0.7 — Afterword

Over the years, a bambusetum has developed on the Baan Sammi property thanks to the numerous living bamboo specimens collected in Thailand by plant collectors, mainly Dr. Cliff Sussman, and brought here. The specimens, small bamboo saplings, could be planted out in the bambusetum or kept in pot culture. In a few years, they had grown to a size that made it possible to see the vegetative characteristics clearly enough, in order to make detailed descriptions of the specimens and attempt to identify the species.

However, an identification of the species was unsuccessful for numerous specimens. The table of contents gives an idea of ​​this: almost 40 native or naturalized species remained unidentified, most are members of the Bambusa-Dendrocalamus-Gigantochloa complex. In addition, several specimens from other genera were marked as doubtfully identified.

The descriptions of many bamboo species known to science have remained incomplete to date, particularly species in areas that had been difficult to access, often borderlands, and because the vegetative characteristics such as culm-leaves were missing. This is certainly because plant collectors favorably collected herbarium material mainly from bamboo species that were in flower. It is well known that bamboo is often bare of foliage-leaves and culm-leaves in this phase of life.  Hence, herbarium material remained incomplete, hence the description lacked details. This made it impossible to identify most of the collected unidentified specimens in the bambusetum by comparing vegetative characteristics.

Recollecting rare and little-known bamboo species is essential, as are photographs and a complementary description of the characteristics. Molecular studies are also essential for understanding the relationships and detecting monophyletic lineages. None of this has been possible for me in the past. In the future, botanists will surely devote themselves to these tasks in order to achieve a better knowledge of the bamboo species in the Thai flora.

Below I list some species that intrigued me most. They certainly require a more thorough investigation for a better understanding. In all these cases, molecular studies in particular should provide some insight.

1. Dendrocalamus sp., Phai Sang Mon, BS-0228, etc.: A molecular study could reveal whether Phai Sang Mon is conspecific with D. giganteus.

2. The following Dendrocalamus species could not be assigned to known species; identification is therefore required: Dendrocalamus sp., BS-0680, Dendrocalamus sp., Phai Hok Sop Khong, Phai Sop Chok, BT0000-16, Dendrocalamus sp., Phai Hok Wat Chan, BS-0929, etc., Dendrocalamus sp., Phai Pok, BS-0692 etc., Dendrocalamus sp., with oblique nodes, BS-0605 and BS-0605-1.

3. Dendrocalamus copelandii and D. sinicus: The similarity of these species is striking, although the former seems to show great variability in vegetative characteristics. Maybe some of these plants were misidentified as D. copelandii. The assumed close relationship of the two species should be investigated.

4. Dendrocalamus elegans, D. dumosus, and other limestone cliff bamboos: It has been assumed that D. elegans and D. dumosus could be conspecific, but the poor vegetative descriptions make it difficult to conclude. Moreover, at Baan Sammi, four vegetatively sufficiently different specimens exist. None of them can be undoubtedly assigned to any of these two species. It seems more likely to me that more than two such limestone cliff bamboo species exist. A further, taller growing specimen turned out to be similar to Dendrocalamus khoonmengii, but the culm-leaf auricles do not match sufficiently with that species, and flowers are known, whereas flowers of D. khoonmengii are unknown so far.

5. Gigantochloa is the genus to which the largest number of specimens could not be assigned at the species level. More than 15 markedly distinct specimens could only be referred to as "Gigantochloa sp." in Chapter 1 and await future identification, which may be possible since the vegetative characteristics of most of these specimens have been described in detail.

6. ×Thyrsocalamus liang: 3 different specimens tentatively assigned to this intergeneric hybrid need reassessment: BS-0347 and BS-0234 deviate in culm-leaf characteristics from ×Thyrsocalamus liang. They flowered and died thereafter; neither seeds nor seedlings were found. They had been suggested to be hybrids, possibly of a different parent. Herbarium material was secured, but identification is still missing, and whether a new generation exists anywhere remains unknown. BS-0436, the so-called Quail clone, clearly deviates in culm-leaf characteristics from ×Thyrsocalamus liang and shows a few characteristics seen frequently in some Gigantochloa species. Its origin and flowers are unknown. BS-0937, like a giant variety of Phai Liang, also shows some vegetative deviations from ×Thyrsocalamus liang and its relationship should be investigated.

7. Neohouzeaua spp., now Schizostachyum spp., BS-0089, and BS-0573: The first specimen, when received as a small plant, was assumed to be Neohouzeaua fimbriata by the collector. As the plant grew older, it was determined that the vegetative characteristics indicated Neohouzeaua, but did not correspond to N. fimbriata (now Schizostachyum fimbriatum). BS-0089 may be an undescribed species. The vegetative characteristics of BS-0573 also indicated Neohouzeaua. Unfortunately, this specimen could not be identified, although flowering branches were collected.

8. BS-0702, BS-0722, BS-0816, etc., Thyrsostachys cf. oliveri: This unidentified species raised from seeds has been most intriguing. The seeds were received in several batches on different dates with many different species names, and none of these names seem appropriate. Mature plants turned out to be vegetatively similar to Thyrsostachys.

It is not necessary to list here all the specimens, which are doubtfully identified or have not been identified, as they are all covered in Chapters 1 and 2. However, in the case of the specimens mentioned above, it seems to me particularly regrettable that no identification has yet been made, and I can only hope that botanists will take up the matter soon.

Chiang Mai, 6 November 2024

Dieter Ohrnberger