Copenhagen Field Notes: ‘Dark Season Botany’
1
Genus classification: ‘The Indeterminates’
-Note for herbarium entry 55: This species was not found, neither by Green nor by Wilson.
-Note for herbarium entry 58: Identity remains obscure and the epithet is invalid.
-Note for herbarium entry 66: Unresolved species; name should not be adopted if it confuses the accepted nomenclature.
-Note for herbarium entry 67: The name is validated by the description ‘indeterminate; a multi-headed specimen devoid of leaves’, but this remains imperfectly known.
-Note for herbarium entry 72: In the absence of a type specimen this new genus and species remains unknown.
-Note for herbarium entry 73: Grown from seed, but this taxon remains imperfectly known.
2
-Note for herbarium entry 74: This is a validly described species that remains unknown.
-Note for herbarium entry 76: The validating description is insufficient. On the reverse of the label is the handwritten note, ‘Jardin de la Malmaison’.
-Note for herbarium entry 89: No type specimen has been found in the herbarium, and it has been missing since N. Rømer worked on the collection.
-Note for herbarium entry 103: This fragment is tentatively described as ‘sweet in odor; broad-leaf segments, high atrophy’. The name should not be adopted if it confuses the widely accepted nomenclature.
-Note for herbarium entry 110: Noted, but no specimen found in the herbarium. There is some doubt as to whether it was identified by either Green or Wilson, and its existence may have only been a rumor spread after B. laBelle’s work on the collection.
-Note for herbarium entry 111: On the original field label this new species was expressed as ‘Indeterminate. Grown along the route of cemetery guards (Nørrebro)’, but there seems little doubt as to its identity.
3
-Note for herbarium entry 116: When Green and Wilson first compiled the herbarium this type was missing, so they designated a neo-type, which is now superfluous.
-Note for herbarium entry 148: Named and labeled by K. Ehrlich as ‘indeterm. grandiflora’ during his work on the collection, who recognized this as the missing type specimen not seen by Green and Wilson, but rumored by B. laBelle (see entry 110).
-Note for herbarium entry 150: An imperfectly known plant species. During his work on the collection O. Camargo dismissed this as ‘not intended as a name’, ‘indeterminate’ being used repeatedly for species which could not be identified. This has since been challenged by Green and Wilson.
-Note for herbarium entry 157: An extensive description occurs of both the plant and the event of its discovery in the garden of a lawyer in the Østerbro district, but no specimen has been found.
-Note for herbarium entry 205: The description ‘odorless, yet rank in appearance, pre dawn effusions, dormant during sunlight hours’ is different from that of the plant under the same name given in entry 103.
-Note for herbarium entry 209: The identity of this plant species remains obscure until a specimen can be found. A handwritten note on the back of the label reads: ‘Once present in the urban planters of N. Rømer (Nørrebro)’.
4
-Note for herbarium entry 212: An obscure species, although several authors have attempted to locate and identify it.
-Note for herbarium entry 214: The other species labeled ‘indeterm. europaea’ have been questioned and re identified as a more advanced stage of the die-back process of i. grandiflora. Green and Wilson dispute this and point to the distribution patterns across the Ørestad district, but also note that night-time observation yielded no conclusive proof.
-Note for herbarium entry 229: Only one entry in the herbarium refers to this name, and the associated specimen has not been found.
-Note for herbarium entry 280: No separate generic description is supplied; all names associated with this entry are invalid.
-Note for herbarium entry 281: The specimens on this sheet present very different appearances: one being elongated, the other very congested, but they have been identified as the same species. K. Ehrlich notes that this should not be regarded as contradictory data, only as testimony to this plant’s remarkable capability for adaptation.
-Note for herbarium entry 283: This species must remain unknown until material can be traced to make a positive identification. Several authors are currently engaged in the search.
5
-Note for herbarium entry 284: The specimen is too deteriorated for accurate identification, although Green and Wilson note similar remains in the cemetery site dominated by the plant described in note 111.
-Note for herbarium entry 288: The annotation ‘novum!!’ on the initial field label does not agree with the subsequent description, which otherwise describes a species common to the region and particularly profuse on the southern borders of the city. Indeed, it is widely regarded by local gardeners to be a troublesome invasive.
‘Copenhagen Field Notes’ were exhibited in the Royal Botanical Gardens, Copenhagen as part of the project Surface Tension, 2007, curated by Brandon LaBelle.