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.

  Amorphophallus konjac or rivieri?
From: Susan B <honeybunny442 at yahoo.com> on 2010.02.10 at 04:02:18(20556)
I see many people refer to konjac as rivieri.

What is the story behind that? Is rivieri an old name, or what?

Just curious....



From: ExoticRainforest <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2010.02.10 at 08:54:35(20557)
Sorryabout that! Its 2:15 AM and my brain is not fully on!

The accepted name is Amorphophalluskonjac K. Koch published in 1858.

Amorphophallus rivieri Durieu ex Carrière was published1869

First publication wins the prize.




From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" <hetter at xs4all.nl> on 2010.02.10 at 09:33:28(20559)
The fact is that the name A. konjac is older than rivieri and therefore has
nomenclatural priority in use.


From: ronmchatton at aol.com on 2010.02.10 at 12:51:29(20560)
Amorphophallus konjac was first described by Schott as Conophallus
konjac in 1856 and then as Amorphophallus konjac by Koch in 1858. The
name Amorphophallus rivieri did not appear until 1870 giving Am. konjac
priority. You can find a complete list of synonyms at the World
Checklist of Monocotyledons


Ron McHatton

From: Ken Mosher <ken at spatulacity.com> on 2010.02.11 at 00:53:14(20567)
rivieri is an old name.

Susan B wrote:

From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2010.02.11 at 07:38:47(20568)
The main point is that these two names are applied to the SAME biological
entity that we term a species. In these instances the earliest name post 1
Jan. 1763 that is both effectively and validly published according the the
current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, has priority.

If at some future point someone proves that in fact the taxon we call A.
konjac indeed comprises TWO distinct entities AND if one of these entities
is a good 'match' for the specimen that stands as the nomenclatural
benchmark (Type) for the name A. rivieri then that name COULD be


From: Susan B <honeybunny442 at yahoo.com> on 2010.02.12 at 03:58:15(20573)
Ken, that's what I thought, but I seem to see it in use more and more often!

Including Dave's Garden Plantfiles... I wanted to send them a note correcting them on the name (I've also seen it Am. rivieri var konjac) but wanted to check here first.

I guess it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine!



From: Susan B <honeybunny442 at yahoo.com> on 2010.02.13 at 18:15:16(20584)
Sorry Peter, I'm not following- could you reiterate for a "dummy"?
Which name was published on Jan 1 1763?



From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2010.02.15 at 06:27:48(20590)
Hi Susan,

For any botanical epithet to be accepted it must have been validly and
effectively published on or after Jan. 1 1753 (sorry, typo in my first

This is the date that Linnaeus' Species Plantarum was first published in
1753 and which marks the starting point of plant nomenclature. This also
means that the first names to be considered validly and effectively
published in botany are those that appear in this book, and in Linnaeus'
Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1753).

Zoology takes it's starting date as 1763


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