Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity ...

1SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004

Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Volume 9 No. 1 ISSN 1027-4286 September 2004

Establishing National Botanical Gardens in South Africa

Documenting the threatened plants of southern Africa: A small

price paid

Living plant collections: Threatened Plants Programme

Establishing National Botanical Gardens in South Africa

Documenting the threatened plants of southern Africa: A small

price paid

Living plant collections: Threatened Plants Programme

2 SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004

c o n t e n t s

ON OUR COVER: Aerial view of Kirstenbosch

National Botanical Garden, South Africa.

(Photo: Hi-Shots, South Africa)

Cover Stories5 Establishing National

Botanical Gardens in South Africa

14 Documenting the threatened plants of southern Africa: A small price paid

37 Living plant collections: Threatened Plants Programme

Features

18 Cyperaceae in Namibia

29 Plant taxonomy in the 21st Century: meeting users’ needs in Lesotho

32 Researchsmith garners awards far and wide

33 Succulent flora of southern Africa worthy of wonder

Book Reviews54 Biodiversity Prospecting &

Access and Benefit Sharing

55 Easy guide to indigenous shrubs

56 Illustrated guide to the wildflowers of northern South Africa

18 Cyperaceae

Regulars3 Editorial

4 Letters to the Editors

34 New books from SABONET

57 The Paper Chase

68 Regional News Update

80 E-mail addresses

Forum Botanicum56 2002 Compton Prize

awarded to trio

57 South African Association of Botanists thanks SABONET

14 Documenting threatened plants

37 Threatened Plants Programme

34 New Books from SABONET

5 Establishing Botanical Gardens

29 Plant taxonomy: Lesotho


Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity Network

EditorsYolande Steenkamp

Cecilia de Vos Belgraver

Design and LayoutAntoinette BurkhardtVanilla Design Studio

(27) 83 635-1446

Reproduction and PrintingCapture Press

(27) 12 349-1802

[email protected]

Websitewww.sabonet.org

Submission of ManuscriptsMarthina Mössmer

[email protected] Instructions to Authors on page 4.

SABONET News is the official newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity

Network (SABONET).

SABONETSouth African National Biodiversity Institute

Private Bag X101Pretoria 0001

SOUTH AFRICATel.: (27) 12 804-3200

Fax: (27) 12 804-5979/3211

SABONET News is published twice a year and is distributed free of charge.

Printed on acid-free Dukuza Plus Matte coated paper, which contains a minimum of 60% bagasse—the residue remaining after sugar has been extracted from sugar cane.

This newsletter was made possible through sup-port provided by the GEF/UNDP (SABONET is a GEF Project implemented by the UNDP) and the Regional Centre for Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana, US Agency for International Development (Plot no. 14818 Lebatlane Road, Gaborone West, Extension 6 Gaborone), under the terms of the Grant No. 690-0283-A-00-5950. The opinions expressed in the newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development, the GEF/UNDP, the SABONET Steering Committee or the National Working Groups.

letter from the editorsEDITORS: YOLANDE STEENKAMP & CECILIA DE VOS BELGRAVER

The Project is slowly winding down with a scheduled closure date of 31 March 2005, and accompanying this “slow-down” (relatively speaking) there have been some

changes at the Regional Office yet again.

Elsabé Malan (former Admin & Finance Officer for the SABONET Regional Office) has left SABONET to take up a position with a small auditing company. The Regional Co-ordinator has taken up a permanent position in the National Botanical Institute’s Data Section as “PRECIS Information Co-ordinator”, but will still be managing the SABONET Project until its closure. With the closure of the Project looming so soon in the future, no new Admin & Finance Officer will be appointed.

You may have noticed that for the first time in years, Marthina Mössmer is not one of the editors of SABONET News. No, she has not left SABONET, but as Editor-in-Chief of the SABONET Report Series, she has been kept very busy during the past few months with numbers in the Report Series coming out every few weeks. Since January this year, seven Reports have been published (read more about them on page 34), with about twelve more expected in the next few months. Since Report No. 25 “Herbarium Essentials”, rolled off the presses in July 2004, people have been raving about it, and the Regional Office is being flooded with requests for extra copies. If you haven’t received one yet and think that you will be able to use it, order it from [email protected]. But hurry! Stocks are limited.

This issue of SABONET News is dedicated to the Threatened Plants Programme that SABONET has established in participating botanic gardens in eight of the ten coun-tries. Read the stories in the Living Collections section on pages 37 to 54. There is also news from Botswana, South Africa, Zambia, and the Regional Office and three very interesting articles, one on establishing National Botanical Gardens in South Africa, one on the fascinating diversity of succulents in southern Africa, and a species list of the Cyperaceae of Namibia.

The next and final issue of the SABONET News is scheduled for January 2005. We are planning to dedicate it to reports on Important Plant Areas, and Centres of Plant Endemism and Diversity on the southern African sub-continent, so please do send in your contributions!

Enjoy your reading! —Yolande Steenkamp & Cecilia de Vos Belgraver

“Breaking News! The National Botanical Institute has officially changed to

the South African National Biodiversity Institute on 1 September 2004”.


letters to the editors [email protected]

1) Manuscripts should preferably be in English.

2) If possible, text should be sent in electronic format via e-mail or on a stiffy disk and should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Rich Text Format. Otherwise, hard copy can be sent or faxed to the SABONET head office.

3) Tables and charts should be in one of the following formats: Microsoft Excel, Quattro Pro, Lotus 1-2-3, or Harvard Graphics. Data must be supplied with charts.

7) Look at the most recent issue of SABONET News for stylistic conventions.

8) SABONET News holds the right to edit any received copy.

9) Manuscripts should be sent to Marthina Mössmer. Via e-mail: [email protected] Hard copy: SABONET, National Botanical Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria 0001, SOUTH AFRICA. Fax: (27) 12 804-5979/3211.

10) Submissions for the next issue should reach the editors before 30 November 2004. Late submissions will not be included.

instructions to authors

Thank you very much for sending the Southern African Plant Red Data

Lists Database on CD-ROM, as well as for sending SABONET News regularly, which is always a great pleasure to read. Both publications are a valuable source of information for our work.

—Dr Uwe SchippmannBundesamt für Naturschutz

Konstantinstrasse11053110 Bonn

We have just received a copy of your wonderful ‘Herbarium essentials’.

We will review it in our publications.

I can imagine that this publication would be very useful for many institutions.

—Etelka LeadlayBGCI

199 Kew Road, Richmond Surrey TW9 3BW

Email: [email protected]

Thank you very much for the latest ex-cellent publication in your SABONET

Report series. ‘Herbarium essentials’ is quite magnificent and will not only en-hance the efficacy of the local herbarium, but also prove to be a most useful teach-ing tool.

—Rodney Moffett (Prof.)Qwaqwa Campus

University of the Free StateSouth Africa

Just a line to thank you all at SABONET for SABONET Report Series No. 22,

which is greatly appreciated and such a valuable compendium. Because I had managed to pay a short visit to Aburi when en route to Nigeria in 1971, I was especially interested in the coverage for West Africa. It’s especially interesting to read about the mutual relationship between Limbe and North Carolina.

—Jim Chapman11 Koromiko Crescent

R.D.I, LytteltonNew Zealand Thanks for the terrific Herbaria in SAB-

ONET countries. SABONET should be able to sell copies to every botany student in the world and to a lot of amateurs be-sides. And even to professional botanists, like me. I am really impressed with its comprehensive, useful, well-illustrated coverage. It’s a classic already.

—Dr Fay RobertsonPO Box CH 385

ChisipiteHarare

ZimbabweEmail: [email protected]

I just opened an envelope containing the book Herbarium Essentials, and I must say that I am truly impressed. So im-pressed, in fact, that I was inspired to write an email congratulating everyone involved in this fine publication.

Over the years, I’ve come to expect the highest-quality output from SABONET, but this recent publication raises that level. The design, layout and content are all superb—what a marvelous resource it will be—not only in Africa but elsewhere as well. It’s one of those books that you just want to keep dipping into, since the information is presented in an attractive and accessible way.

My major activities involve the computerization of herbaria (and living collections), and so I was particularly interested to read the section on compterization (pp 45-46). It is quite a short section on a large and complex topic and I was wondering if there are plans to expand on this important topic at any point in the future?

Please do send my remarks on to the editors and others involved in this publication, and keep up the good work!

—Kerry S. Walter, BG-BASERoyal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Inverleith Row

Edinburgh EH3 5LR Scotland, UKEmail: bg-base@rbge

Many thanks for your latest publica-tion, the herbarium users manual,

and other recent publications received from you.

I congratulate the team which compiled this excellent manual, which should play a valuable part in stimulating interest in botanical exploration and collecting. I especially appreciate the sections on treating difficult material, and regret I did not have this when I started collecting in the 1960s.

—Mike BinghamLusaka

[email protected]

4) If possible, include colour slides, black-and-white photographs, or line drawings to illustrate articles. If you want to submit scanned images with your article, scan them at 300 dpi and save as TIF or JPEG files.

5) Caption all tables, figures, and photographs clearly on a separate sheet. Include photog-rapher credits.

6) Each author should their provide name, affiliation, postal address, telephone and fax numbers, and an e-mail address (if ap-plicable).


in South Africa

Establishing National Botanical Gardens

BY CHRISTOPHER K. WILLIS & BRIAN J. HUNTLEY

“The site chosen should be conveniently accessible. A garden, however well managed and stocked with interesting and valuable plants, will be sure to languish if withdrawn in

consequence of inconvenience of situation from the eye of the residents.”

(Sir William Thiselton-Dyer, 1880)

Increasingly, South Africa’s national botanical gardens are being transformed into embassies of South Africa’s biodiversity and culture. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

A visit to the Lowveld National Botanical Garden is incomplete without one first taking in this stunning view of the Crocodile River cascades. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

An on-site storage dam provides the Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden with a consistent supply of water throughout the year, despite this garden being exposed to hot, dry summers. (Photo: Christopher Willis.)

Adequate safe parking and ablution facilities are essential elements of infrastructure for national botanical gardens. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

The Botanical Society Conservatory enables Kirstenbosch to display South African plants which cannot be grown in the outdoor gardens. Here, under one roof, you will find plants from high mountain peaks, shady forests and hot, dry deserts. The main house, dominated by a large baobab tree, features succulents from the arid regions of southern Africa. Special collections of bulbs, ferns and alpines are displayed in smaller corner houses. (Source: http://www.nbi.ac.za/kirstenbosch/mainpage.htm ) (Photo: Hi-Shots, South Africa.)


Regional Gardens: a history

The establishment of National Botanical Gardens (NBGs) in South Africa goes

back to 1913 when Kirstenbosch and the National Botanic Gardens were formed. The late Prof. Harold Pearson, the first Director of the National Botanic Gardens, once said that owing to geographic con-siderations it would be necessary to have at least ten National Botanic Gardens in South Africa, one in each of the main cli-matic regions, and that one (he suggested it be based on the Cape Peninsula) should be the administrative centre for them all.

The Karoo Desert National Botanical Gar-den was founded in 1921, and up until the 1950s, the National Botanic Gardens had only two gardens under its control, both in the Western Cape. Another garden in the Western Cape, the Harold Porter NBG, was founded in 1959. It was not until 1967 that the National Botanic Gardens of South Africa extended its activities outside the then Cape Province. The purpose of this programme of expansion was (a) to provide sites where eventually the entire South African flora could be cultivated, and (b) to make botanical gardens acces-sible to as many people in the country as possible. To provide the maximum contribution to science it was considered that the various botanical gardens would, as far as possible, be situated near large educational centres or near areas of dense population.

The next gardens to be founded were the Drakensberg and Eastern Free State (of-ficially opened on 18 May 1967), Free State (30 June 1967), Natal (12 November 1969), Lowveld (19 November 1969) and Walter Sisulu (11 March 1982) National Botanical Gardens. Unfortunately, because of a lack of local support and its remote situation, the Drakensberg and Eastern Free State Botanic Garden was handed back to the Harrismith Municipality in 1985.

By 1954, when Prof. Brian Rycroft suc-ceeded Prof. Harold Compton as Director of the National Botanic Gardens, only Kirstenbosch and the Karoo National Botanical Garden had been established. During his term as Director, Prof. Rycroft was responsible for establishing the fol-lowing five National Botanical Gardens that still exist today, namely Harold Porter, Free State, Natal, Lowveld and the Walter Sisulu NBGs. The Pretoria National Bo-tanical Garden, officially opened in 1958, was managed by the former Botanical Research Institute until amalgamation in 1989, when it was brought under the control of the newly formed National Botanical Institute (NBI).

Ideally, national botanical gardens should be easily accessible to visitors and located in major urban areas, such as the Pretoria National Botanical Garden is. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

The confluence of the perennial Nels and Crocodile Rivers is a spectacular sight that may be viewed from the Lowveld National Botanical Garden, Nelspruit. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

Water provides a tranquil atmosphere to visitors at the entrance to the Natal National Botanical Garden, Pietermaritzburg. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)


Source of land

Drakensberg and Eastern Free State NBG (closed as a national botanical gar-den): Harrismith (now part of the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality) Municipality

Free State NBG: Bloemfontein (now Man-gaung) Municipality

Harold Porter NBG: Bequeathed by Harold Nixon Porter; Betty’s Bay (now Overstrand) Municipality

Karoo Desert NBG: Whitehill site: Land donated by Mr JD Logan; Worcester site: Worcester (now Breede Valley) Municipal-ity & Mr CP Heatlie

Kirstenbosch NBG: Government alloca-tion

Lowveld NBG: Nelspruit (now Mbombela) Municipality & HL Hall and Sons

Natal NBG: Pietermaritzburg (now Msun-duzi) Municipality & Botanic Society of Natal

Pretoria NBG: Department of Agriculture (now Tshwane Metro Municipality)

Walter Sisulu NBG: Roodepoort (City of Johannesburg) & Krugersdorp (Mogale City) Municipalities; SA Nature Founda-tion

Consideration of other regional gardens

Although Prof. Rycroft was successful in establishing NBGs in each of the four provinces of South Africa (Cape Province, Orange Free State, Transvaal and Natal) at the time, he continued to explore the option of establishing other ‘regional gardens’. In the National Botanic Garden’s Annual Report of 1971/2, Prof. Rycroft indicated having had various discussions concerning new regional botanical gar-dens. These included the following:• Zululand Botanic Garden (at the mouth

of the Umlalazi River)• Eastern Cape Botanic Garden (in the

Baakens River Valley)• Northern Cape Botanic Garden (on the

banks of the Vaal River at Riverton)• Vaal River Catchment Botanic Garden

(Woody Island and surrounding islands in the Vaal River near Parys)

• Highveld Botanic Garden (close to Krugersdorp; now the Walter Sisulu NBG)

• Oudtshoorn Botanic Garden (created to house succulents from the Swartberg and Outeniqua Mountains).

The Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden was moved from its original position at Whitehill near Matjiesfontein to its current site (shown here) in Worcester in 1946. (Photo: Christopher Willis.)

Mountain backdrop and varying topography in the Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden, Worcester. (Photo: Christopher Willis.)

An artificially created waterfall in the Pretoria National Botanical Garden, funded by Pretoria Portland Cement and completed in October 1992, provides flowing water in a garden that does not have a perennial river flowing within its boundary. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)


In an Addendum to the minutes of the National Botanic Gardens EXCO Meeting held on 7 August 1974, Prof. Rycroft said: “It would be unwise to try to give the ulti-mate number of regional gardens; as the population increases, the need for more gardens will expand. To supplement the existing gardens, at least another eight to ten are required to satisfy the need to have gardens where there are large concentra-tions of people, or in important centres.

Negotiations have already commenced and may be in an advanced stage for the following gardens:• Port Elizabeth: Eastern Cape Botanic

Garden• Krugersdorp: Transvaal Botanic Gar-

den• East London: Kaffrarian Botanic Gar-

den• Kimberley: Griqualand West Botanic

Garden• Pietermaritzburg: Natal Forest Botanic

Garden• Durban: Mangrove and Coast Botanic

Garden• Oudtshoorn: Southern Cape Botanic

Garden• Phalaborwa: Bushveld Botanic Gar-

den• Graskop: Transvaal Forest Botanic

Garden• Vryheid: Northern Natal Botanic Gar-

den.

In addition, negotiations are taking place for the establishment of a KwaZulu Bo-tanic Garden on the northern banks of the Umlalazi River at Mtunzini. Although negotiations have not commenced, it is desirable that a botanic garden should be established in the Northern Transvaal [now Limpopo Province], the Knysna For-est Region, the Cape West Coast and one, or possibly two, in South West Africa [now Namibia], as well.

At this stage, it is impossible to provide a final list of possible new gardens. Our policy in the future could be dictated largely by township development schemes and generous offers of suitable sites.

Of the possible gardens listed by Prof. Rycroft in 1974, apart from the Transvaal Botanic Garden (shortly after its official opening in 1982 it was renamed the Wit-watersrand NBG and on 16 March 2004 renamed the Walter Sisulu NBG), the only

option that was pursued into the 1980s and early 1990s was that of a botanical garden in the Eastern Cape. In the NBG’s Annual Report of 1982, two gardens were listed as being possible in the Eastern Cape: one in Port Elizabeth (Baakens River Valley) and the other in East London. Both the Port Elizabeth and East London City Councils agreed to make an annual financial contri-bution (which would be subject to review from time to time) towards the establish-ment and maintenance of the respective gardens. During the second half of the 1980s, when Prof. Kobus Eloff succeeded Prof. Rycroft, Veld and Flora (June 1988) published the Board’s statement that “the NBG should grow in usefulness and not necessarily in size, e.g. by developing fewer gardens more intensively rather than more gardens at a lower level” (Veld & Flora. Eloff 1988).

The 1991/1992 edition of the NBI’s Annual Review had the following to say about the establishment of a National Botanical Garden in the Eastern Cape:

“The NBI has been approached on many occasions over the past 20 years concern-ing the establishment of another Na-tional Botanical Garden in Port Elizabeth – specifically at Settlers’ Park – for which detailed plans and proposals were submit-ted by a team of our senior horticultural staff. However, the combined factors of continued controversy, both from various organisations and the Port Elizabeth pub-lic, and severe financial constraints, make it impossible for the NBI to accept this undertaking. The matter may be recon-sidered at a later date, should all factors involved appear more favourable.”

The matter of an additional garden being added to the network of National Botanical Gardens was last listed in the 1992/1993 Annual Review, where it states: “A further NBG has been proposed for Port Elizabeth, but despite several top level meetings, funding is unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.”

The eight National Botanical Gardens managed by the NBI are currently located in five of South Africa’s nine provinces, namely Western Cape (three: Cape Town, Betty’s Bay and Worcester), Free State (Bloemfontein), KwaZulu-Natal (Pieter-maritzburg), Mpumalanga (Nelspruit) and Gauteng (two: Pretoria and Roodepoort/Krugersdorp). In response to various requests received since 1994 to establish national botanical gardens in the remain-ing four provinces of South Africa, it was considered opportune to make available certain criteria for establishing new NBGs. These criteria are based on the over 90

The backdrop of the world famous Table Mountain provides a stunning setting for the new tea garden in Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden, which was completed in October 2003. (Photo: Christopher Willis.)

National botanical gardens serve an important environmental education role for all South Africans. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)

The attractive entrance to the Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden, Roodepoort/Krugersdorp, hints at the beauty that lies beyond. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)


years’ experience of the National Botanical Institute and its predecessors in managing its network of NBGs.

Defining characteristics of a botanical garden

(after IUCN-BGCS and WWF 1989)• adequate labelling of the plants• an underlying scientific basis for the

collections• communication of information to other

gardens, institutions, organisations and the public

• exchange of seeds or other materials with other botanical gardens, arboreta or research stations

• long-term commitment to, and respon-sibility for, the maintenance of plant collections

• maintenance of research programmes in plant taxonomy in associated her-baria

• monitoring of the plants in the collec-tion

• open to the public• promoting conservation through ex-

tension and environmental education activities

• proper documentation of the collec-tions, including those of wild origin

• undertaking scientific or technical research on plants in the collec-tions.

Criteria for establishing new national botanical gardens

Experience has shown that while most of the existing NBGs are well located, some are not. Most of the gardens were devel-oped on property that became available, either by personal bequest or donation from municipalities, for the purpose of the establishment of a botanical garden, and in several cases were not established as a result of careful planning and the identification of optimal sites.

NBGs with perennial water running through the properties include Harold Porter, Kirstenbosch, Lowveld, Natal and Walter Sisulu. Water flows through the Free State NBG only occasionally during the summer rainy season from November to March/April. Neither the Pretoria nor the Karoo Desert NBGs have perennial water sources. In both gardens, this is a major limiting factor, because municipal (additional expense) or borehole water has to be used for irrigation. Moving a botanical garden from one site to another is not viable due mainly to the expense involved. It has, however, been done twice before in the history of the national botanical gardens. The Karoo Desert NBG was moved from its original position at Whitehill near Matjiesfontein to Worcester in 1946, 25 years after the garden had been

established. A combination of drought, a new national road and little public support, especially during the Second World War, forced the National Botanic Gardens to vacate the Whitehill site in 1946 and re-establish the Karoo Garden in Worcester, where it was officially opened on 25 September 1948. Three years after its inception, the Drakensberg and Eastern Free State Botanic Garden near Harrismith was moved 29 km from its original site in Major’s Drift to Waterworks Valley at the foot of the Platberg to ensure a reliable water supply (Hawkins 1970).

Another NBG that is perhaps not ideally situated, especially in terms of the avail-ability of water, is the Pretoria NBG. Had the garden been established in the 1990s, a different, well-planned and strategically identified site would definitely have been sought before establishing the garden. It is interesting to note, however, that the Pretoria NBG was originally established as a garden to be used by researchers and taxonomists working in the former Botanical Research Institute rather than as a garden catering for the needs of the general public.

Based on the experience of the NBI, na-tional botanical gardens should ideally be strategically positioned according to the following minimum criteria:

Definitions of a botanical garden

“A botanical garden is an institution where plants are grown and displayed for the purpose of research, conservation, education and recreation in order to promote an understanding, love and appreciation of the diversity of plant life.”Southern African Botanical Gardens Needs Assessment, Southern African Botanical

Diversity Network Report No. 11, November 2000.

“Botanic gardens are institutions holding documented collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific research, conservation, display and education.”

Peter Wyse Jackson, International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation, BGCI, 2000.

“A botanic garden is a hybrid type of organisation combining some of the func-tions of a university, a museum and an experimental station, with the informal recreational aspects of a park system. The tools of a botanic garden, its plant col-lections, are so employed that they exhibit great aesthetical appeal, along with instructional and inspirational values as well as existing for their primary scientific purpose.”

Anonymous author, in A Botanic Garden in the Indian Context, Academic Press (Inc.), London.

The majority of South Africa’s national botanical gardens have large areas of unique natural veld under their management. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)


Community support

• linked to an active local branch of the Botanical Society of South Africa

• supported by the local community and civil society

Services

• perennial river(s) flowing through the property

• suitable water supply• a reliable supply of electricity lines and

sewerage pipes

Horticultural potential

• with suitable areas of arable soil for the landscaped portion of the garden

Landscape

• includes varying topography, slopes, environmental conditions and micro-climates

Accessibility

• NBI may allow, regulate or prohibit access by the public to the national botanical garden

• close to (within 20 km of) a major urban centre

• within a 30 km catchment area of at least 250,000 people

• easily accessible to staff and potential visitors from major road routes

Biodiversity

• includes a large area of relatively un-disturbed natural habitats/vegetation representative of at least some of the main vegetation type(s) of the prov-ince

Land

• land should be available on a 99-year lease to the NBI or be handed over to the NBI/state

• current land owners should be willing to lease or transfer the land

Education and research

• easily accessible to educational and research institutions.

Financial implications

Infrastructure development and service provision (R20,000,000)

Security (fencing of property)(R1,500,000)

Landscaping and development of demon-

stration garden, including construction of pathways (R5,000,000)

Control of alien invasive plants on es-tate (R500,000 and annual provision of R250,000)

Acquisition of vehicles and necessary equipment (tractors, lawnmowers) (R1,500,000)

Annual operational budget (R4,000,000)Includes salaries, running costs, staff clothing, housing subsidy, overtime, administrative costs, electricity, postage, refuse removal, outsourced security, vehicle hire, subsistence and travel allow-ances, field trips, repair and maintenance of minor equipment, cleaning, vehicle fuel, materials, advertising, marketing, printing, signage, and computer costs, amongst others.

Annual allocation of R250,000 for main-tenance of buildings, major equipment and vehicles. Annual maintenance costs should ideally be set at 1.5 percent of the replacement value of buildings and infra-structure on the property.

Initial costs

Design and planning: R1,500,000

Infrastructural development: R20,000,000 (could be phased over a few years)

Security fencing: R1,500,000

Landscape and garden development: R5,000,000

Initial control of alien invasive plants: R500,000

Vehicles and necessary equipment: R1,500,000

Total per garden: R30,000,000 (exclud-ing cost of land acquisition)

Annual costs

Annual operating budget: R4,000,000

Maintenance: R250,000

Control of alien invasive plants: R250,000

Annual total per garden: R4,500,000

Personnel implications

• Curator• 3 horticulturists (one dedicated out-

reach horticulturist), • Education officer,

• Interpretation officer,• Marketing officer, • Administrative officer, and • 20 staff members.

Recommendations

For each proposed national botanical garden, the process of development would include the following activities:1. Site Analysis/Feasibility Study (see

Wyse Jackson 2003)2. Preliminary master plan (includes mas-

ter site plan for the layout of the garden, management/organisational structure, financial projections (funding needed and available for establishment and on-going maintenance), expenditure, estimates of phased construction costs, additional benefits, potential risks and local and national benefits)(Wyse Jack-son 2003)

3. Workshops with local community and other stakeholders

4. Approval of overall concept for the garden, required capital expenditure, identified and committed financial resources, and timetable for establish-ment

5. Acquisition of land6. Project direction and staff appointed7. Architectural & landscape design and

planning Nursery with associated buildings

(potting facility, propagation beds and shade houses, poison store, chemical store, soil mixing and storage area)

workshop visitors’ centre plant sales nursery administrative offices herbarium and other scientific facilities library with relevant botanical books staff facilities housing for selected staff (at least two

staff houses) irrigation systems photocopier computers & cell phones potable water fire water supply sewerage reticulation 2-way radios telephones fax machine e-mail/Internet access electricity supply toilets for staff and public parking area and associated lighting fire-fighting equipment pathway construction tea garden/restaurant venue for hosting functions environmental education centre interpretive signs and labelling display glasshouse 8. Implementation


Statistic Free State Harold Porter Karoo Desert Kirstenbosch Lowveld Natal Pretoria Walter Sisulu

Foundation date 1967 1955/1959 1921/1946 1913 1969 1874/1969 1958 1982Staff complement (permanent) 23 23 25 132 41 25 61 42Horticulturists 2 2 2 9+3 2 2 4 3Annual security costs 6,000 1,000 1,000 400,000 34,000 45,000 324,000 220,000contracted out (R) Annual Government 1,584,967 918,870 1,682,421 3,656,000 2,053,790 1,505,263 3,892,592 2,286,000Grant allocation (R) Annual income (R) 70,000 234,269 85,128 13,555,000 300,000 216,337 508,812 1,475,000(excluding sponsorships) Staff salaries (incl. overtime) 1,474,200 1,065,000 1,538,500 9,891,000 2,034,000 1,466,000 3,481,000 2,845,000per annum (R) Percentage self-generated 4.4 16.7 0.8 72.8 13.1 11.9 12 39.2 income (%)Landscaped area (ha) 6.7 10 11 38 25 14 43 20Natural or low-maintenance 66.8 190.5 143 470 § 134 40 33 280 areas (ha)Visitors (per annum) 32,000 46,000 36,000 650,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 165,000Admission fees (R) 8/4 8/4 10/5* 20/10/5** 9/5 8/5 12/6 15/7Adults/children Municipal water use 5,000,000 2,000,000 4,931,000 500,000 9,424,000 6,693,600 6,860,000 7,300,000per annum (l)Borehole water use 36,000,000 0 No borehole 700,000 0 0 100,800,000 0per annum (l)River water use No river Unknown No river 170,000,000 65,000,000 18,000,000 No river 98,000,000 per annum (l)Accessible distance (km) 3.5 0 1.5 1 1 5 2.5 2from nearest major roadVisitors Centre Planned • • • • Restaurant/Tea Garden • • • • • • •Environmental Education • • • • •CentreHome Gardening Centre • Display Glasshouse • Education Programme Planned Ad hoc Ad hoc • Planned • •Herbarium • • • • • • •Research Centre • •

* Entrance fees charged only during the annual flower season (August to the end of October)** Adult/Student/Child§ Kirstenbosch NBG is also responsible for managing the Edith Stephens Wetland Park (1957; 3,42 ha) and the Tienie Versfeld Reserve (1957; 20,72 ha) in the Western Cape.

Table 1. Summary statistics of South Africa’s National Botanical Gardens.

National botanical gar-dens are not exempt from the forces of nature. Some of the natural events, sometimes with costly consequences, that South Africa’s national botanical gardens and their staff have to deal with include droughts, strong winds, storms, black frost, fires and floods. (Photo: Johan Hurter.)

Tea gardens and/or restau-rants have been built in most of South Africa’s national botanical gardens. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.)


Conclusions

Whilst there can be no perfect site for the establishment of a new national botanical garden, certain criteria must be carefully considered in determining an optimal site in a particular area. With a reliable water supply, arable soils, accessibility to a large number of people, varying topography with relatively pristine natural vegetation and on-going local and government sup-port, national botanical gardens can serve their intended functions for many years. Careful planning, and on-going financial and community support are probably the main components when establishing a sustainable national botanical garden.

Acknowledgements

Gort Hughes, Daan Botha, Nazeer Rawoot, Ben Engelbrecht and the Curators of South Africa’s national botanical gardens are thanked for providing some of the information and statistics included in this paper. Emsie du Plessis of the NBI Publi-cations Unit is thanked for editing earlier versions of this article.

References and Further Reading

Affolter, J. 1997. Protecting one of the world’s richest floras—South African botanical gardens. Public Garden 12(2): 18-21, 49.

Baxter, W.D. 1958. The early years of Kirstenbosch, 1913-20. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 44: 9-10.

Bayer, M.B. 1981. Karoo Botanic Garden—60th year. Veld & Flora 67(3): 92-93.

Botha, D.J. 1988. Geskiedenis van ander Nasionale Botaniese Tuine/History of other National Botanic Gardens. Veld & Flora 74(2): 67-70.

Botha, D.J., Willis, C.K. & Winter, J.H.S. 2000. Southern African Botanical Gardens Needs Assessment. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 11. SABONET, Pretoria. 156 pp.

Coetzee, J.A. 1979. The Orange Free State Botanic Garden—10th anniversary. Veld & Flora 65(3): 78.

Compton, R.H. 1921. The Karoo Garden at Whitehills. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 7: 11-12.

Compton, R.H. 1924. The Kew of South Africa. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 10: 32-35.

Compton, R.H. 1938. Kirstenbosch. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 24: 6-8.

Compton, R.H. 1950. The National Botanic Gardens of South Africa: its aims, functions and policy. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 36:

7-10.Compton, R.H. 1965. Kirstenbosch: garden

for a nation. The Board of Trustees of the National Botanic Gardens of South Africa. 168 pp.

Creasey, L.B. 1935. How to form a garden library. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 21: 14-19.

Davis, G. & Hoffman, T. 1996. Look what’s cooking at the Karoo Botanical Garden. Veld & Flora 82(4): 102-104.

Dyer, R.A. 1960. The opening of the Pretoria National Botanic Garden. Bothalia 7(2): 391-401.

Ebersohn, W.C. 1976. Die Harold Porter Tuin. Veld & Flora 62(4): 32.

Eloff, J.N. 1988. NBG yesterday, today and tomorrow—a managerial perspective. Veld & Flora 74(2): 35-41.

Feinhauer, G. 1976. O.F.S.—Birth of a garden. Veld & Flora 62(1): 23.

Forbes, S. 1997. Planning for botanic gardens. In: Conservation into the 21st century , Proceedings of the 4th International Botanic Gardens Conservation Congress, eds D.H. Touchell & K.W. Dixon, pp. 261-269. Kings Park and Botanic Garden, West Perth, Western Australia.

Forrester, J. 2003. Sands of time: a dune garden in the Harold Porter National Botanical Garden, Betty’s Bay. Veld & Flora 89(3): 110-112.

Hall, A.V. & Rycroft, H.B. 1979. South Africa: The conservation policy of the National Botanic Gardens and its regional gardens. In: Survival or extinction, eds H. Synge & H. Townsend, pp. 125-134. The Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 49-56.

Hankey, A. & Turner, S. 2001. Witwatersrand National Botanical Garden. SABONET News 6(2): 104-107.

Hawkins, E.B. 1970. The Drakensberg and Eastern Free State Botanical Garden. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 56: 17-19.

Hitchcock, A. 2000. Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden. SABONET News 5(3): 173-181.

Huntley, B.J. 1991. National Botanical Institute—the first year. Veld & Flora 77(1): 27-28.

Huntley, B.J. 1993. The Kirstenbosch Development Plan. Veld & Flora 79(3): 71.

Huntley, B.J. 1998a. The Kirstenbosch Development Campaign: a dream realized. Veld & Flora 84(2): 44-47.

Huntley, B.J. 1998b. Lessons learned from the Kirstenbosch Development Campaign. Veld & Flora 84(3): 78-79.

Huntley, B.J. 2003. The Kirstenbosch Development Campaign: mission accomplished. In: Botanical Society of South Africa: 90th Anniversary, pp. 9-14. Botanical Society of South Africa,

Claremont.Hurter, J. 2001. Lowveld National Botanical

Garden. SABONET News 6(3): 206-208.

Kluge, J. & Burrows, J. 1997. An African Rain Forest in a South African Botanical Garden. Botanic Gardens Conservation News 2(8): 31-33.

Knox, C. 1993. Bridging the divide: the Pretoria National Botanical Garden. Veld & Flora 79: 11-13.

Kruger, P. 1979. The Lowveld Botanic Garden. Veld & Flora 65(4): 102-103.

Law, P.A.S. 1971. Natal Botanic Garden, Pietermaritzburg: a brief history. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 57: 46-49.

Levyns, M.R. 1966. Some recollections of Kirstenbosch in its early days. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 52: 17-20.

Marais, J. 1979. Kirstenbosch Gardens and “A Magnificent Obsession”. Veld & Flora 65(1): 26-29.

Maunder, M. 1994. Botanic gardens: future challenges and responsibilities. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 97-103.

McCracken, D.P. & McCracken, E.M. 1988. The way to Kirstenbosch. National Botanic Gardens, Cape Town.

Milne, D.L. 1979. Prehistory of the Lowveld Botanic Garden in Nelspruit. Veld & Flora 65(4): 106-107.

Norton, J. 1994. Between the mountains and the sea: the Harold Porter National Botanical Garden. Veld & Flora 80(3): 84-87.

Oliver, I. 1987. The National Botanic Garden Orange Free State—twenty years 1967–1987. Veld & Flora 73(3): 107-109.

Oliver, I. 1994. The OFS National Botanical Garden. Veld & Flora 80(4): 121-123.

Oliver, I. 2000. A unique desert garden in the winter rainfall area of South Africa. Aloe 37(2&3): 28-30.

Oliver, I. 2002. Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden. SABONET News 7(2): 120-123.

Oliver, I.B. 2004. Aloe dichotoma Masson – establishment of a manmade quiver tree forest. Aloe 41(1): 19-21.

Onderstall, J. 1974. The Lowveld Botanic Garden. Trees in South Africa 26(1): 2-9.

Onderstall, J. 1994. The Lowveld National Botanical Garden. Veld & Flora 80(2): 38-43.

Paterson-Jones, C. 1993. A visitors’ guide to Kirstenbosch. National Botanical Institute, South Africa. 32 pp.

Perry, P. 1987. Some recollections of the Karoo Botanic Garden and Bruce Bayer, Curator 1973–1987. Veld & Flora 73(2): 73-74.

Perry, P. 1991. Growing geophytes at the


Karoo Gardens. Veld & Flora 77(3): 87-89.

Perry, P. & Bayer, B. 1978. Karoo Botanic Garden Veld Reserve. Veld & Flora 64(2): 53-55, 64.

Porter, O.M. 1960. Harold Porter Botanic Reserve. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 46: 20.

Raven, P.H. 1981. Research in botanical gardens. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik 102: 53-72.

Roff, J., Nonjinge, S. & Crouch, N. 1997. Conjuring up a Zulu muthi garden. Veld & Flora 83(3): 72-73.

Roux, J.P. 1984. The Drakensberg Botanic Garden—an historic review. Veld & Flora 70(3): 68-72.

Rycroft, H.B. 1963. Tribute to the founder of Kirstenbosch Gardens. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 49: 9-10.

Rycroft, H.B. 1964. The Golden Jubilee Year of Kirstenbosch. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 50: 16-19.

Rycroft, H.B. 1973. Plants and gardens of South Africa. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 59: 23-26.

Rycroft, H.B. 1983. The botanic garden in a changing world. Bothalia 14(3&4): 461-464.

Rycroft, H.B. & Ryan, R. 1980. Kirstenbosch. Howard Timmins Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa.

Samways, M. 1989. Ecological landscaping at the Natal National Botanic Garden Pietermaritzburg. Veld & Flora 75(4): 107-108.

Saunders, R. 1993. Kirstenbosch the garden. Veld & Flora 79(3): 67-70.

Scott, J. 1981. Orange Free State Botanic Garden. Veld & Flora 67(4): 112-113.

Smith, G.F., Steyn, E.M.A. & Botha, D.J. 1999. Gardens of the North: our inland National Botanical Gardens. Veld & Flora 85(4): 158-162.

Smith, G.F., Brown, N.A.C., Botha, D.J., Rutherford, M.C., Donaldson, J.S., De Lange, J.H. & Davis, G.W. 1999.

Horticultural research in the National Botanical Institute of South Africa: past achievements and future directions. South African Journal of Science 95: 344-348.

Tarr, B. 1985. Natal Botanic Garden—an old garden with a bright future. Veld & Flora 71(1): 3-4.

Thudichum, J. 1952. The Karoo Garden, Worcester. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 38: 10-13.

Van der Zeyde, A. 1968. Drakensberg and Eastern Free State Botanic Gardens. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 54: 67-68.

Van Zyl, G.B. 1948. Opening of the Karoo Garden, Worcester. Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 34: 5-8.

Willis, C. 2002. New name for Karoo Garden. Botanic Gardens Conservation News 3(8): 11-12.

Willis, C.K. 2001. Establishment of additional National Botanical Gardens. Unpublished report.

Willis, C.K. 2003. In support of South Africa’s National Botanical Gardens. In: Botanical Society of South Africa: 90th Anniversary, pp. 15-19. Botanical Society of South Africa, Claremont.

Willis, C.K. (ed.) 2004. African Botanic Gardens Congress ‘Partnerships and Linkages’: proceedings of a congress held at Durban Botanic Gardens, South Africa, 24-29 November 2002./ Congrès des Jardins Botaniques Africains ‘Relations et Partenariats’ : compte rendu d’un congrès tenu dans les Jardins Botaniques de Durban, Afrique du Sud, 24-29 Novembre 2002. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 22. SABONET, Pretoria. 96 + 96 pp.

Willis, C. & Hitchcock, A. 2001. Threatened plants and southern African botanical gardens. SABONET News 6(3): 183-184.

Willis, C.K. & Huntley, B.J. 2001. SABONET: Developing capacity within southern

Africa’s herbaria and botanical gardens. Systematics and Geography of Plants 71: 247-258.

Willis, C.K. & Smith, G.F. 2004. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation: implications for succulent plant conservation in southern Africa. Aloe 41(1): 6-15.

Willis, C.K. & Turner, S. (eds) 2001. Action plan for southern African botanical gardens. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No. 12. SABONET, Pretoria. 36 pp.

Willis, C., Botha, D. & Winter, J. 1998. A needs assessment of southern African botanical gardens. SABONET News 3(3): 140-144.

Willis, C., Botha, D. & Winter, J. 1999. Southern African botanical gardens needs assessment update. SABONET News 4(1): 9-22.

Willis, C., Dalzell, C. & Siebert, S. 2001. SABONET: building capacity in southern African botanical gardens. African Botanic Gardens Network Bulletin 3: 2-3.

Willis, C., Siebert, S. & Dalzell, C. 2002. Regional course for southern African horticulturists. African Botanic Gardens Network Bulletin 5: 4.

Wyse Jackson, P.S. 2003. The development of feasibility studies for the creation of new botanic gardens. Botanic Gardens Conservation News 3(10): 46-48.

Wyse Jackson, P.S. & Sutherland, L.A. 2000. International Agenda for botanic gardens in conservation . Botanic Gardens Conservation International, U.K. 56 pp.

Wyse Jackson, P.S., Leadley, E. & Hobson, C. 1999. A review of international conventions which affect the work of botanic gardens. Botanic Gardens Conservation News 3(2): 29-54.

Xaba, P.A. 2002. The Useful Plants Garden Project at the Natal National Botanical Garden. SABONET News 7(1): 50-51.

Promoting the use of indigenous plants and selling them to visitors and members of the broader public is an important function of South Africa’s national botanical gardens that provides a vital source of income for the individual gardens. Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.

The Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden, Worcester, now has a new shade-house for the Mesembryanthemaceae collection. Photo: Christopher Willis.

Commitment to the long-term maintenance of living plant collections, such as the Haworthia collection in the Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden, is a defining characteristic of a botanic garden. Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.


A small price paid

Documenting the threatened plants of

southern Africa:

As part of the activities of the Southern African Botanical Diversity Network (SABONET), the World Conservation Union (IUCN) made available funds for the

compilation of plant Red Data Lists for the ten participating countries. Analysis of costs involved in terms of human and financial resources to perform conservation assessments

of threatened plants revealed interesting trends, especially cost savings due to the co-ordination mechanism followed with stakeholder participation and data collection.

Disseminating data proved more expensive than accumulation thereof. SABONET has demonstrated that with sound management and co-ordination, and selective regional

participatory consultation and peer review, it is possible to assess conservation status of threatened plants at around USD 17/taxon and produce the complete product at USD 38/taxon. Cost-effective expenditure for generating conservation-oriented information

is often overlooked in donor-funded projects. This article presents a project case study of how a low financial input can lead to high returns in the form of useful information and

skills that can improve conservation decisions).


The impact of years of post-colonial dormancy, the crippling effects of civil

wars and political instability have left their mark on the intellectual capital of botani-cal knowledge in many southern African countries (Huntley 1998). Today, most of the expertise lies outside the national institutions. With national herbaria as focal points, botanical institutions have experienced a gradual recovery as part of the Southern African Botanical Diversity Network (SABONET) Project, a Global Environment Facility (GEF)/United Na-tions Development Programme (UNDP) project (Siebert & Smith 2004).

The Red List compilation for the southern African region (6,000,000 km2) was pro-duced under the auspices of SABONET (Golding 2000) with funding from the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Re-gional Office for Southern Africa (ROSA) over 30 months. Golding (2001a) provides an overview of the SABONET Red List Project in SABONET News 6(3).

Collaborative research and con-solidation of technical information culminated in comprehensive ac-counts of priority threatened plant species for more countries than any other regional Red Listing initiative in Africa. Over 3,900 plant species from ten south-ern African countries, namely Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe were subjected to 4,100 assessments, and assigned a category of threat based on the internationally ac-cepted principles established by IUCN. The results showed that 10 percent of the region’s flora is in urgent need of conser-vation action (Golding 2002).

The SABONET publication of plant Red Data Lists (Golding, 2002) has therefore been one of the most significant and en-couraging recent contributions to the con-servation of southern Africa’s flora — see comments by Peter Raven and Achim Steiner in the project newsletter (Siebert & Mössmer 2003). This is an example of how Red Lists have provided southern African herbaria with an ‘entry point’ to collaborate with local plant diversity spe-cialists (Golding & Smith 2001) to produce stable, yet adaptable accounts of the en-dangered plant species of the region and the threats they face. The project was an essential step towards bridging the gap and transforming the field experience of stakeholders and researchers, and the data housed in herbaria, into accessible, usable and useful information products (Golding 2001b) that can improve and expand the conservation activities of conservationists

and governments in the region (Golding & Timberlake 2003).

Red Lists have a broad application for identifying conservation priorities at the level of species and their core habitat requirements. Their inherent value facili-tates resource planning, adds impetus to threatened species conservation and value to indigenous resources, and also affords objective insights into the exploitative extraction of natural resources (Izidine et al. 2004). The benefits that this acquired knowledge holds for conservation in Africa are apparent and plentiful, but what are the costs in terms of human and financial resources to undertake a project of this kind? This paper reports on the southern African experience and the ‘price paid’ to produce conservation-oriented information. It is hoped that this quantifi-cation will assist similar future initiatives to develop cost-effective strategies and to

aid donor agencies with project develop-ment decisions.

Data collection

From the start of the project, management kept detailed spreadsheets that recorded details of all meetings and workshops. Subsidiary data were added, including the number of workshop participants, professional background of participants (taxonomist, ecologist, field botanist, etc.), workshop costs (air travel, accommoda-tion and similarly large expenses), and the number of taxa assessed during work sessions. Data were analysed in terms of human and financial resources respec-tively using simple techniques (project

statistics are available on the project web site: www.sabonet.org).

There have been detailed evaluations of the expenditure of SABONET funds as a function of products delivered. For instance, Smith et al. (2003) found that it cost USD 3.67 for each of the 450,000 herbarium specimens to be captured on computer as part of the SABONET project. It was probably one of the most cost-effec-tive initiatives in the world to document plant life. It would appear that SABONET produces good-value-for-money products, and makes these available free of charge.

Similarly, the Red Data List project also proved to be cost-effective, with the com-plete process of assessing 4,100 threatened species costing USD 38 each (Table 1). Pitman & Jorgenson (2002) estimated that a Red List project in a mega-diverse region cost < USD 100/species. As one of

the world’s mega-diverse regions (Groombridge & Jenkins 2002), southern Africa managed to spend just 38 percent of the maximum predicted cost.

However, the calculations are not flawless. It is assumed that it costs

exactly the same to assess any plant spe-cies, be it detailed counts of rare species in nature or desktop evaluations of type collections of extinct taxa. The approach followed does not differentiate between groups that might be more or less ex-pensive to assess; yet one cannot do an analysis any other way due to the nature of the available data.

Plant assessments in Europe

The Swedish ArtDataBanken has also estimated the costs involved in assess-ing their threatened species, including co-ordination, collection and dissemina-tion expenses. They assessed about 5,000 species in-depth and red-listed 4,100 (U. Gärdenfors pers. comm.). The total cost involved ranged between USD 200,000 and 250,000 – excluding the cost of com-piling detailed information sheets about every single species. If we consider the total amount spent, it cost between USD 49 and 61/taxon to determine the threat status of the 4,100 species. This means it costs nearly twice as much in Europe as it does in (southern) Africa to assess the status of threat of a plant species. By world standards therefore the SABONET Red List initiative was a cost-effective exercise to assess the status of threat of plants on a regional scale.

SABONET spent 26 percent of its total funds on the co-ordination of the project,

The SABONET publication of plant Red Data Lists (Golding, 2002) has therefore been one

of the most significant and encouraging recent contributions to the conservation of

southern Africa’s flora.

Disa erubescens. (Photo: SABONET)


which translates roughly to USD 9.75/as-sessment. Funds were applied to employ a full-time co-ordinator and part-time assistants, cover the co-ordinator’s travel and accommodation expenses, and meet running expenses of general office administration. This investment towards efficient co-ordination and networking ensured collaboration with the right people from the start and the delivery of satisfactory products at the end.

SABONET developed a distinct co-ordina-tion model to become effective in deliver-ing the products. It adopted a devolved structure, collaborators had a sense of ownership, there was power to change the direction of the project through assess-ments via the workshop processes, and people had access to training, thus making the process mutually beneficial. Further-more, it was pivotal in ensuring that SA-BONET received international recognition for its contribution to plant conservation through the Red List project.

The role of volunteers

Data collection and building a network of volunteers was probably the most cost-ef-fective exercise of the project (20 percent of allocated funds). A lot of information was already available and all manage-ment had to do was find the sources and add to it where necessary. If the project had been conducted outside the botani-cal community, then we might not have known how to access and build on existing information.

Unlike so many donor-funded projects that have to pay for information, SABONET obtained most of the data by involving experts from the region that were willing to share their knowledge to ensure that a useful product could be made available for southern Africa. This voluntary in-volvement and passion for the local flora allowed for more funds to be channelled towards the training and data dissemina-tion processes.

Therefore, funds were used to cover the accommodation and travel expenses of 236 delegates from 128 institutions to attend 15 training, technical and implementation workshops. Consultation was broad-based and involved a wide spectrum of expertise (Table 2). Workshops brought together regional experts to equip them with neces-sary knowledge of the IUCN assessment process, to run sessions during which a category of threat was assigned to plants of the region and to reach consensus on these assessments.

Field observations, ecological aspects, threats and taxonomic information were taken into consideration to make well-founded assessments. This voluntary

participatory approach yielded more robust, multi-dimensional assessments than previous accounts that generally relied exclusively on herbarium specimen information and taxonomists. At USD 7.55/species for this exercise, it proved less expensive to determine what species in southern Africa could possibly become extinct, than it did to set up and manage the programme.

Workshops for stakeholders

Stakeholders that use Red Data list infor-mation for on-the-ground conservation constituted nearly two thirds (63 percent) of the workshop participants. They formed an integral part of the process and were actively involved in tailor-making a prod-uct for their own purposes and needs. Interestingly, 71 percent of the workshop participants were male. Approximately 60 percent of participants were African and 40 percent were resident Europeans. This is ascribed to the historical legacy that white men have traditionally been the holders of botanical knowledge in southern Africa.

Considering the small amount spent on obtaining information about the status of threat of plant species of southern Af-rica, the costs involved in preparing and making the information available to civil society came as a revelation. USD 84,000, or 54 percent of the allocated funds, were spent on this process. The preparation

of the publication involved the skills of consultants to edit the text, design the page layout and develop the database. Production comprised the printing of the

book and burning of the compact disc. The list and database were distributed free of charge to all interested parties.

The cost of making the informa-tion available to the public adds

up to USD 21.55/species, which is more than twice as much as it cost to produce the information. This illustrates that a well co-ordinated data acquisition process is cheaper than disseminating it to the stakeholders, which involves the use of specialist services from outside the botani-cal fraternity.

Red Lists are a first step

Therefore, it can be safely said that with a functional network and sound project management in place, future Red List projects in Africa should be able to assess threatened species at about USD 17/taxon (excluding the dissemination of informa-tion). This is a worthwhile investment considering the amount of information made available through this process and its potential for providing baseline data for future research that could possibly save a species from extinction (Golding & Hurter 2003). However, a Red List in itself is not the answer to conservation problems and is merely the first of many steps to allevi-ate these (Golding & Siebert 2002). Many countries are mainstreaming Red Data List concepts into relevant policies and legislation in order to strengthen the case for decision-making concerning sustain-able development and conservation. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (Bramwell et al. 2002) presents one such vehicle.

The approach Down Under

In recent years, the Australian Govern-ment paid USD 7.8 m towards a national endangered species programme (Source: http://www.budget.gov.au/1999-00/min-isterial/ch4/ch4-THREATEN.html). This provided core resources for the conser-vation of nationally threatened species and endangered ecological communities, primarily through recovery and threat abatement plans. The programmes focus on threatening processes and involve civil society through community educa-tion and co-operative research. This is a process that could be followed in southern Africa and in other parts of the continent, but would require a lot of effort because socially and politically, the trade-offs that would be required are too high.

“…with a functional network and sound project management in place, future Red List projects in

Africa should be able to assess threatened species at about USD 17/taxon.”

Boophane disticha. (Photo: SABONET)


Over the past two years, SABONET has taken steps to improve and expand conservation activities on the ground. SABONET has initiated an activity to ad-dress problems regarding the cultivation of threatened species ex situ, and provided participating botanical gardens with USD 3 000 each to initiate Threatened Plants Programmes and USD 1 500 each for internships to visit centres of expertise (Siebert 2003). However, these are running expenses for an 18-month period only. It is hoped that this will trigger further funding, which raises the question: what are the resources required, such as long-term financial investment and stakeholder consultation, to conserve a threatened species by achieving sustainable conser-vation impact on the ground? The extent of resources required for conservation impact are difficult to estimate; hopefully successful projects in this field could pro-vide useful guidelines.

Observations about human nature

❚ The age-old adage that limited funds promote resourcefulness was proven true again. A small budget forced project management to be critical of unnecessary activities and to focus resources on high priorities.

❚ A proverb proved true, namely ‘the less time you have, the more you do’. Work-shops were organised throughout the region over one year, and approximately 2,000 first assessments were completed relatively quickly.

❚ By forming part of a bigger network, namely SABONET, the Red List project was propelled into a situation where com-petent people were already known. This allowed management to select the right people for the job.

❚ It is always assumed that if you don’t pay, you won’t get the best. SABONET has shown that in southern Africa experts have no problem doing voluntary work and they are passionate about and committed to the objectives of the project.

❚ At an early stage regional and national workshops proved extremely useful in en-abling people to contribute from the start. This saved much time and contributors felt that they received something from the project in exchange for their knowledge.

Acknowledgements

Janice Golding (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford) is acknowledged for com-menting on the manuscript and Ulf Gardenfors (ArtDataBanken, Sweden) for information pro-vided. Elsabe Malan (SABONET Regional Office, Pretoria) kindly provided the financial figures used for this article. IUCN-ROSA funded the SABONET Red Data Lists through their NETCAB Programme. GEF/UNDP provided co-funding.

BRAMWELL, D., RAVEN, P. & SYNGE, H. 2002. Implementing the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Plant Talk 30: 32–36.

GOLDING, J.S. 2000. Picking up the pieces: Red Data Lists in southern Africa. Bothalia 30: 213–214.

Table 1 Breakdown of the cost of assessing threatened species in southern Africa

Description Activities Cost (USD) 1. Project co-ordination Country visits, running expenses, salaries 40,000 2. Data collection National workshops, technical meetings 31,000 3. Information dissemination (see below) 3.1 Publication - preparation Database, graphic design, editing 10,000 3.2 Publication - production Book (3,500 copies), CD (1,000 copies) 52,000 3.3 Publication - distribution Postage, stationery, courier 22,000 Total expenses 155,000

Table 2 Expertise involved in assessing threatened species in southern Africa

Grouping by discipline/profession % No Conservation research 18 43 Conservation management 14 33 Field botany (e.g. consultants, amateurs) 31 73 = Users of Red Data lists 63 149 Taxonomy (affiliated to herbaria) 27 63 Horticulture 5 12 Genetics 5 12 = Producers of Red Data lists 37 87

100 236

GOLDING, J.S. 2001a. Compiling the SABONET Red Data List. SABONET News 6: 162–168.

GOLDING, J.S. 2001b. Southern African herbaria and Red Data Lists. Taxon 50: 12–21.

GOLDING, J.S. 2002. Southern African Plant Red Data Lists. Report Series 14. SABONET, Pretoria.

GOLDING, J.S. & HURTER, P.J.H. 2003. A Red List account of Africa’s cycads and implications of considering life-history and threats. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 507–528.

GOLDING, J.S. & SIEBERT, S.J. 2002. Threatened plants of southern Africa. Plant Talk 30: 40–41.

GOLDING, J.S. & SMITH, P.P. 2001. A 13-point flora strategy to meet conservation challenges. Taxon 50: 1–4.

GOLDING, J.S. & TIMBERLAKE, J. 2003. How taxonomists can bridge the gap between taxonomy and conservation science. Conservation Biology 17: 1177–1178.

GROOMBRIDGE, B. & JENKINS, M.D. 2002. World atlas of biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st century. University of California Press, Berkeley.

HUNTLEY, B.J. (ed) 1998. Inventory, evaluation and monitoring of botanical diversity in southern Africa: a regional capacity and institution building network (SABONET). Report Series 4. SABONET, Pretoria.

IZIDINE, S.A., NHANTUMBO, I. & GOLDING, J.S. 2004. Integration of Red Data List concepts into the policy framework in Mozambique. Report Series 23. SABONET, Pretoria.

PITMAN, N.C.A. & JORGENSON, P.M. 2002. Estimating the size of the world’s threatened flora. Science 298: 989.

SIEBERT, S.J. 2003. Progress report: end-user workshops, threatened plants programme and internships. SABONET News 8: 26–30.

SIEBERT, S.J. & MÖSSMER, M. (eds.) 2003. Letters to the editor. SABONET News 8(1). SABONET, Pretoria.

SIEBERT, S.J. & SMITH, G.F. 2004. Lessons learned from the SABONET Project while building capacity to document the botanical diversity of southern Africa. Taxon 53: 119–126.

SMITH, G.F., STEENKAMP, Y., KLOPPER, R.R., SIEBERT, S.J. & ARNOLD, T.H. 2003. The price of collecting life: overcoming the challenges involved in computerising herbarium specimens. Nature 422: 375–376.

—Stefan J. SiebertDepartment of BotanyUniversity of Zululand

Private Bag X1001, KwaDlangezwa 3886E-mail: [email protected]


Cyperaceae in NamibiaA. 1. Annotated checklist; 2. Cyperaceae types; 3. List of common namesB. 1. Uses and Ethnobotanical references

A.1. Annotated checklistExplanatory notes• This list is a consolidation of Podlech (1967), Kolberg et al. (1992), Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a, 1999b) and Archer (2003) and includes previously unpublished information. • Podlech (1967) and Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) may be consulted for identification guides and distribution notes (bear-ing in mind that some non-Namibian species are included).• All names including synonyms are arranged alphabetically. Valid names are indicated in bold, followed on successive indented lines by synonyms applicable to Namibia; these are given in parentheses. Synonyms are italicised and followed by the valid name in bold. Synonyms given by Podlech (1967) are repeated unless problematic. Author corrections of previous publica-tions are not commented on. • Species previously recorded incorrectly for Namibia, uncertain records and notes are in smaller font. • Specimen citations are provided for species added since Podlech (1967) and those seen by Archer are annotated with a ! fol-lowing the herbarium acronym. (PRE is the acronym for the National Herbarium, National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.)• Symbols: An asterisk (*) following the name denotes an introduced taxon. Uncertain synonymy is denoted by a ? (usually because types have not yet been seen by Archer). C refers to notes on common names given in Section A.3. U refers to notes on uses given in Section B.1.

Abildgaardia Vahl 0471A. triflora (L.) Abeyw. (= Cyperus triflorus L.) (= Fimbristylis triflora (L.) K.Schum.)

Alinula J.Raynal 0459A. paradoxa (Cherm.) Goetgh. & Vorster (= Lipocarpha paradoxa Cherm.) (= Mariscus paradoxus (Cherm.) Cherm.)

Ascolepis Steud. 0454A. pusilla Ridl. var. pusilla

Bolboschoenus (Asch.) Palla 0468B. glaucus (Lam.) S.G.Sm. (= Scirpus maritimus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of L.)B. maritimus (L.) Palla : Karas Region, Ward 12289 (PRE!),

12299 (PRE!) (= Scirpus maritimus L.)B. nobilis (Ridl.) Goetgh. & D.A.Simpson (= Scirpus laeteflorens C.B.Clarke)

Bulbostylis Kunth 0471B. breviculmis Kunth = B. humilisB. burchellii (Ficalho & Hiern) C.B.Clarke : Aus, Mar-

loth 1106 (PRE!)B. contexta (Nees) M.Bodard (= B. kirkii C.B.Clarke)B. densa in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Wall.) Hand.-

Mazz. = B. pusillaB. filamentosa (Vahl) C.B.Clarke : does not occur in Na-

mibia; Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneousB. hispidula (Vahl) R.W.Haines subsp. pyriformis

(Lye) R.W.Haines C, U (= Fimbristylis exilis in sense of authors, not of (Kunth) Roem.

& Schult.) (= Fimbristylis hispidula in sense of authors, not of (Vahl) Kunth) (= Isolepis exilis in sense of authors, not of Kunth) (= Scirpus granulato-hirtellus Boeck.) (= Scirpus hispidulus in sense of authors, not of Vahl)B. humilis (Kunth) C.B.Clarke (= B. breviculmis Kunth)

Bulbostylis trabeculata

Ascolepis pusilla var. pusilla

Del. Marietjie Steyn


B. kirkii C.B.Clarke = B. contextaB. megastachys (Ridl.) C.B.Clarke (= B. schoenoides in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Kunth)B. mucronata C.B.Clarke B. pusilla (A.Rich.) C.B.Clarke (= B. densa in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Wall.) Hand.-

Mazz.)B. schoenoides in sense of Podlech (1967), not of

Kunth = B. megastachysB. trabeculata C.B.Clarke

Carex L. 0525C. cognata Kunth : Waterberg, Dinter 1770 (SAM!)C. pubescens Poir. = Fuirena pubescens

Cladium P.Browne 0489C. jamaicense Crantz = C. mariscus subsp. jamaicenseC. mariscus (L.) Pohl subsp. jamaicense (Crantz) Kük. (= C. jamaicense Crantz)

Courtoisia Nees 0461C. assimilis (Steud.) C.B.Clarke = Courtoisina assimilisC. cyperoides (Roxb.) Nees = Courtoisina cyperoides

Courtoisina Soják 0461C. assimilis (Steud.) Maquet (= Courtoisia assimilis (Steud.) C.B.Clarke) (= Cyperus assimilis Steud.) (= Mariscus assimilis (Steud.) Podlech)C. cyperoides (Roxb.) Soják (= Courtoisia cyperoides (Roxb.) Nees) (= Cyperus pseudokyllingioides Kük.) (= Cyperus pseudokyllingioides Kük. var. africanus Kük.) (= Mariscus cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr.) (= Mariscus cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr. subsp. africanus

(Kük.) Podlech)

Cyperus L. 0459C. alopecuroides Rottb. [syn. Juncellus alopecuroides]

: doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Dinter 7186 should be checked

C. amabilis Vahl (= C. amabilis Vahl var. subacaulis Kük.)C. amabilis Vahl var. subacaulis Kük. = C. amabilisC. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name = C. squarrosusC. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name var. atriceps Kük. =

Mariscus aristatus var. atriceps : requiring a new combination in Cyperus

C. articulatus L. C. assimilis Steud. = Courtoisina assimilisC. aureus Ten. = C. esculentus var. esculentusC. auricomus Sieber ex Spreng. = C. digitatus subsp. auri-

comusC. bellus Kunth (= C. bellus Kunth forma auratus Kük.) (= C. remotiflorus Kük.) (=? C. remotiflorus Kük. var. schweickerdtii Merxm.)C. bellus Kunth forma auratus Kük. = C. bellusC. betschuanus Boeck. = Pycreus betschuanusC. blandus Kunth = C. marginatusC. bullatus Kük. = C. chersinusC. castaneus Willd. : does not occur in Africa; name misap-

plied by authorsC. chersinus (N.E.Br.) Kük. C (= C. bullatus Kük.) (= Mariscus bullatus (Kük.) Podlech) (= Mariscus chersinus N.E.Br.)

Courtoisina assimilis

Fimbristylis microcarya



C. chrysanthus Boeck. = Pycreus chrysanthusC. chrysanthus Boeck. var. occidentalis Kük. = Pycreus

chrysanthusC. compressus L. C. congestus Vahl C (= C. congestus Vahl var. grandiceps Kük.) (= C. congestus Vahl var. pseudonatalensis Kük.) (= Mariscus congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke) (= Mariscus congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. grandiceps

(Kük.) Podlech) (= Mariscus congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. pseudonatalensis

(Kük.) Podlech)C. congestus Vahl var. grandiceps Kük. = C. congestusC. congestus Vahl var. pseudonatalensis Kük. = C. conges-

tusC. corymbosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Rottb.

[syn. C. corymbosus var. damarensis Kük.] : un-certain species; Peter 47028, Walter 128 should be

Cyperus sphaerospermus

checkedC. corymbosus Rottb. var. damarensis Kük. [syn. of C.

corymbosus in sense of Podlech (1967)] : uncertain taxon; Peter 47028, Walter 128 should be checked

C. cristatus (Kunth) Mattf. & Kük. = Kyllinga albaC. cuspidatus Kunth (= C. uncinatus in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Poir.)C. cyperoides (L.) Kuntze subsp. cyperoides [syn. Maris-

cus sieberianus] : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; De Winter & Wiss 4365 (PRE!) was identified by Vorster as Mariscus breviradius but the name was never published

C. cyperoides (L.) Kuntze subsp. flavus Lye (= Mariscus cylindristachyus Steud.) (= Mariscus umbellatus in sense Podlech (1967), not of

(Rottb.) Vahl)C. deciduus Boeck. : De Winter & Marais 5047 (PRE!) (= Mariscus deciduus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke)C. denudatus L.f. var. denudatus (= C. platycaulis in sense of authors, not of Baker)C. denudatus L.f. var. lucenti-nigricans (K.Schum.) Kük.

[syn. C. platycaulis Baker] : does not occur in Na-mibia; see C. denudatus var. denudatus

C. difformis L. (= C. difformis var. subdecompositus Kük.)C. difformis var. subdecompositus Kük. = C. difformisC. digitatus Roxb. subsp. auricomus (Spreng.) Kük. U (= C. auricomus Sieber ex Spreng.)C. dives Delile : Schlettwein 23 (PRE!) (= C. immensus C.B.Clarke)C. dubius Rottb. (= Mariscus dubius (Rottb.) C.E.C.Fischer)C. erectus (Schumach.) Mattf. & Kük. var. intricatus

(Cherm.) Kük. = Kyllinga erecta var. erectaC. esculentus L. var. esculentus C, U (= C. aureus Ten.)C. fastigiatus Rottb. : does not occur in Namibia; Clarke

& Mannheimer (1999a) cited Barnard 112 (SAM) which should be checked

C. flavescens L. = Pycreus flavescensC. foliaceus C.B.Clarke : does not occur in Namibia; Dinter

7599 (PRE!), Giess, Volk & Bleissner 6474 (PRE!) cited by Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a, 1999b) are both C. tenuispica

C. fulgens C.B.Clarke var. contractus Kük. : Podlech (1967) included in C. fulgens but is a separate taxon

C. fulgens C.B.Clarke var. fulgens C, UC. globosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of All. = Py-

creus betschuanusC. hamulosus M.Bieb. (= Mariscus hamulosus (M.Bieb.) S.S.Hooper) (= Scirpus lugardii C.B.Clarke)C. haspan L. : does not occur in Namibia; specimens cited

by Podlech (1967) are C. denudatus var. denudatus and C. sphaerospermus

C. holostigma Schweinf. = C. schinziiC. imbricatus Retz. C, UC. immensus C.B.Clarke = C. divesC. indecorus Kunth var. decurvatus (C.B.Clarke) Kük. (= C. indecorus Kunth var. dinteri Kük.) (= Mariscus albomarginatus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of

C.B.Clarke) (= Mariscus indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. dinteri (Kük.)

Podlech) (= Mariscus rehmannianus C.B.Clarke)C. indecorus Kunth var. dinteri Kük. = C. indecorus var.

decurvatus



C. indecorus Kunth var. namaquensis Kük. (= Mariscus capensis in sense of Podlech (1967), not of

(Steud.) Schrad.) (= Mariscus indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. namaquensis

(Kük.) Podlech)C. iria L. C. laevigatus L. C (= C. laevigatus L. var. subaphyllus (Boeck.) Kük.) (= C. subaphyllus Boeck.) (= Juncellus laevigatus (L.) C.B.Clarke) (= Juncellus laevigatus (L.) C.B.Clarke var. subaphyllus

(Boeck.) Podlech)C. laevigatus L. var. subaphyllus (Boeck.) Kük. = C. laev-

igatusC. longus L. var. longus : does not occur in Namibia;

Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneousC. longus L. var. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Boeck. C, U (= C. longus L. subsp. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Kük.) (= C. longus L. subsp. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Kük. var. discolor

Kük.) (= C. tenuiflorus Rottb.)C. longus L. subsp. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Kük. = C. longus

var. tenuiflorusC. longus L. subsp. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Kük. var. discolor

Kük. = C. longus var. tenuiflorusC. maculatus Boeck. : Rundu, Coetzer & Van Greuning

196 (PRE!)C. margaritaceus Vahl var. margaritaceus C, U (=? C. pseudomarginatus Dinter) (= C. pseudoniveus Boeck.) (= C. margaritaceus Vahl var. pseudoniveus (Boeck.)

C.B.Clarke)C. margaritaceus Vahl var. pseudoniveus (Boeck.)

C.B.Clarke = C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceusC. marginatus Thunb. C (= C. blandus Kunth) (= C. marginatus Thunb. var. blandus (Kunth) Kük.)C. marginatus Thunb. var. blandus (Kunth) Kük. = C.

marginatusC. marlothii Boeck. (= Mariscus marlothii (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke)C. nudicaulis Poir. = C. pectinatusC. papyrus L. C, U (= C. papyrus L. subsp. zairensis (Chiov.) Kük.) (= C. zairensis Chiov.)C. papyrus L. subsp. zairensis (Chiov.) Kük. = C. papyrusC. patens Vahl = Pycreus pumilusC. pectinatus Vahl C (= C. nudicaulis Poir.)C. pelophilus Ridl. = Pycreus pelophilusC. platycaulis Baker [syn. of C. denudatus var. lucenti-

nigricans] : does not occur in Namibia; see C. denudatus var. denudatus

C. platycaulis in sense of authors, not of Baker = C. denu-datus var. denudatus

C. polystachyos Rottb. = Pycreus polystachyos var. polys-tachyos

C. procerus Rottb.C. pseudokyllingioides Kük. = Courtoisina cyperoidesC. pseudokyllingioides Kük. var. africanus Kük. = Courtoi-

sina cyperoidesC. pseudomarginatus Dinter =? C. margaritaceus var.

margaritaceusC. pseudoniveus Boeck. = C. margaritaceus var. margari-

taceusC. pseudovestitus (C.B.Clarke) Kük. : Western Caprivi,

Tinley 1514 (PRE!)

(= Mariscus pseudovestitus C.B.Clarke)C. purpureus Boeck. = C. schinziiC. rehmii Merxm. : insufficiently known speciesC. remotiflorus Kük. var. schweickerdtii Merxm. =? C. bellusC. remotiflorus Kük. = C. bellusC. rotundus L. subsp. rotundus CC. rubicundus Vahl (= C. teneriffae Poir.) (= C. teneriffae Poir. var. succulentus Dinter ex Kük.)C. rupestris Kunth var. rupestris : does not occur in Namib-

ia; Ellis 1058 (PRE!) cited by Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is not this species

C. schinzii Boeck. (= C. holostigma Schweinf.) (= C. purpureus Boeck.)C. sphaerospermus Schrad. C, UC. squarrosus L. (= C. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name) (= Mariscus aristatus (Rottb.) Cherm. var. aristatus) (= Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C.B.Clarke)C. subaphyllus Boeck. = C. laevigatusC. submacropus Kük. (= Mariscus macropus C.B.Clarke)C. tenax Boeck.C. tenuiflorus Rottb. = C. longus var. tenuiflorusC. tenuispica Steud. C. teneriffae Poir. = C. rubicundusC. teneriffae Poir. var. succulentus Dinter ex Kük. = C.

rubicundusC. triflorus L. = Abildgaardia trifloraC. turrillii Kük. C (= Mariscus laxiflorus Turrill)C. uncinatus in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Poir. = C. cuspi-

datusC. usitatus Burch. C, U (= C. usitatus Burch. var. macrobulbus Kük.)C. usitatus Burch. var. macrobulbus Kük. = C. usitatusC. zairensis Chiov. = C. papyrus

Eleocharis R.Br. 0469E. acutangula (Roxb.) Schult. : Ondangua, De Winter &

Giess 6979 (PRE!)E. atropurpurea (Retz.) J.Presl. & C.Presl (= Scirpus atropurpureus Retz.)E. capitata R.Br. = E. geniculataE. cubangensis H.E.Hess : uncertain species; Volk s.n. should

be checkedE. geniculata (L.) Roem. & Schult. (= E. capitata R.Br.) (= Scirpus geniculatus L. in part)E. limosa (Schrad.) Schult. (= Scirpus limosus Schrad.)E. onthitensis H.E.Hess : insufficiently known speciesE. palustris R.Br. : does not occur in Namibia; Clarke &

Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneousE. pseudofistulosa H.E.Hess : insufficiently known species;

De Winter & Giess 6979 (PRE!) is E. acutangulaE. schlechteri C.B.Clarke (= E. seydeliana Podlech)E. seydeliana Podlech = E. schlechteriE. variegata (Poir.) C.Presl : Eastern Caprivi, Killick & Leist-

ner 3231 (PRE!) (= Scirpus variegatus Poir.)E. welwitschii Nelmes : doubtfully occurring in Namibia

Ficinia Schrad. 0465F. bracteata Boeck. = F. nigrescens


F. nigrescens (Schrad.) J.Raynal (= F. bracteata Boeck.)

Fimbristylis Vahl 0471F. bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani (= F. dichotoma in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of (L.) Vahl) (= Scirpus bisumbellatus Forssk.)F. complanata (Retz.) Link (= Scirpus complanatus Retz.)F. dichotoma (L.) Vahl (= F. diphylla (Retz.) Vahl) (= Scirpus dichotomus L.) (= Scirpus diphyllus Retz.)F. dichotoma in sense of C.B.Clarke (1902), not of (L.) Vahl

= F. bisumbellataF. exilis in sense of authors, not of (Kunth) Roem. & Schult.

= Bulbostylis hispidula subsp. pyriformisF. ferruginea (L.) Vahl (= F. sieberana Kunth) (= Scirpus ferrugineus L.)F. hispidula in sense of authors, not of (Vahl) Kunth = Bul-

bostylis hispidula subsp. pyriformisF. microcarya F.Muell. : Grootfontein, Schweickerdt 2173

(PRE!)F. sieberana Kunth = F. ferrugineaF. squarrosa Vahl F. triflora (L.) K.Schum. = Abildgaardia triflora

Fuirena Rottb. 0467F. angolensis (C.B.Clarke) Lye : Ondangwa, Smook 7609

(PRE!); Podlech (1967) included in F. ciliaris but is a separate species

F. bullifera J.Raynal & Roessler : Olukonda, Rautanen s.n. (H, Z)

F. chlorocarpa Ridl. = F. strictaF. ciliaris (L.) Roxb. : Schweickerdt 2174 (PRE!) is F. lepto-

stachya forma leptostachya (= F. glomerata in sense of authors, not of Lam.) (= Scirpus ciliaris L.)F. coerulescens Steud. (= F. reticulata Kük.)F. glomerata in sense of authors, not of Lam. = F. ciliarisF. leptostachya Oliv. forma leptostachya : Schweickerdt

2174 (PRE!) is this taxon, not F. ciliaris as cited by Podlech (1967)

F. microlepis in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Kunth = F. obcordata

F. obcordata P.L.Forbes : Eastern Caprivi, Killick & Leist-ner 3221 (PRE!)

(= F. microlepis in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Kunth)F. pachyrrhiza Ridl. : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Volk

2234 should be checkedF. pubescens (Poir.) Kunth (= Carex pubescens Poir.)F. reticulata Kük. = F. coerulescensF. stricta Steud. (= F. chlorocarpa Ridl.)F. umbellata Rottb.

Hemicarpha Nees & Arn. 0453H. isolepis Nees = Lipocarpha hemisphaericaH. micrantha (Vahl) Pax = Lipocarpha micrantha

Isolepis R.Br. 0468I. brevicaulis (Levyns) J.Raynal : does not occur in Namib-

ia; Archer (2003) is erroneous; specimens previously identified as this in PRE represent a new species

I. cernua (Vahl) Roem. & Schult. var. cernua (= Scirpus cernuus Vahl)I. costata A. Rich. (= Scirpus macer Boeck.)I. diabolica (Steud.) Schrad. : does not occur in Namibia;

Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneousI. exilis in sense of authors, not of Kunth = Bulbostylis

hispidula subsp. pyriformisI. fluitans (L.) R.Br. var. fluitans : does not occur in Namib-

ia; Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneousI. hemiuncialis (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal : Nordenstam 2826

(PRE!) (= Scirpus aciformis B.Nord.)I. hystrix (Thunb.) Nees : does not occur in Namibia; speci-

mens cited by Podlech (1967) as Scirpus hystrix are Lipocarpha rehmannii

I. inclinata Barbey = Schoenoplectus corymbosusI. karroica (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal : Nuob River, Giess

13834, Giess & Müller 14311 (PRE!) (= Scirpus karroicus C.B.Clarke)I. roylei Nees = Schoenoplectus royleiI. setacea (L.) R.Br. (= I. sororia in sense of authors, not of Kunth)

Fuirena obcordata



(= Scirpus setaceus L.) (= Scirpus sororius in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Kunth)

C.B.Clarke)I. sororia in sense of authors, not of Kunth = I. setacea

Juncellus C.B.Clarke 0459J. alopecuroides (Rottb.) C.B.Clarke [syn. of Cyperus

alopecuroides] : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Podlech (1967) cited Dinter 7185 as this species and C. imbricatus

J. laevigatus (L.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus laevigatusJ. laevigatus (L.) C.B.Clarke var. subaphyllus (Boeck.)

Podlech = Cyperus laevigatus

Kyllinga Rottb. 0462K. alata Nees K. alba Nees C, U (= Cyperus cristatus (Kunth) Mattf. & Kük.) (= K. cristata Kunth)K. albiceps (Ridl.) Rendle (= K. merxmuelleri Podlech)K. cristata Kunth = K. albaK. erecta Schumach. var. erecta (= Cyperus erectus (Schumach.) Mattf. & Kük. var. intricatus

(Cherm.) Kük.) (= K. intricata Cherm.)K. intricata Cherm. = K. erecta var. erectaK. merxmuelleri Podlech = K. albicepsK. microcephala Steud. = Kyllingiella microcephalaK. pulchella Kunth : doubtfully occurring in Namibia;

Dinter 2540 should be checkedK. triceps in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Rottb. = K.

welwitschiiK. triceps Rottb. var. ciliata Boeck. = K. welwitschiiK. welwitschii Ridl. (= K. triceps in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Rottb.) (= K. triceps Rottb. var. ciliata Boeck.)

Kyllingiella R.W.Haines & Lye 0468K. microcephala (Steud.) R.W.Haines & Lye (= Kyllinga microcephala Steud.) (= Scirpus microcephalus (Steud.) Dandy)

Lipocarpha R.Br. 0452L. chinensis (Osbeck) Kern : does not occur in Namibia;

Archer (2003) is erroneousL. hemisphaerica (Roth) Goetgh. (= Hemicarpha isolepis Nees) (= L. rautanenii Boeck.)L. micrantha (Vahl) G.C.Tucker (= Hemicarpha micrantha (Vahl) Pax) (= Scirpus micranthus Vahl)L. nana (A.Rich.) Cherm. : Otjiwarongo, Giess 15225

(PRE!) (= Lipocarpha pulcherrima Ridl.)L. paradoxa Cherm. = Alinula paradoxaL. pulcherrima Ridl. = L. nanaL. rautanenii Boeck. = L. hemisphaericaL. rehmannii (Ridl.) Goetgh. : Tsumeb, Dinter 7560 (PRE!);

Rundu, Merxmüller & Giess 1940 (PRE!); Groot-fontein, Schweickerdt 2082 (PRE!)

(= Rikliella rehmannii (Ridl.) J.Raynal) (= Scirpus hystricoides B.Nord.) (= Scirpus hystrix in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Thunb.)

Mariscus Vahl 0459M. albomarginatus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of

Kyllinga alba

Kyllingiella microcephala



C.B.Clarke = Cyperus indecorus var. decurvatusM. aristatus (Rottb.) Cherm. var. aristatus = Cyperus squar-

rosusM. aristatus (Rottb.) Cherm. var. atriceps (Kük.) Podlech :

requiring a new combination in Cyperus (= Cyperus aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name var. atriceps

Kük.)M. assimilis (Steud.) Podlech = Courtoisina assimilisM. breviradius Vorster : unpublished name; see Cyperus

cyperoides subsp. cyperoidesM. bullatus (Kük.) Podlech = Cyperus chersinusM. capensis in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Steud.)

Schrad. = Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensisM. chersinus N.E.Br. = Cyperus chersinusM. confusus Vorster : unpublished name; see Cyperus

marlothiiM. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus congestusM. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. grandiceps (Kük.)

Podlech = Cyperus congestusM. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. pseudonatalensis

(Kük.) Podlech = Cyperus congestusM. cylindristachyus Steud. = Cyperus cyperoides subsp.

flavusM. cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr. = Courtoisina cyperoidesM. cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr. subsp. africanus (Kük.)

Podlech = Courtoisina cyperoidesM. deciduus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus deciduusM. dregeanus Kunth : Masare, Vorster 2765 (PRE!); requir-

ing a new combination in CyperusM. dubius (Rottb.) C.E.C.Fisch. = Cyperus dubiusM. fulgens (C.B.Clarke) Vorster, unpublished combination :

see Cyperus fulgensM. hamulosus (M.Bieb.) S.S.Hooper = Cyperus hamulosusM. indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. dinteri (Kük.) Podlech =

Cyperus indecorus var. decurvatusM. indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. namaquensis (Kük.)

Podlech = Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensisM. laxiflorus Turrill = Cyperus turrilliiM. macropus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus submacropusM. marlothii (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus marlothiiM. namaquensis (Kük.) Vorster, unpublished combination :

see Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensisM. paradoxus (Cherm.) Cherm. = Alinula paradoxaM. pseudovestitus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus pseudovestitusM. rehmannianus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus indecorus var.

decurvatusM. sieberianus C.B.Clarke [syn. of Cyperus cyperoides

subsp. cyperoides] : doubtfully occurring in Namib-ia; De Winter & Wiss 4365 (PRE!) was identified by Vorster as Mariscus breviradius but the name was never published

M. squarrosus (L.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus squarrosusM. umbellatus in sense Podlech (1967), not of (Rottb.) Vahl

= Cyperus cyperoides subsp. flavusM. usitatus (Burch.) Vorster, unpublished combination : see

Cyperus usitatusM. usitatus (Burch.) Vorster var. macrobulbus (Kük.)

Vorster, unpublished combinations : see Cyperus usitatus

Monandrus Vorster, unpublished genus 0459M. atriceps (Kük.) Vorster, unpublished combination : see

Mariscus aristatus var. atricepsM. hamulosus (M.Bieb.) Vorster, unpublished combination :

see Cyperus hamulosusM. longicarpus Vorster, unpublished nameM. squarrosus (L.) Vorster subsp. ovamboensis Vorster,

unpublished combination and subspecies name : see

Cyperus squarrosusM. squarrosus (L.) Vorster subsp. squarrosus, unpublished

combination : see Cyperus squarrosus

Oxycaryum Nees 0468O. cubense (Poepp. & Kunth) Lye : Schuckmannsburg,

Katima Mulilo, 24.vii.1996, Clarke s.n. (PRE!)Pseudolipocarpha Vorster, unpublished genus 0459P. paradoxa (Cherm.) Vorster, unpublished combination :

see Alinula paradoxa

Pseudoschoenus (C.B.Clarke) Oteng-Yeb. 0468P. inanis (Thunb.) Oteng-Yeb. : Hardap, Bloemhoff 1

(PRE!), Karas Region, Ward 12481 (PRE!)

Pycreus P.Beauv. 0459P. albomarginatus Nees = P. macrostachyosP. betschuanus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke (= Cyperus betschuanus Boeck.) (=Cyperus globosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of All.) (= P. globosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (All.) Rchb.)P. chorisanthus C.B.Clarke = P. pelophilusP. chrysanthus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke (= Cyperus chrysanthus Boeck.) (= Cyperus chrysanthus Boeck. var. occidentalis Kük.)P. ferrugineus C.B.Clarke [syn. of P. intactus] : does not

occur in Namibia; Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) cite Thorne SAM 3194, Barnard SAM 16595 which should be checked

P. flavescens (L.) Rchb. C (= Cyperus flavescens L.)P. intactus (Vahl) J.Raynal [syn. P. ferrugineus] : does not

occur in Namibia; Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) cite Thorne SAM 3194, Barnard SAM 16595 which should be checked

P. globosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (All.) Rchb. = P. betschuanus

P. macranthus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Archer (2003) is probably erroneous

P. macrostachyos (Lam.) J.Raynal (= P. albomarginatus Nees)P. mundii Nees : does not occur in Namibia; Clarke &

Mannheimer (1999a) cite Burke 96285 which should be checked

P. nitidus (Lam.) J.Raynal : Eastern Caprivi, Cawood & Ward 32 (PRE!), Oshikango, Rodin 23 (PRE!)

P. okavangensis Podlech P. pelophilus (Ridl.) C.B.Clarke (= Cyperus pelophilus Ridl.) (= P. chorisanthus C.B.Clarke)P. polystachyos (Rottb.) P.Beauv. var. polystachyos (= Cyperus polystachyos Rottb.)P. pumilus (L.) Nees (= Cyperus patens Vahl) (= P. pumilus (L.) Nees subsp. patens (Vahl) Podlech)P. pumilus (L.) Nees subsp. patens (Vahl) Podlech = P.

pumilusP. unioloides (R.Br.) Urb. : does not occur in Namibia; Dint-

er 1745, Wulfhorst s.n. should be checked

Rhynchospora Vahl 0492R. arechavaletae Boeck. = R. holoschoenoidesR. aurea Vahl [syn. of R. corymbosa var. corymbosa] :

occurrence in Namibia uncertain; Dinter s.n., 2643 should be checked

R. brownii Roem. & Schult. [syn. R. rugosa] : occurrence in Namibia uncertain; Dinter 1803 should be checked


R. corymbosa (L.) Britton var. corymbosa [syn. R. aurea; Scirpus corymbosa] : occurrence in Namibia uncer-tain; Dinter s.n., 2643 should be checked

R. cyperoides (Sw.) Mart. = R. holoschoenoidesR. holoschoenoides (Rich.) Herter (= R. arechavaletae Boeck.) (= R. cyperoides (Sw.) Mart.) (= R. mauritii Steud.)R. mauritii Steud. = R. holoschoenoidesR. rugosa (Vahl) Gale [syn. of R. brownii] : occurrence in

Namibia uncertain; Dinter 1803 should be checked

Rikliella J.Raynal 0454R. rehmannii (Ridl.) J.Raynal = Lipocarpha rehmannii

Schoenoplectus (Rchb.) Palla 0468S. articulatus (L.) Palla S. confusus (N.E.Br.) Lye subsp. confusus : doubtfully oc-

curring in Namibia; Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) cite Strohbach & Kubirske 11 which should be checked; De Winter 4453 (PRE!), 4454 (PRE!) were identified by Browning as cf. this taxon but uncer-tain due to lack of mature fruits

S. corymbosus (Roem. & Schult.) J.Raynal C (= Isolepis inclinata Barbey) (= Scirpus inclinatus (Barbey) Boiss.)S. erectus (Poir.) J.Raynal (= Scirpus erectus Poir.) (=? Scirpus sinuatus Schuyler)S. lacustris in sense of authors, not of (L.) Palla = S. taber-

naemontaniS. lateriflorus (J.F.Gmel.) Lye : doubtfully occurring in Na-

mibia; revision of genus incompleteS. leucanthus (Boeck.) J.Raynal (= Scirpus leucanthus Boeck.)S. litoralis in sense of authors, not of (Schrad.) Palla = S.

scirpoideusS. muricinux (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal (= Scirpus muricinux C.B.Clarke)S. paludicola (Kunth) J.Raynal : does not occur in Namibia;

Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) cite Barnard 124 (SAM), 125 (SAM) which should be checked

S. praelongatus (Poir.) J.Raynal = S. senegalensisS. roylei (Nees) Ovcz. & Czukav. (= Isolepis roylei Nees) (= Scirpus roylei (Nees) R.Parker)S. scirpoideus (Schrad.) Browning (= S. litoralis in sense of authors, not of (Schrad.) Palla) (= Scirpus litoralis in sense of authors, not of Schrad.)S. senegalensis (Steud.) J.Raynal (= S. praelongatus (Poir.) J.Raynal) (= Scirpus praelongatus Poir.)S. subulatus (Vahl) Lye : Sesfontein, De Winter & Leistner

5864 (PRE!), Ai Ais, Acocks 15663 (PRE!)S. tabernaemontani (C.C.Gmel.) Palla * : Waterberg, Volk

1453 (M) (= S. lacustris in sense of authors, not of (L.) Palla) (= Scirpus lacustris in sense of authors, not of L.)S. triqueter (L.) Palla * : does not occur in Namibia; Dinter

2845, 3416 should be checked

Scirpoides Ség. 0468S. dioecus (Kunth) Browning C, U (= Scirpus dioecus (Kunth) Boeck.)

Scirpus L. 0468S. aciformis B.Nord. = Isolepis hemiuncialis

S. atropurpureus Retz. = Eleocharis atropurpureaS. bisumbellatus Forssk. = Fimbristylis bisumbellataS. cernuus Vahl = Isolepis cernua var. cernuaS. ciliaris L. = Fuirena ciliarisS. complanatus Retz. = Fimbristylis complanataS. corymbosus L. [syn. of Rhynchospora corymbosa var.

corymbosa] : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Dinter s.n., 2643 should be checked

S. dichotomus L. = Fimbristylis dichotomaS. dioecus (Kunth) Boeck. = Scirpoides dioecusS. diphyllus Retz. = Fimbristylis dichotomaS. erectus Poir. = Schoenoplectus erectusS. ferrugineus L. = Fimbristylis ferrugineaS. geniculatus L. in part = Eleocharis geniculataS. granulato-hirtellus Boeck. = Bulbostylis hispidula subsp.

pyriformisS. hispidulus in sense of authors, not of Vahl = Bulbostylis

hispidula subsp. pyriformisS. hystricoides B.Nord. = Lipocarpha rehmanniiS. hystrix in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Thunb. = Lipo-

carpha rehmanniiS. inclinatus (Barbey) Boiss. = Schoenoplectus corymbosusS. karroicus C.B.Clarke = Isolepis karroicaS. lacustris in sense of authors, not of L. = Schoenoplectus

tabernaemontaniS. laeteflorens C.B.Clarke = Bolboschoenus nobilisS. leucanthus Boeck. = Schoenoplectus leucanthusS. limosus Schrad. = Eleocharis limosaS. litoralis in sense of authors, not of Schrad. = Schoeno-

plectus scirpoideusS. lugardii C.B.Clarke = Cyperus hamulosusS. macer Boeck. = Isolepis costataS. maritimus L. = Bolboschoenus maritimusS. maritimus in sense of Podlech, not of L. = Bolboschoenus

glaucusS. micranthus Vahl = Lipocarpha micranthaS. microcephalus (Steud.) Dandy = Kyllingiella microcephalaS. muricinux C.B.Clarke = Schoenoplectus muricinuxS. praelongatus Poir. = Schoenoplectus senegalensisS. roylei (Nees) R.Parker = Schoenoplectus royleiS. setaceus L. = Isolepis setaceaS. sinuatus Schuyler =? Schoenoplectus erectusS. sororius in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Kunth)

C.B.Clarke = Isolepis setaceaS. variegatus Poir. = Eleocharis variegataS. varius C.B.Clarke : doubtfully occurring in Namibia;

Rehm s.n. should be checked

Scleria P.J.Bergius 0515S. foliosa A.Rich.

Volkiella disticha



S. longispiculata NelmesS. rehmannii C.B.ClarkeS. veseyfitzgeraldii E.A.Rob. : Eastern Caprivi, Killick &

Leistner 3218 (PRE!)

Tetraria P.Beauv. 0494T. compar (L.) Lestib. : doubtfully occurring in Namibia;

locality of Ihlenfeldt, de Winter & Hardy 3080 (PRE!), (that is, Hentiesbaai) should be checked

Volkiella Merxm. & Czech 0452V. disticha Merxm. & Czech : not endemic, also recorded

for Zambia

Websteria S.H.Wright 0458W. confervoides (Poir) S.S.Hooper : occurrence in Namibia

requires confirmation

REFERENCESARCHER, C. 2003. Cyperaceae. In: Germishuizen, G. & Meyer, N.L.

(eds), Plants of southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia 14. Pp. 1020–1047.

CLARKE, N.V. & MANNHEIMER, C.A. 1999a. Cyperaceae of Namibia: an illustrated key. NBRI Occasional Contributions 1.

CLARKE, N.V. & MANNHEIMER, C. 1999b. Cyperaceae. In: Craven, P. (ed.), Checklist of Namibian plant species. SABONET Report No. 7. Pp. 32–38.

KOLBERG, H., GIESS, W., MÜLLER, M. & STROHBACH, B. 1992. List of Namibian plant species. Dinteria 22: 1–121.

PODLECH, D. 1967. Cyperaceae. In: Merxmüller, H. (ed.), Prodromus einer Flora von Südwestafrika 165. J. Cramer, Lehre.

A.2. Cyperaceae types from Namibia

Bulbostylis KunthB. mucronata C.B.Clarke in Botanische Jahrbucher 38: 135

(1906) : Otjimbingue, Fischer 156.

Cyperus L.C. amabilis Vahl var. subacaulis Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich

101: 266 (1936) : Okakuja, Grossarth sub Dinter 2578 in part.

C. aristatus Rottb. var. atriceps Kük. in Mitteilungen der Thüringischen Botanischen Vereins N.F. 50: 8 (1943) : Grootfontein, Dinter 7377, Kalkfeld, Dint-er 7490, Farm Lichtenstein, Rusch in herb. Walter 522 in part, Farm Ombojumatemba, Böttrich 53a.

C. bellus Kunth forma auratus Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 101: 303 (1936) : Okahandja, Dinter 466, Groot-fontein, Dinter 2379.

C. chrysanthus Boeck. var. occidentalis Kük. in Das Pflan-zenreich 101: 337 (1936) : Without precise locality, Dinter s.n.

C. congestus Vahl var. grandiceps Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 101: 446 (1936) : Okosongomingo, Dinter 1781 [plus several other African syntypes].

C. congestus Vahl var. pseudonatalensis Kük. in Das Pflan-zenreich 101: 446 (1936) : Okosongomingo, Dinter 1747 [plus several other African syntypes].

C. corymbosus Rottb. var. damarensis Kük. in Mitteilungen der Thüringischen Botanischen Vereins N.F. 50: 2 (1943) : Omusema, Peter 47028, Walter 128.

C. fulgens C.B.Clarke in Bulletin de l’herbier Boissier 4, App. III: 30 (1896) : Hereroland, Fleck 642 [plus several other African syntypes].

C. fulgens C.B.Clarke var. contractus Kük. in Das Pflanzen-reich 101: 122 (1935) : Otjituo, Dinter 894.

C. indecorus Kunth var. namaquensis Kük. in Das Pflanzen-reich 101: 545 (1936) : Kuibis, Dinter 1184, Schäfer 372, Range 1275.

C. indecorus Kunth var. dinteri Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 101: 545 (1936) : Farm Hoffnung, Dinter 2724.

C. indecorus Kunth var. namaquensis Kük. in Das Pflanzen-reich 101: 545 (1936) : Kuibis, Dinter 1184, Schafer 372, Aris, Range 1275.

C. longus L. subsp. tenuiflorus (Rottb.) Kük. var. discolor Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 101: 103 (1935) : Oma-heke, Seiner 178 [plus one other African syntype].

C. pseudokyllingioides Kük. var. africanus Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 101: 501 (1936) : Hereroland, Schinz 370 [plus several other African syntypes].

C. pseudomarginatus Dinter in Feddes Repertorium 16: 366 (1920) : Grootfontein, Dinter 2374; Gaub, Dinter 2409.

C. pseudoniveus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 29: 45 (1888) : Olukonda, Schinz 376.

C. purpureus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 29: 45 (1888) : Olukonda, Schinz 383.

C. rehmii Merxm. in Mitteilungen der Botanischen Staats-sammlung München 1: 84 (1951) : Farm Blockaue, Rehm s.n.

C. remotiflorus Kük. in Feddes Repertorium 18: 345 (1922) : Kubab, Range 270.

C. remotiflorus Kük. var. schweickerdtii Merxm. in Mit-teilungen der Botanischen Staatssammlung München 1: 85 (1951) : Windhoek, Schweickerdt 2289.

C. schinzii Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 29: 45 (1888) : Olukonda, Schinz 383.

C. subaphyllus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 30: 139 (1888) : Luderitz, Schinz s.n.

C. teneriffae Poir. var. succulentus Kük. in Mitteilungen der Thüringische Botanischen Vereins N.F. 50: 7 (1943) : Grootfontein, Dinter 7332.

C. usitatus Burch. var. macrobulbus Kük. in Das Pflan-zenreich 101: 124 (1936) : Rehoboth-Aub, Dinter 2247, Windhoek, Foermer 4 [plus several other African syntypes].

Eleocharis R.Br.E. seydeliana Podlech in Mitteilungen der botanischen

Staatssammlung, München 3: 527 (1960) : Swakop-mund, Seydel 627.

Fuirena Rottb.F. angolensis (C.B.Clarke) Lye in Botaniska Notiser 127:

112 (1974), not validly published; Haines & Lye in The Sedges and Rushes of East Africa 47 (1983) : Olukonda, Rautanen 108 [plus several other African syntypes].

F. reticulata Kük. in Feddes Repertorium 41: 271 (1937) : Grootfontein, Schoenfelder 472 [S.472].

Kyllinga Rottb.K. merxmuelleri Podlech in Mitteilungen der Botanischen

Staatssammlung München 3: 525 (1960) : Rundu, Merxmüller & Giess 2136.

Lipocarpha R.Br.L. rautanenii Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens

vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 31: 179 (1890) :


Olukonda, Rautanen 2.

Pycreus P.Beauv.P. chorisanthus C.B.Clarke in Flora of Tropical Africa 8:

526 (1902) : Hereroland, Dinter s.n. [Raised from seed in Zurich Botanic Gardens.]

P. okavangensis Podlech in Mitteilungen der Botanischen Staatssammlung München 3: 522 (1960) : Rundu, Volk 1966.

Rhynchospora VahlR. arechavaletae Boeck. in Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Cyper-

aceen 1: 24 (1888) : Olukonda, Schinz 373.

Scirpus L.S. aciformis B.Nord. in Dinteria 11: 53 (1974) : Brandberg,

Nordenstam 2826.S. granulato-hirtellus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des bota-

nischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 31: 179 (1890b) : Olukonda, Rautanen 1.

S. hystricoides B.Nord. in Dinteria 11: 55 (1974) : Brand-berg, Nordenstam 2836.

S. laeteflorens C.B.Clarke in Flora of Tropical Africa 8: 456 (1902) : Hereroland, Chapman & Baines s.n., Fleck 112A.

S. leucanthus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 29: 46 (1888) : Fish River, Schinz s.n.

S. sinuatus Schuyler in Notulae naturae of the academy of natural sciences of Philadelphia 438: 2 (1971) : Nama Pan, Story 5155.

Volkiella Merxm. & CzechV. disticha Merxm. & Czech in Mitteilungen der Bota-

nischen Staatssammlung München 1: 318 (1953) : Rundu, Volk 1815.

A.3. Common names of Cyperaceae in Namibia

KEY:A AfrikaansE EnglishG GermanH OtjihereroJ Ju|’hoanK Khoekhoegowab Kxoe Bushmen (Caprivi)Nh NaroO-Ok Oshiwambo, OshikwanyamaRk RukwangaliRum RumanyoT Thimbukushu

• ^ indicates that name is included in the official orthography/dictionary/glossary

• spp. = name has been applied to several species in this genus• sp. = refers to an unidentified member of the genus• The common name refers to species, including subspecies and

variety, unless specified

General : Sedge E; Riedgräser G

Bulbostylis KunthB. hispidula : okashede O-OkB. sp. : efinde; ofinde O-Ok

Cyperus L.General : uintjie A; nut grass EC. chersinus : g|a’u’g|o (-n||ae); !gewu^; g!a’u^ JC. congestus : n!ani; n|ni NhC. esculentus : geeluintjie A; okatjako H; !hanni^ KC. fulgens : oseu H; |ao; g!a’u^ J; kyan-’an Kxoe; n|nni

Nh; nontukulu Rk; ntiua Rum; thiwa^ TC. imbricatus : g!aug!oq^ J; rufukutu RkC. laevigatus : ondombora H; xautsixaubes^ KC. longus : waterbiesie A; gemeines Zypergras G; onenge

H; !omn’|ai^; !um’mn|ai JC. margaritaceus : witbiesie A; #umagari^; kari^ J; !kho-

pobes^ K; |oiba Nh; nzuwu-nzuwu RumC. marginatus : matjiesgoed AC. papyrus : papirus A; papyrus E; Papyrusstaude G;

gyara; koama Kxoe; likoma Rum; dikoma^; jaradjara T

C. pectinatus : shininge RumC. rotundus : rooiuintjie A; nut sedge E; |ares^ KC. sphaerospermus : matjiesgoed A; efinde O-Ok; dirau-

rau TC. turrillii : etondo-lashimbungu O-OkC. usitatus : ozeu H; |han-i KC. sp. : uintjies A; ozëu H; !hans; !han; khan; !hanni;

!hares; |arebes KC. spp. : embodi; ofinde O-Ok

Kyllinga Rottb.K. alba : biesie A; #omagari J; |k’wee Nh; oshed-

ishomula O-OkK. sp. : #umagari^ J

Pycreus P.Beauv.P. flavescens : embodi O-Ok

Schoenoplectus (Rchb.) PallaS. corymbosus : n#au-n#au^ J

Scirpoides Ség.S. dioecus : ondeka H; |harus-b K

Scirpus L.S. sp. : ||gug||wa K

REFERENCECRAVEN, P. & KOLBERG, H. Ined. Common names of Namibian

plants. CD-Rom. NBRI, Windhoek.

B.1. Uses

• Uses have been recorded from herbarium specimens and from literature relevant to Namibia. Voucher specimens are italicised, and literature references are given in parenthe-ses.

• Where checking of the identification of specimens has been possible, the plant indicated may differ from that given in the original literature source.

• Additional references of a general nature may be found in Craven & Sullivan (2000).

• The nutritional value of some species of Cyperaceae is re-corded in Wehmeyer (1986).

Bulbostylis KunthB. hispidula subsp. pyriformis : the leaves and stems are

used as a sieve for straining marula wine or beer; Rodin 9033 (PRE!).


Cyperus L.C. digitatus subsp. auricomus : after a child is born the

plant is roasted in a clay bowl. The smoke drifts over the mother and inhalation assists recovery; Rodin 9120 (Rodin 1985).

C. esculentus var. esculentus : the tubers are edible (Dinter 1912; Otto 1979; Von Koenen 1996).

C. fulgens var. fulgens : the corms (eaten raw, roasted or pounded into flour) are an important food; Story 5166 (PRE!) [previously incorrectly identified as C. congestus] (Maguire, B. 1978; Malan & Owen-Smith 1974; Steyn 1981, Story 1959).

C. fulgens var. fulgens : the corms are represented in the archaeological remains at Big Elephant Shelter in the Erongo Mountains (Wadley, 1979).

C. imbricatus : the soft basal part is eaten by children; De Winter 3979 (PRE!).

C. longus var. tenuiflorus : the rhizome is ground and is used as a cosmetic powder; Giess 11101 (Giess & Snyman 1986).

C. longus var. tenuiflorus : the roots, which have a pleasant scent, are plaited into necklaces worn by women (Malan & Owen-Smith 1974).

C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceus : used to make baskets for storing berries (Ref. Steyn & Du Pisani 1985).

C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceus : 1. the rhizome pro-vides cosmetic powder used by women. 2. the plant is used as a stopper for ostrich-shells containing water. 3. it is put into a new ostrich shell and serves as a deodorant; Giess 9798, 9810 (Giess & Snyman 1986; Steyn 1981).

C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceus : portions of the root material are warmed and then placed as a poultice around the throat of someone with a sore throat or mumps (Sullivan, 1998).

C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceus : the stalks are used for making huts (Haacke 1982).

C. papyrus: the soft white culm bases are eaten raw; De Winter & Wiss 4230 (PRE!).

C. sphaerospermus : after a child is born the plant is roasted in a clay bowl. The smoke drifts over the mother and inhalation assists recovery; Loeb 578 (PRE!) (Rodin 1985).

C. sphaerospermus : a herb: the roots are chewed as cure for coughs and against bad breath; De Winter 4359.

C. usitatus : the corms are an important food (Dinter 1912)C. sp. : the roasted and pounded bulbs were formerly used

as a substitute for coffee (Du Pisani 1983). C. sp. : the small bulbs are either eaten raw or roasted (Bu-

dack 1965; Giess 1966; Otto 1979).C. sp. : believed to be excellent food for pregnant women

(Budack 1965).

Kyllinga Rottb.K. alba : used as a stopper for ostrich eggs that serve as

water containers; also for decontaminating or puri-fying the inside of the eggshell; Giess 11016 (Leffers 2003).

K. alba : the roots and stems are boiled and given to women with stomach cramps; Rodin 9247, 9058.

K. alba : used for making ornaments (Bleek 1928)

Scirpoides Ség.S. dioecus : a Herero superstition holds that elephants will

be attracted to the spring if the plant is pulled out (Malan & Owen-Smith 1974).

S. dioecus : mats used to cover huts were traditionally made

from this plant (Du Pisani 1983).

ETHNOBOTANICAL REFERENCESBLEEK, D.F. 1928. The Naron: A bushman tribe of the central

Kalahari. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. BUDACK, K.F.R. 1965. ’n Volkekundige studie van die Tses-

reservaat (Distrik Keetmanshoop, Suidwes-Afrika) met besondere verwysing na die geskiedenis en die inter-etniese verhoudinge van die bewoners. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

CRAVEN, P. & SULLIVAN, S. 2000. Inventory and review of ethnobotanical research in Namibia: first steps towards a central ‘register’ of indigenous plant knowledge. NBRI Occasional Contributions 2.

DINTER, K. 1912. Die vegetabilische Veldkost Deutsch-Südwest-Afrikas. Selbstverlag, Okahandja

DU PISANI, E. 1983. Past and present plant utilization in Namaland and the lower Kuiseb River valley, SWA (Namibia). A preliminary report. Khoisis Occasional Papers 4: 1–19.

GIESS, W. 1966. Veldkost in Südwestafrika. Journal of the South West Africa Scientific Society 20: 59–68.

GIESS, W. & SNYMAN, J.W. 1986. The naming and utilization of plantlife by the Zu’hoasi Bushmen of the Kau-Kauveld. In: Vossen R. & Keuthmann K. (eds.), Contemporary continuing studies on Khoisan 1. Pp. 237–346.

HAACKE, W.H.G. 1982. Traditional Hut-building Techniques of the Nama (with some related terminology). Cimbebasia Series B, 3, 2: 78–98.

LEFFERS, A. 2003. Gemsbok bean & Kalahari truffle. Traditional use by the Ju!’hoansi in north east Namibia. Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers, Windhoek.

MAGUIRE, B. 1978. The food plants of the !Kung Bushmen of North-Western South West Africa. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

MALAN, J.S. & OWEN-SMITH, G.L. 1974. The ethnobotany of Kaokoland. Cimbebasia Series B, 2: 131–178.

OTTO, A. 1979. Die Rolle der Veldkost und die Verwendung pflanzlicher Substanzen bei den Herero in Katutura. South West African Scientific Society Newsletter 19: 10–11.

RODIN, R.J. 1985. The ethnobotany of the Kwanyama Ovambos. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 9.

STEYN, H.P. 1981. Nharo plant utilization. An overview. Khoisis Occasional Papers 1: 1–31.

STEYN, H.P. & DU PISANI, E. 1985. Grass-seeds, game and goats: an overview of Dama subsistence. South West Africa Scientific Society Journal 39: 37–52.

STORY, R. 1959. Some plants used by the Bushmen in obtaining food and water. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa 30.

SULLIVAN, S. 1998. People, plants and practice in drylands: socio-political and ecological dimensions of resource-use by Damara farmers in north-west Namibia. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of London, London.

VON KOENEN, E. 1996. Heil-, Gift- und Essbare Pflanzen in Namibia. Klaus Hess Verlag, Göttingen.

WADLEY, L. 1979. Big Elephant Shelter and its role in the Holocene prehistory of central South West Africa. Cimbebasia Series B, 3, 1: 1–76.

WEHMEYER, A.S. 1986. Edible wild plants of southern Africa. National Food Research Institute, Pretoria.

—C. Archer 1 & P. Craven 2

1 National Botanical Institute, Pretoria, South [email protected]

2 Formerly National Botanical Research Institute, Windhoek, Namibia

[email protected]


This article is an outcome of a lecture presented at a national workshop for end-users

and stakeholders of botanical information and herbaria, held in Mohale, Lesotho in

October 2003. The article discusses plant taxonomy in the 21st Century in light of how

end-users of botanical information could use taxonomic data in conserving species and

habitats. It also describes taxonomy as an integral part of biodiversity and sustainable

development and presents a summary of the kinds of information that taxonomy

and herbaria can provide for stakeholders and end-users in the social, economic and

environment sectors. Throughout, the discussion attempts to relate taxonomy and

herbaria to the themes of biodiversity, sustainable development, and human needs.

Plant taxonomy in the 21st Century:

meeting users’ needs in Lesotho

Human Beings: the earth’s most biologically successful species

In trying to provide food, shelter, sanita-tion, and health care for 6 billion people,

the Earth’s natural resources are being depleted. In turn, the functioning of eco-systems is being disrupted. An important component of ecosystems is biodiversity. Among the most important threats to biological diversity in the 21st Century are land degradation, globalisation, and climate change, which are all driven by the impact of humans.

Degradation of habitat

Land degradation is a major problem. About 75 percent of the Earth’s landmass has been degraded to some degree by human impact. In Africa, land is being transformed by agriculture, deforesta-tion, grazing, mining, and the collection of firewood. These economy-driven activi-ties continue to destroy natural habitats and progressively wipe out species and populations. The destruction of habitat threatens many plant species that may be useful for the alleviation of hunger or dis-ease. Normally, gene flow between plant populations introduces new genes and therefore variation into the gene pool of the populations. Increased variation allows

populations to adapt to changing environ-mental conditions and save themselves from possible extinction. However, the degradation of habitat causes the isolation of populations and reduced gene flow and variation in populations, thus restricting their potential for adaptation.

Globalisation

Globalisation has both positive and negative effects on nations. The most significant negative effect of globalisation in developing countries is cultural loss. The homogenisation of cultural diversity through globalisation results in the cul-tural knowledge and practices of indig-enous people becoming threatened. In addition, global influences undermine the family and religious values of indigenous communities. This alters their social values and sustainable practices. Such cultural changes increase challenges to conserve biological resources (Hoyningen-Huene, et. al. 1999).

Climate change

Climate change affects the conservation of biological diversity. Desanker (2002) explains that climate change may inten-sify the stress on ecosystems to beyond recovery, which would have significant

effects on biodiversity and food security, especially in Africa. He suggests that bio-diversity be managed to ensure that the conservation of species takes place both within and outside conservation areas, and that adequate habitat be preserved to en-able species of plants and animals as well as humans to migrate when necessary. Human activities such as deforestation are speeding up the process of climate change in the 21st Century, which will disrupt food production and intensify poverty. When biological diversity is conserved, ecosys-tems are conserved and therefore able to continue to support human life.

The good news for southern African countries is that much of their rich bio-logical diversity is still intact in the form of ecosystems. The exceptional richness of the southern African flora alone is highlighted in The relevance of herbaria and taxonomic work in southern Africa in Steenkamp & Smith (2002). The survival of the subcontinent therefore depends on the wise utilisation of these genetic resources.

Prescription for the 21st century

All human life is dependent on the sustain-able use of biological resources. Meeting the demands for housing, education,

Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity ...

Documents

Transcript of Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity ...