Since Dr G. W. Reynolds compiled his epic The Aloes of South Africa very few other books relating to South African aloes have been published. When one considers that Reynolds published his book originally in 1950, a revisit on this genus is long overdue. When one also considers that during Reynolds’ travels around South Africa, the colour photograph or Kodakchrome was largely experimental, it is amazing that people have managed to consistently identify any of the South African species at all.

The text on the opposite page is broken down into six sections: brief description; flowering time; distinguishing characteristics; geographical distribution; conservation status, and general notes. The text is accompanied by a map of South Africa with the species distribution shaded. As far as the description of species is concerned, the authors have tried to use language and terminology that is non-botanical and can be understood by the layperson. In so doing the descriptions are immensely simplified from Reynolds’ original texts but one has to question how general and helpful those simplified descriptions really are.

[Top of Page]

For example, “The erect, light bluish-green leaves form neat rosettes. The leaves are indistinctly striped and die back from the tips.”  For anyone finding this particular aloe at a “sale” (A. pretoriensis) will the above description give enough detail for even the most rudimentary attempt at identification? Some of the other information is new, innovative and important, particularly the information on the conservation status if only to remind us how threatened some of the more collectible species are.

By and large, I felt that the text tends to let the photography down. Why the authors insist on a paragraph in providing the vernacular names of each species is beyond me. The pronunciation is beyond any international audience and the interest value marginal. The distribution descriptions are vague and very general, in most cases stating just the distribution across the country’s nine provinces. Whilst one could argue that specific habitat data would result in a collecting spree, one does feel that more localised data could be given. Even the distinguishing characteristics between species is very broad. For example:

Aloe mitriformis is very variable and it is difficult to single out specific characteristics that distinguish it from other creeping aloes. The slightly incurved leaves and variably coloured marginal spines appear to be consistent features of the species. The stems of  A. mitriformis are fairly thin and not strong enough to support the large rosettes in an erect position.

I feel that more specific comparisons with features of similar plants would have been of more benefit.

[Top of Page]

The idea of providing distribution maps for the aloes is an excellent one. However the value of these maps is reduced by not having an overall rainfall, vegetation or topographical key to the maps.  It is all well and good to show a distribution of the “Northern Province,” for example, but what does that really mean for cultivators miles away who have no idea of what the climatic, soil conditions (and variations thereof) are like in the Northern Province? An overall key showing frost zones, average rainfall, temperature ranges and growing conditions in habitat would have greatly enhanced the book. In fact, there is little information in the book that the cultivator will find to assist in cultivation of any particular species. Another example:

Aloe pearsonii grows naturally in one of the most arid parts of South Africa. It is not easy in horticulture and watering should be done carefully…

The authors introduce the book as a:

user friendly field guide to all South African aloes…it is aimed at as a wide an audience as possible. Botanists, field naturalists, students…and gardeners with little more than a passing interest should now find aloe identification a far simpler task

Given that so little has been produced on this genus for such a long time, that South Africa has changed to such an extent in the last few decades to render some of Reynold’s distribution data redundant, and that the genus has been revised significantly from Reynold’s original classifications; much was expected from this new publication. The fact that it did not live up to those expectations should not detract from the value of this book. Whilst the authors were, in my opinion, shy on giving information is probably due more to me having being brought up on a diet of Reynolds than any reason why everyone should not enjoy this light and well-presented publication.