Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Wim Crusio: "The only reason why I chose to distinguish 5 varieties in A. barteri was purely pragmatic" (an "Amazonas"-Interview) – Part I

The German aquarium magazine “Amazonas” (its Russian version) organized an interview with Prof. Dr. Wim Crusio, the author of the Anubias revision. The magazine’s redaction kindly granted us its permission to publish the interview. We express our thanks to the Russian “Amazonas”.


“Amazonas”: After having read your Anubias genus revision (1979) i got an impression that in the first half of the last century botanists were very interested in these plants. In other words, there were collected plant samples, made up species descriptions, reconsidered previous descriptions. What is going on in this field now? Is "classical" botany out of fashion nowadays? Were there new Anubias species described in the scientific literature after release of your revision?


Wim Crusio: No new species of Anubias have been described since my revision. I am not sure whether classical botany is out of fashion nowadays. I think that several factors play a role. We have nowadays much more collections available (and all of those are more easily accessible) than the late 19th/early 20th century botanists. So when we get a new collection, it is often immediately clear that it falls within the range of variation of an existing species. So whereas such a new collection might have been described as a new species 100 years ago, this is not the case now. Also, modern taxonomists often have a much broader species concept ("lumpers") than botanists 100 years ago ("splitters").


“Amazonas”: As I understand from your revision, Anubias leaves form is not of big taxonomic importance in the process of species detection. Here only position and texture of thecae in the synandrium play a big role. Meanwhile, according to this very difference in leaf-blade forms you have singled out 5 varieties of A. barteri. What is the reason, that prevented A. auriculata and A. Haullevilleana (described by Engler and Wildeman) from getting the status of varieties as a part of A. hastifolia species?


Wim Crusio: That's a good question! The only reason why I chose to distinguish 5 varieties in A. barteri and not in A. hastifolia (or any of the other species, for that matter) was purely pragmatic. Many different clones of A. barteri variants are cultivated by aquarists and I realized that if I would all give them the same name, "A. barteri", then this would be very inconvenient for these people. In other words, I think there was a need to distinguish more types within that species. As the other species are cultivated much less often, I didn't feel that it was necessary to recognize any varieties there.


“Amazonas”: Anubias plants have been used as plants for aquarium for a long time and this fact makes them very popular. What made you study exactly Anubia at the beginning of your academic career? Do you have now or may be have you ever had an aquarium or a paludarium at home?


Wim Crusio: I started keeping aquariums when I was 12 or 13 years old and started writing about fish and plants for our local aquarium society shortly thereafter. In fact, my first plant article must have been on an Anubias! I didn't recognize it at the time and identified it using drawings in the book of de Wit, so I called it (incorrectly) Lagenandra lancifolia. Because of the aquarium hobby, I decided to study biology at the University of Nijmegen. As part of my "master's degree", I had to do three research projects, two of 6-months and one of 12. Having been interested in systematic biology for a while, I contacted Prof. de Wit in Wageningen and asked whether I could come there for one of my 6-month projects. Originally he proposed that I would study Cabomba, but the rest of the laboratory objected to that (because officially, the lab was specialized on African botany). So de Wit then proposed Mayaca, but it turned out that it had already been revised not too long before. He then called Josef Bogner from Munich, who suggested Anubias. It was a bigger genus than de Wit liked (given that I had only half a year), but we went ahead anyway and in the end I prepared my revision in about 7 months. After that, I went on to study mouse behavior genetics and did my PhD in that field. During that time, I had no aquarium at home any more, but kept Anubias, Cryptocoryne, and Lagenandra species in the greenhouse of the botanical garden in Nijmegen. I did some experimental inter-species crosses, but unfortunately never had the chance to continue that work (which I included in the German translation of my Anubias revision). After my PhD I left the Netherlands, first for Heidelberg, later for Paris and there I did not have access to a green house any more and my mouse work started to take too much of my time, so I haven't been actively involved in aquariums or aquatic plants since the mid-1980s. But once I start thinking about retirement, I'll certainly start keeping aquariums (and aquatic plants!) again.


“Amazonas”: It is well known, that Anubias species are easy to cross with each other. Particularly, many hybrids of these plants were artificially breed. Surely we can observe such processes in nature. Taking into consideration relatively conditional character of the term "species" in biology and revision as only a way of species regulation with regard for alliances, it is still interesting, how does your revision consider the existence of possible natural Anubias hybrids? What do you think of taking into account genetic features in modern revisions (for instance, in Echinodorus revision by Lehtonen)?


Wim Crusio: In 1977 (when I did the Anubias revision), we did not yet have all the techniques available that we have now. It would certainly be interesting to look at these things! Whether many natural hybrids occur, I don't know. Remember that several species have non-overlapping distributions (A. afzelii, for example).


“Amazonas”: What European Web-sites that provide enough information about Anubia would you recommend?


Wim Crusio: I really don't know enough websites to be able to recommend one, sorry...


“Amazonas”: Do you know any hobbyists who has the most complete collection of Anubia? If yes, could you tell how we can get in touch with them in order to share information?


Wim Crusio: I must admit to being out of touch with most of the aquatic plant world. I would guess that Josef Bogner in Munich still has a good collection, or else would know who has.


“Amazonas”: In this connection I’d like to ask if you have Anubias hastifolia Engl in your collection? In case you have it, please, show us the leaves and if possible the inflorescence of this plant.


Wim Crusio: Yes, I used to have it (not any more...) I have slides from the plant (including inflorescence), but no slide scanner. If I remember correctly, there were photos in the German version of my revision.


“Amazonas”: Please, clear up the situation involving Anubias pynaertii. When working at your revision you dealt with many samples of this genus, but at that time the living plants were grown only in your laboratory in Wageningen. A. pynaetrii is still a big rarity, for example, it is not cultivated in Russia at all. One can buy a plant under the name A. pynaertii with such kind of leaf form (see the picture below). What are in your opinion the reasons for this genus being so rare?

Wim Crusio: I am not sure that the leaf below belongs to A. pynaertii, but it could be. I would need an inflorescence to be certain. Why it is so rare in culture I do not know, it is not more difficult to cultivate than the other species.

To be continued...

Interview: Alexander Grigorov.

Photo: Dmitry Loginov.


© Alexander Grigorov

Anubias “nangi” - is rarely seen in Russia

Practically every anubias’ fancier in Russia has heard about this hybrid, but not so many seen it for oneself. Probably the European Aquarian plants suppliers’ ways went right by our country. A famous Russian selectionist Sergey Bodyagin created a hybrid A. barteri var. nana x A. gilletii 10 years ago. But the Russian analogue of Anubias “nangi” wasn’t so popular among fanciers.

A Ukrainian anubias’ fancier Sergey Gerasimov told the participants of the Russian Anubias forum about this plant:
“I will not enumerate all the sources, where I have seen this name of anubias. There are not so many, but not so less. This anubias was very popular in the West 10 years ago. Unfortunately there is no any photo of this plant. There is information in the book “Aquarienpflanzen” by Christel Kasselmann that a crossbreeding between A. barteri var. nana and A. gilletii was made by R.A. Gasser, who was the owner of the water plant’s greenhouse.

First of all I decided to get to know, who was R.A. Gasser. During my short searches I found myself on the webpage, devoted to Robert Gasser on Jan D. Bastmeijer’s cryptocoryne site. His firm “Quality Aquarium Plants” supplied many American and foreign shops with aquarium plants. He collected and bred the plants of the genus Cryptocoryne. Gasser wrote several articles about these plants. For his achievements two cryptocrynes were named in honor of him – Cryptocoryne gasseri N. Jacobsen (1979) and Cryptocoryne amicorum De Wit and Jacobsen (1983). Unfortunately he was dead in 2002. I couldn’t find any information about his firm and works connected with anubias.

In that direction my searches came to a deadlock. So I began to look for the information about Peter Schneider, he was the one who supplied Europe with this plant. I got to know that Peter Schneider with his wife have been breeding and distributing aquarium plants for many years (more than 40 years). Peter was very sociable man and he said that Gasser had given him Anubias “nangi” and he bred it for many years in his greenhouse.


Here he wrote about this plant:
“Anubias nangi in a submerged condition has never grown up more than 15 cm and in an emergent condition it can reach maximum 10 cm in height. Anubias nangi has more delicate leaf (as in submerged, so in emergent conditions), than the other Anubias’ species. Anubias nangi grows up very quickly, than the other representatives of this genus. That’s why this Anubias is very valuable for design as a foreground aquarium plant”.

More than that Peter Schneider sent me a photo of this plant and explanatory sketch to it and allowed us to use these materials on our forum. I express my thanks to him."

The authors of this note: Dmitry Loginov, moderator of the Russian Anubias-Forum, Sergey Gerasimov

The authors used infos from the next Web page.

Translated from Russian by Julia Niklyaeva and Alexander Grigorov.

Photo: Peter Schneider.


© Dmitry Loginov

© Alexander Grigorov


Sunday, November 1, 2009

Revision of the genus Anubias: 30 years later


In 1979 in Wageningen (Netherlands) the young Wim Crusio under the direction of the professor De Wit defended his first research work. So the world received a revision of genus Anubias which still works. Already at that time these riverside West African plants were very popular among aquarians and year by year this interest has only increased. Nowadays some fanciers keep Anubias in a emersed condition; they learn their physiology and propagation by seeds and so on. A large quantity of the new anubias sorts and trade names have appeared at the market and very often we meet such questions as, Is the revision still acute? Doesn’t it go out of date? These questions we will ask to ourselves at the end of this note and now we try to define what new Crusio had put on the systematization of anubias.


The texture of inflorescence was chosen as the main feature of this species. According to this feature the quantity of species was reduced to 8. A lot of herbaria, living plants, and descriptions of previous taxonomists (A. Engler and N. E. Brown) were used in making this revision. Some plants were acknowledged to be the synonyms of the existent species and others had a status of varieties inside the species Anubias barteri. Such names as Anubias auriculata, A. haullivelleana, A. affinis and others became a thing of the past. To what extent can this uniting approach be correct? It’s difficult to say, perhaps, it can be right if we analyze the definition of the word “species”, which are very vague. But for collectors and fanciers it’s very inconvenient, because many plants have similar inflorescences, but different leaf forms. As the result in many greenhouses two different A. hastifolia , several varieties of A. heterophylla are grown up. But we shouldn’t attach different species and trade names to these lists. It is absolutely incorrect, because such plants as A. barteri ‘Broad Leaf” and A. barteri var. nana ‘Petite’ don’t apply to the revision of the natural anubias’ species and they shouldn’t be systematized according to this revision.


Now let’s return to the question – does the revision of 1979 go out of age? No! From the position of classical botany it can’t be out of age, because there isn’t any description of the new anubias’ species since then. Initially it can be incorrect or isn’t finished at all but it can’t be obsolete. It’s necessary to find the other morphological characters and approaches. At the beginning of the 1990-s the Moscow botanist Mikhail Serebryany had his own view on this question, but it hasn’t been published in scientifical literature. That’s why a new species A. erubescens, which he has suggested, is still a synonym of A. afzelii. Though M. Serebryany still wants to finish his work. I think that the future is behind the taxonomy, which is established on the genetic traits. The wide use of such approach is restricted by the high cost of such researches. Meantime the whole world used, uses and some of the time will use Wim Crusio’s “ageless” revision.


The author of this note: Dmitry Loginov, moderator of the Russian Anubias-Forum.

The author used infos from the next Web pages:

(http://www.tropica.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=17582, http://www.tropica.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=18171)

Translated from Russian by Julia Niklyaeva and Alexander Grigorov

Photo: the cover of the revision. Crusio W. A revision of Anubias Schott (Araceae) // Meded. Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen. – 1979.

© 2009 Dmitry Loginov
© 2009 Alexander Grigorov