Lithops - Au Cactus Francophone

figure 112 . lithops venteri nel
I have included L. aurantiaca L. Bol. in L. turbiniformis, as there does
not appear to be any difference between these two species. L. aurantiaca was
sent to the Botanical Garden, University, Stellenbosch, by Triebner in 1930
In April 1932 it flowered and was then described by I.. Bolus. In the descrip
tion she states “crebre impressa rugosaque fere in more L. turbiniformis” but
unfortunately she does not state in what specific point or points these two
species are supposed to differ from one another. The original plants front
which the description was made of L. aurantiaca were painted under the
impression that L. aurantiaca was a distinct species. Plate 38a is the one
referred to. When the question, however, of making a key came up, it was
impossible to find any difference between L. turbiniformis and L. aurantiaca
L. Bol. to warrant the upholding of the latter.
It is true that if reference be made to the photograph of L. turbini‑
formis, reproduced in Gard. Chron., Feb. 4, 1922, p. 55, Fig. 28, it appears
that the tubercles are very prominent and definite; but my own experience
of this species both in the field and in cultivation, is that one cannot attach
too much importance to the degree of rugosity. The leaves, especially in the
young stage, show a very prominent tuberculation, but towards the end of their
life, the upper surface becomes smoother, the depressions (furrows) shallower
until one has just more or less an indication of a more deeply coloured line.
At first I was at a loss to account for the appearance of L. turbini‑
formis in the Klinghardt Mts., hundreds of miles from Prieska, the nearest
point, where this plant occurs, to the above mountains. Apart from this,
the climatic conditions on the West Coast of South West Africa are en
151