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.

From: Bob Riffle <71270.3070 at compuserve.com> on 1998.05.30 at 22:45:09(2209)
Why does the genus Phymatarum not appear listed on the "genera of
Aracea" page of the IAS website? It is listed as a valid genus
name with two species in Borneo in A DICTIONARY OF THE FLOWERING
PLANTS AND FERNS, J.C.Willis. Admittedly I have only the 8th
ed., but was Phymatarum declared NOT an aroid?; is there a
valid synonym?

From: Don Burns <burns at mobot.org> on 1998.05.30 at 22:57:05(2210)
> Why does the genus Phymatarum not appear listed on the "genera of
> Aracea" page of the IAS website?

Good question, Bob. Phymatarum is listed as a valid genus in "The Genera
of Araceae" (Mayo, Bogner,Boyce) with three known species. I don't know
why it is not on the website list, but we should see that it is added.


From: plantnut at shadow.net (Dewey Fisk) on 1998.05.31 at 02:46:53(2211)
I see the 3 spp listed in "The Genera of Araceae" but it does not give the
species names. In Blumea, Supplement 8 (1995), Checklist of Malesian,
Australian and tropical western Pacific Araceae.. it lists only two
species.... P. borneense M. Hotta and P. montanum M. Hotta. Anyone know
the other species?

Does anyone have this plant?

From: "Julius Boos" <ju-bo at EMAIL.MSN.COM> on 1998.05.31 at 14:14:04(2213)
Dear Bob,
I will hazard an "educated guess" as to why Phymatarum ( an Ariod!) did not
appear on the list in the genera of Araceae (can someone, Peter, Simon, back
me up?)-- this genus is one of a previously confusing group from the same
geographical area (Piptospatha Brown 1879, re-worked by Engler 1912 and
Hotta 1965; Hottarum Bogner & Nicolson 1979 (originally discribed as
Microcasia truncata by Hotta); Bucephalandra Schott 1858, re-worked by
Engler 1912, Bogner 1980, 1984, Boyce 1995, Boyce Bogner and Mayo 1995;
Phymatarum Hotta 1965, then reviewed by Bogner 1984; Aridarum Ridley 1913,
reviewed by Engler and Krause in 1920, Hotta in 1965, and by Bogner in 1976,
1981 and 1983; and Heteroaridarum Hotta 1976) that appear superficially
similar, and some genera have only recently been discribed or re-worked, so
in the "confusion" this (then doubtful) genus was not included in the list,
but is certainly included on the list in the wonderful volume, "The Genera
of Araceae", 1997. I am sure the list on our web site will be amended to
include this now valid genus.
We have to remember that Science is ever changing as new information comes
to light due to research being carried out as we speak.
From: Bob Riffle <71270.3070 at compuserve.com> on 1998.05.31 at 21:40:34(2219)
Thanks, Julius. I imagined it was something like that.

Does "The Genera of Araceae" indicate which genera are evergreen
vs. deciduous? Some genera include both types (?)

From: "Julius Boos" <ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 1998.06.01 at 02:18:58(2220)
Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Phymatarum

Dear Bob,
Yes, TGOA does indicate if a genus is evergreen or seasonally dormant, and
yes, some genera, eg. Typhonium (and I am sure some others) are listed as
"seasonally dormant or evergreen".

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