IAS Aroid Quasi Forum

About Aroid-L
 This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.

  The correct name for Arisaema consanguineum
From: "Peter Boyce" <P.Boyce at lion.rbgkew.org.uk> on 1997.02.20 at 14:10:58(401)
Dear Folks

There seems to be much confusion concerning Arisaema consanguineum,
both apropos it's name and appearance. Now, I'm by no means au fait
with all the complexities of temperate Asian Araceae but, over the past
couple of years, I've been tring to get to grips with A. consanguineum
and its kin and now feel that it's time to make available the data of
which I feel confident.

Well, to kick off, the bad news is that the correct name for this plant,
by priority, is Arisaema erubescens (Wall.) Schott. It is identifiable
(sensu latissimo) by the following combination of characters:

One or two leaves with few to many radiate very narrow to rather
broad acute- to long acuminate-tipped leaflets. Inflorescences with
a smooth auricles and a short to long caudal appendage, a smooth-tipped
stipitate spadix with the expanded part tapering basally and the stipe with
few to many stout sterile structures, some of which may be reduced and
fused to the base and lower portion of the expanded part of the appendix.
Spathe colour varies from dingy greenish brown (many Chinese clones) to
strikingly dark red and white striped (Thai, Taiwanese and Philippines).

Arisaema ciliatum is very similar (as are A. taiwanense, A. echinatum
and any number of Chinese species with species epithets ending
-shanense). Arisaema ciliatum has spathe limb auricles furnished with
distinct, rather stout, marginal cilia and a spadix with a truncate
to cochleate (stipe 'embedded' into the expanded part, the lower
margins of the appendix thus appearing to 'hang' over the stipe apex).
The few clones in cultivation are are highly coloured with deep
red-purple and greenish white spathes.

Arisaema taiwanense has a spongy tip to the spadix appendiux and
very distinctly marked pseudostem/petioles (caramel, cream and

Arisaema echinatum has the spadix appendix tip with prominent, rather
sharp, denticules.

Hope this helps


From: Eric Gouda <E.J.Gouda at cc.ruu.nl> on 1997.02.21 at 16:42:49(408)
Dear Peter (and other Arisaema enthusiasts),

Thank you very much for the information. Does this mean that the picture on
the Arisaema home page (Chinese), Arisaema species 'CT369' is A.erubescens
(A.consanguineum)? We do have this clone and I did identify it as
A.consanguineum last year.

From: grsjr at juno.com (George R Stilwell, Jr.) on 1997.02.21 at 17:10:37(409)

I quite agree on the dates of the original citations for A. consanguineum
(1859) and A. erubascens (1832). However, are they indeed the same plant?
Udai Pradhan, in his 1990 book, shows significant differences in flower
structure, leaflet number and shape, spathe color and shape, etc. I
suspect the original citations do as well.

Thus from this evidence I would have to conclude that, even though
closely related and often confused, they are not the same plant and thus
both names are valid.

Perhaps you have other evidence to show the differences are not valid?


From: Paul Christian <paul at rareplants.co.uk> on 1997.02.22 at 03:45:49(412)
Peter, All,

This is my first posting to the group, I hope that it gets through.

I have taken a while to reply, both to consult and to make sure that nothing
that I said in haste was interpreted as rudeness.

I was under the impression that the idea of erubescens being the "correct"
name for consanguineum had been scotched, and I am not alone in thinking this.

It has been reasoned I think, that the two taxa are the same species and I
am sure that you are correct Peter in your researches and that erubescens
has priority. I would say that this is not the issue however, as the
priority only holds IF erubescens is the same species as consanguineum. If
the two are different species then both names stand.

For what it is worth I, and again others, think that the two are different.
This is something that needs checking carefully and urgently before the name
issue gets muddled. It has been done once, wrongly with Arisaema erubescens

If name changes are to be brought in it is vitaly important not to repeat
the kind of mistake that was made with Pleione. A flawed study resulted in
horticulturists being told to call P. formosana by the "correct" name of
P.bulbocodioides. We were lumbered for years with a totally incorrect name
change, when the status quo PRE the study turned out to be the right one
after all, the correct name WAS P.formosanum. Sorry to mix my genera but
this mess still confuses nursery lists and show benches twenty years later.

I am being general and trying to wear both my botanical hat and plantsman's
hat at the same time, but to fly a kite, is not A. erubescens (if it even
exists) closer to, or the same as, A. concinnum......

Please, Peter especially, don't take this as an attack, that is not
intended, but it is a contribution to a debate where one must be careful.
Anything with "KEW" associated become gospel before the ink is dry.

Hope this helps too

Paul C

From: Roy Herold <rrh at genesis.nred.ma.us> on 1997.02.22 at 04:51:51(414)
Pete et al:

Whoops, looks like it may be time to update the Arisaema Page. But before I
do, a couple of questions:

1. Has the observation by Hara that A. erubescens has an erect
infructescence been determined to be erroneous?

2. I've just been reading the 1996 article by Jenn-Che Wang on 'The
systematic study of Taiwanese Arisaema' which describes A. consanguineum in
detail. In an accompanying photograph, I was surprised to see the base of
the spadix of a female inflorescense covered with stout bristle-like
appendages. Are these the same as what you refer to as 'stout sterile
structures'. I don't recall seeing any in the consanguineums I grow, but I
may have missed them. Has anyone else observed them?

2A. Wang also notes that A. consanguineum and A. formosanum are very
similar in morphology as well as habit, and may hybridize with one another
in the wild. Is there any talk of lumping formosanum with
erubescens/consanguineum, or is the thickness of the spadix appendage
enough to keep them separate?

3. Has A. kelung-insularis been lumped with A. consanguineum, and therefore
with A. erubescens?

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