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.

  Re: colocasia non-tubers
From: "Scott Lucas" <htbg at ilhawaii.net> on 1997.12.04 at 19:15:20(1705)
Dear Clarence Hester and Tony Avent:

Colocasia esculenta is an extremely variable species. In Hawaii, where it
probably reached its maximum variation, more than 400 cultivars were grown.
Today about 80 of these remain. Cultivar proliferation occured due to
microclimate variation and they can be separated into two basic categories:
dry land taro and wet land taro. Wet land taro is cultivated in flooded
ponds much the way rice is cultivated.

Arum esculentum L. Sp. Pl. 965. 1753. is apparently typified by the
illustration of Arum minus, nymphaea folio, esculentum Sloan (Voy. Jam. Nat.
Hist. 1: 167. 1707, 2: t. 106, fig. 1. 1725), although actual specimens
seen by Linnaeus before 1753 may exist in the Sloan or Clifford Herbaria
(BM). Linnaeus apparently regarded this taxon as an American species. It
is probable that it was introduced to the New World after 1492, probably for
consumption by African slaves. Arum colocasia L. Sp. Pl. 965. 1753. and its
homotypic synonyms, including Colocasia antiquorum (of the ancients), can be
typified by a single leaf specimen in the Linnaen Society of London
herbarium, marked with a symbol for "Central Asia," although Linnaeus
published the habitat as "Cretae, Cypri, Syriae, Aegypti aquosis." there is
some question of the place of first valid publication of Colocasia
antiquorum var. esculenta Schott ex Seem. It is commonly attributed to
Schott (Syn. Aroid. 42. 1856, or Prodr. Syst. Aroid. 140. 1860), but I do
not believe that the (1) listing of Colocasia esculenta as a synonym of C.
antiquorum and (2) a statement that "C. esculenta = C. antiq. S. var."
constitute definite indication that the "epithets concerned are to be used
in that particular combination," as required by Art. 33, ICBN. A parallel
example "of combinations not definitely indicated" is given (Art. 33), "The
combination Eulophus peucedanoides must not be ascribed to Bentham on the
basis of the listing of Cnidum Peucedanoides H.B.K. under Eulophus."
Apparently Seemann was the first actually make the combination.

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