[Aroid-l] Re: Colocasia mess

From: "mossytrail" mossytrail at hctc.com> on 2006.09.07 at 06:24:26(14573) > Dear All, > > I'm fed up with most of the botanists. I'm trying to sell > my plants under correct names, but... There are 2-4 names > for plants. Now please decide wich one is correct! This is because in the early days of Linnaean nomenclature, many species were known only from preserved or cultivated specimens. There was no way of knowing which of these specimens could have interbred, nor of how much variation the offspring would show, so each different variant had a separate name. In some cases, different specimens of a single species were put in three or four different genera -- just try sorting out the synonymy of, for example, the California fan palm, Washintonia filifera. > Colocasia antiquorum 'Illustris' cf. ? syn. Colocasia > esculenta 'Illustris' +More Colocasia esculenta is the species. It has three subspecies, C. e. esculenta, C. e. antiquorum, and C. e. aquatilis. Anything with one of those last two as its species name, is properly C. esculenta. > > Colocasia esculenta (?var. ?subsp.) fallax cf. ? syn. > Colocasia fallax ? Colocasia fallax 'Silves Splash' ? > Colocasia esculenta 'Silves Splash' ? Colocasia fallax > Not sure whether C. fallax is a good species or not, but since it, too, is here mixed up with C. esculenta, it is suspect. I cannot speak of your other questions. Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large _______________________________________________ Aroid-l mailing list Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l

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