IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
IAS Aroid Quasi Forum
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.
Fitch photo (fwd)
From: "Richard Mansell (BIO)" <mansell at chuma.cas.usf.edu> on 1997.06.19 at 23:56:16(876)|
Greetings: here is a slightly edited copy of a message I received from
Wilbert. The mistery of photo 129 seems to be solved. We shall wait
further developments. Dick
---------- Forwarded message ----------|
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:03:15 -0700
Subject: Fitch photo
I had a look recently at this phalloid photo by Charles Marsden Fitch.
This is a plant from the same clone you'll see in Aroideana Vol. 19 under
Am. parvulus! In fact, I got material of this via Bogner, who got it from
Fitch himself. Only this week have I learned from additional material
from Thailand, that it is NOT Am. parvulus and most probably an
undescribed species! I have always counted with this because there are a
few characters in Fitch's plant that do not fit the type of Am. parvulus.
Now that I have had a REAL parvulus flowering, I saw these differences
confirmed. So you can tell Mr. Fitch this story and if he wants to, he
can co-author the species with me. If you have his current address, can
you email it to me?
From: Steve Marak <samarak at arachne.uark.edu> on 1997.06.20 at 02:16:08(879)|
Wilbert, you wrote:
> This is a plant from the same clone you'll see in Aroideana Vol. 19 under
> Am. parvulus! In fact, I got material of this via Bogner, who got it from
> Fitch himself. Only this week have I learned from additional material
> from Thailand, that it is NOT Am. parvulus and most probably an
> undescribed species! I have always counted with this because there are a
> few characters in Fitch's plant that do not fit the type of Am. parvulus.
> Now that I have had a REAL parvulus flowering, I saw these differences
Some time back, re the plant I have as A. parvulus, from Phil, and we|
think originally from you, you wrote:
>The original number should read H.AM.026 and was originally collected
>by Dick Shelton, who gave a piece to Josef Bogner, who gave a piece to
>me. Bogner's and Shelton's died but I managed to multiply the critter and
>replenished them both. In Aroideana vol. 19 it will be presented, along
>with another 80 of its congeners.
So, not to be too dense, am I correct in assuming that the plant I have,
which we think is H.AM.026, is the *true* A. parvulus, and is a different
species than the Fitch picture? Is the Fitch picture one of the "80 of its
congeners" you mention (or what is the relationship between the species
shown in the Fitch picture and A. parvulus)? Incidentally, I love this
plant not only for the beauty of the leaf but because it thrives on benign
neglect for me and propagates easily - if I worked at it, I'd have a dozen
more by now.
-- Steve Marak
From: "NAME \"Wilbert Hetterscheid\"" <W.HETTER at pbga.agro.nl> on 1997.06.20 at 14:02:47(881)|
Steve & others,
In relation to this Fitch-plant thing I made a stupid mistake and I posted my
correction to Dick too late to be corrected. The plant H.AM.026 and the one
on the Fitch photo are the same species, so NOT true Am. parvulus! My mistake
in the historical story of this plant is that Josef Bogner did NOT get it
from mr. Fitch but from Shelton and I got it from Bogner. So the H.AM.026
originated with Shelton and is now spread to some of you folks. The plant on
the Fitch photo IS that same species and I wouldn't be surprised if it
somehow originated too from the same clone as H.AM.026. They are SO similar.
Those of you who now understand all this need to see a doctor........
All in all, a conclusion is that what I treated in Aroideana vol. 19 as
Am. parvulus is not the real thing but this Shelton & Fitch species, which,
as I can see now, is an undescribed species. ANOTHER one............!!
Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.