Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity - SANBI

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 

SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004 

1

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 Stories 

5 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 21 st 

Century: meeting users’ 

needs in Lesotho 

32 Researchsmith garners 

awards far and wide 

33 Succulent flora of southern 

Africa worthy of wonder 

Book Reviews 

54 Biodiversity Prospecting & 

Access and Benefit Sharing 

55 Easy guide to indigenous 

shrubs 

56 Illustrated guide to the 

wildflowers of northern South 

Africa 

18 Cyperaceae 

14 Documenting threatened plants 

Regulars 

3 Editorial 

4 Letters to the Editors 

34 New books from SABONET 

57 The Paper Chase 

68 Regional News Update 

80 E-mail addresses 

Forum Botanicum 

56 2002 Compton Prize 

awarded to trio 

57 South African Association of 

Botanists thanks SABONET 

5 Establishing Botanical Gardens 

37 Threatened Plants 

Programme 

29 Plant taxonomy: Lesotho 

34 New Books from SABONET 

2 SABONET News Vol. 9 No. 1 September 2004

letter from the editors 

EDITORS: 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 Coordinator 

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 sabonetpub@nbi.ac.za. 

But hurry! Stocks are limited. 

Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity Network 

Editors 

Yolande Steenkamp 

Cecilia de Vos Belgraver 

Design and Layout 

Antoinette Burkhardt 

Vanilla Design Studio 

(27) 83 635-1446 

Reproduction and Printing 

Capture Press 

(27) 12 349-1802 

Subscriptions 

sabonetpub@nbi.ac.za 

Website 

www.sabonet.org 

Submission of Manuscripts 

Marthina Mössmer 

editors@sabonet.org 

See Instructions to Authors on page 4. 

SABONET News is the official newsletter 

of the Southern African Botanical Diversity 

Network (SABONET). 

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 countries. 

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! 

SABONET 

South African National Biodiversity Institute 

Private Bag X101 

Pretoria 0001 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Tel.: (27) 12 804-3200 

Fax: (27) 12 804-5979/3211 

SABONET News is published twice a year 

and is distributed free of charge. 

Enjoy your reading! 

—Yolande Steenkamp & Cecilia de Vos Belgraver 

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 support 

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. 

“Breaking News! 

The National Botanical Institute has officially changed to 

the South African National Biodiversity Institute 

on 1 September 2004”. 


3

letters to the editors 

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 Chapman 

11 Koromiko Crescent 

R.D.I, Lyttelton 

New Zealand 

Thank you very much for the latest excellent 

publication in your SABONET 

Report series. ‘Herbarium essentials’ is 

quite magnificent and will not only enhance 

the efficacy of the local herbarium, 

but also prove to be a most useful teaching 

tool. 

—Rodney Moffett (Prof.) 

Qwaqwa Campus 

University of the Free State 

South Africa 

Many thanks for your latest publication, 

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 Bingham 

Lusaka 

mbingham@webtech.co.zm 

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 Leadlay 

BGCI 

199 Kew Road, Richmond Surrey 

TW9 3BW 

Email: Etelka.Leadlay@bgci.org 

editors@sabonet.org 

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 Schippmann 

Bundesamt für Naturschutz 

Konstantinstrasse110 

53110 Bonn 

hanks for the terrific Herbaria in SAB- 

TONET countries. SABONET should be 

able to sell copies to every botany student 

in the world and to a lot of amateurs besides. 

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 Robertson 

PO Box CH 385 

Chisipite 

Harare 

Zimbabwe 

Email: faykevin@zol.co.zw 

just opened an envelope containing the book Herbarium Essentials, and I must say that I am truly impressed. So impressed, 

in fact, that I was inspired to write an email congratulating everyone involved in this fine I 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! 

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. 

instructions to authors 

4) If possible, include colour slides, blackand-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 photographer 

credits. 

6) Each author should their provide name, 

affiliation, postal address, telephone and 

fax numbers, and an e-mail address (if applicable). 

—Kerry S. Walter, BG-BASE 

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Inverleith Row 

Edinburgh EH3 5LR Scotland, UK 

Email: bg-base@rbge 

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: editors@sabonet.org 

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. 


Establishing 

National Botanical Gardens 

in South Africa 

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) 

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.) 

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.) 

Increasingly, South Africa’s national botanical gardens are being 

transformed into embassies of South Africa’s biodiversity and culture. 

(Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.) 

An on-site storage dam provides the Kirstenbosch National 

Botanical SABONET Garden News with Vol. a consistent 9 No. 1 September supply of 2004 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. 


5

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 considerations 

it would be necessary to have 

at least ten National Botanic Gardens in 

South Africa, one in each of the main climatic 

regions, and that one (he suggested 

it be based on the Cape Peninsula) should 

be the administrative centre for them all. 

Ideally, national botanical gardens should be easily accessible to visitors and located 

in major urban areas, such as the Pretoria National Botanical Garden is. 


The Karoo Desert National Botanical Garden 

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 accessible 

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 confluence of the perennial Nels and Crocodile Rivers is a spectacular sight that 

may be viewed from the Lowveld National Botanical Garden, Nelspruit. 


The next gardens to be founded were the 

Drakensberg and Eastern Free State (officially 

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. 

Water provides a tranquil atmosphere to visitors at the entrance to the Natal 

National Botanical Garden, Pietermaritzburg. (Photo: Hans Heilgendorff.) 

By 1954, when Prof. Brian Rycroft succeeded 

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 following 

five National Botanical Gardens 

that still exist today, namely Harold Porter, 

Free State, Natal, Lowveld and the Walter 

Sisulu NBGs. The Pretoria National Botanical 

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). 


Source of land 

Drakensberg and Eastern Free State 

NBG (closed as a national botanical garden): 

Harrismith (now part of the Thabo 

Mofutsanyane District Municipality) 

Municipality 

Free State NBG: Bloemfontein (now Mangaung) 

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) Municipality 

& Mr CP Heatlie 

Kirstenbosch NBG: Government allocation 

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.) 

Lowveld NBG: Nelspruit (now Mbombela) 

Municipality & HL Hall and Sons 

Natal NBG: Pietermaritzburg (now Msunduzi) 

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 Foundation 

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 gardens. 

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). 

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. 



7

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.) 

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 contribution 

(which would be subject to review 

from time to time) towards the establishment 

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: 

National botanical gardens serve an 

important environmental education role 

for all South Africans. 


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 ultimate 

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 concentrations 

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 Garden 

• East London: Kaffrarian Botanic Garden 

• 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- 

The attractive entrance to the Walter 

Sisulu National Botanical Garden, 

Roodepoort/Krugersdorp, hints at the 

beauty that lies beyond. 


den 

• Graskop: Transvaal Forest Botanic 

Garden 

• Vryheid: Northern Natal Botanic Garden. 

In addition, negotiations are taking place 

for the establishment of a KwaZulu Botanic 

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 Forest 

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 Witwatersrand 

NBG and on 16 March 2004 

renamed the Walter Sisulu NBG), the only 

“The NBI has been approached on many 

occasions over the past 20 years concerning 

the establishment of another National 

Botanical Garden in Port Elizabeth 

– specifically at Settlers’ Park – for which 

detailed plans and proposals were submitted 

by a team of our senior horticultural 

staff. However, the combined factors of 

continued controversy, both from various 

organisations and the Port Elizabeth public, 

and severe financial constraints, make 

it impossible for the NBI to accept this 

undertaking. The matter may be reconsidered 

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 (Pietermaritzburg), 

Mpumalanga (Nelspruit) and 

Gauteng (two: Pretoria and Roodepoort/ 

Krugersdorp). In response to various 

requests received since 1994 to establish 

national botanical gardens in the remaining 

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 


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 responsibility 

for, the maintenance of plant 

collections 

• maintenance of research programmes 

in plant taxonomy in associated herbaria 

• monitoring of the plants in the collection 

• open to the public 

• promoting conservation through extension 

and environmental education 

activities 

• proper documentation of the collections, 

including those of wild origin 

• undertaking scientific or technical 

research on plants in the collections. 

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 developed 

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 availability 

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, national 

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 functions 

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 collections, 

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. 



9

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 microclimates 

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 undisturbed 

natural habitats/vegetation 

representative of at least some of the 

main vegetation type(s) of the province 

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 demonstration 

garden, including construction of 

pathways (R5,000,000) 

Control of alien invasive plants on estate 

(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 allowances, 

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 maintenance 

of buildings, major equipment 

and vehicles. Annual maintenance costs 

should ideally be set at 1.5 percent of the 

replacement value of buildings and infrastructure 

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 (excluding 

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 outreach 

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 master 

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 Jackson 

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 establishment 

5. Acquisition of land 

6. Project direction and staff appointed 

7. 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 


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

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 1982 

Staff complement (permanent) 23 23 25 132 41 25 61 42 

Horticulturists 2 2 2 9+3 2 2 4 3 

Annual security costs 6,000 1,000 1,000 400,000 34,000 45,000 324,000 220,000 

contracted out (R) 

Annual Government 1,584,967 918,870 1,682,421 3,656,000 2,053,790 1,505,263 3,892,592 2,286,000 

Grant 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 2,845,000 

per 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 20 

Natural 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 70,000 165,000 

Admission fees (R) 8/4 8/4 10/5* 20/10/5** 9/5 8/5 12/6 15/7 

Adults/children 

Municipal water use 5,000,000 2,000,000 4,931,000 500,000 9,424,000 6,693,600 6,860,000 7,300,000 

per annum (l) 

Borehole water use 36,000,000 0 No borehole 700,000 0 0 100,800,000 0 

per 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 2 

from nearest major road 

Visitors Centre Planned • • • • 

Restaurant/Tea Garden • • • • • • • 

Environmental Education • • • • • 

Centre 

Home 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. 

Tea gardens 

and/or restaurants 

have 

been built 

in most of 

South Africa’s 

national 

botanical 

gardens. 

(Photo: Hans 

Heilgendorff.) 

National botanical gardens 

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.) 


11

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 support, 

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 Publications 

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 


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: 90 th 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 


57: 46-49. 

Levyns, M.R. 1966. Some recollections of 

Kirstenbosch in its early days. Journal 


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 


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 


16-19. 

Rycroft, H.B. 1973. Plants and gardens of 

South Africa. Journal of the Botanical 


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 


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 


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 


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: 

90 th 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. 

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. 

The Karoo Desert National 

Botanical Garden, Worcester, now 

has a new shade-house for the 

Mesembryanthemaceae collection. 

Photo: Christopher Willis. 

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. 


13

Documenting 

the threatened plants of 

southern Africa: 

A small price paid 

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 coordination 

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 botanical 

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 Nations 

Development Programme (UNDP) 

project (Siebert & Smith 2004). 

The Red List compilation for the southern 

African region (6,000,000 km 2 ) was produced 

under the auspices of SABONET 

(Golding 2000) with funding from the 

World Conservation Union (IUCN) Regional 

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 consolidation 

of technical information 

culminated in comprehensive accounts 

of priority threatened plant 

species for more countries than any other 

regional Red Listing initiative in Africa. 

Over 3,900 plant species from ten southern 

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 accepted 

principles established by IUCN. 

The results showed that 10 percent of the 

region’s flora is in urgent need of conservation 

action (Golding 2002). 

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 — 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 specialists 

(Golding & Smith 2001) to produce 

stable, yet adaptable accounts of the endangered 

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 facilitates 

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 quantification 

will assist similar future initiatives 

to develop cost-effective strategies and to 

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. 

aid donor agencies with project development 

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, accommodation 

and similarly large expenses), and 

the number of taxa assessed during work 

sessions. Data were analysed in terms of 

human and financial resources respectively 

using simple techniques (project 

Disa erubescens. (Photo: SABONET) 

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-effective 

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 complete 

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 species, 

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 expensive 

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 assessing 

their threatened species, including 

co-ordination, collection and dissemination 

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 compiling 

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, 


15

which translates roughly to USD 9.75/assessment. 

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-ordination 

model to become effective in delivering 

the products. It adopted a devolved 

structure, collaborators had a sense of 

ownership, there was power to change 

the direction of the project through assessments 

via the workshop processes, and 

people had access to training, thus making 

the process mutually beneficial. Furthermore, 

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-effective 

exercise of the project (20 percent 

of allocated funds). A lot of information 

was already available and all management 

had to do was find the sources and 

add to it where necessary. If the project 

had been conducted outside the botanical 

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 involvement 

and passion for the local flora 

allowed for more funds to be channelled 

towards the training and data dissemination 

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 necessary 

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 wellfounded 

assessments. This voluntary 

“…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.” 

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 information 

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 product 

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 Africa, 

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 

Boophane disticha. (Photo: SABONET) 

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 information 

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 botanical 

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 information). 

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 alleviate 

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 sustainable 

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 Government 

paid USD 7.8 m towards a national 

endangered species programme (Source: 

http://www.budget.gov.au/1999-00/ministerial/ch4/ch4-THREATEN.html). 

This 

provided core resources for the conservation 

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 education 

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. 


Over the past two years, SABONET 

has taken steps to improve and expand 

conservation activities on the ground. 

SABONET has initiated an activity to address 

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 longterm 

financial investment and stakeholder 

consultation, to conserve a threatened 

species by achieving sustainable conservation 

impact on the ground? The extent 

of resources required for conservation 

impact are difficult to estimate; hopefully 

successful projects in this field could provide 

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’. Workshops 

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 competent 

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 enabling 

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 commenting 

on the manuscript and Ulf Gardenfors 

(ArtDataBanken, Sweden) for information provided. 

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 lifehistory 

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 21 st 

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: enduser 

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. Siebert 

Department of Botany 

University of Zululand 

Private Bag X1001, KwaDlangezwa 3886 

E-mail: ssiebert@pan.uzulu.ac.za 

17

Cyperaceae in Namibia 

A. 1. Annotated checklist; 2. Cyperaceae types; 3. List of common names 

B. 1. Uses and Ethnobotanical references 

A.1. Annotated checklist 

Explanatory 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 (bearing 

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 publications 

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 ! following 

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 0471 

A. triflora (L.) Abeyw. 

(= Cyperus triflorus L.) 

(= Fimbristylis triflora (L.) K.Schum.) 

Del. Marietjie Steyn 

Alinula J.Raynal 0459 

A. paradoxa (Cherm.) Goetgh. & Vorster 

(= Lipocarpha paradoxa Cherm.) 

(= Mariscus paradoxus (Cherm.) Cherm.) 

Ascolepis Steud. 0454 

A. pusilla Ridl. var. pusilla 

Bolboschoenus (Asch.) Palla 0468 

B. 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 0471 

B. breviculmis Kunth = B. humilis 

B. burchellii (Ficalho & Hiern) C.B.Clarke : Aus, Marloth 

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. pusilla 

B. filamentosa (Vahl) C.B.Clarke : does not occur in Namibia; 

Clarke & Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneous 

B. 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 


B. kirkii C.B.Clarke = B. contexta 

B. 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. megastachys 

B. trabeculata C.B.Clarke 


Carex L. 0525 

C. cognata Kunth : Waterberg, Dinter 1770 (SAM!) 

C. pubescens Poir. = Fuirena pubescens 

Cladium P.Browne 0489 

C. jamaicense Crantz = C. mariscus subsp. jamaicense 

C. mariscus (L.) Pohl subsp. jamaicense (Crantz) Kük. 

(= C. jamaicense Crantz) 

Courtoisia Nees 0461 

C. assimilis (Steud.) C.B.Clarke = Courtoisina assimilis 

C. cyperoides (Roxb.) Nees = Courtoisina cyperoides 

Courtoisina Soják 0461 

C. 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) 

Courtoisina assimilis 

Cyperus L. 0459 

C. 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. amabilis 

C. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name = C. squarrosus 

C. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name var. atriceps Kük. = 

Mariscus aristatus var. atriceps : requiring a new 

combination in Cyperus 

C. articulatus L. 

C. assimilis Steud. = Courtoisina assimilis 

C. aureus Ten. = C. esculentus var. esculentus 

C. auricomus Sieber ex Spreng. = C. digitatus subsp. auricomus 

C. bellus Kunth 

(= C. bellus Kunth forma auratus Kük.) 

(= C. remotiflorus Kük.) 

(=? C. remotiflorus Kük. var. schweickerdtii Merxm.) 

C. bellus Kunth forma auratus Kük. = C. bellus 

C. betschuanus Boeck. = Pycreus betschuanus 

C. blandus Kunth = C. marginatus 

C. bullatus Kük. = C. chersinus 

C. castaneus Willd. : does not occur in Africa; name misapplied 

by authors 

C. chersinus (N.E.Br.) Kük. C 

(= C. bullatus Kük.) 

(= Mariscus bullatus (Kük.) Podlech) 

(= Mariscus chersinus N.E.Br.) 

Fimbristylis microcarya 


19

Cyperus sphaerospermus 


C. chrysanthus Boeck. = Pycreus chrysanthus 

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

chrysanthus 

C. 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 


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


C. congestus Vahl var. grandiceps Kük. = C. congestus 

C. congestus Vahl var. pseudonatalensis Kük. = C. congestus 

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

[syn. C. corymbosus var. damarensis Kük.] : uncertain 

species; Peter 47028, Walter 128 should be 

checked 

C. 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 alba 

C. cuspidatus Kunth 

(= C. uncinatus in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Poir.) 

C. cyperoides (L.) Kuntze subsp. cyperoides [syn. Mariscus 

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 Namibia; 

see C. denudatus var. denudatus 

C. difformis L. 

(= C. difformis var. subdecompositus Kük.) 

C. difformis var. subdecompositus Kük. = C. difformis 

C. 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. erecta 

C. 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 flavescens 

C. 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, U 

C. globosus in sense of Podlech (1967), not of All. = Pycreus 

betschuanus 

C. 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. schinzii 

C. imbricatus Retz. C, U 

C. immensus C.B.Clarke = C. dives 

C. 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 


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. laevigatus 

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


C. 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. tenuiflorus 

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

Kük. = C. longus var. tenuiflorus 

C. 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. margaritaceus 

C. marginatus Thunb. C 

(= C. blandus Kunth) 

(= C. marginatus Thunb. var. blandus (Kunth) Kük.) 

C. marginatus Thunb. var. blandus (Kunth) Kük. = C. 

marginatus 

C. marlothii Boeck. 

(= Mariscus marlothii (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke) 

C. nudicaulis Poir. = C. pectinatus 

C. papyrus L. C, U 

(= C. papyrus L. subsp. zairensis (Chiov.) Kük.) 

(= C. zairensis Chiov.) 

C. papyrus L. subsp. zairensis (Chiov.) Kük. = C. papyrus 

C. patens Vahl = Pycreus pumilus 

C. pectinatus Vahl C 

(= C. nudicaulis Poir.) 

C. pelophilus Ridl. = Pycreus pelophilus 

C. platycaulis Baker [syn. of C. denudatus var. lucentinigricans] 

: does not occur in Namibia; see C. 

denudatus var. denudatus 

C. platycaulis in sense of authors, not of Baker = C. denudatus 

var. denudatus 

C. polystachyos Rottb. = Pycreus polystachyos var. polystachyos 

C. procerus Rottb. 

C. pseudokyllingioides Kük. = Courtoisina cyperoides 

C. pseudokyllingioides Kük. var. africanus Kük. = Courtoisina 

cyperoides 

C. pseudomarginatus Dinter =? C. margaritaceus var. 

margaritaceus 

C. pseudoniveus Boeck. = C. margaritaceus var. margaritaceus 

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

Tinley 1514 (PRE!) 

(= Mariscus pseudovestitus C.B.Clarke) 

C. purpureus Boeck. = C. schinzii 

C. rehmii Merxm. : insufficiently known species 

C. remotiflorus Kük. var. schweickerdtii Merxm. =? C. bellus 

C. remotiflorus Kük. = C. bellus 

C. rotundus L. subsp. rotundus C 

C. rubicundus Vahl 

(= C. teneriffae Poir.) 

(= C. teneriffae Poir. var. succulentus Dinter ex Kük.) 

C. rupestris Kunth var. rupestris : does not occur in Namibia; 

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, U 

C. squarrosus L. 

(= C. aristatus Rottb., illegitimate name) 

(= Mariscus aristatus (Rottb.) Cherm. var. aristatus) 

(= Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C.B.Clarke) 

C. subaphyllus Boeck. = C. laevigatus 

C. submacropus Kük. 

(= Mariscus macropus C.B.Clarke) 

C. tenax Boeck. 

C. tenuiflorus Rottb. = C. longus var. tenuiflorus 

C. tenuispica Steud. 

C. teneriffae Poir. = C. rubicundus 

C. teneriffae Poir. var. succulentus Dinter ex Kük. = C. 

rubicundus 

C. triflorus L. = Abildgaardia triflora 

C. turrillii Kük. C 

(= Mariscus laxiflorus Turrill) 

C. uncinatus in sense of C.B.Clarke, not of Poir. = C. cuspidatus 

C. usitatus Burch. C, U 

(= C. usitatus Burch. var. macrobulbus Kük.) 

C. usitatus Burch. var. macrobulbus Kük. = C. usitatus 

C. zairensis Chiov. = C. papyrus 

Eleocharis R.Br. 0469 

E. acutangula (Roxb.) Schult. : Ondangua, De Winter & 

Giess 6979 (PRE!) 

E. atropurpurea (Retz.) J.Presl. & C.Presl 

(= Scirpus atropurpureus Retz.) 

E. capitata R.Br. = E. geniculata 

E. cubangensis H.E.Hess : uncertain species; Volk s.n. should 

be checked 

E. 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 species 

E. palustris R.Br. : does not occur in Namibia; Clarke & 

Mannheimer (1999a) is erroneous 

E. pseudofistulosa H.E.Hess : insufficiently known species; 

De Winter & Giess 6979 (PRE!) is E. acutangula 

E. schlechteri C.B.Clarke 

(= E. seydeliana Podlech) 

E. seydeliana Podlech = E. schlechteri 

E. variegata (Poir.) C.Presl : Eastern Caprivi, Killick & Leistner 

3231 (PRE!) 

(= Scirpus variegatus Poir.) 

E. welwitschii Nelmes : doubtfully occurring in Namibia 

Ficinia Schrad. 0465 

F. bracteata Boeck. = F. nigrescens 


21

F. nigrescens (Schrad.) J.Raynal 

(= F. bracteata Boeck.) 


Fimbristylis Vahl 0471 

F. 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. bisumbellata 

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

= Bulbostylis hispidula subsp. pyriformis 

F. ferruginea (L.) Vahl 

(= F. sieberana Kunth) 

(= Scirpus ferrugineus L.) 

F. hispidula in sense of authors, not of (Vahl) Kunth = Bulbostylis 

hispidula subsp. pyriformis 

F. microcarya F.Muell. : Grootfontein, Schweickerdt 2173 

(PRE!) 

F. sieberana Kunth = F. ferruginea 

F. squarrosa Vahl 

F. triflora (L.) K.Schum. = Abildgaardia triflora 

Fuirena Rottb. 0467 

F. 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. stricta 

F. ciliaris (L.) Roxb. : Schweickerdt 2174 (PRE!) is F. leptostachya 

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. ciliaris 

F. 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 & Leistner 

3221 (PRE!) 

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

F. pachyrrhiza Ridl. : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; Volk 

2234 should be checked 

F. pubescens (Poir.) Kunth 

(= Carex pubescens Poir.) 

F. reticulata Kük. = F. coerulescens 

F. stricta Steud. 

(= F. chlorocarpa Ridl.) 

F. umbellata Rottb. 

Hemicarpha Nees & Arn. 0453 

H. isolepis Nees = Lipocarpha hemisphaerica 

H. micrantha (Vahl) Pax = Lipocarpha micrantha 

Isolepis R.Br. 0468 

I. brevicaulis (Levyns) J.Raynal : does not occur in Namibia; 

Archer (2003) is erroneous; specimens previously 

identified as this in PRE represent a new species 

Fuirena obcordata 

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; 


I. exilis in sense of authors, not of Kunth = Bulbostylis 


I. fluitans (L.) R.Br. var. fluitans : does not occur in Namibia; 


I. hemiuncialis (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal : Nordenstam 2826 

(PRE!) 

(= Scirpus aciformis B.Nord.) 

I. hystrix (Thunb.) Nees : does not occur in Namibia; specimens 

cited by Podlech (1967) as Scirpus hystrix are 

Lipocarpha rehmannii 

I. inclinata Barbey = Schoenoplectus corymbosus 

I. karroica (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal : Nuob River, Giess 

13834, Giess & Müller 14311 (PRE!) 

(= Scirpus karroicus C.B.Clarke) 

I. roylei Nees = Schoenoplectus roylei 

I. setacea (L.) R.Br. 

(= I. sororia in sense of authors, not of Kunth) 


(= 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 0459 

J. 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 laevigatus 

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

Podlech = Cyperus laevigatus 

Kyllinga Rottb. 0462 

K. 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. alba 

K. erecta Schumach. var. erecta 

(= Cyperus erectus (Schumach.) Mattf. & Kük. var. intricatus 

(Cherm.) Kük.) 

(= K. intricata Cherm.) 

K. intricata Cherm. = K. erecta var. erecta 

K. merxmuelleri Podlech = K. albiceps 

K. microcephala Steud. = Kyllingiella microcephala 

K. pulchella Kunth : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

Dinter 2540 should be checked 

K. triceps in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Rottb. = K. 

welwitschii 

K. triceps Rottb. var. ciliata Boeck. = K. welwitschii 

K. welwitschii Ridl. 

(= K. triceps in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Rottb.) 

(= K. triceps Rottb. var. ciliata Boeck.) 

Kyllinga alba 

Kyllingiella R.W.Haines & Lye 0468 

K. microcephala (Steud.) R.W.Haines & Lye 

(= Kyllinga microcephala Steud.) 

(= Scirpus microcephalus (Steud.) Dandy) 

Lipocarpha R.Br. 0452 

L. chinensis (Osbeck) Kern : does not occur in Namibia; 

Archer (2003) is erroneous 

L. 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 paradoxa 

L. pulcherrima Ridl. = L. nana 

L. rautanenii Boeck. = L. hemisphaerica 

L. rehmannii (Ridl.) Goetgh. : Tsumeb, Dinter 7560 (PRE!); 

Rundu, Merxmüller & Giess 1940 (PRE!); Grootfontein, 

Schweickerdt 2082 (PRE!) 

(= Rikliella rehmannii (Ridl.) J.Raynal) 

(= Scirpus hystricoides B.Nord.) 

(= Scirpus hystrix in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Thunb.) 

Kyllingiella microcephala 

Mariscus Vahl 0459 

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


23

C.B.Clarke = Cyperus indecorus var. decurvatus 

M. aristatus (Rottb.) Cherm. var. aristatus = Cyperus squarrosus 

M. 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 assimilis 

M. breviradius Vorster : unpublished name; see Cyperus 

cyperoides subsp. cyperoides 

M. bullatus (Kük.) Podlech = Cyperus chersinus 

M. capensis in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Steud.) 

Schrad. = Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensis 

M. chersinus N.E.Br. = Cyperus chersinus 

M. confusus Vorster : unpublished name; see Cyperus 

marlothii 

M. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus congestus 

M. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. grandiceps (Kük.) 

Podlech = Cyperus congestus 

M. congestus (Vahl) C.B.Clarke var. pseudonatalensis 

(Kük.) Podlech = Cyperus congestus 

M. cylindristachyus Steud. = Cyperus cyperoides subsp. 

flavus 

M. cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr. = Courtoisina cyperoides 

M. cyperoides (Roxb.) A.Dietr. subsp. africanus (Kük.) 

Podlech = Courtoisina cyperoides 

M. deciduus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus deciduus 

M. dregeanus Kunth : Masare, Vorster 2765 (PRE!); requiring 

a new combination in Cyperus 

M. dubius (Rottb.) C.E.C.Fisch. = Cyperus dubius 

M. fulgens (C.B.Clarke) Vorster, unpublished combination : 

see Cyperus fulgens 

M. hamulosus (M.Bieb.) S.S.Hooper = Cyperus hamulosus 

M. indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. dinteri (Kük.) Podlech = 

Cyperus indecorus var. decurvatus 

M. indecorus (Kunth) Podlech var. namaquensis (Kük.) 

Podlech = Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensis 

M. laxiflorus Turrill = Cyperus turrillii 

M. macropus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus submacropus 

M. marlothii (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke = Cyperus marlothii 

M. namaquensis (Kük.) Vorster, unpublished combination : 

see Cyperus indecorus var. namaquensis 

M. paradoxus (Cherm.) Cherm. = Alinula paradoxa 

M. pseudovestitus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus pseudovestitus 

M. rehmannianus C.B.Clarke = Cyperus indecorus var. 

decurvatus 

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

subsp. cyperoides] : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

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 squarrosus 

M. umbellatus in sense Podlech (1967), not of (Rottb.) Vahl 

= Cyperus cyperoides subsp. flavus 

M. usitatus (Burch.) Vorster, unpublished combination : see 

Cyperus usitatus 

M. usitatus (Burch.) Vorster var. macrobulbus (Kük.) 

Vorster, unpublished combinations : see Cyperus 

usitatus 

Monandrus Vorster, unpublished genus 0459 

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

Mariscus aristatus var. atriceps 

M. hamulosus (M.Bieb.) Vorster, unpublished combination : 

see Cyperus hamulosus 

M. longicarpus Vorster, unpublished name 

M. squarrosus (L.) Vorster subsp. ovamboensis Vorster, 

unpublished combination and subspecies name : see 

Cyperus squarrosus 

M. squarrosus (L.) Vorster subsp. squarrosus, unpublished 

combination : see Cyperus squarrosus 

Oxycaryum Nees 0468 

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

Katima Mulilo, 24.vii.1996, Clarke s.n. (PRE!) 

Pseudolipocarpha Vorster, unpublished genus 0459 

P. paradoxa (Cherm.) Vorster, unpublished combination : 

see Alinula paradoxa 

Pseudoschoenus (C.B.Clarke) Oteng-Yeb. 0468 

P. inanis (Thunb.) Oteng-Yeb. : Hardap, Bloemhoff 1 

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

Pycreus P.Beauv. 0459 

P. albomarginatus Nees = P. macrostachyos 

P. 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. pelophilus 

P. 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 


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 


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 


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. 

pumilus 

P. unioloides (R.Br.) Urb. : does not occur in Namibia; Dinter 

1745, Wulfhorst s.n. should be checked 

Rhynchospora Vahl 0492 

R. arechavaletae Boeck. = R. holoschoenoides 

R. aurea Vahl [syn. of R. corymbosa var. corymbosa] : 

occurrence in Namibia uncertain; Dinter s.n., 2643 


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 uncertain; 

Dinter s.n., 2643 should be checked 

R. cyperoides (Sw.) Mart. = R. holoschoenoides 

R. holoschoenoides (Rich.) Herter 

(= R. arechavaletae Boeck.) 

(= R. cyperoides (Sw.) Mart.) 

(= R. mauritii Steud.) 

R. mauritii Steud. = R. holoschoenoides 

R. rugosa (Vahl) Gale [syn. of R. brownii] : occurrence in 

Namibia uncertain; Dinter 1803 should be checked 

Rikliella J.Raynal 0454 

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

Schoenoplectus (Rchb.) Palla 0468 

S. articulatus (L.) Palla 

S. confusus (N.E.Br.) Lye subsp. confusus : doubtfully occurring 

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 uncertain 

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. tabernaemontani 

S. lateriflorus (J.F.Gmel.) Lye : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

revision of genus incomplete 

S. leucanthus (Boeck.) J.Raynal 

(= Scirpus leucanthus Boeck.) 

S. litoralis in sense of authors, not of (Schrad.) Palla = S. 

scirpoideus 

S. 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. senegalensis 

S. 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. 0468 

S. dioecus (Kunth) Browning C, U 

(= Scirpus dioecus (Kunth) Boeck.) 

Scirpus L. 0468 

S. aciformis B.Nord. = Isolepis hemiuncialis 


S. atropurpureus Retz. = Eleocharis atropurpurea 

S. bisumbellatus Forssk. = Fimbristylis bisumbellata 

S. cernuus Vahl = Isolepis cernua var. cernua 

S. ciliaris L. = Fuirena ciliaris 

S. complanatus Retz. = Fimbristylis complanata 

S. corymbosus L. [syn. of Rhynchospora corymbosa var. 

corymbosa] : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

Dinter s.n., 2643 should be checked 

S. dichotomus L. = Fimbristylis dichotoma 

S. dioecus (Kunth) Boeck. = Scirpoides dioecus 

S. diphyllus Retz. = Fimbristylis dichotoma 

S. erectus Poir. = Schoenoplectus erectus 

S. ferrugineus L. = Fimbristylis ferruginea 

S. geniculatus L. in part = Eleocharis geniculata 

S. granulato-hirtellus Boeck. = Bulbostylis hispidula subsp. 

pyriformis 

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


S. hystricoides B.Nord. = Lipocarpha rehmannii 

S. hystrix in sense of Podlech (1967), not of Thunb. = Lipocarpha 

rehmannii 

S. inclinatus (Barbey) Boiss. = Schoenoplectus corymbosus 

S. karroicus C.B.Clarke = Isolepis karroica 

S. lacustris in sense of authors, not of L. = Schoenoplectus 

tabernaemontani 

S. laeteflorens C.B.Clarke = Bolboschoenus nobilis 

S. leucanthus Boeck. = Schoenoplectus leucanthus 

S. limosus Schrad. = Eleocharis limosa 

S. litoralis in sense of authors, not of Schrad. = Schoenoplectus 

scirpoideus 

S. lugardii C.B.Clarke = Cyperus hamulosus 

S. macer Boeck. = Isolepis costata 

S. maritimus L. = Bolboschoenus maritimus 

S. maritimus in sense of Podlech, not of L. = Bolboschoenus 

glaucus 

S. micranthus Vahl = Lipocarpha micrantha 

S. microcephalus (Steud.) Dandy = Kyllingiella microcephala 

S. muricinux C.B.Clarke = Schoenoplectus muricinux 

S. praelongatus Poir. = Schoenoplectus senegalensis 

S. roylei (Nees) R.Parker = Schoenoplectus roylei 

S. setaceus L. = Isolepis setacea 

S. sinuatus Schuyler =? Schoenoplectus erectus 

S. sororius in sense of Podlech (1967), not of (Kunth) 

C.B.Clarke = Isolepis setacea 

S. variegatus Poir. = Eleocharis variegata 

S. varius C.B.Clarke : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

Rehm s.n. should be checked 

Scleria P.J.Bergius 0515 

S. foliosa A.Rich. 

Volkiella disticha 


25

S. longispiculata Nelmes 

S. rehmannii C.B.Clarke 

S. veseyfitzgeraldii E.A.Rob. : Eastern Caprivi, Killick & 

Leistner 3218 (PRE!) 

Tetraria P.Beauv. 0494 

T. compar (L.) Lestib. : doubtfully occurring in Namibia; 

locality of Ihlenfeldt, de Winter & Hardy 3080 

(PRE!), (that is, Hentiesbaai) should be checked 

Volkiella Merxm. & Czech 0452 

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

for Zambia 

Websteria S.H.Wright 0458 

W. confervoides (Poir) S.S.Hooper : occurrence in Namibia 

requires confirmation 

REFERENCES 

ARCHER, 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 Kunth 

B. 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, Dinter 

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, Grootfontein, 

Dinter 2379. 

C. chrysanthus Boeck. var. occidentalis Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 

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 Pflanzenreich 

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 Pflanzenreich 

101: 122 (1935) : Otjituo, Dinter 894. 

C. indecorus Kunth var. namaquensis Kük. in Das Pflanzenreich 

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 Pflanzenreich 

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) : Omaheke, 

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 



C. rehmii Merxm. in Mitteilungen der Botanischen Staatssammlung 

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 Mitteilungen 

der Botanischen Staatssammlung München 

1: 85 (1951) : Windhoek, Schweickerdt 2289. 

C. schinzii Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens 



C. subaphyllus Boeck. in Verhandlungen des botanischens 


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 Pflanzenreich 

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) : Swakopmund, 

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 



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 Vahl 

R. arechavaletae Boeck. in Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Cyperaceen 

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 botanischens 

vereins der Provinz Brandenburg 31: 179 

(1890b) : Olukonda, Rautanen 1. 

S. hystricoides B.Nord. in Dinteria 11: 55 (1974) : Brandberg, 

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 


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. & Czech 

V. disticha Merxm. & Czech in Mitteilungen der Botanischen 

Staatssammlung München 1: 318 (1953) : 

Rundu, Volk 1815. 

A.3. Common names of Cyperaceae in Namibia 

KEY: 

A Afrikaans 

E English 

G German 

H Otjiherero 

J Ju|’hoan 

K Khoekhoegowab 

Kxoe Bushmen (Caprivi) 

Nh Naro 

O-Ok Oshiwambo, Oshikwanyama 

Rk Rukwangali 

Rum Rumanyo 

T 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 


B. hispidula : okashede O-Ok 

B. sp. : efinde; ofinde O-Ok 

Cyperus L. 

General : uintjie A; nut grass E 

C. chersinus : g|a’u’g|o (-n||ae); !gewu^; g!a’u^ J 

C. congestus : n!ani; n|ni Nh 

C. esculentus : geeluintjie A; okatjako H; !hanni^ K 

C. fulgens : oseu H; |ao; g!a’u^ J; kyan-’an Kxoe; n|nni 

Nh; nontukulu Rk; ntiua Rum; thiwa^ T 

C. imbricatus : g!aug!oq^ J; rufukutu Rk 

C. laevigatus : ondombora H; xautsixaubes^ K 

C. longus : waterbiesie A; gemeines Zypergras G; onenge 

H; !omn’|ai^; !um’mn|ai J 

C. margaritaceus : witbiesie A; #umagari^; kari^ J; !khopobes^ 

K; |oiba Nh; nzuwu-nzuwu Rum 

C. marginatus : matjiesgoed A 

C. papyrus : papirus A; papyrus E; Papyrusstaude G; 

gyara; koama Kxoe; likoma Rum; dikoma^; 

jaradjara T 

C. pectinatus : shininge Rum 

C. rotundus : rooiuintjie A; nut sedge E; |ares^ K 

C. sphaerospermus : matjiesgoed A; efinde O-Ok; diraurau 

T 

C. turrillii : etondo-lashimbungu O-Ok 

C. usitatus : ozeu H; |han-i K 

C. sp. : uintjies A; ozëu H; !hans; !han; khan; !hanni; 

!hares; |arebes K 

C. spp. : embodi; ofinde O-Ok 


K. alba : biesie A; #omagari J; |k’wee Nh; oshedishomula 

O-Ok 

K. sp. : #umagari^ J 

Pycreus P.Beauv. 

P. flavescens : embodi O-Ok 

Schoenoplectus (Rchb.) Palla 

S. corymbosus : n#au-n#au^ J 

Scirpoides Ség. 

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

Scirpus L. 

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

REFERENCE 

CRAVEN, 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 parentheses. 

• 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 recorded 

in Wehmeyer (1986). 


B. hispidula subsp. pyriformis : the leaves and stems are 

used as a sieve for straining marula wine or beer; 

Rodin 9033 (PRE!). 


27

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 provides 

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 (Budack 

1965; Giess 1966; Otto 1979). 

C. sp. : believed to be excellent food for pregnant women 

(Budack 1965). 


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

water containers; also for decontaminating or purifying 

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 REFERENCES 

BLEEK, 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 Tsesreservaat 

(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: sociopolitical 

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 Africa 

Archerc@nbi.ac.za 

2 

Formerly National Botanical Research Institute, Windhoek, 

Namibia 

patdan@iafrica.com.na 


Plant taxonomy in the 21 st Century: 

meeting users’ needs in Lesotho 

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 21 st 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. 

Human Beings: the earth’s most 

biologically successful species 

In trying to provide food, shelter, sanitation, 

and health care for 6 billion people, 

the Earth’s natural resources are being 

depleted. In turn, the functioning of ecosystems 

is being disrupted. An important 

component of ecosystems is biodiversity. 

Among the most important threats to 

biological diversity in the 21 st 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, deforestation, 

grazing, mining, and the collection 

of firewood. These economy-driven activities 

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 disease. 

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 environmental 

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 cultural 

knowledge and practices of indigenous 

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 intensify 

the stress on ecosystems to beyond 

recovery, which would have significant 

effects on biodiversity and food security, 

especially in Africa. He suggests that biodiversity 

be managed to ensure that the 

conservation of species takes place both 

within and outside conservation areas, and 

that adequate habitat be preserved to enable 

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 21 st Century, which will disrupt food 

production and intensify poverty. When 

biological diversity is conserved, ecosystems 

are conserved and therefore able to 

continue to support human life. 

The good news for southern African 

countries is that much of their rich biological 

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 21 st century 

All human life is dependent on the sustainable 

use of biological resources. Meeting 

the demands for housing, education, 


29

Newsletter of the Southern African Botanical Diversity - SANBI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?