Japan sent to Francois. This seed was originally collected around Rudesheim farm (the correct spelling is in fact “Rudesheim”), which I understand to be the former home of Jossie Brandt. However, I have not been able to find a source of valid publication for this name.

Although rare, bright red mutations are not completely unheard of in subsp./var. aucampiae, occurring either by chance or by selective cultivation. Unless we want to split hairs, the three afore-mentioned reports obviously pertain to the same colour mutation, but do not currently share a common name. So what name to use?

On p. 344 of ‘Cole (2005)’ it is stated that *’Rubrobrunneus’ would not be permissible as a cultivar name even if it had been correctly proposed, and there appears to be no further details relating to any valid publication of * ‘Rudisheim (Rudesheim) Ruby’ . Therefore in order to clear up any ambiguity I propose that we should officially name normal yellow flowering but intensely red aberrant colour forms of Lithops aucampiae subsp./ var. aucampiae as ‘Firebrandt’, in honour of Jossie Brandt, and as suggested by Steve Hammer.

It follows that the description for Lithops aucampiae subsp. aucampiae var. aucampiae ‘Firebrandt’ is an unusually red-coloured mutation, distinctive in colour, but in all other respects essentially as for the type.”

Lithops aucampiae subsp. euniceae var. euniceae. ‘Bellaketty’ (cultivar)

This is a YG or G- type ‘acf’ that was established by Giuseppe Maria Piccione in the CACTUS AND SUCCULENT JOURNAL (US) vol. 75, p. 152 (2003). Giuseppe stabilised this cultivar by crossing an unlabeled, but unusually light, translucent and “greenish-sided” look-a like var. euniceae with a normal brown-sided plant. Further back crossing of the offspring resulted in striking green plants in 1997. This cultivar was named after Giuseppe’s niece Ketty. With the exception of the colour, it is identical to normal subsp./var. euniceae, and has yellow flowers. In spite of its publication date, this plant was unknown by the Coles when their second edition monograph went to press.

Lithops bromfieldii var. glaudinae ‘Embers’. (cultivar)

This is an R or R-type ‘acf’ that was established in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 42 (2006) by Keith Green. With hindsight it would have been preferable for me to have used the term “un-established” in place of “unpublished” in that article (as I was dealing with the Cultivar Code), but otherwise it was self explanatory and the relevant section is reproduced here as follows (in this article D.T. & N.A COLE, LITHOPS – FLOWERING STONES (2005) = ‘Cole (2005)’ : “Lithops bromfieldii var. glaudinae *'Rubroroseus' was offered on Frik du Plooy’s seed list in 1997 numbered F015a ex. colony *C393(a) but without a description (it should be noted *C393(a) is not a valid Cole number). However, examples I have seen give instant visual impact and appear to be true red (R- type) aberrant colour forms.

On p. 50 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ Steve mentions a “single abnormally red var. glaudinae from Cole 393”, and again mentions the same “reddish freak” as having “popped up for several people”, in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 17, p. 29 (2002).

On p. 68 of ‘Cole (2005)’ there is also a mention of an unpublished R- type aberrant colour form of Lithops bromfieldii var. glaudinae.

It would appear these three reports are of the same manifestation, but as pointed out on pp. 344-345 of ‘Cole (2005)’ the name *'Rubroroseus’ would not be permissible for a cultivar even if it had been correctly proposed. Fortunately, I can recall an e-mail from Steve Hammer in which he referred to these normal yellow flowering but bright red forms of Lithops bromfieldii var. glaudinae as ‘Embers’, and I think few would argue against officially adopting this title.

It follows that the description for Lithops bromfieldii var. glaudinae ‘Embers’ is an unusually red-coloured mutation, distinctive in colour, but in all other respects essentially as for the type."

Lithops dorotheae ‘Zorro’. (cultivar)

This pattern bred cultivar was developed by Steve Hammer, and was first mentioned in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 13, p. 57 (1998). It was also mentioned on p. 57 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, and established by Steve in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 18, p. 66 (2003), where the plants history in the care of Ed Storms was documented. In the publication article Steve stated: “…the apical window is reduced to kind of lightening bolt or zigzagged pattern. Some plants are almost completely opaque, but even in these the usual red lines are present.” I think it bears some resemblance to the imagined cultivar suggested on p. 35 of ‘Cole’88’ and p. 33 of ‘Cole’05’. In spite of the publication date, ‘Zorro’ was too late to be included in the taxonomic index of ‘Cole ’05’, although it was mentioned as an excluded name on p. 349. Obviously this plant is no longer excluded.

Lithops gesinae var. annae ‘Hanawared’. (cultivar)

This is an intensely pink, normally yellow flowered R or R-type ‘acf’ that was developed by Yasuhiko Shimada from seed of C078 that was originally given to him by Ed Storms in 1981. Mr. Shimada established the eventual selected progeny in the I.S.I.J. NESWLETTER vol. 7, pp. 1-2 (2005), and later published the plants in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 78 (2006). Here, the description finished with the sentence: “The plants give an overall impression of bright pink colour”. The article then went on to explain the name is: “derived from the Japanese translation of Lithops gesineae var. annae”. In the book SUCCULENTS published by the I.S.I.J. in 2004 this cultivar was (then validly) named *Lithops gesineae var. annae ‘Hanawa Red’. However, as allowed under the rules of the Cultivar Code this name was corrected by the plants originator, Mr. Yasuhiko Shimada, when he established the plants himself as stated above.

Lithops gracilidelineata subsp. brandbergensis 'Vertigo'. (cultivar)

This is a light green, YG or G- type ‘acf’ that may have been mentioned without a description by Frik du Plooy on his 1997 seed list, under the cultivar title of *‘Green’, with the number F051 assigned. It originated from seed collected from colony C394, and was grown in relative profusion by Vince Formosa. It was also mentioned on p. 65 of ‘Hammer (1999)’. The name *’Greenberg’ was suggested by Steve Hammer in 2002 (brandbergensis + greenness), but he was not truly comfortable with that title, choosing to name the plant ‘Vertigo’ (my suggestion) when he established it in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 18, p. 66 (2003). There he stated: “Anyone who turns verdant at the prospect of heights will appreciate this cultivar, named for the fear-inducing habitat of subspecies brandbergensis, highest and grandest of them all.” He also mentioned the plants “dulled red lines” in the same publication article. In spite of the publication date, ‘Vertigo’ was too late to be included in ‘Cole ’05’.

Lithops hookeri var. dabneri ‘Annarosa’. (cultivar)

This is a green bodied YG or G- type ‘acf’ that was developed by Giuseppe Maria Piccione of Verona, Italy. He established the plant in CACTUS & CO vol. X, pp. 115-116 (2006), where it stated that the plants were produced by crossing a look-a-like dull green var. dabneri mutant of unknown origin with normal var. dabneri from C301. Further back crosses resulted in normal yellow flowering but bright green plants that are identical in facial pattern to var. dabneri. This cultivar was named after Anna Rosa Nicola.

Lithops karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. karasmontana ‘Rosary’. (cultivar)

This is a most unusual “pattern bred” cultivar from the Signalberg form of var. karasmontana that was established by Tony Sato in the CACTUS & SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF JAPAN, vol. 12, p. 16 (1997). Roy Mottram brought this to my attention during the editing process of these notes for publication in CACTUS WORLD. The establishment text was in Japanese script that I had translated into English by Andy Walker of Surbiton in August 2007. It reads thus: “On a Lithops, the old leaves die off when the new ones appear each year. On the Rosary, however, the leaves do not wither but remain, giving the plant 3 years’ worth of leaves, in some cases forming 3 tiers. A rather odd plant, it apparently emerged from ten thousand homogenous seeds. Although few have appeared, the Rosary appears to be extremely well established. It represents an unusual variety that defies the common wisdom on cacti and succulents.”

Even though the “stacking” of old leaves can be induced on any Lithops through incorrect watering, I have to accept the authors word that in ‘Rosary’ the old leaves persist even when the plants are correctly cultivated. This cultivar was unknown when ‘Cole’05’ went to press.

Lithops karasmontana subsp. karasmontana var. aiaisensis ‘Orange Ice’. (cultivar)

This is a stabilized pattern bred cultivar. On p. 81 of ‘Hammer (1999)’ Steve mentioned a “bizarre bright orange” topped var. aiaisensis he grew from seed sent to him by Naureen Cole in 1977. This plant can be seen top centre in Figure 133 on p. 78 of ‘Hammer (1999)’, and together with its progeny Steve first tentatively named ‘Orange Ice’ in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 19, p.39 (2004). Subsequently seed was offered via the seed distribution scheme in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 22, p.18 (2007) where it was numbered 2175, described and in fact inadvertently established by Terry Smale. His brief description stated: “orange area on leaf tips”, although the plants origins from var. aiaisensis were not mentioned.

Lithops lesliei subsp. lesliei var. venteri ‘Ventergreen’. (cultivar)

This is a YG or G- type ‘acf’ that was developed from C001 by Yasuhiko Shimada, and established by him in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 21, p. 78 (2006). Here he explained the plants origins from two mutant green seedlings he first noticed in 1992 which he crossed together when both specimens produced yellow flowers in October 1996. The plants have a pleasant contrast of light green and yellow on their faces, whilst the shoulders maintain a grey hue.

In general, var. venteri ‘Ventergreen’ is lighter in hue and has a flatter profile than var. lesliei ‘Storm’s Albinigold’. As with all var. venteri, ‘Ventergreen’ may occasionally be slightly concave.

Lithops olivacea var. olivacea ‘Angel's of Tony’. (cultivar)

This chance mutation that falls into the pattern bred cultivar group has “crinkly, ruffled-up” petals on its flowers, and was established by T. Sato in the CACTUS & SUCCULENT JOURNAL OF JAPAN vol. 16, pp. 8-11 (2001). It appeared among cultivated plants grown by Mr. Yoshio Furihata in Japan, and was subsequently bought by Mr. T. Sato. A Japanese article unknown to me but published in 2003 was translated as follows by Ms. Miyako Tannowa: “In one afternoon of late autumn, I found my collection of [L.] olivacea flowering all together. One of them looked as if it was at the final stage of flowering, with its petal[s] crinkled up. Then, I found 5 or 6 more plants with the similar petals, but those looked [like] they had just come out. Some were in between of those (i.e. final stage and the first state of flowering), and some others had petals with only tips curled up. This phenomenon must be due to genetic mutation, and my guess is DNA which lacks partial genetic information to stretch petals after efflorescence caused it. I named this [L.] olivacea 'Angel's of Tony' because, for me, it was as if angels [had been] fluttering around my flower garden." Unconfirmed suggestions raised the possibility that this flower mutation was the result of a virus, and it may be that vegetative propagation is the only method of replicating this plant. However, I was informed by Roy Mottram that in no way does this affect it’s standing as a cultivar. Because publication details were unsure, ‘Angel's of Tony’ was mentioned as an excluded name on p.331 of the taxonomic index of ‘Cole ’05’. Obviously it is no longer excluded.

It seems appropriate to comment on my own collection of Lithops, and (from a personal perspective) to see how my circumstances and growing methods have evolved over the 12 years since my article entitled LITHOPS ON A WINDOWSILL was published in the M.S.G. Bulletin vol. 11, p. 50 (1996).

I am still not a prolific grower or a cultivar specialist, rather just a keen student of the genus. It is merely the fact that subsequent to the Coles’ publications more Lithops were published at the rank of cultivar than at any other that sees so many recorded in this project.

I choose to keep only a small representative collection of Lithops. The basic remit I set myself when I began to assemble the plants together was to have just one plant of each “species”; although through contact with other growers this goal has long since been surpassed. Some of my Lithops were purchased (rescued?) from garden centres, whilst others were grown from seed or given to me in exchange for cuttings or seedlings. Others still were purchased directly from specialist growers. Most are confined to 2 inch square plastic pots, but a few of the larger growing plants are housed in more traditional 3½ inch terracotta pots. I top dress, usually include a small pebble or two for effect and generally bottom water.

On occasion I have produced my own seed, but this is a bonus to me and most is distributed among other growers. By passing on seed and seedlings, and by splitting up multiple headed specimens that outgrow their pots, I not only maintain a compact and concise collection, but also in a small way, perhaps help to lesson the demand on wild populations.

All of my plants are numbered and their histories recorded. This exercise was termed “the Swidderly Project” during the 1990’s by my two sons, following a family visit to the Eden Project in Cornwall. I cannot fully explain the name to this day!

During the better weather I place my Lithops outdoors whenever possible, under a chicken-wire frame for protection from birds, squirrels and the like. They certainly seem to enjoy the natural sunlight and respond with bright colours and copious flowers. My small plant numbers ensure I know my Lithops as individuals and can keep my simple collection neat, tidy and a joy to behold.

In spring 2019 the plants were moved into a new grow house to be kept permanently under glass. A thermostatically controlled heater keeps them frost free during the winter and solar powered fans allow shading to be kept to a minimum during the summer. The original simplistic principles still govern the collection which has evolved to around 100 plants, and continues to thrive.

• Brown, N.E. (1931) Drawings of Succulent Plants. Unpublished: Lodged at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.
• Cole, D.T. (1969) ‘Like it or Lump it?’, Bulletin of the African Succulent Plant Society, 4 (3), pp. 97-101.
• Cole, D.T. (1988) Lithops Flowering Stones. Randburg: Acorn Books.
• Cole, D.T. (1992) ‘Lithogram’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 7 (4), p. 87.
• Cole, D.T. (2001) ‘Communications from Professor Desmond T Cole’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 16 (3), p. 60.
• Cole, D.T. (2002) Lithops Locality Data. Ansty: Mesemb Study Group.
• Cole, D.T. (2003) ‘Extracts from Faxlets from Professor Desmond Cole’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 18 (1), p. 6.
• Cole, D.T. (2003) Letter to Keith Green, 17 April.
• Cole, D.T. (2003) Letter to Keith Green, 30 April.
• Cole, D.T. (2003) Fax to Keith Green, 28 May.
• Cole, D.T. (2003) Letter to Keith Green, 09 September.
• Cole, D.T. (2004) Fax to Keith Green, 25 May.
• Cole, D.T. (2004) Fax to Keith Green, 02 December.
• Cole, D.T. & Cole, N.A. (2005) Lithops Flowering Stones. Milano: Cactus & Co.
• Cole, D.T. & Cole, N.A. (2005) Mesemb Study Group mini-book launch of Lithops Flowering Stones (2005) @ Reading, Lecture 23 April.
• Cole, D.T. (2005) Fax to Keith Green, 17 July.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) ‘Lithops - Two New Taxa’, Cactus & Co., X (1), pp. 57-63.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) ‘On the Naming of Lithops hermetica’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 21 (2), pp. 43-44.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) Fax to Keith Green, 07 May.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) Fax to Keith Green, 11 June.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) Fax to Keith Green, 17 August.
• Cole, D.T. (2006) Conversation with Keith Green, 15 October.
• Cole, D.T. (2007) Conversation with Keith Green, 31 October.
• Cole, D.T. (2007) Fax to Keith Green, 04 September.
• Cole, D.T. (2008) Fax to Keith Green, 21 May.

• Deaves, L. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 10 August.
• Di Martino, L. (2004) ‘Editorial’, Cactus & Co. VIII (3), p. 165.
• Du Plooy, F. (1997) Seed Listing. Randfontein: Du Plooy, F.
• Du Toit, W. (2006) E-mail to Keith Green, 12 November.
• Du Toit, W. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 08 August.
• Formosa, V. (1998) ‘Data on Lithops Cultivar Names’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 13 (3), pp. 56-57.
• Green, K.G. (1996) ‘Lithops on a Windowsill’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 11 (3), p. 50.
• Green, K.G. (2006) ‘Two New Lithops Cultivars’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 21 (2), p. 42.
• Green, K.G. (2007) ‘Lithops scrapbook: part 1’, Cactus World, 25 (4), pp. 185-197.
• Green, K.G. (2008) ‘Lithops scrapbook: part 2’, Cactus World, 26 (1), pp. 21-27.
• Green, K.G. (2008) ‘Lithops scrapbook: part 3’, Cactus World, 26 (2), pp. 81-85.
• Hammer, S.A. (1992) ‘Gems and Purple Passions’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 7 (3), p. 65.
• Hammer, S.A. & Uijs, R (1994) ‘A New Species of Lithops N E Br. from the Northern Transvaal’, Aloe, 31 (2), pp. 36-38.
• Hammer, S.A. (1995) ‘A Note on Lithops olivacea var. nebrownii cv ‘Red Olive’’, Piante Grasse Speciale Supplemento al n. 4, 15 (4): p. 50.
• Hammer, S.A. (1995) ‘New Cultivars in Lithops’, Piante Grasse Speciale Supplemento al n. 4, 15 (4): 46-50.
• Hammer, S.A. (1995) ‘Mastering the Art of Growing Mesembs’, Cactus and Succulent Journal (U.S.), 67 (4), pp. 195-247.
• Hammer, S.A. (1996) Mesemb Study Group Event @ Banstead, Lecture 28 September.
• Hammer, S.A. (1997) ‘Cultivariations’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 12 (3), p. 58.
• Hammer, S.A. (1997) ‘Old King Cole’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 12 (2), p. 32.
• Hammer, S.A. (1998) ‘Letters from Keith Green and a Note on Lithops Hybrids and Terminologies’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 13 (1), p. 14.

• Hammer, S.A. (1998) Comment on ‘Data on Lithops Cultivar Names’, Formosa, V. Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 13 (3), pp. 57-57.
• Hammer, S.A. (1999) Lithops Treasures of the Veld. Ansty: British Cactus & Succulent Society. Hammer, S.A. (1999)
• Hammer, S.A. (1999) Comment in ‘Readers corner’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 14 (1), p. 24.
• Hammer, S.A. (2000) ‘Xerotic Lithops’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 15 (3), p. 55.
• Hammer, S.A. (2000) Comment on ‘A New Lithops Cultivar: L. hookeri var. marginata ‘Shimada’s Apricot’’, Shimada, Y. Cactus and Succulent Journal of America, 72 (6), p. 302.
• Hammer, S.A. (2000) E-mail to Keith Green, 10 May.
• Hammer, S.A. (2001) ‘Wild Emeralds and Ectypums’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 16 (4), pp. 77-78.
• Hammer, S.A. (2002) ‘Notes on Recent Colour Breaks’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 17 (2), p. 29.
• Hammer, S.A. (2003) ‘Two New Lithops Cultivars’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 18 (3), p. 66.
• Hammer, S.A. (2003) ‘Notes on Plates’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 18 (3), p. 55.
• Hammer, S.A. (2003) E-mail to Keith Green, 31 August.
• Hammer, S.A. (2004) ‘The Adventure of the Second Stein’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 19 (3), pp. 55-56.
• Hammer, S.A. (2004), ‘Going Wild with Cultivars’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 19 (2), p. 39.
• Hammer, S.A. (2006) E-mail to Keith Green, 01 April.
• Hammer, S.A. (2007) BCSS Reading & Basingstoke Meeting @ Woodley, Lecture 08 March.
• Hammer, S.A. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 12 June.
• Hammer, S.A. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 13 June.
• Hammer, S.A. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 05 August.

• Hoes, F. (2006) E-mail to Keith Green, 25 April.
• Hoes, F. Available at: http://users.skynet.be/fhoes/rsasucculents/index.htm (Accessed: 30 May 2006).
• Hoeval, O. (1947) ‘Separation of Lithops Species’, Cactus & Succulent Journal of GB, 9 (4), pp. 78-81.
• International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (2000) Available at:http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0000St.Luistitle.htm (Accessed: 31 May 2006).
• International Society for Horticultural Science (2005) Available at: http://www.ishs.org/icra/index.htm (Accessed: 26 May 2006).
• Jackson, T. (2002) Letter to Keith Green, 02 December.
• Kobayashi, H. (2004) Succulents. Tokyo: International Succulent Institute Japan.
• Littlejohn, J. Ed. (1996) Latin Dictionary 2nd Ed. London: Harper Collins.
• Mace, S. (2001) ‘Literature Reviews’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 16 (1), p. 22.
• Mason, K. (2006) E-mail to Keith Green, 01 June.
• Mason, K. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 03 May.
• Mesa Garden (2004) Seed Listing Catalogue. Belen: Mesa Garden.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 04 June.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 06 June.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 11 June.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 13 June.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 03 August.

• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 06 August.
• Mottram, R. (2007) Letter to Keith Green, 10 August.
• Mottram, R. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 11 August.
• Mottram, R. (2007) Letter to Keith Green, 31 August.
• Pavelka, P. (2001) ‘Lithops otzeniana Nel a Jeho Kultivary – aneb z Ameriky do Čech.’, Kaktusy, 37 (1), pp. 27-29.
• Pavelka, P. (2001) E-mail to Kevin Mason, 06 February.
• Pavelka, P. (1996) ‘Desatero Lithopsů (1).’, Cactaceae Etc., 6 (1), p. 24, 26.
• Piccione, G. M. (2001) ‘A New Cultivar in Lithops: L. herrei ‘Splendido’’, Cactus and Succulent Journal (US), 73 (2), p. 76.
• Piccione, G. M. (2003) ‘A New Lithops Cultivar: L. aucampiae ssp. euniceae ‘Bellaketty’’, Cactus and Succulent Journal of America, 75 (4), p. 152.
• Piccione, G. M. (2006) ‘Cultivars in Lithops’, Cactus & Co., 10 (2), pp. 114-117.
• Rowlette, N. (1990) Lithops for the Curious, the Collector and the Cultist. Privately published: Portland.
• Shimada, N. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 07 August.
• Shimada, N. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 08 August.
• Shimada, Y. (2000) ‘A New Lithops Cultivar: L. hookeri var. marginata ‘Shimada’s Apricot’, Cactus and Succulent Journal of America, 72 (6), p. 302.
• Shimada, Y. (2001) The Genus Lithops. Kiryu: Dobun Shoin.
• Shimada, Y. (2001) Letter to Keith Green, 03 December.
• Shimada, Y. (2002) ‘A New Lithops Cultivar: Lithops bromfieldii var. bromfieldii ‘White Nymph’’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 17 (3), p. 62.
• Shimada, Y. (2002) Fax to Professor Cole, 10 December.
• Shimada, Y. (2006) ‘Two New Lithops Cultivars’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 21 (4), p. 78.
• Shimada, Y. Available at: http://www5f.biglobe.ne.jp/~yukayan/lithops/litho-frame.htm (Accessed: 03 March 2008).
• Smale, T. (2007) ‘Seed Distribution 2007’, Mesemb Study Group Bulletin, 22 (1), pp. 17-19.
• Smale, T. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 09 February.
• Walker, A. (2007) E-mail to Keith Green, 12 August.

Grateful thanks to Eric Collins who transcribed these notes into electronic format during April 2018.

The project continues in Lithops Scrapbook II.