Where does Peppermint Come From?

We recently had a taxonomic eureka moment, when our wild collected bulb of Lycoris shaanxiensis came into flower. Although we have grown hundreds of bulbs, we received from the former Kaichen Nursery (Chen Yi) of China as Lycoris shaanxiense, not a single one of those ever turned out to be correctly identified. 99.99 % of everything we’ve seen sold as Lycoris shaanxiense in the US, is actually Lycoris x straminea, which is a naturally occuring hybrid between Lycoris radiata and Lycoris chinensis. I guess no one actually bothers to check for correct identity. Below is our plant of Lycoris shaanxiensis from the type locality in China, so we’re confident that it’s the correct plant.

Below is Lycoris x straminea, the plant sold by Kaichen Nursery as Lycoris shaanxiensis

We had a second clone of true Lycoris shaanxiensis from China, flower about a week later than the first. While it had darker pink petals, which would be expected as a part of natural variation, it appears to be the same plant.

Below is a photo of Lycoris shaanxiensis from the Chinese website PlantPhoto.co. Other than the extra frilly nature of the petals, everything else matches our plants above.

As it often the case in plant taxonomy, each problem solved, leads to a new problem, which then needs solving.

We now know that Lycois shaanxiense, which was first published in 1982, is a dead ringer for Lycoris incarnata, first published in 1908…ooops. When Lycoris shaanxiensis was published, there was no mention of, or comparison to, the identical Lycoris incarnata. In fact, it was compared to Lycoris x caldwellii, which looks nothing like this plant.

Below is the clone of Lycoris incarnata, which we christened Lycoris ‘Peppermint’ in 2019, taken here at JLBG. Note the similarity to the above images of Lycoris shaanxiensis. It’s seems obvious to us, that the plants are one and the same. Another giveaway is that both our plant of Lycoris incarnata and Lycoris shaanxiensis are both sterile, despite hand pollination. This immediately tells us that both plants are probably hybrids, which has always been our theory about Lycoris incarnata.

Then, there is the problem with the name, Lycoris incarnata, which has long been proven by researchers to be a sterile hybrid. If you take into account the flowering times, leaf emergent times, perianth tube length, and flower color, it is almost certainly a cross of Lycoris longituba and Lycoris x rosea, which itself is a hybrid of Lycoris sprengeri and Lycoris radiata. Therefore, we had proposed that it should be written as Lycoris x incarnata, and the name Lycoris shaanxiensis should be relegated to the dust bin of taxonomic duplicity….or should it?

I had tried for decades to track down the original 1908 German publication, where Lycoris incarnata, was first described. Finally last week, we hit the jackpot. Credit goes to plantsmen, Jim Waddick and his partner, Jim Murrain, who were actually able to find it on-line, and thanks to Google Translate, we finally have another piece of the puzzle. Below is a 1908 article by Carl Sprenger (1846-1917) , about the original publication of Lycoris incarnata, by Orazio Comes (1848–1917).

“These magnificent new Amaryllidaceae were sent to me as wild-collected bulbs six years ago by my collector in Hubei Province, Central China—whom, for practical—let us even say selfish—reasons, I unfortunately cannot Named dart, sent, they flowered very profusely after a few years following the first autumn or late summer rains and were described by Professor Comes in Portici. L. incarnata forms dense clumps, soon produces many adventitious bulbs that flower as early as the second year, and in September-October produces flowering stalks 30 to 50 cm high, each bearing 6-12 flowers at the tip. These are large, wide open, delicate flesh-colored or light pink, and fragrant. The petals are hardly wavy and not as strongly reflexed as in the Japanese species of Lycoris, e.g., L. aurea and radiata, which are the best known in German gardens. They make ideal cut flowers, last for weeks in fresh water, and even bloom again in it when advanced, making them very suitable for shipping. The plant grows in meadows that are very wet in winter and hot and dry in summer, in a very temperate climate, is completely native to Naples, and should also thrive in mild regions along the Rhine.

It only sprouts its lush leaves very late in spring and dies back after three months of growth. Here, it sprouts its leaves at the end of January/February and dies back in April. In cooler climates, it waits until all the winter weather is over. Precisely because, like all Lycoris, it is a late-autumn flowering plant and fears the winter cold, it ripens its black, round, smooth, glossy seeds quickly after flowering and before winter. Then a second pseudo-rube appears until the leaves emerge. These are dark green, smooth, and long and strap-shaped.“

Now that we have the original description of Lycoris incarnata, it’s easy to see that the clone that’s grown worldwide doesn’t remotely match the original description. Comes’ plant was described as flowering in fall, while Lycoris incarnata (Hort.) flowers in early August. The plant in horticulture produces leaves in early November, while Comes’ original plant didn’t produce foliage until late January/Feburary. Comes also described the flowers as large and wide open, which is the opposite of the tubular plant that we know as Lycoris incarnata. The 6-12 flowers also don’t match the 6-8 flowers of Lycoris incarnata (Hort.).

Our plants of Lycoris incarnata ‘Peppermint’ came from Texas plantsman Greg Grant, who recieved them from Louisiana gardener, Cleo Barnwell, who got them from the late Tennessee Lycoris guru, Sam Caldwell (1904-2000). As documented in the 1957 Plant Life article, Four New Lycoris for American Gardens, Caldwell mentions obtaining his first Lycoris incarnata in 1948 from Florida gardener, Wyndham Hayward, who had purchased 100 bulbs each of several lycoris from a dealer in Shanghai, China “before the Communists took over”. In the article, Caldwell mentions the foliage getting damaged in winter, compared to those plants, whose foliage emerged in later winter. The black and white photo that Caldwell published in the article matches the Lycoris incarnata of horticulture, but not the plant published by Comes, so it appears that Hayward, and his source in China, is where the mixup began.

So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with no idea what plant the original Lycoris incarnata was supposed to be. Consequently, that name needs to be abandoned for the plants we currently know and grow under that name. The next question is whether we should use the name, Lycoris shaanxiensis for those plants previously grown as Lycoris incarnata. The original 1982 description of Lycoris shaanxiensis is below.

“Lycoris shaanxiensis Y. Xu et Z. B. Hu sp. nov.

This species is related to *L. caldwellii* Traub, but differs in having longer leaves (usually 50–55 cm long) that taper gradually toward the base; perianth segments that are reddish-ribbed beneath, slightly reddish-streaked above, and undulate at the margins; and a slightly exserted style.

Bulb globose, 4–5 cm in diameter; vernal leaves green, strap-shaped, gradually tapering toward the base, obtuse at the apex, 50–55 cm long, 1.6–1.8 cm wide at the middle; scape up to 50 cm tall; spathe bracts 2, membranous, reddish, lanceolate, 6–7 cm long, 1.2 cm wide at the base; umbel 6–8-flowered; flowers white; perianth segments lanceolate, 7–7.5 cm long, 1.2 cm wide at the middle, acute at the apex, reddish-ribbed beneath, slightly reddish-streaked above, undulate at the margins and recurved at the apex; perianth tube 1–1.5 cm long; stamens shorter than the perianth; style slightly exserted, pinkish at the apex.

Shaanxi, Qin Ling, Nanwutai Shan; Z. B. Hu and S. C. Feng 3566 (Holotype, preserved at the Shanghai Institute of Medicine); 6 August 1978.“

While the description is certainly lacking in important details, like fertility, leaf emergent time, and a color photograph, our plants of Lycoris incarnata ‘Peppermint’ is a spot on match for perianth tube length. So, there isn’t anything specifically, that excludes it from being what we know as Lycoris incarnata. Since we know that it’s a sterile hybrid, it should have, at the very least, been published as such, with work done to determine its parents, and a mention of what other species grew nearby. It’s very possible that the taxonomic deity decide that this name is inadequate, as it certainly seems to us, and if so, a new name would be needed, for a plant that’s been widely grown, and sold, for almost 100 years. Who needs puzzle boards, when you’ve got plant taxonomy.