Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name

From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2011.09.04 at 06:37:58 Hi Marek, =A0 Colocasia fontanesii is a good species; it is what Schott INTENDED to describe when he published the name C. antiquorum but because Schott blundered and typified his name antiquorum on a specimen that is C. esculenta the first available name for this glossy-leaved plant is C. fontanesii. =A0 Peter On 3 September 2011 07:57, Marek Argent <abri1973@wp.pl> wrote: Hello, =A0 And what about Colocasia fontanesii? =A0 It is listed in IPNI as a species: http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do;jsessionid=3D0B8049D3E21ED7D5BA9FE7D4B9104BF3?id=3D86590-1&back_page=3D%2Fipni%2FeditSimplePlantNameSearch.do%3Bjsessionid%3D0B8049D3E21ED7D5BA9FE7D4B9104BF3%3Ffind_wholeName%3DColocasia%2Bfontanesii%26output_format%3Dnormal =A0 in Tropicos, too, but there is also a=A0synonym C. esculenta var. fontanesii: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2102376 http://www.tropicos.org/Name/2105987 =A0 in the IAS pages it is regarded as a cultivar of C. esculenta: http://www.aroid.org/cultivars/display.php?select=3D1724 http://www.aroid.org/genera/serveimage.php?key=3D4589 =A0 Cate-Araceae as usually is unaccessible. =A0 I always knew that "fontanesii" is a Colocasia with a glossy leaf surface and purple or burgundy petioles, but I never really wondered about its taxonomic status. =A0 Best, Marek =A0 =A0 ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Boyce To: Discussion of aroids Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name Hi David, =A0 Yes, it is a valid NAME but it is NOT a good species - the typification was fouled up by Schott, who typified (certainly in error) on a Linnaeus specimen is is without question C. esculenta. =A0 Mea culpa we fouled up in FoC. The DESCRIPTION in FoC is correct but the name is wrong. It should be called C. fontanesii. =A0 Very best =A0 Peter On 25 August 2011 15:49, david br=F6derbauer <david_dav44@hotmail.com> wrote: Hello Peter, I'm confused. Isn't Colocasia antiquorum SCHOTT a valid species? At least in Li Heng's and your treatment in the Flora of China it is. Best, David From: phymatarum@googlemail.com To: aroid-l@www.gizmoworks.com; alan_galloway@ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:41:55 +0800 Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name Hi Marek =A0 Neither. Both are simply Colocasia esculenta, as per our previous correspondence. =A0 Best =A0 Pete =A0 From: aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Marek Argent Sent: Monday, 22 August, 2011 7:02 AM To: Discussion of aroids; Peter Boyce; Alan Galloway Subject: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name =A0 Hello, =A0 Which name is the proper one? Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum (Schott) C.E. Hubb. & Rehder or Colocasia antiquorum Schott =A0 On the web (IAS, Tropicos, IPNI, CATE) I can find both combinations and I really don't know which one should be used. =A0 Best, Marek Argent _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l No virus found in the message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3872 - Release Date: 09/02/11 _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l --90e6ba4fc644d291c104ac17d50f-- --===============0947628614606076604==

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.