Is that the recent book by Chahanian? I heard abt it when it was due to come out, but have never seen it. Bummer, that you sound disappointed in it.

It is full of errors, some just petty, others major. The beginner will be fooled. The experienced grower will know where the errrors are located. I consider myself a novice, and they stood out to me.

I have to say I'm totally in agreement. Maybe we should get together and publish an E-Book!

All kidding aside, I love sans, and with all the new varieties was hoping for something more picture based which would show young as well as mature plants so I could know what to add to my wish-list and midnight hungington raids!

So it is you raiding our Sans. Laughing out Loud! You must fly in every night? How in the heck can I post pictures here? I have a CD but I certainly wouldn't give anyone a copy, I don't think it is labeled correctly at this time. It would only create confusion. I'm willing to send some photos to anyone in this group privately if you will post them for this group only. Any offers. Norma

I just received 'Splendid Sansevierias' in the mail today and I was also disappointed. I was expecting it to be more like Sajeva's 'Succulents: The Illustrated Dictionary' or some of Bayer's books on Haworthias. If dufflebag2002 is a novice and says the errors stood out, then I guess I must be a beginner (at least as far as Sansevierias go). I'm in Canada and the only ones we see up here are trifasciata and hahnii types, unlabeled of course. The only officially named Sans I have is an S. grandis I purchased with some other plants from Smoley's years ago and 'Splendid Sansevierias' basically says my plant isn't S. grandis because of the red edge and cross-banding but it looks just like the picture in the book which he says is "close" to type. So now I don't know where to buy or what to believe.

My biggest gripe? Try finding S. schweinfurthii in the index. It's in the book alright, HE just doesn't recognize it as a valid species. What's up with that?

If I can put my two cents in and don't get pounced on. S. schweinfurthii has been changed to the published name of S. erythraeae Mattei They say that S. schweinfurthii Tackholm and Drar (1954) is (nom. inval.) propably because it was not published correctly, and it already had a previous name. The species is valid just not the name. I think the plant is beautiful, no matter what it is called.
In support of the book, he did list the plant but didn't give us a X reference to look up. Norma

San. grandis I believe has been listed under San. Grandicupis
I purchased mine 30 years ago. All of the new names have gone back to the first legal publication of the name. Most names that we are buying now are invalid name or nom. illeg. I'm not trying to be rude by reporting this name change. Many growers are starting to change the names and are up to date on the tags at this time. This information I located in the San. Journal and the
Illustrated Handbook of Succulent Plants (Monocotyledons) by Dr. Len Newton Africa. No one book is complete. Norma

Understood completely Norma. The problem with botanical nomenclature is such that JUST when you've got a Family or Genus by the tail, whoosh!, they pull the rug out from under you. Cactus, ferns, palms, etc, always changing. Thanks for the info.

I so glad to heard that what I wrote was understandable.
I find it very difficult for me to write what I want to say, and have others not think I'm snotty. I'm just trying to give straight forward informatiion. No intention of anything else. The IOS has revamped the names of most all species at this time. Pelargoniums, Sans. Crassula, Algave, etc. It's driving us all nuts. I'm sure glad that you understand the problem. Phewsh, I didn't do it, every one seems to be angry with me. I look everything up before I repost any of this stuff, it's a mess, and it will still be for some years until they get DNA testing. Dr. Newton of the Kirschnbosch Garden in Africa admits he had to copy old records, because there was nothing else available. Even in the new books, he admits that there is duplications. But he X references, so you can follow the changes, and dates are given of the changes and why. My curator at the Huntington has also having problems, and we are all working through it slowly, one species at a time. I have three plants all with different names, all looking exactly alike until I can get them to flower all at the same time I will never know. This just makes me wanting to cry. Good night all it's late and I must put my new kitten to bed. Norma

My recent browsing around in books talking about succulents certainly suggests that their taxonomy has been put in a blender and the button pushed. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it in any kind of proactive way. This is one of those situations where you need a mildly obsessive person to take on the challenge of organization.

Melissa

WE have such a person, and he is usually accurate, but he to loves to change names when not authorized to do so, it would be like me trying to change the name of a species,
I'll believe people who have their doctorate in the subject of non-in-clutter, as many of us call it. Word of warning, in the New Illustrated Handbook of Suculent Plants, Monocotyledons where Sansevieria are listed (look at Dracaenaceae) you will find that Dr. Newton at the Kirchenbach Conservatory in So.Cape Africa also says that many uses of names are unsolved. Many of the previous names were described from cultivated plants of undocumented wild orgin. They don't even know the country of origin. At times they only had portions of dried fragments of the plant they they were trying to describe. Most documentation was destroyed during World War Two. So we really can't blame the authors, dealers, growers. It's going to be a long road until we get these names right. So that is the long and short of it.

I find in this book that three S. names may be all the same plant. with only a fine line of difference between them, and when you look up the three species they refer you back to one of the others, so you are going around in a circle. Even the curator at the Huntington is going around in circle with the names and changes. So it's not just us beginners. Twenty eight years of growing the species does not make a expert. Make sure you feel the leaves and see if there is a difference. Look at the sheaths which protect the new growth, often it has purple markings. That will help ID the plant, I don't know what else I can tell you here. This is a science, and as you know, science is always changing.

I think Juan Chahinian's book was pictures based, most of us don't have the mature plants to compare. I looked in his book again tonight, most are showing mature leaves, many plants in flower and in situ. He shows cultivars, as well as many new species we will not see in our lifetime. Many very rare. What he didn't do is cross reference them, like S. elliptica which is also S. forskaoliana according to other more recent reference books. Most of these San. species take several years to become mature, and show the flowers which is one of features we use to identify the plants. Most of my plants are fifteen or more years old so they are flowering. I certainly can't name the species at this time by the leaves or the pictures.

I thinkk picture book with out information is a waste of money. Sajeeva book, I think is a 2nd class book. Few plants in flower, pictures not showing what is needed for the identification. I noticed several pictures got mixed up with the Crassula species. Many pictures are field pictures so you can't tell exactly what they are showing, pictures are far too dark. colors are not correct, old names 50years + old, no flowers on the specimens showed.
I'm only judging species that I know well, can't speak about the others. Norma

here I go stirring this old pot again. i just got the Splendid Sansevieria book by Chahanian for Christmas, and i must say, i am also very disappointed. i read this thread months ago but couldn't relate because i didn't have the book. well, now i can totally relate and agree, it is a terrible book. no offense to the author, who has done so much invaluable work on my favorite genus, but i think the book is almost worthless. and these are the reasons why i think so:

1. it feels like the book was written because people wanted him to write the book, not because he wanted to write the book.

2. COUNTLESS mistakes (spelling, grammar, syntax, you name it) in both introductions and individual descriptions

3. both introductions were written terribly. this book should encourage interest into Sansevierias. but if a true beginner (such as myself, and not Norma, who is obviously not a beginner ;)) reads those introductions, he/she would be discouraged from growing Sans.

4. for the most part, the photos are worthless. the pictures of species in situ don't show ANY details of the plant. what's the point of showing a picture of a plant if it doesn't SHOW the plant? how does it help us ID plants? while specific characteristics (like overall size, crossbanding, number of grooves, size/quantity of flowers) are integral in nailing down the exact species of a plant. if you don't have any idea what species you have, you need descriptive photos to narrow it down and then you can use specific characteristics to definitively ID the plant. and the photos in this book are not very descriptive.

5. an entire book can be written about S. trifasciata and all its cultivars, varieties, sports, unique variegations, etc. this book as exactly one entry for S. trifasciata. i guess it can be argued that that was a strategic decision on the part of the author to not go into depth about such a varied species. but for those of us that bought the book to learn about and ID Sansevierias, information on S. trifasciata is absolutely integral.

6. the price of this book is nearly twice that of Sajeva's Illustrated Dictionay, which has HUNDREDS of high quality photographs (accurate or not). this book is literally one quarter of the size with low quality paper and printing. why does it cost so much more?

ok...i am now slowly descending my soap box. again, this post was not intended to insult anyone in any way, just an expression of complete dissatisfaction and disappointment. i collect almost every major genus of succulents, but Sans are my favorite. there are some spectacular haworthia/copiapoa/crassula/etc books out there. why did the Sansevieria one turn out so pathetic?

Bri.

Hi Bri,

now just take it easy - I think your expectations were too high. Did you read the preface carefully? Juan himself states that for a species key - which means a complete survey of the genus - would take seven man years to complete. Maybe longer, if you take recent findings into account. Are YOU willing to invest that?

A complete book on the S. trifasciata cultivars HAS BEEN written, by the same author, as is stated in the book. It is OOP and therefore rather rare and expensive. (As for me, I find those numerous cultivars boring and superfluous, and the variegated ones are just horrible.)

BTW, what did you pay for the book?

Certainly the book has errors. Still, I find the book useful. Errata are available in the discussion groups.

Currently I STILL think a book with SOME photos and information is better than none. So if you see the book as a SNAPSHOT of knowledge from five years ago it is not so bad IMHO. The current confusion is much worse, and the few specialists around sound more like the proverbial "callers in the desert" (hehe pun intended).

Helli

hi Helli,

sure, i know i sounded pretty negative. but you are right, my expectations were too high - relative to the book, but i don't think they were too high in general. perhaps i have been spoiled by the quality of other cacti/succulent books out there. my copy was a Christmas present, but i was told it was about $50 after tax/shipping, etc. I was at the San Diego Winter Show and Sale a couple weekends ago and a friend bought a Haworthia book that was just stunning, absolutely stunning. and he paid about $50. and i know he didn't have to pay for shipping, but the contrast in the qualities of the books (paper stock, color photos, size)is night and day. i don't deny that i am probably too emotional about this topic and i really don't mean to offend anyone, but i was REALLY disappointed.

and you are right that a book with SOME photos and information is better than none. what i don't understand is why couldn't it have been better? i mean, most genus specific books are bigger, have more (useful)pictures, less mistakes, written better and much more complete. and those books do not cost much more. i don't understand why there's this huge disparity between this book and other succulent books. are there some factors i'm unaware of that explain why this book has these problems?

anyway, i apologize for ruffling feathers.

Bri.

Can someone post a list of titles for the preferred books about Sans.? When I look for books with info, I'm lucky to find one with a whole page dedicated to them....usually it's just a paragraph or two! Thanks!

Hi James,

there are virtually none. I include my personal remarks:
- Brown, Sansevieria (1915). Outdated, but still a must
- Stover, The Sansevieria Book (1983). Outdated, many mistakes, fun to read (stories and paintings)
- Morgenstern, Das Bilderbuch der Sansevierias (1979, German). Outdated, rather small b/w photos, source of obscure names
- Chahinian, The Sansevieria trifasciata Varieties (9186)
- Chahinian, The Splendid Sansvieria (2005). Many mistakes, but very useful
- Trubus, Sansevieria (2009). Many misspellings (translation from Indonesian), more mistakes, nice pictures.

The only one that I do not know is "Sansevieria trifasciata Varieties".

Helli