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 olive-green). Arisaema echinatum has the spadix appendix tip with prominent, rather sharp, denticules. Hope this helps Pete +More Peter Boyce Herbarium Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 3AE U.K. p.boyce@lion.rbgkew.org.uk

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. +More Can you give me a reference (article/literature) about the correctness of the name A.erubescens (for A.consanguineum). I would be much obliged. With best regards, Eric ____ Eric _J. Gouda____ gouda@cc.ruu.nl _ http://www.ruu.nl/~botgard / ___|_ __(_) __ / ___| ___ _ _ __| | __ _ Faxnr: +31 30 2535177 | |__ | '__| |/ _| | | _ / _ \| | | |/ _` |/ _` | Prive: Jungfrau 107 | |___| | | | (_ | |_| | (_) | |_| | (_| | (_| | NL - 3524 WJ Utrecht \____|_| |_|\__| \____|\___/ \___/ \__,_|\__,_| THE NETHERLANDS (NL) University Botanic Gardens, PO Box 80.162, NL-3508 TD Utrecht (curator) \ ALPINE-L@nic.SurfNet.NL (The Electronic Rock Garden Society) / \__DELTA-L@nic.SurfNet.NL (DEscription Language for TAxonomy)_____/

From: grsjr at juno.com (George R Stilwell, Jr.) on 1997.02.21 at 17:10:37(409) Peter, 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? Ray +More GRSJr@Juno.com

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 already. 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 +More --------------------------------------------- Paul Christian - Rare Plants Internet Site - http://rareplants.co.uk e-mail - paul@rareplants.co.uk or bulbs@celtic.co.uk Telephone - (+44) 01978 366399 Mobile telephone - (+44) 037 44 77 442 Fax - (+44) 01978 366399 Snail Mail to - Dr. P.J.Christian, PO Box 468,WREXHAM, LL13 9XR, UK ---------------------------------------------

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? +More 4. Can we expect any varieties or subspecies of A. erubescens to be recognized? Just to further confuse things, I note that an 1879 publication lists A. erubescens var. consanguineum-- looks like they were mixed up a long time ago. 5. In Yunnan last fall I saw an incredible range of variation in plants of what we though were consanguineum/erubescens. I'm sure it is possible that they all could be one species, but I wonder if this is really true. Is Heng Li confident that there is a single species, or does she think some splitting may take place? Whatever the case, it certainly is an adaptable plant, growing in every sort of environment, wet or dry, sun or shade, from 6000' (perhaps lower) to over 11,000'. 6. From Thailand and the Phillipines, too? Are these growing far up in the mountains, and can any be considered tropical? 7. Pardon my ignorance of Latin, but I just looked up 'erubescent' and found out it means red or reddish. Hey, the consanguineum I grow is all green! (not even close to dingy brown) Speaking of Latin, just what is the 'same blood' that consanguineum refers to? 8. What's the latest theory on CT369? 9. Any idea when or if this change in nomenclature will be published? Still confused, --Roy Herold

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