From: Paul Christian <paul at rareplants.co.uk> on 1997.02.21 at 19:45:49(412)|
This is my first posting to the group, I hope that it gets through.
I have taken a while to reply, both to consult and to make sure that nothing
that I said in haste was interpreted as rudeness.
I was under the impression that the idea of erubescens being the "correct"
name for consanguineum had been scotched, and I am not alone in thinking this.
It has been reasoned I think, that the two taxa are the same species and I
am sure that you are correct Peter in your researches and that erubescens
has priority. I would say that this is not the issue however, as the
priority only holds IF erubescens is the same species as consanguineum. If
the two are different species then both names stand.
For what it is worth I, and again others, think that the two are different.
This is something that needs checking carefully and urgently before the name
issue gets muddled. It has been done once, wrongly with Arisaema erubescens
If name changes are to be brought in it is vitaly important not to repeat
the kind of mistake that was made with Pleione. A flawed study resulted in
horticulturists being told to call P. formosana by the "correct" name of
P.bulbocodioides. We were lumbered for years with a totally incorrect name
change, when the status quo PRE the study turned out to be the right one
after all, the correct name WAS P.formosanum. Sorry to mix my genera but
this mess still confuses nursery lists and show benches twenty years later.
I am being general and trying to wear both my botanical hat and plantsman's
hat at the same time, but to fly a kite, is not A. erubescens (if it even
exists) closer to, or the same as, A. concinnum......
Please, Peter especially, don't take this as an attack, that is not
intended, but it is a contribution to a debate where one must be careful.
Anything with "KEW" associated become gospel before the ink is dry.
Hope this helps too