Alocasia Amazonica, the Banta's reply re Andre

From: ExoticRainforest <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2009.11.17 at 13:56:51(20313) Well folks, people are lining up on this issue but most are doingso privately not through Aroid l. Some believe the plant definitelycame from Belgium while another not quoted here appears to believethere is no way it came from Miami. The first note came today fromJohn Banta and the second from Belgium. It strongly appears there may be a difference in the plant credited to André nowknown on the National Botanic Garden of Belgium site as Alocasia xamazonica and the plant commonly sold as Alocasia Amazonica in theUnited States. The first question that comes to mind would be whywould anyone in Europe name a plant known to be from Asia using thename "amazonica"? Did someone simply adopt the name "amazonica" once the plant sold inthe U.S. as a tissue culture became popular? Is this nothing more than a disagreement over a popular name and whocame up with a plant similar to the one being sold first? If so, theoriginal plant would appear to need to have been born of the sameparentage in order to claim that title. I was given a contact name at National Botanic Garden ofBelgiumbut have not received a response. Obviously I'm not going to resolvethis but still would like to understand all this better. Iam just in this to learn and not take a position. If any of our esteemed botanists can offer more insight please let ushear from you. Steve HTML +More www.ExoticRainforest.com From John Banta: "Sloppy taxonomony accounts for many mysteries! Andre did in factmention in 1891 in Review Hortic an Alocasia hybrid between A,sanderiana and A. Lowii those parents were later ascribed to A.Amazonica in error. The Alocasia described by Andre is correctly namedmortefontanensis. In as much as Sam made A. Amazonica using A,sanderiana X A. Watsoniana. It is NOT the plant mentioned by Andre. Ifanyone wants to argue the point further let them remake A. Amazonica asI did. Both species are still available. Talk is cheap. Growers shouldresolve these problems on the basis of true observations. Get off thecomputers and do some real botany!" "I'm growing alocasia for 30 years or so now and alocasia x amazonicaisthe first plant i grow.this is an old hybrid,for sure before 1950!! Manyof the hybrids of that period were bred here in belgium in nursery inthe begining of last century,like 'veich laboratory ' andothers.Alocasia sanderana is NOT an horticultural name.It is a speciesfrom Philippines.Nobilis and sanderana are the same species,nobiluswith more sinuous leaves.a Watsoniana was a species until some yearsagoo when A hay put it as a synonym of alocasia longiloba. Growingmanyalocasia from longiloba complex likelowii,longiloba,korthalsii,denudata and many others,i sincerely don'tundestand why alocasia watsoniana was incuding in that 'speciescomplex'. The plant have virtualy no variability(unless maybe in thecolor of the limb),and have only in commun with that complex the whitecaracteristic midrib of that complex.the corms are different,the leavesare different,and larger of any in this complex.One ofthe most beautiful species of the genus!x amazonica have part of the 2species." --------------000900030509050200030604

From: ExoticRainforest <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2009.11.17 at 21:20:58(20319) Below is a very important note I received today from Australianbotanist Alistair Hay as well as my response. I'm satisfied with whatI've learned and believe a clear distinction should be made as to theorigination of the plant we know as Alocasia Amazonica but I doubt I'llbe changing a lot of minds in the world of horticulture even thoughAlistair is one of the very best minds in the field of Alocasiaspecies in the world. It is just my opinion but I know others agree. André'smortefontanensis should be known as Alocasia x mortefontanensis with aclear distinction made between it and Salvadore Mauro'splant bred at his Amazon Nursery in Miami known as both AlocasisAmazonica and Alocasia x amazonica. Steve HTML +More www.ExoticRainforest.com Alistair Hay wrote: HiSteve, I don't know much about "A. x amazonica" though it appears notto be a validly published botanical name. I am not aware of the namegoing back before the 1950's, though the hybrid plant mightwell go back to the 19th century (and been re-made later), as therewere many hybrids made then. Plants have sometimes been givencompletely erroneous geographic epithets, like the Asian Lycorisafricana, and the African Nerine sarniensis, to take two examples fromAmaryllidaceae, but I think the origin being the name of the nurserymay be correct in this case. IMO the IAS as ICRA for aroids shouldpublish a determination that "Alocasia x amazonica" is the correctlycultivar Alocasia 'Amazonica'. By the way, the Alocasia nobilis your ?Belgian correspondentrefers to is an illegitimate name because of the prior A. nobilisHallier f. (an unrelated Sumatran species). 'Nobilis' cannot be usedas a cultivar epithet in Alocasia (for a form of A. sanderiana) becauseof the existence of Alocasia nobilis Hallier f., if my interpretationof the ICNCP is correct. I remember agonizing over whether to include A. watsoniana inthe A. longiloba complex. He hasn't grown enough of the variable plantsin the complex, I suspect. What look like different species incultivation become much more blurred if one looks (at more variability)in the wild. I suspect the cultivated big watsoniana should also begiven the status of cultivar, Alocasia 'Watsoniana'. Many of theseproblems with and unending arguments/discussions about"horticultural-botanical" hybrids and species can be simplycircumvented by making them cultivars. Alistair Thanks Alistair! I received thisnote from Belgium just an hour ago: Ok Steve. I have checked at my book and effectively,the plant described in 1891by ed Andre is alocasia mortfontanensis, as john banta write it in yourreply.i have grow this plant years agoo and it seem that there are noreally apparent difference from the plant know as alocasia x amazonicalike we all know today,exept thet the leaves are tipycally more largein a x mortfontanensis.This plant was not from a belgian grower as imentioned before,but from a french grower (MM Chantrier) and is said tobe from 1891.The parents were alocasia lowii 'grandis' by alocasiasanderana.So John Banta is probably correct.The cross 'amazonica' isprobably from America.For your information,the plant in the livingcollection in The belgian botanical garden of Meise is 'only' a commonalocasia x 'amazonica'....I know it well as they got the plant from meyears agoo in an plant exchange exercise! Best regards Danny As a result I recommending that Derek Birch consider doing as yousuggest and post the correct info on the IAS site since it stronglyappears the Alocasia x mortfontanensis cross is the one noted on theBelgium garden site which is not the same cross and should not be usedas Alocasia x amazonica. Thanks again as always! Steve --------------090405040604070902030309

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