aquatics

From: Pugturd at aol.com on 1999.11.26 at 16:23:44(3868) This is Brian Williams. thought you would like to see this picture I found on the web. HREF="http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/4705/proj98/araceae.html">Cli +More ck here: Cyrtosperma chamissionis press launch

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 1999.11.26 at 19:53:26(3870) Dear Brian, Sorry, I could not pull up this address, and a search in Geocites did not find it either!! +More This is an old name for what is now called Ctrtosperma merkusii, and A. Hay says that A.ferox ( I used to have this, VERY spiney!) is the wild form of this, I believe he is wrong. Dewey has two clones of this species, which is/used to be grown on Pacific coral atols Small islands) as food where Colocasia will not grow, gets BIG, up to 18 ft tall! Have you seen the photo of mine in the MOBOT pages, I grew it to over 12 ft!! Tried to call you a while ago, got the machine, will try again sometime. Will be home for a few hours. Thanks for your address, will put the box in the mail soon. Cheers, Julius

From: Aloe1023 at aol.com on 1999.11.26 at 19:56:31(3871) Ref Cyrtosperma chamissionis....this sure doesn't fit the physical characteristics of the other Cyrtospermas that I know. Is this a valid name and identification?? +More Russ.

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 1999.11.26 at 21:42:24(3872) Dear Russ, Which species have you seen??? Cyrtosperma merkusii used to/does occur in + - 20 cultivars in the Pacific region (I have acess to two here in Florida), some spiny, some not. Alistar Hay did a great paper on this genus some time ago based on the knowledge he had at the time, and discussed the spiny petioled vs. the smooth petioled forms/clones., and C. chamissionsis, (an old Schott name as 'Arisacontis Chamissonis' ( 1897) was placed into synonomy with it years ago. Cheers, Julius

From: Aloe1023 at aol.com on 1999.11.28 at 20:16:04(3874) Hi. This is definitely not my area of knowledge and didn't realize this genus was so large and varied. I was under the impression all were of the spiney persuasion, and much smaller plants than these obviously are. I have the common C. johnstonii and have seen a couple others in years past that were also spiney. So....you'll have to bear with my ignorance while I learn about this interesting genus. I'm really surprised at the towering size of these guys. Thanks for the info Julius. Russ.

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