
The prime aim of this field trip, was to contribute to the Society’s ongoing study of the
Cyclamen coum group of species. Started on the 2015 Georgia Field Study
and described in the June 2016 Journal (vol 40/1, pages 24-33).
However, the opportunity was also taken by the team to look at sites
for C. hederifolium, to support the ongoing study of the distribution
of the hederifolium and crassifolium subspecies in Greece,
just to the south.
Although no live plants were collected during this field study,
15 sites and 253 plants were surveyed. Leaf samples were collected
from 32 plants for herbarium specimens and laboratory analysis.
Reports of the 2016 field studies were published in the
Cyclamen Society Journal Vol. 40 No. 2, December 2016.
CSE Plants and Sites Bulgaria, 2016.
Plant and Site images may be viewed by clicking on the purple numbers.
C. coum
Little was known about Bulgarian populations of C. coum which were assumed to be similar to those of European Turkey. It was important to discover if this was true, analysis confirmed it was. Our C. coum study is ongoing, although many parts of the world where we need to go are now politically unstable.
CSE Plant No. | Site No. | Species | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
16514 | 16/52 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16515 | 16/52 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16526 | 16/53 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16527 | 16/53 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16530 | 16/54 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16531 | 16/54 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16542 | 16/55 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16543 | 16/55 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16557 | 16/56 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16558 | 16/56 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16572 | 16/57 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16573 | 16/57 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16584 | 16/58 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16585 | 16/58 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16599 | 16/59 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16600 | 16/59 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16614 | 16/60 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16629 | 16/61 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16644 | 16/62 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16645 | 16/62 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16659 | 16/63 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16660 | 16/63 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16687 | 16/65 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
16688 | 16/65 | C. coum | Herbarium specimens and leaves for DNA analysis collected |
C. hederifolium
CSE Plant No. | Site No. | Species | Subspecies based on the morphology as seen in the field[1] | Ploidy from flow cytometry analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|
16501 | 16/51 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16502 | 16/51 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16672 | 16/64 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16707 | 16/66 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16708 | 16/66 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16709 | 16/66 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16731 | 16/67 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
16732 | 16/67 | C. hederifolium | hederifolium | 2n=34 (Diploid) |
[1] In 2009 when C. confusum was raised to specific level, it was felt that something had to be done about the plants on the Peloponnese, that had hitherto been referred to as C. hederifolium subsp. confusum. Otherwise, what would they be called? They had previously been considered sufficiently different, not to be referred to as C. hederifolium subsp hederifolium, and that hadn’t changed.
The taxon adopted was C. hederifolium subsp crassifolium as the morphology (appearance) of the plants in question, coincided with Freidrich Hildebrand’s 1907 C. crassifolium. The description of Hildebrand’s crassifolium, relies entirely on the morphology of the leaves, citing their thick, fleshy and glossy appearance and distinct angular 5, 7 or 9 sided shape.
At the time (2009) the molecular results, the cytology, and the morphology all lined up i.e. subsp, hederifolium were diploid plants 2n=34 and had thin leaves, subsp. crassifolium were tetraploid plants 2n=68 and had thick leaves.
However, as a result of these field studies our data set has increased considerably. The results so far, seem to suggest that there may be plants with thick leaves, that are only diploid 2n=34, and plants with thin leaves that are tetraploid 2n=68, and vice versa. Meaning that both subsp. hederifolium and subsp. crassifolium contain both diploid and tetraploid plants.
It must be remembered that regardless of the cytology, the description is based on the morphology, which therefore takes precedence.
This research is very much a ‘work in progress’ and ongoing, and as with all good research could be subject to change.
Readers are invited to read the journal article ‘Species, subspecies and the Cyclamen hederifolium complex’ – Cyclamen Society Journal Dec. 2020 pgs. 120-130.

Acknowledgements. Our thanks are due to Stoyan Stoyanov for invaluable help in making, confirming (or correcting) plant identifications made in the field; for helping in so many ways in his country.
We are grateful to Yana Velina and Kalina Stoyanova of the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria for guiding us through their procedures, granting us permission to collect herbarium specimens and leaf samples, and for introducing us to Stoyan Stoyanov. We are also grateful to the staff of each of the provincial offices of the Ministry of Environment and Water and the National Park rangers, both of whom accompanied us in the field (sometimes in convoy).